quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: 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.
Thanks Bob, that's a good point, and probably hitting the debate at the crux of the matter. I guess I have a problem with a religion claiming to be universal and unchanging (that is, the word of God has not changed because it is now the year 2006) while its application is fluid. To me, a change in application requires a corresponding change in the underlying philosophy, unless the change is a response to new information. The exception is when the philosophy is deliberately vague, which in many cases Christianity is.
But I see where you're coming from, and I can definitely appreciate that the core values of Christianity conflict with human slavery.
As for being angry and frustrated, perhaps a bit of the latter, but since my convictions don't require me to convert anyone, I don't usually get worked up about failing to convince people.
Also, I can't find anything offensive written by Boothby in this thread. Or by foundling, to be honest.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: 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.
Really, I wasn't the one who compared Biblical slavery to any other form of slavery (except chattel slavery, once it was brought up), and I was aware that the nature of servitude in those times wasn't the same as it was in pre-Civil War America, ancient Rome or any other time; also that slavery was the norm until recently (or still is, in many places). I have been upset before by the way the Bible has been used though - for example, there was a time when the chaplain read a verse about St. Paul in Athens. He condemned the Athenians for not converting and remaining in darkness even when they heard the word of the Lord. I'm a cultural relativist and that makes me want to grind my teeth. Anyway, that was one example.
But my question was - some statements in the Bible are treated as moral imperatives, and some aren't. Some are considered relevant today, other's aren't. How do Christians (and as mentioned above, people will have individual answers) decide which is which?
I'm beginning to change my view on the Bible already from this discussion, and I think I'm getting to better understand what Christians are on about.
While I was at my old Catholic school, a teacher/preacher would quote the Bible and use that to illustrate or support some point on virtue. At my next school, which was aligned with the Uniting Church, the chaplain did so even more often. While I knew that the Bible was simply a collection of documents of different media (letter, history, etc.) I still saw it as a book of supposed absolutes, which Christians of old accepted whole-heartedly because it didn't conflict with their social values at the time, and which modern Christians had to selectively ignore, to brush anachronisms under the carpet.
When I became an atheist of course, I saw the Bible as a curious mix of history, fiction and moral philosophy which was riddled with inconsistencies but treated as the word of God. My old impression of the Bible remained in the back of my mind.
But now I'm seeing that the Bible should be taken by Christians more literally as a collection of documents, and that laws written in a letter can't be interpreted as moral imperatives, but the words of a Christian responding to the context of that time. The story and the values transmitted by it matter more than the scripture. It seems like an obvious realisation - but I guess I never changed my mindset because of the many hundreds of times the Bible has been touted as evidence for this and that. It gave me the sense that Christians believed that they really were supposed to treat the Bible as a single whole, as an instruction book to life, which they kind of put aside at times because they 'aren't that religious'.
Anyway, thanks for responding. This thread has helped me personally.
My religious convictions haven't changed, but maybe my understanding has improved.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
It does sound like your understanding is improved. I'm glad. Catholics (as well as many mainline Protestants) view the Bible not as people taking dictation from God or having God actually "move the hand that held the pen", but as a record of humanities relationship with God - as understood and expressed by those people. And those people were indeed inspired, but that doesn't mean they stopped being who they were. Paul was inspired, but he was still a fallible human being, a citizen of the Roman empire, living in the first century, etc...
And while God is unchanging, our understanding of God, god willing, matures. We grow closer to achieving the Kingdom of God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Christ acts differently as you approach the speed of light.
ROFL! This was the best part of reading this thread for me.
Close to that was the good summary you provided on your last paragraph of your last post there Euripides, which shows a lot of understanding given your previous view.
If in the Bible person X tells person Y to do Z, Z is not necessarily a commandment for all people for all time. Depending on the authority of person X, Z may be a good principle for people who are in the same situation as person Y, but it may be the case that due to cultural and temporal differences, no one will be in quite the same situation as person Y ever again. So the best we can do is try to understand the intent of Z as applied to Y's situation and gain understanding about the principles behind that command. All if X has any weight to be authoritative of course, since there are many figures in the Bible who are treated as "good" characters but not infallible or even worth modeling.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Foundling, you used the following phrase several times: “I don’t believe in a God that . . .”
I’ve heard that sentiment used by lots of people. And just like your use of it, the phrase often goes something along the lines of “I don’t (or can’t) believe in a God that. . .” then is followed by something like; a God that would allow or cause _______ (fill in the blank with various atrocities)
Now, I happen to believe in God the Father and Jesus Christ. But far from criticizing people who make the “I don’t believe” statements, I instead often find myself feeling much affinity. I would even go so far as to suggest that the very fact that you believe that way is evidence that there is a God.
I will explain why I make such a suggestion but first I ought to say that I am not presuming to be able to look into your soul or psyche or whatever and know what makes you tick. I could very well be wrong about this whole thing as far as it applies to any individual.
At any rate, there is a certain portrait of God, figuratively speaking, that has been painted by hundreds of years of traditional interpretations of the Bible. This portrait depicts him as mean and nasty old bounder that no one in his right mind would want to have as a father figure. So when I hear someone say that they don’t believe in a God that would . . . well, I just can’t help but think that maybe that person is better in tune with the Really Real God than maybe he realizes. He also may be better in tune with the Really Real God than, say, someone who believes in the traditional mean and nasty portrait of God.
The reason I say this is because I believe people are born into this life with an innate sense that allows them to feel the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, moral goodness or blameworthiness. I believe it involves a power emanating from God which we are able to tune into. So when the atrocities in the Bible blamed on God just don’t feel right to us, well, that could be because we are tapping into those good vibs, as it were.
I believe this is what Abraham Lincoln meant by “touched . . . by the better angels of our nature” and what the following scriptures are talking about:
“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.” (Abraham Lincoln “First Inaugural Address“)
“Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually. But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God. Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil. For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night. For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him. And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged. Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.”(Book of Mormon | Moroni 7:12 - 19)
“There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” (New Testament | John 1:6 - 9)
I’m not posting these passages to try to persuade anyone to believe in the scriptures but only to show why I feel an affinity with many of folks who look askance at some of the nastiness depicted in the Bible and blamed on God.
I can also suggest some possible reasons why some Biblical passages blame atrocities on God. We have already discussed on this thread some of the nasty things people have done in the “name of God” and with Biblical justification in the last several hundred years. It is possible that some of the ancient folks (i.e. in Old Testament times) pulled the same kind of trick. They went ahead and committed some of their favorite atrocities and then said, “God told me to do it.” and then their version got written up and eventually found it’s way into what we now have as the Bible. And then Henry VIII and David Duke grab onto those Biblical things and say “Goody, goody, I get to have some fun, too.” And the cycle repeats.
We are hardly ever surprised when one of our present-day journalists get some story wrong. So why should we be surprised when some ancient journalist has the same human failing? Of course, when we are talking about something that is supposed to be inspired Word Of God we would hope that He wouldn’t allow the tabloid type stuff to get included in the Book. But apparently it didn’t quite work out that way. Dang!
Whether some of this stuff is just mistranslated or were lies as originally written I don’t know. In addition to some of the stuff mentioned on this thread, I’ve always had a hard time believing that Elisha called a bear out of the woods to kill some boys who were making fun of him, or that Lot‘s wife was turned into a pillar of salt. These and a whole bunch of other things just don’t jibe with the personality of God as I understand Him.
Orson Scott Card had some pretty interesting things to say about the subject in his Afterward in his novel “Sarah.” I can’t find my copy of it right now. I must have loaned it someone. But I remember he wrote some good stuff.
Of course I believe there is also a lot of worthwhile things in the Bible that we would do well to obey.
If in the Bible person X tells person Y to do Z, Z is not necessarily a commandment for all people for all time. Depending on the authority of person X, Z may be a good principle for people who are in the same situation as person Y, but it may be the case that due to cultural and temporal differences, no one will be in quite the same situation as person Y ever again. So the best we can do is try to understand the intent of Z as applied to Y's situation and gain understanding about the principles behind that command. All if X has any weight to be authoritative of course, since there are many figures in the Bible who are treated as "good" characters but not infallible or even worth modeling.
Thanks Avin. I was aware of this, yet so many Judeo-Christians treat Z as absolutes, so hence the angle of my response. For example, though this is not exactly the same, keeping kosher seems to me like the continuation of a tradition which had practical significance in ancient times, but might be obsolete in parts today. There are many other religious rites and practices maintained today which have roots in obsolete purposes. The de jure understanding tends to be that Christians should do this because X commanded it in the Bible, while the de facto understanding is that Christians do this because it's a community custom.
I guess that now I just see the Bible as having a whole lot more 'Z's than commandments.
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush:
The reason I say this is because I believe people are born into this life with an innate sense that allows them to feel the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, moral goodness or blameworthiness. I believe it involves a power emanating from God which we are able to tune into. So when the atrocities in the Bible blamed on God just don’t feel right to us, well, that could be because we are tapping into those good vibs, as it were.
That's very interesting. Personally, I believe that we aren't born with anything except a preference for no pain over pain, and that we soak in the basics of morality implicitly at a very young age. Perhaps there is an instinct against causing other humans pain, or killing them (a useful evolutionary trait).
Young children can often easily grasp that something is wrong if they can see it causing a person pain, but are less adept at understanding the necessity for self-restraint when they don't see their behaviour as hurting anyone directly.
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: For example, though this is not exactly the same, keeping kosher seems to me like the continuation of a tradition which had practical significance in ancient times, but might be obsolete in parts today.
Since kashrus was never actually about any practical reason, your conclusion is irrelevant.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course it's open to debate. But anyone who claims that it is anything other than a chok (law for which we are specifically not given a reason other than "God says so") is wrong. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Couldn't it be said that any system of laws can be analyzed and justifications/rationalizations can usually be found for things that may not have been part of the original intent?
One might as well look at the Torah and talk about how the entire system was geared to favor shepherds, and many of the laws relate to the economics of sheep owners.
It's easy to spin "just so stories" to make sense of things -- if that's what the goal is.
And much of anthropology is taken up with exactly that kind of musing. Unprovable, yet interesting speculation about cultural imperatives and so forth.
But see...this sort of thing leads down a very unproductive path from the point of view of actual believers. From that perspective, nothing trumps "God said do this..." If you believe a particular law comes from God, the decision of whether to obey or not kind of takes precedence over other questions.
That's not to say people can't speculate, but they still know what the expectation is. At some point, even if things can't be explained in human terms, they still have the issue of obedience to contend with.
I have a strong personal bias against systems of received knowledge that do not also make sense to me intellectually. In many ways this has been (throughout my life so far) a serious barrier to my faith, and increasing my faith.
There's a point at which an intellectually honest "skeptic" simply must decide which is more important -- the skepticism or the faith. I can totally understand choosing skepticism, but I have chosen otherwise. I don't think this really gets to where you wanted to go with this particular question/discussion but the bottom line is that (at least for some of us -- and I suspect most of us) the experience of faith begins with a choice to accept that which cannot be understood.
Some say faith is a gift. I understand the point of view, but it is also pretty obvious to me that it is a gift that many people have to accept consciously in order for it to be anything of consequence in their life. It's also a gift that many reject.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many religions have practices wherein God’s reasons behind the practice can’t be fully understood let alone explained by humans. And then it basically comes down to a matter of humble obedience. Rivka, you used the word “chok.” Is that a Hebrew word? How is it pronounced?
One of our books of scripture, Pearl of Great Price, has a passage about the subject that I’ve always liked. It talks about God giving Adam and Eve commandments after they were driven out of Eden, one the commandments being to sacrifice the firstlings of the flock as an offering to the Lord. Then verse 6 says, “And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.” (Pearl of Great Price | Moses 5:6)
Then the angel goes on to explain to Adam the significance of the ritual. So there is always the hope that eventually all things will be explained. That is one of the reasons I hope the atheists are wrong. Because if they turn out to be right, then I’m never going have my curiosity of how everything works satisfied. On the other hand, if there is a God and an afterlife then I have the hope of continuing to learn even after the old ticker cashes in my chips.
Euripides, what you said about instinct and human behavior and stuff makes sense. In the good old days we theist types could just smash all that Darwin stuff by whipping out Genesis -- end of debate; the fat lady just sang; have a nice day. But now there is too much scientific evidence about instinct and environmental factors and survival traits and stuff to be able to just ignore it all like we used to. Most of it makes too much sense and we can’t just ignore it anymore. Dang!
So we theist types have to keep God in the equation along with all the questions that belief implies as well as taking into account the scientific stuff, then have to try and explain, at least to our own satisfaction, how everything fits together. . . . aaaaahhhhhhh! it's worse than algebra word problems!
Oh well, it may be complex but it provides great material for interesting discussion. And then again there is always the hope that everything will eventually be explained to us after we’ve done the best we can. (Maybe the old cold blooded hot blooded dinosaur debate will be solved. At last! )
Anyway, on the subject of interpreting the Bible. In trying to explain the Mormon angle on it, I've so far pretty much approached it only from a negative perspective - the big old jumble-of-confusion Biblical interpretation angle.
So here is the positive part of the Mormon angle. We Mormons interpret the Bible through the filter of our other three books of scripture and the teaching of living prophets. Those three books being, The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearle of Great Price. And the teachings of living prophets being mainly the sermons from General Conference which happens twice a year, but it also includes other material as well.
These sources have several purposes. One function can be thought of as a detailed doctrinal commentary on the Bible. They help us to understand which things in the Bible are applicable to our day and which things we can ignore. For instance, we have no doubt that Paul's comments about women keeping silent in church has zero relevance now.
(Some other things these sources do are to provide other written witnesses that Jesus is the Christ; provide other written witnesses that the Bible is the word of God; and validates Christendom's acceptance of the Bible.)
As for these books being an aid in interpreting the Bible, it works like this. If you want to know, for instance, just what resurrection is and why it is important (the Bible does not clearly define it), then take a gander at these passages and their cross references - from the Book of Mormon: 2 Nephi chapter 2; Alma 11 : 39- 46 (see particularly verse 43 & 44); Alma chapter 40. And from the Doctrine and Covenants sections 130 and 138. You come away with a clear picture of the subject.
I could list many more examples but the above amply illustrates the point so I'll leave it at that.
At any rate, those are the primary tools we Mormons use to interpret the Bible. We do have those among us who earn Doctorates in theology and history and make studying that stuff their life's work. All that scholarly stuff is great and worthwhile but outside the province of most folks. Fortunately, one does not need to have a doctorate in theology in order to understand what he needs to do.
Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: Rivka, you used the word “chok.” Is that a Hebrew word? How is it pronounced?
Yes. The initial consonant is a sound that exists in Hebrew, but not in English. Sort of a throat-clearing sound. And the word rhymes with "choke."
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
