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
