quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Clearly, the Bible is not a valid source, since we now realize that the Boble supports actions (slave-owning) that all of us here have agreed are immoral. Morality must come from some other source.
Boothby, The Bible is not a simple or simply understood thing. It is not a single entity. It is a collection of writings: law, poetry, history, philosophy, letters, etc, written over the course of many centuries. Each of these various writings need to be considered in a variety of ways - context for example.
This is a common misunderstanding of the Bible. I am happy to discuss it with you in another thread, if you like.
I hope Boothby doesn't mind if I ask kmbboots whether I can take her up on the offer.
Some well informed Christians have used this argument against me before, and I don't have the in-depth knowledge of the Bible needed to meaningfully argue against them. To my understanding, most churches have accepted the Bible as truth either literally or metaphorically, and the laws and commandments in it as moral imperatives. I can see why modern Christians would want to reinterpret parts of it. But I think that says something about the credibility of the good book as a whole. Where to draw the line?
If anyone can clarify this for me, I'd be glad to know.
I promise I won't start attacking theism and faith in general, because there is a debate along those lines in the Faith of an Atheist thread. I would really just like to hear what the Christian argument is, and why there are distinctions between certain gospels, why some writings still stand today as moral imperatives while others are taken to be products of their historical context. I realise it's a collection of letters, stories and chronicles. But which ones apply? Why does context influence the applicability of religion?
posted
I am not, perhaps the best person to answer this (as LDS have a different view of Scripture than who you might be talking with), but it is an interesting question. I don't believe the Bible is as clear on issues as many assume. on the other hand, I do think it is a religious standard to follow. Just not sola scriptura.
Trust me, as a Mormon I have gotten just as much flack about "not knowing context" as you seem to indicate yourself. Personally, I think it means more along the lines of "shut up and accept my interpretation." Those who have explained context to me reject any other possible interpretations of what the context might be as if self evident. It bugs me to no end.
p.s. such sentiments said by someone on this board might have less negative connotations on the subject.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can see why modern Christians would want to reinterpret parts of it.
Unless I read it wrong, your statment carries with it the assumption that there used to be one "correct" interpretation of the Bible and that any other ones are just "re"interpretations.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph, that is kind of what I was getting at. There is no one "context" understanding that brings one interpretation. Bible contextual, linguistic, textual, etc. interpretations are many and have been since acceptance of it as Scripture.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can see why modern Christians would want to reinterpret parts of it.
Unless I read it wrong, your statment carries with it the assumption that there used to be one "correct" interpretation of the Bible and that any other ones are just "re"interpretations.
That assumption is not implicit in my statement. The fact that modern Christians want to reinterpret something does not mean there was ever a single correct interpretation. I am saying that they will want to adopt a new interpretation that is different to what their church preaches or is traditional in their own context.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, by "reinterpret" you just mean interpret, whether or not those who came before had the same interpretation. Or am I wrong again?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reinterpret just means interpret something which has already been interpreted. If the new interpretation is the same as the old one, there usually isn't the need to distinguish the new one as a 'reinterpretation', so we don't use the word. If the new one is different to the old one, calling it a 'reinterpretation' rather than another 'interpretation' just helps to highlight the fact that it is unique or different.
To say that 'modern Christians are interpreting the Bible' is just as valid a statement.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I beg to differ. Shouldn't every responsible Christian interpret the Bible him/herself, perhaps with the guidance of the church? And how does one account for the wide variety of denominations, each with a different interpretation of scripture (among other things)?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because we don't know how it should be interpreted. I've been in countless discussions with people about this very topic and, hate to rain on your parade, but have never come away with anything resembling a "conclusion". I also can't answer for myself, as it's something I'm in the process of examining right now.
What I can offer is a word : Hermeneutics. As near I understand, it's the art of interpretation. I imagine it can be used in ways other than pertaining to the Bible, but that's the only context I've heard it it.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hermeneutics is a fancy word that is also fashionable among philosophers, postmodernist literary critics and historiographers (as opposed to historians)
But you're right, it's primary use is in reference to the Bible. I guess you're telling me that if there's a whole academic discipline named after the methods/attempts to answer my question, it must be a tough one to answer. And a tall order to have it answered on an online forum. You're probably right.
I don't expect to get a consensus from this - only a sample of some Christian interpretations and their reasons for adopting some parts of the Bible but not others. I understand that some imperatives (such as the 10 commandments) are directly derived from God, and that others (like some of the stranger things out of Leviticus, the atheist's favourite book of the Bible) are laws which aren't given the same weight as the commandments. That's probably a gross simplification - I'd appreciate a clarification.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I totally disagree that there are "no new interpretations." If that were true, then I doubt that so many people would strongly claim that Scripture has relevance today, let alone for the thousands of years that it has been available to us (more or less, depending on which portions of Scripture).
Euripides, I think part of the difficulty here is that you are acting surprised about stuff that is pretty much standard operating procedure for Christians, and you seem to have internalized a view of Scripture as simultaneously both unified/homogenous and varied/heterogenous.
This quote:
quote:I beg to differ. Shouldn't every responsible Christian interpret the Bible him/herself, perhaps with the guidance of the church? And how does one account for the wide variety of denominations, each with a different interpretation of scripture (among other things)?
makes almost no sense to me. If you are allowing for every Christian to interpret the Bible uniquely, why would you be at all surprised to find that some people get together and think about it one way, and others another way...
Why would you be mystified at all by there being different "schools of thought" that somehow line up into different denominations?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, I'm not surprised that Christians have different interpretations. I just want to know why some can readily adopt parts of the Bible while rejecting others.
Here's the thing. I get in an argument with a Christian, and when the topic of the Bible comes up, I point out that it's a collection of man-made texts with plenty of contradictions and parts which are generally considered obsolete. Then they say that the Bible requires a more complex interpretation than I'm providing.
I want to know what I'm missing.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: This quote:
quote:I beg to differ. Shouldn't every responsible Christian interpret the Bible him/herself, perhaps with the guidance of the church? And how does one account for the wide variety of denominations, each with a different interpretation of scripture (among other things)?
makes almost no sense to me. If you are allowing for every Christian to interpret the Bible uniquely, why would you be at all surprised to find that some people get together and think about it one way, and others another way...
Why would you be mystified at all by there being different "schools of thought" that somehow line up into different denominations?
The second question was a rhetorical one - to phrase it more clearly, 'If there aren't any new interpretations, how could the wide variety of denominations in existence today have come into being?'
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. "man made" can mean a lot of things, and misses the real point of scripture for most believers (whether they think that men wrote it down or not) -- that it is from God.
2. contradictions -- so what? Most of this is only a problem if you adopt a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible AND require that it all make sense to you personally.
3. "generally considered obsolete." Yes, or not. It depends entirely on who you talk to. Of course, you already know this, so what are you really trying to say?
Criminy sakes...it has stuff in there that's downright ludicrous too, unless you study it and figure out why someone might've considered the inclusion important.
I can't tell you what you're missing. Nobody can. If you approach the Bible as fiction, and try to find fault, there's plenty to find. If you approach as the literal WORD OF GOD, there's plenty to find too. You can't adopt an approach to it that you don't feel. I'll grant you that.
If you are curious, my best suggestion is to take a course or two geared at really exploring the Bible from a faith-based perspective. If you're lucky, you'll find a class that includes people just like yourself, and a few who are much more on the faithful believer side. Why? Because the best (most informative) part of any such group study of the Bible is the other people.
I'm betting you can find several options going on right now in just about any church you happen to wander into. If you want to try it out on a "lite" basis first, I know of some online studies that are also pretty good, but lack a bit of that great group verbal interaction. I can also suggest just going to adult Sunday school classes at whatever church is convenient.
I'd put in recommendation to try out a Methodist church, but really, just about any denomination will do if they offer beginning Bible study classes, or even informal kinds of "pick a scripture and go through it one session" kinds of classes.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are we in agreement, then, that the Bible is subject to interpretation, and has always been so?
Because if that is the case, what is the point to saying that it contains any objective truth at all--since all its many different interpretations are purely subjective?
"There's got to be a pony in there, somewhere..."
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I think that says something about the credibility of the good book as a whole. Where to draw the line?
Keep in mind that a book doesn't have to be infallible in order to be credible.
After all, Newton's physics had to be reinterpreted and revised after Einstein and others came along. That doesn't mean science books written about Newton's physics before that time aren't credible. Rather, it just means those books weren't infallible, just as today's science textbooks aren't infallible - and I think just as the Bible isn't infallible.
So, no, I don't think reinterpreting parts of the Bible in the light of new information eliminates the credibility of the Bible.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I totally disagree that there are "no new interpretations." If that were true, then I doubt that so many people would strongly claim that Scripture has relevance today, let alone for the thousands of years that it has been available to us (more or less, depending on which portions of Scripture).
I will concede it is true that people look at the Scriptures according to what is going on around them, and extrapolate meanings for the now. That is both the bueaty and the weakness of them. However, the way people interpret the Scriptures has not changed since they were written. New ideas do pop up now and then, but only in a tweeked version of old arguments. It is amazing how contemporary the Jewish commentaries and the Church Fathers read when you study them closely.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hermeneutics is a fancy word that is also fashionable among philosophers, postmodernist literary critics and historiographers (as opposed to historians)
Oh oh! I'm a History major extremely interested in historiography! Would you be able to go any deeper into your statement? If yes, just say yes and I'll go create a thread about historiography and the like. If not, no biggy.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:After all, Newton's physics had to be reinterpreted and revised after Einstein and others came along
That is totally unrelated to any and all possible reinterpretations of the (or any) Bible.
Unless, of course, Christ acts differently as you approach the speed of light. Or morals change, the faster you go.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Problem is, Euripides, we are saying there is no new interpretations.
I was saying no such thing. In fact, I wasn't saying anything -- I was merely trying to understand the question.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr. Strangelove, I would *love* to discuss historiography, especially with a history major - before I chose to do architecture, I seriously considered doing a BA in history. It was my pet subject in school and I'd be very interested in hearing some of your ideas. In fact, I'm thinking that after my architecture course, I'll attempt an MA.
Maybe I should dig up some notes
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
If you are curious, my best suggestion is to take a course or two geared at really exploring the Bible from a faith-based perspective. If you're lucky, you'll find a class that includes people just like yourself, and a few who are much more on the faithful believer side. Why? Because the best (most informative) part of any such group study of the Bible is the other people.
You're probably right about that. Maybe I'll wander into a Christian uni society meeting one of these days. Accidentally, of course.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:But I think that says something about the credibility of the good book as a whole. Where to draw the line?
Keep in mind that a book doesn't have to be infallible in order to be credible.
After all, Newton's physics had to be reinterpreted and revised after Einstein and others came along. That doesn't mean science books written about Newton's physics before that time aren't credible. Rather, it just means those books weren't infallible, just as today's science textbooks aren't infallible - and I think just as the Bible isn't infallible.
So, no, I don't think reinterpreting parts of the Bible in the light of new information eliminates the credibility of the Bible.
Ok, perhaps I worded my statement incorrectly about the Bible "as a whole". But wouldn't you say that we consider Newton's work to be partially correct because we've identified using the scientific method that other parts of his reasoning were flawed?
And no, I'm not advocating that we rationally analyse the Bible. I'm very much aware of its flaws. I guess what I was trying to do was get a more detailed Christian POV on how the Bible should be used - why some parts apply and others don't, and what criteria are used to identify them. My nagging suspicion is that the main criterion is convenience, and I wanted someone to challenge that assumption. Nobody so far is biting. Granted though, this thread was only created a couple of hours ago.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I will concede it is true that people look at the Scriptures according to what is going on around them, and extrapolate meanings for the now. That is both the bueaty and the weakness of them. However, the way people interpret the Scriptures has not changed since they were written. New ideas do pop up now and then, but only in a tweeked version of old arguments. It is amazing how contemporary the Jewish commentaries and the Church Fathers read when you study them closely.
Occasional, I think I know what you're getting at. But (and please don't take offence, because I mean none) aren't you contradicting yourself a bit? People do make new interpretations, which are necessarily different to the old ones. They may be similar, but I can't see how "However, the way people interpret the Scriptures has not changed since they were written." can hold true.
Also, wouldn't you count the Reformation as an example of a change in mindset that radically altered the way the Bible was interpreted?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Just a note, but I might be slow responding to posts today - I have an exam tomorrow, and should be doing physics problems. From about lunchtime tomorrow though [probably afternoon in the US], I have time to debate plenty of historiography.
posted
Boothby- I'm curious as to why you're posting in this thread at all. You don't seem to have any interest in learning how Christian's view the Bible except to belittle it; and you have to realize that you're not going to change anyone's belief in God with snarky comments. So why waste your time?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard a loud snap and the groan of twisting metal. Then there was a sudden sickening jerk as the cabin pitched to the left and threw the passengers against the shattered windows. I knew then that the train had derailed.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Common sense is a reasonable guide to interpretation. So's a concordance. I don't know how to interpret the images in the Revelation, but I'm pretty sure what "love thy neighbor as thyself" means, at least at a basic level. (Slavery's a great example. The Bible doesn't address the issue explicitly, but rather implicitly, through that, and the Golden Rule. We do have to use a little intelligence to recognize how these apply to slavery, but it's not rocket science.)
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Euripides- The Bible is words. Christians believe it was inspired by God, although what Christians mean by inspired depends on the Christian you ask. When we read, we are interpreting what we read. It's part of the act of reading. All kinds of things affect how we interpret what we read. Our past, our culture, our prior knowledge.
So how everyone interprets the Bible is a little bit different. Because we're all different, and it's just words. We see the same thing happen on hatrack all the time, people interpret what someone says in wildly different ways. That's what happens when you read the Bible.
This says nothing about the integrity of the Bible as the Word of God, The Bible could be infallible, but humans are fallible, and their interpretation will be fallible.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, that's the standard postmodern text-reader response theory, and I believe it's correct. Hence my statement that individual Christians should interpret (i.e. read) the Bible for themselves. Otherwise they'll only be soaking in what they're church/friends say.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Denominations are different. Churches within those denominations are different. Pastors are different. They have different reasons for interpreting scripture the way they do. What you're asking, it's like asking why the fifty states have different laws. It's possible, but it would take an enormous amount of time and effort.
Yes, some churches do interpret the Bible in the way that's most convienent. Others interpret it in the way that's most inconvienent. Others interpret it based on the writings of theologians going back thousands of years. Every church has different reasons for interpreting it the way they do.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: (Slavery's a great example. The Bible doesn't address the issue explicitly, but rather implicitly, through that, and the Golden Rule. We do have to use a little intelligence to recognize how these apply to slavery, but it's not rocket science.)
On the contrary. The bible does in fact directly address slavery. "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)" Now, obviously some people in the past have chosen to interpret this passage, and many other like it, to mean that God condones slavery. And were they wrong to do so? We view slavery as wrong now, in our society, so on that level of course they were wrong to do so. However, were they actually wrong to interpret the bible as condoning what they did? It seems to pretty explicitly state that slavery, as long as it's not of your own race, is A-Ok with God.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
blacwolve, I think you're right that everyone has their own set of criteria when interpreting the Bible (or anything else). Most people do select which parts of the book they will follow. Yet all churches maintain that they are remaining true to the word of the Lord.
I want to know the reasoning behind that claim (not from all churches, just from the POV of other Hatrackers personally). Doesn't that presume that it's ok to ignore this part of the Bible, as long as you remain true to the spirit of that part?
I 'll give you my example of when I was told my interpretation of the Bible ignored certain important aspects of it. In an old PWeb thread, I posted an excerpt from this open letter. I was told that it was a poorly researched letter, and that there were important differences between the laws in Leviticus and similar books, and those in other parts of the Bible. I was new to the forum, and that particular person was very well read and had studied Christianity and church history very extensively (oh heck, I'll just tell you - it was EL), so I felt it would be safer not to challenge it. I suppose I'm regretting it.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Throughout my adult life it has come as no surprise to me that there would be so many differing sects of Christianity. Nor has it come as any surprise to me that the secular world has been so critical of Christianity and the Bible -- considering the many atrocities committed throughout history by “devout” Christians and justified by the Bible.
(It seems like there has been a Christian sect formed around almost every verse or fragment of verse in the Bible. Someone latches onto a particular statement and fanatically bases their whole philosophy around that one concept to the exclusion of almost every other concept. I met some people once, and I’m not making this up, who based their church around the idea that anyone who has been circumcised is going to hell. They based that on the scripture in Acts where one of the apostles talks about circumcision. I’d like to see a church based on the concept of caring for the homeless and needy - verses like James 1: 27 “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” Maybe the Salvation Army comes close. I don’t know.)
Anyway we Mormons have an article of faith that says, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly . . .”
But it goes quite a bit deeper that that. Consider what these two religion professors at BYU had to say about the subject in their book “Sustaining and Defending the Faith” (Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet):
“The Bible is the most misused and misunderstood book ever written. It has been used to justify all manner of impropriety, wickedness, and falsehood. Every spiritual fraud ever perpetrated in the history of Judaism or Christianity has claimed support form the Bible.” (pp. 49)
Then on page 111 McConkie and Millet have the following to say to fellow Mormons who think that they should use just the Bible when answering other Christians’ questions about our religion. McConkie and Millet advise that we should not be reluctant to answer using our modern scriptures like The Book of Mormon and The Doctrine and Covenants. They wrote, “Such a statement is virtually always met with the objection that ‘they don’t believe those sources. Shouldn’t we use the Bible because it is our common ground?’ The answer is an emphatic no! First, the Bible is not common ground, it’s fighting ground. The religious world has been fighting over the meaning of the Bible for thousands of years. The Bible has been the excuse for war, bloodshed, and all manner of turmoil.” <end of quote from their book>
Ah, but it gets even better. In a conference of the church in Kirtland, Ohio, Brigham Young laid the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants down in front of him, and then he said: "There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now, when compared with the living oracles, those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books."
So anyway, that is the Mormon perspective on the subject. For what it is worth. Sure we believe in holy scripture but we are not a bit surprised when people take scripture to task.
Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I ought to add a sort of disclaimer. Doctrinally speaking my post is pretty much the Mormon perspective. But any sort of cynical tone coming through is just a result of my own nasty suspicious personality. Like my second paragraph for instance. (Except I do have a tremendous respect for the Salvation Army.)
Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I generally do not post in threads specifically targeted at Christians, for obvious reasons. But let me tell ya, when people reference that odious letter, or claim that the Bible allows for slavery that was anything like the type practiced in the US before the Civil War, it makes it very difficult for me to avoid posting.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nobody has mentioned pre-Civil War type chattel slavery in this thread. And I apologise if that sarcastic letter is offensive, but I hope you don't see this thread as 'targeting' Christians - I'm sincere about wanting to hear the Christian side of the story.
posted
Okay, I've been unfair to you in a previous debate, so I wanted to be sure I wasn't doing it again.
I can't speak for foundling, but I'm guessing from his quotation that yes, it's chattel slavery. Leviticus does seem to be explicit about that though, unless "as property" has been translated improperly, or chattel slavery carries some connotation I'm unaware of which doesn't apply in Biblical cases.
And also, aren't we against all forms of slavery anyway?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Euripdes, I don't see you as having been offensive, but I do sense more than just honest curiosity -- perhaps bordering on a bit of anger arising from frustration.
Boothby did sort of cross a line into offense, I think, by adopting a much more aggressive tone and demonstrating a complete lack of interest in having a discussion.
The bit about slavery is, I feel, a legitimate source of confusion and concern for people of faith. Imo, a lack of understanding of the historical context (perhaps a deliberate ignoring of it?) allowed people in the past to use Scripture to justify abusive actions toward other people. Ultimately, I think the principles of Scripture were made clear and people realized that the Bible does not justify slavery as practiced. It also could be that people realized that slavery is one of those institutions obviously prone to promoting abuse so even IF the Bible discusses it, the admonitions about fairness and justice in Scripture lead us to conclude that slavery is a bad idea.
Failure to allow for progress in human society, or even just a change in the consensus opinion, is a mistake often made by people who do not agree with religious viewpoints. They want a stationary target to attack. But religion, and society, are fluid and don't sit still obligingly.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: I guess you're telling me that if there's a whole academic discipline named after the methods/attempts to answer my question, it must be a tough one to answer. And a tall order to have it answered on an online forum. You're probably right.
Just catching up. I really need a computer at home...
Anyway. Yes. It is a whole academic discipline. To be a biblical scholar - at least for a Catholic - requires years of study, at least 2 (more likely 4) languages, anthropology, history and so forth.
For centuries, we catholics weren't even allowed to read the bible! Okay, most of us couldn't read anyway and books had to be hand written and cost bazillions of dollars...
But even today, we don't assume that anyone picking up the NRSV is going to automatically and correctly understand what God wants.
To use the slavery bit as an example. That passage and references to slavery in Paul's (I think) letters were used, incorrectly, to justify slavery in America before the civil war. Even in this thread you have learned that slavery meant a very different thing to the people who first read Leviticus. It also meant a very different thing to the original audience for Paul's letters. And in both cases what the Bible said was a step toward better treatment of other people given the context and the culture. Paul wasn't justifying slavery. In a culture where slavery was the norm he was insisting that people treat their slaves better.
And that is just one example.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think one of the greatest inventions ever is separation of church and state. I think there have been a lot of times when men have deliberately interpreted the Bible so they could justify doing what they wanted to do. I’m talking primarily about people in power. Part of the problem was that the clergy either were the political rulers, or the rulers went clergy shopping until they found clergy who would “interpret” scripture to let the rulers gratify their lusts and greed.
(I love the way Paul put it, “heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.” He said, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Timothy 4:3 - 4) Of course I may have misinterpreted that passage. )
I think that many of the depredations blamed on the Bible were really nothing more than evil men who used religion as a means to power. I mean, would anyone here seriously disagree with me if I said that guys like Henry VIII, David Duke, many of the antebellum American pro-slavery proponents, and Jim Jones were/are evil men who didn’t really believe in Christ? Or if they did, they didn’t let that belief stand in their way of gratifying there base desires?
Mankind’s ability to rationalize never ceases to amaze me - my own ability in that regard included.
I don’t consider this an indictment against Christianity or the Bible but an indictment against the abuse of power. Because I think that most, if not all, noble philosophies, religious or secular, have been deliberately misused from time to time for the benefit of unscrupulous blighters.
As one of the demotivational posters available on Despair,Inc.com says, “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. But it rocks absolutely, too.”
Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm really hoping that someone can tell me what I did to so piss some people off.
Blackwolve: "Boothby- I'm curious as to why you're posting in this thread at all. You don't seem to have any interest in learning how Christian's view the Bible except to belittle it; and you have to realize that you're not going to change anyone's belief in God with snarky comments"
I did nothing to belittle the Bible. I asked a few questions to challenge it. Did I make stuff up? Did I poke fun? No, and No.
Bob_Scopatz: "Boothby did sort of cross a line into offense, I think, by adopting a much more aggressive tone and demonstrating a complete lack of interest in having a discussion."
Bob, I'm still wondering where I started to offend. Normally, I'm fully aware of when I'm trying to be offensive, and I really wasn't trying here. And a "complete lack of interest"? Hey, I didn't start this thread, or ask that it be started. I'm just wandering in on occasion to see what's being discussed.
Is this the line that got to you guys? "Unless, of course, Christ acts differently as you approach the speed of light. Or morals change, the faster you go" If that's it, then I've got one thing to say: Lighten up, guy! And if not, then I don't really know what you're complaining about.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, I can understand why you thought I was using the old "SEE! God believes in slavery! And in raping virgins! The bible is BAD!!" argument. My last sentence probably made it seem that way.
But what I was actually trying to point out was the ease of interperting that verse, and others like it, to your(general your) own ends.
It is easy to draw beautiful things from the Bible. I think that is what most deeply religious people who believe in the Bible as the word of God do. They find the best and they define their lives and religions by it. But it is JUST as easy to find truly dark, disturbing things in the Bible. And that is where its power and foundations disturb me. If the Bible were considered to be nothing more than a well written, fascinating history book, then those verses would be nothing more than a factual look at that time period. But the Bible is not considered to be a history book by most. It is considered to be the Word of God. And it posses power. Power to define the way that humans think. That power has been so severely abused and warped over the centuries that I dont trust any institution who chooses to wield it now, regardless of how good their intentions are.
I am not unbiased, and the only reason I joined this conversation was to respond to WillBs' contention that the bible doesnt address slavery. It does, and I was curious to see how he would react to that fact. But I dont mean to attack Christianity, or any other religion that holds the Bible as a religious book. Just because I dont hold it in reverence anymore doesnt mean I dont understand why others do. It's actually a really beautiful book.
I am curious about this, though. The passages on slavery are always explained away by saying that they referenced a different way of life, and most certainly not slavery as we knew it. So? I've never understood how that made them any more palatable. God allowed for his people to own other human beings. He asked them to treat them better than others were doing, but the basic tenent of slavery was ownership. To me, that is unacceptable. I do not believe in a God that allows for injustice, regardless of how widespread and accepted it was at the time. I also dont believe in a God that tells his army to decimate entire populations of cities, including women and children. I dont believe in a God that allows his army to rape VERY young virgins as a part of the spoils of victory. I dont believe in a God that tells women not to teach in public, and who chooses to punish countless generations for the sins of one.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
At least one of those is from the Christian bible. And you are taking several severely out of context. So rather than deal with specifics, I will talk about a general principle.
Judaism does not believe that people are "fallen"; however, it does believe that people have great potential for both good and evil (represented by the terms "evil inclination" and "good inclination," and frequently anthropomorphized). The goal of the Torah is not to set impossible goals. It is to set do-able goals that help each person perfect themselves. Accordingly, there are quite a number of things which are permitted but not encouraged (and often discouraged).
Among these are "slavery" (and mistreatment of slave meant automatic freedom, so much so that slaves were treated far better than many "wage-slaves" in our times), which as I already explained was far closer to indentured servitude than to chattel slavery; and the reference you made to what I would call ishas yefas to'ar. Which was not rape, although it was forced marriage. (However, by Jewish law, a wife ALWAYS has the right to refuse her husband.) Looking at the verses, it is fairly clear that everything that he must do (or require her to do) is to discourage him from marrying her. However, the Torah will not forbid something if not everyone would be capable of overcoming their evil inclination's push to do it. But it does strongly discourage it.
God does not expect us to be perfect. Just working in that direction.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I take it that, when you say Torah, you arent just talking about the first 5 books of the bible, right? That you are talking about the written and oral laws that comprise Judiasm? I just need to clarify that in my own head because the use of that term is a little confusing to me. I dont know nearly enough about Judaism to presume to understand or judge. What little I do know I respect.
But I wasnt talking about Judaism now, or any specific religion for that matter. I was talking only about the Bible. There is no need to defend how Judaism interprets the part of the Bible it believes in. I've already acknowledged that fact that the good parts of religion come from their interpretation of the Bible.
You didnt actually address any of the reasons I gave for not believing in the Bible as the Word of God. You say I took things out of context, but what is their context? The passage I quoted is absolutely black and white. Because it exists within a grouping of laws about how to treat other Isrealites doesnt take away from the reality of it. If anything, it makes it more disturbing. From the same chapter, verse 44 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids." I acknowledged that slavery at that time was different from the slavery of our time. But it was still SLAVERY. The finer points of how one goes about owning another human being dont interest me, regardless of the circumstances behind them, because it is wrong. That's a pretty black and white principle. So, forced marriage was not rape? Jewish law allowed for a woman to refuse her husband sex at the time that this passage was written? 400 young virgins, from that specific passage, were given to soldiers as their "wives" and not a one of them was raped??? That doesnt seem very likely, does it? And this is a common theme in much of the Old Testament. Including the last book of the Torah, Dueteronomy. Deuteronomy 20:10-14: "When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you." None of those women taken as plunder were raped?
I'm sorry. I dont think that these passages reflect on Judiasm today. But they are what is in the Bible. To deny that, and to say that you can interpret your way out of the nastiness that exists in there, is dangerous in my mind.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I take it that, when you say Torah, you aren't just talking about the first 5 books of the bible, right? That you are talking about the written and oral laws that comprise Judaism?
Essentially correct. Remember, in Judaism, the written text can never stand alone.
quote:But I wasn't talking about Judaism now, or any specific religion for that matter. I was talking only about the Bible.
I get that those two sentences are not mutually contradictory to you, but they are to me.
quote:I've already acknowledged that fact that the good parts of religion come from their interpretation of the Bible.
Wow, that was condescending.
quote:You didn't actually address any of the reasons I gave for not believing in the Bible as the Word of God.
Funny, I thought I had.
quote:The passage I quoted is absolutely black and white.
Again, there is no such thing. A passage alone (even without the problems inherent in translation) is not sufficient.
quote:I acknowledged that slavery at that time was different from the slavery of our time. But it was still SLAVERY. The finer points of how one goes about owning another human being don't interest me, regardless of the circumstances behind them, because it is wrong. That's a pretty black and white principle.
I'm going to disagree with you. But then, I don't have any problem with the way indentured servitude was (at least in theory -- the system was sometimes abused) used in the US a few hundred years back. It was not ownership in the way one owned livestock or property.
quote:Jewish law allowed for a woman to refuse her husband sex at the time that this passage was written?
Yup.
quote:I'm sorry. I don't think that these passages reflect on Judaism today. But they are what is in the Bible. To deny that, and to say that you can interpret your way out of the nastiness that exists in there, is dangerous in my mind.
Ooh, condescension AND telling me that you (who are reading a translation, without the absolutely necessary context of the Oral Law) know better than I what is in the Torah. Nice.
I started to explain how again you are mixing apples and oranges (the example you gave of the civil war with the tribe of Binyamin has nothing to do with ishas yofas to'ar, for example), and taking things out of context. But you know, given how thoroughly you are convinced that a thoroughly modern world view is the only correct one, and how you completely ignored the actual point of my previous post in favor of arguing over details, I'm not going to bother.
I'm not upset or anything. I just have better uses of my time. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
::shrug:: Ok. I can understand that. It's one of the reasons I rarely let myself get caught up in one of these discussions, because I've ALWAYS got something better to be doing with my time. Like washing my hair, or cleaning the litter box .
I would apologize for coming across as condescending, but I dont think I can. I might not have meant those particular points to come across as such, but I guess my additude in general cant help but be condescending. After all, I'm pretty sure I know better than you, just are you are pretty sure you know better than me. Thats pretty much the definition of condescending right there. I am sorry if I offended you, though. I spent a very long time defending the Bible to myself and others, and when I finally realized that the reason I was having to work so hard at it was because I just didnt believe what I was saying, it was... difficult. I dont want to take that left over angst out on anyone, so I'll stop talking about it now.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
: Hermeneutics. As near I understand, it's the art of interpretation. I imagine it can be used in ways other than pertaining to the Bible, but that's the only context I've heard it it.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(Except I do have a tremendous respect for the Salvation Army.)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. 
