posted
I am using earned and deserved pretty much interchangably. "I have done nothing to deserve it", or "I haven't earned it." I don't mean "undeserving" as "I am scum". Though, if I were scum, I would still be loved.
More that love is independent of whether we earn it or deserve it.
It is a gift.
edit: Thanks, Dana. That works!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Ok. I could see how unconditional love can't be earned, it just is. I was actually having a conversation that came to a similar point the other day. But deserved? How is unconditional love not deserved?
Because deserving something means you have met the requirements and conditions thereof. Unconditional would mean there are no conditions. The two concepts are a bit at odds with each other.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I'm confused and should just shut up, but I'm gonna try anyway. If God loves human beings unconditionally, wouldn't the condition be that they are human beings? "I deserve God's love because I am human and one of God's children. Rover on the other hand is S.O.L."
Also, can't someone deserve something that has no preset requirements? "I give fruitcakes to all of my neighbors during the holidays, but Jeromiah really deserves his because he rakes my leaves."
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim, That sounds very Pelegian. Why do you think that it isn't? It certainly isn't Augustinian.
I'm having problems with your conception, I think largely because I've never had the idea that I needed to earn love or that it had to be proven (in the extra-strong case) to me.
Unconditionality is to me a core aspect of love that I've experienced and love that I've given. I don't see why such a demonstration would be necessary.
Aslo, I just don't agree with downplaying the redemption aspect of it. The common conception is that we needed this sacrifice to correct some flaw. I don't see this flaw in myself even though I specifically reject this sacrifice. If God is separating from me and wants to be with me, I'm right here. If he's a benevolent deity, I don't think he'll find me unwelcoming. But if we're talking about whether I need to redeemed, I don't accept that anyone can do that besides myself.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It is a gift.
This. This. This.
Edit: It may be better to replace all the "you"s in the following with "me" and "I" because, really, I am talking about my experience again, which, as I said many times here, has colored my whole view of this thing.
As Kate has already said, saying that it is deserved implies that if you ceased to do something you wouldn't deserve it anymore. Thinking you deserve love is problematic in that it leads to thinking you can make someone love you-- after all you *deserve* it, right? And if only they'd just *see* that you deserve it, then they'd *really* love you. And when they don't see... maybe it 's because you just didn't do good enough... and you just need to try harder... and...
Thinking about it, perhaps this is the very mechanism by which the idea of proving love leads to the destructive and abusive behaviors Dagonee reference a couple of pages back.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
vonk: God loves everything tangible that he creates BECAUSE it is a part of him. I am sure if you asked God he could say he loves ever single thing he has created no matter how insignificant. The fact remains that he assembled it and it exists because of him.
I kind of see it as Ender describes it in EG. When you fully understand someone how can you do anything but love them? God understands everything and thus loves everyone as well as everything that exists within his realm of creation.
This love does not extend to actions that take place that involve his creations.
dkw: that definition is beyond me. It's worse that its a summary I am currently looking up all the definitions of the words I do not know (including the french phrase) as well as words that I understand but don't fit for alternate definitions.
If somebody in the meantime wants to accurately simplify it I would be GREATLY appreciative.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think there is a problem with thinking that you are worthy or deserve love. The problem is thinking that you will get this from a specific person. There is a need to realize that some people will not love you. But that's not because you don't deserve it or aren't worthy of it. Many times, it's because they have problems themselves.
I think the idea that so-and-so doesn't love me because I don't deserve it is a really awful one. If, on the other hand, you're talking about not being able to force someone to love you, than sure. But I don't see how that fits in the God thing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, how’s this: a myth is a story with central importance to the identity of a people. It tells them who they are and why. It is repeated often, particularly during rituals or ceremonies.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I use a definition of mythology similar to Joseph Campbell's and it is not a concept that can be simplified much more than that. I also agree with him in that one of the problems with Western society's conception of religion is that they don't understand the role of myth and link it to falsehoods.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, or how about "a story that conveys truth through the idea and emotional impact of its plot, rather than being a mere factual account."
Squick, the God thing comes in because some of us (and here I mean "me") are remarkably adept at convincing ourselves we are not loved. There is nothing I can do to a supernatural, omnipotent being to make him/her/it have an ulterior motive for loving me. It is simply, as Kate said, a gift to be received.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel the need at this time to re-emphasize some things I said... specifically:
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: As for the Lewis quote... I believe Scott R posted it and, while I like that one,I view it very differently than you do and, indeed, than it reads. That is drastically colored by what I think Christianity means when it talks about dying to yourself and, in doing so, gaining your true self and true freedom. I do not know if my view is orthodox or would be applauded or derided nor by whom. I don't know for sure how to even explain it except to say that I think what Christianity means in self-denial and taking up your cross is essentially self defense: killing your false egos because if you don't they will kill you. That's a ludicrously simplistic summary, though, and admittedly VERY colored by my personal journey.
Pretty much everything I have posted about in this thread from those words on has been merely what I think is true... NOT necessarily orthodox or heretical WRT Christianity... just my personal opinions from spending a long time in Church and a long time in Therapy. Stuart is not a licensed counselor but he is a graduate of several 12 step programs. We assume no liability for damage to your property or person. No animals were harmed in the making of this post.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you all for those simplified definitions. Still it feels as though "mythology" is not a good description of the Old Testament as it seems mythology is more concerned with ideas and concepts rather then factual details. While that could describe some of the Old Testament, I am not convinced it describes all of it.
I'd be more comfortable with the OT being, "A history of God's dealings with mankind containing mythological elements." Rather then, "A mythological historical account of God's dealings with mankind."
posted
BB, as I said above, mythology is only a part of the OT. But I do think that Scripture in general - the New Testament as well - are more significantly about ideas and concepts than facts.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Double post! Another thought on "deserving".
I think that some of the emphasis on our being "undeserving" is a reaction to the natural tendancy to equate being loved by God to good fortune. "I have a good life. God must love me best. I must be more deserving than that slob living under the train tracks." This way of thinking allows us to feel superior (and we love that!) and to disclaim any societal or personal responsibility for the slob. We even use the term "deserving poor" to separate some poor from...what?
So I think that Christianity does emphasize that we are all recipients of gift rather than earners for a good reason.
That religious institutions have sometimes manipulated this into, "you are undeserving, so you must grovel to the institution because we dole out God's gifts" is another story and another way I think we have "gotten it wrong".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a sad tendency for a great many Christians to rely on a view of an authoritarian god. It is an easy view to hold: to believe that there is a man up in the sky who keeps track of things is comforting.
This cannot be the case. If God were an authoritarian being in total control, I would assume things would be very different. I was admitedly raised in Church whose positions are mainline to liberal, but I do not recall anyone ever suggesting that human beings were not left free by God to act however they pleased. Jesus also seemed to clearly stress the degree of seperation between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of man.
Jesus did not teach hate, either for others or for self. Jesus told his followers to love eachother and to love God. He taught by example. Jesus, like the good parent, frequently showed his children that he loved them.
My view of God is a view of love. I do not believe in a man up in the sky looking down on me, but I do believe in a transcendent love.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:My view of God is a view of love. I do not believe in a man up in the sky looking down on me, but I do believe in a transcendent love.
To me, this seems like a remarkably nonpersonified, non-conscious deity. Is that what you're meaning to describe? A God that is more a force of nature than an individual with thoughts and intent?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
About proof and love – Sure, substitute proof for ‘signs’ or ‘evidence.’ I was not talking about scientific, quantitative data or trying to break love down into something that can be measured. As a general rule of thumb, I think that you should not treat someone you love like shit.
I was offering evidence (taken from the Bible, purported to be the word of God) that this God, who you proclaim to be perfect love, is in fact, not. I can’t help but notice how many people resorted to saying things like, “God didn’t really kill 42 children with bears.” Or “Sure, the book of Lamentations says that God is the source of both good and evil, but that’s written from the stand point of a 15-month old. What they perceived as evil was really good.” It sounds to me like you’re in denial.
The church I was raised in believed that every word of the Bible is true. That it is The Word of God. I am surprised at how quickly so many here jumped to say that there are things in the Bible that are not true (I mean, wow, how do you know what to trust and what not to trust? I am surprised, but I do not think it is a bad thing). If the story of the flood is not true (just as an example), the fact that in the story God drowns the entire world except for a handful of people says to most people “Watch out, God is vengeful,” plus, “If you follow God, He will look out for you.” Both messages are present. I can’t believe how you are choosing to acknowledge one message and deny the other, when both have played a significant role in Christian thought.
In my original post I claim that the Christian God is authoritarian. People have tried to show me how they perceive God to not be authoritarian, but for the most part they have admitted that there are sects of Christianity that view God as authoritarian, and that there are Biblical scriptures portraying God as authoritarian. A lot of your arguments for God not being authoritarian are based around personal experience (which is fine and very interesting) and picking and choosing which parts of the scripture to believe and which parts to ignore (which is slightly frustrating, because part of my argument for denying God as an authoritarian would call for a (what I was taught to be very blasphemous) rewrite of the Bible, cutting out all those nasty, manipulative, authoritarian parts). Even if the story of Elisha and the bears is an urban legend that should not have been included, it doesn’t alter the fact that it was included and (along with many other stories and portrayals of God) helped open the door to the interpretation of God being vengeful and authoritarian that some humans have used to gain power over others. And you also have to wonder if this Christian God, if he is pure love, should have allowed for such things to have been written about him, especially since this authoritarian view of him has done so much damage to humans and even convinced some people to not believe in Him.
From Puppy - “In any case, despite your laundry list, I don't believe that God defines goodness arbitrarily. I believe that goodness is an eternal concept that has existed forever, alongside God, and that God's choice to adhere to goodness is part of what makes Him God. Not the other way around.
I also believe that God is operating on a macro level that we often fail to understand. If allowing suffering to occur on Earth — or even if causing suffering to happen on Earth — is ultimately for our good on the eternal scale, then the validity of your examples dissipates.”
You are right, of course, if we change our base assumptions and now assume that 1. God is not all powerful. 2. God adheres to a concept of Goodness that exists along side of Him. 3. The suffering God causes is ultimately for our good.
Yes, if we believe those things are true, those nine things I listed lose validity. Well, some of them do. I am not sure that this concept of goodness that exists alongside God can forbid homosexuality. Show me how/why this concept of goodness deems homosexuality as a crime worthy of death. Use your own judgment now, use this concept of goodness you described and tell me why homosexuality is evil.
From Kmbboots -
“don't think that we should become someone we are not (I may disagree with Lewis here) I think God wants us to be who we are really are. Free from all the crap that gets in the way of our being fully ourselves. I think that God doesn't want us to abandon our own judgement, but for our judgement to mature so that it is more God-like.”
Not-so-loving things done by the Christian God – Originally posted by DevilDreamt 4. Making homosexuality a sin (seriously, I don’t see how homosexuality being a sin could do anything other than bring misery and suffering into the world. If those who want to be are simply allowed to be, what harm would occur?)
It really does not work in my mind. Your claim: “God wants you to be who you really are.” Does not work very well with the extremely common Christian belief: “God will punish you if you are attracted to and love someone of the same sex.”
This is the best example I have of God forbidding us to be ourselves. I can’t see homosexuality being “evil” or “wrong” for any reason other than God happens to say that it is. It doesn’t conflict with any concept of Goodness Itself that I can think of.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Christine, for clarity's sake, I think it's unhealthy to be unable to accept love without deserving/earning it. This is, to my understanding, a common psychological idea and I 'm fairly sure I'm not alone in this.
What I am saying is that Christ's sacrifice, even if you view it as a mere myth, is precisely about love that you don't deserve. If you don't believe it happened, that's not unhealthy. Not believing in the particular point of the story I am emphasizing-- that love can not be earned, contracted for, or deserved-- *is* unhealthy, IMO.
Don't know if that makes it better, but hopefully it at least makes it clearer.
This is clearer, although I still can't entirely agree with it. I've not heard of a psychological norm that suggests that we must be able to accept love without deserving/earning it.
I mean, nobody is perfect and we have to be able to love people despite their flaws and be loved despite our own, but I think this all boils down to karma. You "earn" love by putting it out there in the world, by loving yourself, and by allowing others to love you.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, if we believe those things are true, those nine things I listed lose validity. Well, some of them do. I am not sure that this concept of goodness that exists alongside God can forbid homosexuality. Show me how/why this concept of goodness deems homosexuality as a crime worthy of death. Use your own judgment now, use this concept of goodness you described and tell me why homosexuality is evil.
It's odd that you would ask me to do this, given that I have never claimed that homosexuality is evil.
The division between "good" and "evil" is not the only issue in religion. There are also concepts of "helpful" versus "unhelpful", "earthly" versus "eternal", "practical" versus "impractical", etc. When a religion makes a rule, sometimes it's an issue of good versus evil, but you can't always assume that this is the case.
Mormonism, for instance, has a very strict dietary code. You can't worship in the temple if you drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, use harmful drugs, etc. Do we think that it is evil for people (particularly non-Mormons) to do these things? Not at all. The dietary code was given to us for our health, and as a means of building self-control. It is a help and a program of self-improvement, not an issue of good and evil.
Does that mean we are less bound by it because of that? No. As Mormons, we deliberately signed on and covenanted to abide by and promote this religious system, and therefore, we are honor-bound to continue to do so if we expect to actively participate in our faith. So it's an issue of integrity and the acceptance of a higher authority. But not an issue of good and evil.
Homosexuality is a similar (though not identical) situation for Mormons. To have homosexual desires and tendencies is not evil, and no one has said that it is. However, Mormons believe that sexual dimorphism in humans was specifically designed by God to reflect a broader eternal truth. We believe that to be a complete eternal being, one needs male and female counterparts, and that this is as immutable as any law of science. For someone to desire something else in this life is not evil ... but at the same time, the Church can't support it, because the Church's mandate is to prepare its members for eternal life. To support homosexual unions would fly in the face of our beliefs about the afterlife, and would essentially deny some of the foundational principles of our faith.
So I'm glad it is possible to believe that a behavior should not be permitted among members of your faith, and should not be promoted by your faith, without believing that the practitioners of that behavior outside your faith are inherently evil.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
DevilDreamt your points make sense to me... There are various things that have BOTHERED me about Christianity since I was in Jr. high school and you seem to be highlighting some of them. Like when you compare God to a parent.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
DD, you are talking blythely about what Christians believe, yet here stand a whole slew of Christians (edit to add: of varying denominations, intensities, and levels of orthodoxy) who are saying "We don't believe that." And your response is to say that we are in denial?
What exactly are you trying to accomplish here?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: So I'm glad it is possible to believe that a behavior should not be permitted among members of your faith, and should not be promoted by your faith, without believing that the practitioners of that behavior outside your faith are inherently evil.
I'm not sure the practical distinctions are so clear-cut, though, Geoff. While "evil" might still be a stretch, "inferior" is a pretty natural step.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"A God that is more a force of nature than an individual with thoughts and intent?"
I think God is above thoughts and intent, and certainly above consciousness. I also think God is the very essence of thought and intent and consciousness.
Not impersonal, but superpersonal.
I have been reading Hans Küng's "On Being a Christian" as a Lenten devotion. It has been rather illuminating, although far from totaly so. Next year I plan to read some Paul Tillich, and something else the year after that.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: DD, you are talking blythely about what Christians believe, yet here stand a whole slew of Christians (edit to add: of varying denominations, intensities, and levels of orthodoxy) who are saying "We don't believe that." And your response is to say that we are in denial?
What exactly are you trying to accomplish here?
Jim-Me said it best, I think. I've been watching the thread, and DD, it seems that you're pretty much convinced as to what "Christians" as a whole believe, and you also seem to think that the Christians here who don't believe that way don't fully understand their religion. It's a little frustrating.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: It's odd that you would ask me to do this, given that I have never claimed that homosexuality is evil. [/QB]
I was asking everyone, not just you, but the Mormon point of view is very new to me, so I am particularly interested in what you have to say on the issue. I wasn’t saying that YOU think homosexuality is evil; I was saying that the Christian God as portrayed in the Bible thinks that homosexuality is evil.
Growing up in a more… fundamental Christian Church, here are some things I was taught about homosexuality:
Old Testament - Leviticus 18:22 (King James Version) 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version) 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
New Testament - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (New International Version) 9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Romans 1:20-32 (New International Version) 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. * 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. * 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
I quoted so much here because I wanted to show the context of the mention of homosexuality.
In Leviticus, homosexuality is called an abomination and an offense that deserves death. In 1 Corinthians, it is a forgivable offense that will keep you from inheriting the Kingdom of God, and in Romans, it is described as shameful, unnatural, and indecent, and (depending on whether or not it’s included with the other offenses discussed at the end) as deserving death as well.
I think it interesting that something can be offensive to God by virtue of it being "unhelpful," "earthly," and/or "impractical." It seems extreme for a loving God to punish people with death over an offense that as you put it, might not be an issue of good and evil.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, even the most orthodox of Jews aren't running around in favor of putting homosexuals to death. If even someone so (liturgically) conservative and steeped in tradition as, say, Rivka, can talk to KarlEd (who is gay) without calling him an abomination that should be slain (as I have seen her do on many occasions), can you allow that there has been some development in our understanding of what we think God wants of us?
I also think it worth noting that Paul's lists are pretty inclusive... I mean sure, I can see how comparing homosexuals to those "full of envy murder, strife, deceit, and malice" can be pretty offensive... but Paul goes on to include "gossips, slanderers, [those who are] insolent, arrogant, and boastful, [those who] disobey their parents, ... senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless."
I would put forth that every ONE of us has been some of those things. I've been most at some point or another. If it's damning to be on that list, humanity is damned.
I guess it's a good thing these excerpts aren't the whole story.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: I have been reading Hans Küng's "On Being a Christian" as a Lenten devotion. It has been rather illuminating, although far from totaly so. Next year I plan to read some Paul Tillich, and something else the year after that.
I used to own that... I wasn't able to get past the first few pages, though. I didn't find it offensive (I undertsand he was denounced as a theologian some time after writing that book, but I don't know if it was for what he wrote there)-- just dry. I'd be interested to hear what you think of it. Feel free to e-mail me when you are through it all.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: DD, you are talking blythely about what Christians believe, yet here stand a whole slew of Christians (edit to add: of varying denominations, intensities, and levels of orthodoxy) who are saying "We don't believe that." And your response is to say that we are in denial?
What exactly are you trying to accomplish here?
Jim-Me said it best, I think. I've been watching the thread, and DD, it seems that you're pretty much convinced as to what "Christians" as a whole believe, and you also seem to think that the Christians here who don't believe that way don't fully understand their religion. It's a little frustrating.
-pH
Being in denial, like the state of denial experienced as part of the grieving process, was not what I meant. I realize that’s how it sounded.
All I meant was that, when presented with scripture that seemed to portray God as evil, the popular defense was denying the divinity/reliability of scripture (i.e. saying that the people who recorded the scripture did a poor job because they were like 15-month olds, saying that some things included are simply urban legends, and saying that we should focus on the message that ‘God looks out for His followers, and we should ignore that part where a bunch of innocent people die.’) The response surprised me, but I don’t think it’s bad that people are throwing out those parts of scripture.
quote:Originally posted by DevilDreamt: I am surprised at how quickly so many here jumped to say that there are things in the Bible that are not true (I mean, wow, how do you know what to trust and what not to trust? I am surprised, but I do not think it is a bad thing).
And later in the same post:
quote:Originally posted by DevilDreamt:
A lot of your arguments for God not being authoritarian are based around personal experience (which is fine and very interesting) and picking and choosing which parts of the scripture to believe and which parts to ignore (which is slightly frustrating, because part of my argument for denying God as an authoritarian would call for a (what I was taught to be very blasphemous) rewrite of the Bible, cutting out all those nasty, manipulative, authoritarian parts).
What is my intent? Well, to see how other people feel about these issues. I know what I was taught growing up, and there are people on here who have experienced this type of strict interpretation of the Bible, but many of you have developed a concept of God that goes well beyond the fundamentalist beliefs I grew up with. And I think that’s wonderful, I would like more people to adopt a less authoritarian view of God, even if it requires omitting scriptures that, for a long time, were considered immutable truths.
But first I have to be able to show why God is authoritarian, and why that is bad. This includes discovering which parts of scripture people will admit are authoritarian, manipulative, and coercive, and thereby reject. I figured that if I could provide enough evidence to show that God is authoritarian and that authoritarian is bad here, on this forum, I would be more likely to succeed somewhere else.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I grew up with the view of God you seem to be against... There are so many aspects of Christianity and religion in general that bother me and offend my individual sense of how things such be.
But I can see how you can view God as an authoritarian and cruel figure, like a controlling parent telling their child they are whipping them for their own good, when it's still cruel and painful and unnessasary.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
DD, for whatever it's worth, I like your answer. Thanks.
I have more to offer, but I'm tired and losing focus now. I'll try again in the AM. For now, I'll just say that I have seen the Christianity you have described, but I have more often seen more nuance and compassion, even among fundamentalists, than what you have seen... and I am truly sorry that your experience has been so poor.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
DD, I can more specifically address your scriptural points tomorrow (when I am not posting from my phone) either in the thread or via e-mail if you prefer. For now, though, I want to make two points:
1) You haven't (and you won't) hear me say that homosexuality is inherently sinful. I don't think it is and I think that this is one area where the Church needs to grow in understanding.
2) There is a big difference between discarding or rejecting Scripture and understanding Scripture in context - where it came from, under what conditions, what kind of culture etc. This is not a new way to interpret Scripture. As a matter of fact, Biblical literalism is a relatively new thing.
First of all, no matter what they say, almost* nobody, takes the Bible literally. We all interpret it. As I have said before, whenever someone tells me that they take the Bible literally, I am (uncharitably) inclined to ask them if they own more than one coat. We all also decide what in the Scriptures is important. It is not all equally significant.
How we decide what is most important says a lot about us.
Now to your references:
You mention Leviticus. You might also know that this part of Leviticus also bans eating certain foods, eating certain foods prepared in certain ways, tattoos, wearing clothes with two different kinds of fibre…and a whole lot of other things. Orthodox Jews may have some justification to pointing to Leviticus, but until I see Christian groups protesting bacon I am going to wonder about their motivation. Also, homosexuality was not part of the Ten Commandments, presumably somewhat more significant. I don’t see a lot of Christians worrying about Sabbath-breakers in the Army.
New Testament: To begin with, you might note that in the Gospels most Christians consider canonical Jesus is not recorded as having anything to say on the subject. Not a thing. He talks a great deal about love and inclusion and not judging, though.
Paul’s letters: Here’s another place where context is important. Homosexuality as we understand it is different from what it was in the Greco-Roman era of St. Paul. People weren’t, for example, trying to marry their favorite catamite. It tended to be understood as an expression of sexual pleasure (often with young slaves) instead of a partnership or loving bond between partners. Paul (along with other Apostles) was influenced by the Stoics. Sexuality in general was to be shunned – along with appetite, passion, anger and so forth. Think Spock. Sexuality for the sake of sexual pleasure for heterosexuals would have been discouraged by Paul as well.
Also, remember that Paul was trying to bring Christianity to the gentiles. This required some negotiation. Whether or not gentiles needed to be circumcised and follow Jewish law regarding food was a matter of considerable disagreement. Greek sexual practices would likely have been very difficult for Jews who, like Paul himself, followed the Levitican code to swallow. (ehem)
See? Context. Now you could certainly say that I am “explaining away” or discarding Scripture because I don’t like it. I would say that I have some historical and theological scholarship to back up my interpretations. But, more importantly, I am examining a very few references to homosexuality in the context of the overwhelming message of love and inclusion that I find in Scripture.
As I said in at the start of this post, we all interpret and how we do so reflects on what we want to get from Scripture and our relationship with God. I am okay with what my choices say about me.
I am sorry that the brand of Christianity that you know has only filled you with conflict and anger. It doesn’t have to be that way.
*leaving room for the possibility of saints or hermits.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DD: I would suggest not using passages from the Law of Moses to give context to God's will concerning Christians since Christ's time.
We don't know what cultural considerations were taken into account, nor the disposition of the people that God gave that law to. We do know Jesus fulfilled the law and gave us a new one to live by, we ought to focus on the nature of THAT law.
I had much more to this post that I kept writing and rewriting but I was not happy with it so all you get is the above, my apologies.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I used to own that... I wasn't able to get past the first few pages, though. I didn't find it offensive (I undertsand he was denounced as a theologian some time after writing that book, but I don't know if it was for what he wrote there)-- just dry. I'd be interested to hear what you think of it.
Hans Küng's prose is... dense. And very Teutonic. I got used to it though. Mind you I started and stopped like you the first time, this is a second (and much more succesful) effort.
Fr. Küng was denounced as a theologian for a book he wrote called Infallible? which the Pope, for fairly obvious reasons, did not aprove of. He wrote that in 1971 and wrote On Being a Christian in 1977 and was censured in 1979.
I think that Küng is a very capable, although not brilliantly revolutionary, thinker. His scholarship is impeccable, even if his prose is not great (the later may well be the translator's fault).
He dwells a little too much on the charecter and nature of Jesus, including reiterating much of the Gospel. This may be more for the benefit of readers raised outside the Church.
I am only about half-way through right now, but will hopefuly be done by Easter.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, Synesthesia, it’s reassuring to hear from someone that had a similar experience growing up and to know that my ideas make sense to you.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: DD: I would suggest not using passages from the Law of Moses to give context to God's will concerning Christians since Christ's time.
I wasn’t. At least not exactly. I was quoting scripture to show God’s PoV on the issue of homosexuals at a given time. I wanted to discuss the concept of Good/Evil as they exist permanently beside God (as compared to being concepts that God can alter), and I was asking, “Why did God say homosexuality is an abomination that should be punished by death? If God adheres to the concept of Good, what is the definition of Good? How is God adhering to this concept of Good by demanding blood for an offense that isn’t even inherently Evil?” Those questions still apply, because the law was written for people and it was intended to be followed, even if it was only intended to be followed in spirit, for a limited time, by a small group of people. Also, I would argue that the spirit of this law and others like it in Christianity have done more harm than good, because they helped to create the homophobic and sexually repressed society of today, but please don’t get distracted by this last little argument, as I would like to focus on these questions:
1. If God adheres to a concept of Good that He can not alter, what is the definition of Good? 2. Why did God say homosexuality is an abomination that should be punished by death? (You already explained Paul's reason for treating homosexuality the way he did) 3. How is God adhering to this concept of Good by demanding blood for an offense that isn’t even inherently Evil? 4. Larger Question: Is there evidence in the shifting role of God to show that the concept of Good has been altered or that God occasionally strays from being Good? I know that the death and resurrection of the Messiah will result in a special case for changing the rules, but I think that God might shift his mind on other issues, and if he does, would that indicate a shift in the definition of Good? 5. Larger Question: Can/do some of God's actions contradict the concept of Good? 6. Larger Question: Is it even possible for us to define this concept of Good that exists beside God? The more I look at the things God has supposedly done, the more I’m starting to think people will end up saying that Goodness as God knows Goodness is as impossible to comprehend as God Himself.
Trying to keep things on track reminder Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
DevilDreamt, not all Christians think of those stories as being both literally true and properly understood. There is plenty of room in Mormon belief, for instance, to think that the story of Elisha and the bears was the ancient equivalent of an urban legend that should not have been included, or to think that the hardening of Pharaoh's heart was minor corruption in the text that didn't reflect the original truth of the story. (After all, who said that the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart? Did God tell Moses what He was doing? If so, when? It seems likely that this was an assumption made by the writer of the passage, and not a true aspect of the event.)
In any case, despite your laundry list, I don't believe that God defines goodness arbitrarily. I believe that goodness is an eternal concept that has existed forever, alongside God, and that God's choice to adhere to goodness is part of what makes Him God. Not the other way around.
I also believe that God is operating on a macro level that we often fail to understand. If allowing suffering to occur on Earth — or even if causing suffering to happen on Earth — is ultimately for our good on the eternal scale, then the validity of your examples dissipates.
For instance, I'm sure my 15-month-old daughter thought my wife was pretty bad today for taking her to the doctor to get five shots. From her perspective, that was unmitigatedly evil, and she let us know. However, from my wife's perspective, not getting her those shots would have been far worse.
This post used the “Urban Legend,” “Lost in Translation,” “The Ends Justify the Means” and the “We cannot comprehend God,” interpretations to vaguely refute all nine of my points. I tried focusing on homosexuality because I wondered which one of those, if any, was meant to apply to it.
The examples of God deeming homosexuality a Sin in Leviticus were brushed off because they no longer apply to our daily lives (but since we are talking about the nature of God, Good, Evil, and whether or not those things can change, I think it still has relevance and shouldn’t be pushed aside so easily), and the Christian views on homosexuality in the NT were explained as not belonging to Jesus, but instead being the result of St. Paul being influenced by stoics, thereby introducing a new category, “The Scripture has been influenced by other schools of thought and the personal opinions of the authors, and may not represent the actual views of God.”
At least, this is how I understand the interpretations that have been used, if there’s a problem with one of the ways I summarized a point (or if I missed an important one), please correct me.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: As I said at the start of this post, we all interpret and how we do so reflects on what we want to get from Scripture and our relationship with God.
quote:Originally posted by DevilDreamt: I wasn’t. At least not exactly. I was quoting scripture to show God’s PoV on the issue of homosexuals at a given time.
DD, you're (in my opinion) missing a big step. When you quote Scripture, you are not "showing God's point of view". You are showing what a group of people recorded as God's point of view. Their understanding of God's point of view. Inspired, certainly. But still "filtered" through a specific culture.
I think the answer (at least my answer) to your larger questions about whether or not God changes is that God doesn't change. What does change (and, it is to be hoped, matures) is our understanding of God. We move from thinking of God as a tribal God who gives us good harvests if we make the right sacrifices to an infinite God for all creation. A God who expects us (with the aid of the Holy Spirit) to grow in maturity and understanding so that we can more fully live in the spirit of the Law.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: DD, you're (in my opinion) missing a big step. When you quote Scripture, you are not "showing God's point of view". You are showing what a group of people recorded as God's point of view. Their understanding of God's point of view. Inspired, certainly. But still "filtered" through a specific culture.
Not only that, you are quoting God's direction to a group of people and calling it, "God's personal POV". I seriously doubt that every group of people god interacts with have the exact same needs and habits as any other. If God was giving advice to modern day Americans I should think he would empathize certain things that are NOT applicable to say folks in China, while at the same time paying little to no attention to other principles.
Does God need to warn Americans not to intermarry with the Canaanites? Or forbid us from worshiping their idols made out of wood, bronze, and clay?
Not that I think people are so different that there are not universal principles that are applicable to all of humanity. But when we isolate one, as well as its execution in a society we run the risk of calling all its particulars as being, "Of God," when it is not safe or accurate to do so.
Early Christians made that mistake when they kept thinking things like, "But the law of Moses asked us to circumcise our children, surely that principle is universally righteous!" or, "God gave us a code of health with clean and unclean foods carefully listed, surely there is at least a kernel of truth in that principle of universal applicability!"
Physical acts that reflect our spiritual oaths are important, and establishing good dietary practices is also good in practice. But I have found the more specific we get in describing a moral principle the more we risk missing the mark.
Not that I believe homosexuality is OK sometimes and not so OK at others, But perhaps the fact that the people of the Old Testament, were surrounded by idol worshiping cultures where sexual acts as a means to increase agricultural prosperity ran rampant, such an idea being vile in God's eyes, deemed it necessary to in very forceful words condemn such practices.
Certainly Israel's track record of falling into idol worship and the sensual nature of that worship demonstrated that such strict language from God was more necessary then a soft approach.
"Hey now, come on folks, its not a good idea to spend your time with temple harlots."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DevilDreamt: I wasn’t. At least not exactly. I was quoting scripture to show God’s PoV on the issue of homosexuals at a given time.
DD, you're (in my opinion) missing a big step. When you quote Scripture, you are not "showing God's point of view". You are showing what a group of people recorded as God's point of view. Their understanding of God's point of view. Inspired, certainly. But still "filtered" through a specific culture.
I had thought of that, but my original post contained so many "if from this point of then *this*" statements that I was getting lost writing it. There are a lot of different points of view on where the scriptures come from and how inspired they are (varying from book to book and passage to passage), and a lot of different points of view on the nature of God Himself, and his relationship with humanity.
I thought of saying, in my first draft of that post, "God at least allowed these people to portray his point of view this way," but that called into play Free Will. It's probable that God would let anyone, anywhere, write anything about Him and pass it off as a Holy Book, leaving it up to us to decide which ones to believe, if any.
But that really makes God look uninvolved, and calls everything ever said about God into question.
Also, the Bible contains many things intended (or at least utilized) to prove that it is divine, most notably its many attempts at prophecy, and its descriptions of miracles performed by God. Of course, in modern times, those things don't really pass for proof anymore, but people still try to prove the Bible is divine (some of them using the Bible to do so, others pointing out that only something truly divine would survive this long and be believed by so many, but they are both completely absurd arguments).
My attempt to represent and take into account every point of view I am aware of on the interpretation of scripture got wildly off track and didn't bring me any closer to understanding the opinions of others or answering any of those questions, so I decided to try to keep it simple.
The point of view that you're taking, where our understanding of God matures over time and God does not change, feels like it technically answers the question, but still brings me no closer to understanding what is meant by "Good" and what is meant by "Evil," and it doesn't help to understand whether or not I should trust anything in the Bible. In fact, it leans me toward thinking that the majority of the Bible is wildly unreliable for determining what is Good and what is Evil and what God expects of people.
I thought the tribes sacrificed animals to place their sins onto that animal? That's why Jesus is the Lamb of God, he's without sin, and therefore the only one capable of bearing the sins of the world.
Maybe I am misunderstanding that part too...
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sort of...and there's symbolism to take into account. Jesus Himself was a man of the Jewish culture. He, too, was familiar with and part of certain traditions. Animal sacrifice was a part of that tradition and the symbolism is useful even now.
The Bible isn't unreliable - it just takes a great deal more work to understand it than many people suppose. In the Catholic tradition, Scripture is only to be understood in the light of our teachings and traditions. Frankly it was a long time before we let people without the proper training read it at all! Of course, most people weren't literate anyway.
I suggest that you start with the Gospels. What is Jesus recorded as saying? What do you find is the broader, larger message? Examine those things in your heart with the aid of the Holy Spirit and see if you think they are Good.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The Bible isn't unreliable - it just takes a great deal more work to understand it than many people suppose. In the Catholic tradition, Scripture is only to be understood in the light of our teachings and traditions. Frankly it was a long time before we let people without the proper training read it at all! Of course, most people weren't literate anyway.
I'm not an expert on the Catholic faith, but I have studied Dante's Divine Comedy, and with that came a lot of talk about the Catholic church at that time, what they believed, how that did and did not fit with Dante's work ... well, the Catholic church has changed a lot since then, and will continue to change. And that's one of the things that really makes their interpretation of the Bible look unreliable to me.
When no one but the trained were allowed to read the Bible, corruption ran rampant through the Church. I was under the impression that it was done during the Dark Ages more to keep people in the Dark then to prevent them from misinterpreting the scripture. Of course, might all depend on whether you take a Catholic or Protestant view of history....
Poor Galileo got himself condemned as a heretic for spreading doctrine that confused the faithful. I don't know, I think the Catholic Church has made many mistakes over the years, not letting people read the scripture being one of them (I'm pretty sure Galileo got condemned in a period when people could read the Bible, not that it helped his case any).
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are good motivations and bad motivations for everything - and good and bad results. The good side is that there was less chance of Scripture being misunderstood; the bad side is that it made it easier for the Church to control people and to become corrupt.
If we read Scripture, it becomes our responsibility to makes sure we have enough traing to understand it - or at least to know when we might not and to seek out those who do.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are good motivations and bad motivations for everything...
I'm not sure if I agree with this. Normally it is the kind of statement I would agree with regarding human intentions, but thinking about some truly horrible things, there are some deeds which I have not yet been able to imagine a good motivation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could you give an example? I don't doubt that there are some actions which are unjustifiable, but I don't know that I've ever been able to come up with one.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel like aspects of Christianity have been tainted, but so have other religions. There's no way to have a system without a handful or more or rougues trying to use it to control other people, to hurt them and for their own means. It's like the way the system of family has been tainted as well, and sometimes it's so hard to get rid of that. You get people who have been abused who sometimes pass the abuse on. It could last for generations. The best thing is to face up to it. To unflinchingly look at the imperfect aspects of it, even if it hurts, even if it leads to anger and rage, otherwise, that sort of corruption can come back, and do modern religious people who are sensible and logical and not like this want to be represented by people like this or lumped in with them?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I am currently looking up all the definitions of the words I do not know (including the french phrase) as well as words that I understand but don't fit for alternate definitions.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
