Hello. Same, actually, I've been absent a few days. Thanks for the response. I'm midway through the first season of the TV show House right now, so please do forgive if I am more sarcastic than usual....the man rubs off on me, as it were...
Ever notice that House is only ever right during the last 10 minutes of the hour?
Well, this leads us to a quandry, doesn't it? If what is sinful, or the meaning of the Bible can change, then is it or is it not the Word of God?
I believe the Bible is the Word of God in about the same respect that this:
Code:
___ ___
/ \____/ \
/ / __ \ \
/ | .. | \
\___/| |\___/\
| |_| |_| \
| |/|__|\| \
| |__| |\
| |__| |_/ / \
| @ | | @ || @ | '
| |~~| || |
'ooo' 'ooo''ooo'
-Hamilton Furtado-
...is an actual, real elephant.
Now, it's not a bad rendering of an elephant, is it? It would be hard to do much better, if, say, you were limited to a 12-line ASCII terminal to display it on. With careful study you can surely discern head, ears, eyes, trunk, tusks, and legs. You can tell it's not a mouse or a fish or a light bulb.
But if we start fighting wars over whether there are 3 legs or 4, or writing treatises on why the knees are ampersands instead of capital O's, then we're clearly and inappropriately overlooking the bandwidth limitations of the information we're working from.
And on the other hand, if we use the limitations and inaccuracies to conclude that it isn't really a portrayal of an elephant, or that elephants don't exist (because no real animal with ampersands for knees would be able to walk, perhaps), then we're
also clearly and inappropriately overlooking the bandwidth limitations of the information we're working from.
The error in both cases stems from conflating the representation with the real thing.
How would any reasonably expect to believe anything that's in the Bible?
Because to disbelieve everything in it is illogical, as some of it is simple common sense and good advice?
Isn't the Pope the Hand of the Lord on Earth?
I doubt it. Do you have evidence that he is?
Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.
In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.
1 Timothy 3: 8-13
In Matthew 9, Jesus likens His disciples to the guests of a bridegroom, not to the bride! I'm not aware of any direct Biblical justification of the idea that priests in particular are "brides of Jesus" or of the church in any way that other Christians are not, Ephesians 5: 22-32 notwithstanding. So again, priestly celibacy is more dogma with minimal Scriptural basis, which (besides wanting some, or we could be charitable and say they wanted children and family life) is why Protestant theologians rejected it centuries ago.
I must admit some confusion.
Confusion about what?
Google is indeed my friend. But links like the first one, full of wacky ideas based on out-of-context Bible verses (I described the obvious context of Matthew 9, yet there is was at that link, "Jesus is a bridegroom," out of context) are not helpful to anyone. (Especially if I find it necessary to report you for assaulting my eyeballs. Talk about sin... I think that color scheme qualifies.) And even that does not contain what I asked for, which is any Biblical justification why priests should be different from other Christians in being "wed" to the Church to the exclusion of earthly marriage, or anything sufficient to outweigh the plain simple declarations I quoted from 1 Timothy. Is your point that some Christians take Bible versus out of context and have wacky ideas? Granted. But what confusion is this causing you?
I thought we agreed they rejected such a notion because they wanted to get laid?
I said, because there's no clear Scriptural justification for priestly celibacy and clear Scriptural contradiction of it, AND because they wanted to get laid. If the Bible clearly supported priestly celibacy, the Protestant founders would probably have continued it even though they
did want to get laid. If they didn't want to get laid, they might have just continued the tradition of celibacy without bothering to examine the issue. Is that a problem? Does having two different reasons for something make it too confusing?
As you say, circular.
And homosexuality is considered a sin today, judged by outmoded standards due to the dogmatic nature of religion. Masturbation is much the same. If they are not sins today..well...that opens a whole other can of worms, which I will get into a touch later on.
"Due to the dogmatic nature of religion?" Then why are shellfish-eating and working on Sunday not considered sins today by most Christians,
in spite of the Bible and the dogmatic nature of religion?
Is it possible that homophobia and the suppression of masturbation has very little to do with religion, dogmatic or otherwise, and much more to do with the fact that many people feel uncomfortable about the first and embarrassed about the second?
Christians all over the world have changed their minds about heliocentrism, about slavery, about the death penalty, about women's rights, about monarchy, about the causes of disease and mental illness, about constructing tall buildings, going against clear Biblical statements in every one of those cases. But they remain homophobic, you suggest,
because of the Bible, whose condemnation of homosexuality is relatively weak compared to the relevant Scripture for those other issues?
Do you think, if everyone became atheists, homophobia would go away? If so, how is that any more justified by logic than the argument of the theists who claim that if everyone became atheists, rape and murder would be tolerated?
Intolerant people are intolerant people, whether Christian or atheist. Liberal Christiantiy teaches tolerance. So does atheistic humanism. (Atheism by itself does not; the Soviets were hardly models of tolerance.) How are homosexuals treated in China, in India, in other predominantly non-Christian cultures?
Like it or not, most activist humanists in the U.S. are Christians. (By activist I mean actually doing things that take sustained effort, such as running homeless shelters and group homes for the retarded.) Change is coming and will come through Christian teachings, not in spite of them. For instance, check out what Jay Bakker, the son of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, is doing now:
http://www.revolutionnyc.com/idea.htm -- and he's pro gay marriage, on Christian principles.
Yeah, we have a habit of holding on to expired dogma, and failing to promptly implement needed new dogma, and people have suffered and died because of it.
Which is a failure of...whom?
Hard to say. Since we also seem to have a habit of holding on to unnecessary civil and criminal laws, and failing to promptly implement needed new laws, I'd have to say that this has little to do with any specific belief system and more to do with human nature, especially unwillingness to expose oneself to blame for a failed innovation.
And perhaps it [the Bible] is [irrelevant in modern times]. Religion does not equal morality. I would classify the KJV of the Holy Bible one of the most immoral books I have ever encountered. Aside from which, which is relevant, and which isn't? How does one judge? Well, not from the Bible, certainly, so by what yardstick do we judge?
A yardstick that's 0.0045454545 furlongs in length, in accordance with the sacred measuring system based on the value of phi which is the design of the universe. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
I find these a useful yardstick:
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Matthew 7:1-5
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
Matthew 7:12
"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you."
Luke 6:27-31
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..."
Matthew 5:42-44
Are these ideas, which I for one cannot measure up to, not relevant? If so, is it because you don't think they're good moral principles, or because you've given up hope that humanity will ever live up to them?
Ah, but you missed mine, particulary the sarcasm quotes around the words 'rights'. Most of the rights we currently enjoy in the US were born from a document(Series of documents) called the Magna Carta. It was a document that was forced upon the King John Lackland of England by his nobles, and sanctioned by the Church(Pope Innocent III). The fact that some of these rights trickled down to the Merchant Class and the Serfs had absolutely NO bearing on the Church's decision. It had much more to do with the bishops having a say in who was to be archbishop.
I'll try to make my sarcasm clearer from now on
Please do. What you wrote was this:
Change had to start somewhere, and in fact, most of the 'rights' given to serfs in the Middle Ages were the doing of the Church.
I interpreted the quotes around "rights" as pointing out that those rights were paltry compared with the rights we enjoy today, which I agree. If you wanted to suggest that the rights actually came from some cause other than the Church, the sarcasm quotes should have been around "doing of the Church." But wait, that's not what you're saying, because you're saying that the Magna Charta
was supported by the Church, but for
the wrong reasons. Or something. Actually, I'm now completely confused about what you are saying and what exactly you were being sarcastic about.
Let's try it this way: people acquired recognition of their rights. The Church aided the process (for whatever motive). It took a tragically long time, by our current standards. Any disagreements there?
Most of the rights we currently enjoy in the US were born from a document(Series of documents) called the Magna Carta.
Really? Can you point out in which clause of which document the following rights are granted:
- Freedom of speech and of the press
- Freedom of religion
- The right to peaceful assembly
- Protection from unwarranted search and seizure
- Universal right to trial by jury
- Prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment
Where does the Magna Charta assert that "all men are created equal"?
Influenced, yet. "Born from?" Not at all, unless you're talking about the general idea that the power of a government over the people could be limited in any way, and that pre-dates the Magna Charta.
Since when is spreading the message more important than the message itself?
Can you have the latter without the former? Are you familiar with the basic ideas of memetics?
Ah, but we are not God, are we? We are but fallible mortals. We should not be expected of such perfection. God, however, IS perfect. I would expect more from Him. Shouldn't I?
Does "perfect" imply "able to do the logically meaningless" such as create a four-sided triangle or a complete picture of an elephant on an ASCII computer terminal?
I can't control what you
expect. If I expect the New England Patriots to win a playoff game that they're leading by 21-3, and they don't, does that mean Bill Belichick doesn't exist?
If I took directions from a Map to get to Washington, DC, I would NOT expect to wind up in Argentina!!
A) Yes, the I would expect the map to be perfect.
b) The map isn't even f'kin close. Not even CLOSE!
If God had handed Abraham a world map, complete with Washington DC (and presumably, a notation warning "Do not try to go there until 3700 years from now"), who could have understood it, believed it, or copied it?
"God is supposed to be all-powerful, yet He doesn't fulfill my absurd, unrealistic, illogical expectations of Him. Therefore He doesn't exist." Is that the gist of your argument?
And for that last part, prove it.
It appears to me that given the current state of knowledge about the origin of the universe, a supernatural (that is, involving influences, possibly intelligent, from outside our known universe) origin is no more extraordinary a claim than the claim of the absence of such influences. Thus, though I can't prove it and I can't make you believe it, I have as much right and justification to assert it (without further response to aggressive demands for proof) as you have to assert the contrary.
So, we cannot learn morality from the Bible. Glad we cleared that one up!
God, through his chosen few, has set down these words to His flock. Yes?
Psalm 137: "Blessed be they who dash the little one's heads against the rocks."
We cannot learn morality from the Bible
alone. Not the same claim.
If you are saying that we cannot know God through the Bible, then great! Let's throw the thing away.
We cannot know God through the Bible
alone. Not the same claim.
We cannot know history from a grade school history textbook alone. In fact, all of them are full of omissions, oversimplifications, and errors. Let's throw them away! And that grade school physics book, the one that said F = ma, which (when I tried to use it to evaluate the velocity of gas jets from a quasar and the orbits of electrons around a nucleus) turned out to be a malicious lie! Let's throw that away too! And don't get me started on Shakespeare. Did you know that there's no historical evidence that Hamlet
ever actually lived? Lies! All lies!
Are you a publisher? I could send you three chapters and an outline...
If the Bible is only partially true, then we have been lied to about the single most important thing in our entire existence, in the entire Universe!
God must:
A)Know about this lie
B)Have the power to change this lie
So why doesn't He? Why does he not bring a new Revelation to clarify all this, if he truly loves us? What am I to conclude about a God who stacks the deck against you, then punishes you when you fail?
Well, then. What of God? He conspires to keep us in ignorance, then punishes us for not meeting up to his standards? Worship that? Never!
Whine, whine, whine. There's no world peace, good people suffer, the Bible didn't clue us in about quantum mechanics, I didn't get a pony for my eighth birthday. This is God's problem? Grow up. Go work for world peace. Go help your fellow man. Go research quantum mechanics. Go buy your kid a pony.
Don't get me wrong. I've argued, in this forum, that God's asserted "almightiness" is a stupid reason to revere God. (Rather, it's another holdover, from when revering kings was a social necessity). And like many Christians, I don't think God punishes us for not meeting up to his standards. (We punish ourselves and each other for that, and who lives up to the standards quoted above anyhow?) But "God doesn't grant wishes and end suffering" is as stupid a reason
not to worship God, as "God will punish you if you don't" is
to do so.
Indeed. With no help from HIM
Are you so sure? How much progress do you expect in under 100 generations? Does the last 100 generations of human history have any precedent on this planet?
Am I missing something? God is perfect, God is love? Erm. Or not? Which parts of God are false? How do we know? If we cannot know, then we do not know, and all religion, the Bible and everything gets thrown out the window. The only way it works is if we CAN know. If God is Malicious, then why in the world would we use his holy book as a guide to morality? If not, then why all the lies?
Which parts of the picture above are true elephant, and which are lies and deceptions? Not one part accurately depicts an elephant, but nonetheless it is a picture of an elephant.
Well, my point exactly. If you do not take it literally, then what is real and what isn't? What sounds good at the moment?
Or do you base your decisions on Empathy? Do you base your beliefs not on what is good at the moment, but what is going to be good and work for the greater segment on society as a whole for the long term. You see, this belief is what we call Secular Humanism. If that is the nature of your belief, we can discuss it without all the inconsistencies found in the Bible.
No, it's what we call Humanism, period. I am a Humanist; I've made no secret of that. I just happen to be one of very many religious humanists out there.
I think you need to read some history. As I alluded to before, the collection of works known as the Magna Carta, which was based on an earlier document called the Charter of Liberties, which led to the idea that 'all men were created equal'. Little to do with Jesus or the Church, who was, at the time, still espousing the Divine Right to Rule. It was a secular government that allowed such idea to flourish, not a theocracy.
These ideas came not from the Bible, but from a group of men who had read and studied the works of others. A group of men that included not only the religious, but Deists, and those who had differing beliefs. A group of men who had read Thomas Paine, an atheist, and agreed with his ideals.
No, our Constitution had little to do with the Bible, and the Declaration of Independence had much more of a pedigree from the Magna Carta than from the Bible.
Oh please. For over 1000 years the one portion most scruitinized of the one book that every educated person reads includes the parable of the Good Samaritan, the story of the Poor Widow, the quotes above, and many other relevant and often-quoted passages. But the ideas of human rights came not from there, but from various aristocrats who thought it up on their own.
You have the makings of a good Hollywood intellectual property lawyer. "Yes, it might appear that the script of our movie is very similar to the one that Mr. Yeshua has been pitching to every studio in town for the past seventeen centuries. But that's just coincidence. We were already working on our own script in-house the whole time."
Of course faith can be a sin, depending on what one is putting one's faith in. For instance, faith in supremacist ideologies, some of the "false idols" of the modern era, is sinful.
Why?
Because the Biblical injunction on worshipping false idols and misplacing one's faith is completely congruent with the readily observable waste and suffering caused in recent times by the application of supremacist ideologies.
Ah, but you do NOT! You, from all I have read, promote the ideals of Secular Humanism that is couched in Biblical language to make it more palatable.
And the problem with that is...?
You would be unhappy if there were millions more people who did what I'm doing because...?
I'd caution you, though, that a predominantly atheistic society absent some toxic totalitarian ideology has never been attempted; there might be reasons as yet undiscovered, embedded in the legacy of human social evolution, why it's unworkable. I will, therefore, continue to seek, and promote, a renewal of faith in humanist Christian ideals.
You claim there has been no predomitably atheist society, or not society based on atheistic principals. Well, perhaps not, but there HAS been one based on Secular Humanism. It is called the United States of America. That's right, we're a secular nation. Always have been, despite what the religious right would like to believe. We're given to fits of religion, like a healthy person contracts a fever, but we do right ourselves. I do, honestly, love this country, even if I disagree with our leaders and their actions. Greatest Country in the World.
Interesting that where I said "society" you substitute "nation," implying "government." Yes, we have a secular government and that is a great thing. But for better or worse, we've also always had a predominantly Christian society. You mistake the liberal Christian virtue of tolerance, which has facilitated acceptance of inclusive secular rules in schools and workplaces, for secularism. You only notice it when it falls short or breaks down. We're in such a "fit" now, and Christians have erred and failed nearly across the board. But historically, in between the "fits of religion," the vast majority of Christians just go on being Christians as they always were.
I'm not saying that Christian society is necessary for a democracy. (India's democracy seems to be going reasonably well, all things considered.) Not saying that an atheist society couldn't work. Only that it hasn't been tried, so there's reason to not only expect, but want, any change in that direction to proceed very slowly.
Respectfully,
Myriad
