Religion and Obedience (Re: So Wrong...)

Started by Brandon, August 27, 2010, 08:25:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Brandon

Quote from: DarklingAlice on August 27, 2010, 06:22:02 PM
A comparison to a dog can be seen either as denigrating and dehumanizing or as commending fidelity and obedience, which are Christian virtues. Still, even if he wants to make a point about fidelity and obedience to the Christian god, it seems like he has to be awfully dense to be ignorant of the other potential interpretations.

Fidelity certainly, but I wouldnt agree with obedience as a christian virtue. It is a commonly misunderstood idea from non-christians though. There are many "rules" within the bible and thus Christian dogma but one often overlooked thing is the idea of choice. For example while some people might argue that the ten commandments force people to behave a certain way but what they often fail to realize is the choice to follow the commandments is up to the individual, they only have to face the consequences for their actions
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Serephino

I went to church as a teenager every Sunday for four years.  The blind obedience thing is not a misconception.  Sure, you can choose to not follow God's law, but the consequence is burning in Hell for all eternity.  What kind of a choice is that?  Christianity makes my head hurt, but that's a whole other topic. 

The video is kind of degrading.  Christians are loyal dogs kept on leashes?  WTF?  It's right up there with that Jesus Camp telling kids they should be prepared to give their lives for Christ.  What was that guy smoking?

Brandon

#2
Quote from: Serephino on August 27, 2010, 09:12:07 PM
I went to church as a teenager every Sunday for four years.  The blind obedience thing is not a misconception.  Sure, you can choose to not follow God's law, but the consequence is burning in Hell for all eternity.  What kind of a choice is that?  Christianity makes my head hurt, but that's a whole other topic. 


Yes it is a misconception. I wont dispute that some people blindly follow whatever a book says but not everyone does, in fact most of them dont. Most of them ask questions and come to their own conclusions

Any choice is still choice. You arent forced to do anything but just like anything you must face consequences for your actions. Thats what people dont seem to get about the "rules" of any religion but lets use your logic for a moment. A soldier refusing to deploy faces at least reduction in rank and at worst prison time. So heres your same question, what kind of choice is that?

Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Brandon

As I said wolfy

QuoteYes it is a misconception. I wont dispute that some people blindly follow whatever a book says but not everyone does, in fact most of them dont. Most of them ask questions and come to their own conclusions

This could include the Westbro baptist church

However, are you really going to stand there and say that all christians blindly follow a book? Especially knowing that I'm one?
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Wolfy

No. I was referring to Westboro Baptist only....

They. Are. Insane.

At least in my opinion, anyway.

DarklingAlice

Quote from: Brandon on August 27, 2010, 08:25:46 PM
Fidelity certainly, but I wouldnt agree with obedience as a christian virtue. It is a commonly misunderstood idea from non-christians though. There are many "rules" within the bible and thus Christian dogma but one often overlooked thing is the idea of choice. For example while some people might argue that the ten commandments force people to behave a certain way but what they often fail to realize is the choice to follow the commandments is up to the individual, they only have to face the consequences for their actions

As Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans: "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

Don't forget that although a non-Christian now, I was educated by the Church and still remember both my scripture and catechism. Obedience to god is a major theme, and the primary virtue of both Abraham and the Virgin Mary. You are correct that there is full freedom of choice (although if we review the scripture, we can see that Seraphino is correct that at times god behaves rather like a man with a gun to your head). Were there not, obedience would not be a virtue. Obedience can only exist when the ability to disobey exists and obedience to god is quite clearly expressed as right and virtuous.

To quote the catechism:
Quote148. The Virgin Mary most perfectly embodies the obedience of faith. By faith Mary welcomes the tidings and promise brought by the angel Gabriel, believing that "with God nothing will be impossible" and so giving her assent: "Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word." Elizabeth greeted her: "Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord." It is for this faith that all generations have called Mary blessed.

I am not referring to obedience to a book, but rather obedience to god.

Although, this begins to stray a bit from the original topic. If you or Serephino would like to discuss it further it would probably be more considerate to start another thread (or maybe even using the dialogue subforum) rather than argue here. If you want to talk to me about this or have an issue with my view on the issue, feel free to PM me.
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


Silk

I'm quite glad that Christians don't blindly follow such a abhorrent book anymore or there would be alot more WBC members.

Oniya

As I've said before, if you read the red words, the message is much the same as any other religious text:  Be good to each other in this life, and look forward to something better in the next.  There's no reason to call it abhorrent, just because it's not your religion.  It hasn't been mine for years.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Silk

Quote from: Oniya on August 28, 2010, 02:44:09 AM
As I've said before, if you read the red words, the message is much the same as any other religious text:  Be good to each other in this life, and look forward to something better in the next.  There's no reason to call it abhorrent, just because it's not your religion.  It hasn't been mine for years.

Genocides, Slavery, condoned rapes, tortures and so on are all pretty abhorrent

DarklingAlice

#9
Quote from: Silk on August 28, 2010, 02:54:58 AM
Genocides, Slavery, condoned rapes, tortures and so on are all pretty abhorrent

I believe that Oniya was referring specifically to the words of Christ, as opposed to say the OT or the actions of the church. It is a shame, but the actions of the religious are often in discord with their own texts.

Although, this is probably not the best place for this discussion.
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


Silk

Quote from: DarklingAlice on August 28, 2010, 03:04:22 AM
I believe that Oniya was referring specifically to the words of Christ, as opposed to say the OT or the actions of the church. It is a shame, but the actions of the religious are often in discord with their own texts.

Although, this is probably not the best place for this discussion.

Its entirely relevant, because if Christians were to follow their book entirely, with no breaks or critical thinking involved. As much as people like to pretend it isnt, the old testament is still part of the bible, so if you are to follow it in its ENTIRITY then that would include the old testament. If it was a seperate book you might have cause for arguement, but it isn't.

But Christians do no blindly follow the bible to the letter, and as such. The Abhorrent practices seen within it are not continued.

Brandon

#11
Im no biblilcal scholar. Never have been. Probably never will be. The one thing in that kind of argument that I think is often overlooked is, the old testament really isnt taught much anymore. When I was a kid and went to the religious school (I had regular school and then a sort of sunday school except it wasnt held on sunday) everything we were taught was from the new testament except for a few pieces of the old testament. Old testament things I do remember being taught include genisis (the creation of the universe), heaven & hell, the ten commandments, confessions, and when I was a teenager we got around to sex stuff.

That said, I look at the disciplinary rules of the old testament similar to how you might see the old volume of a book. To put it in game terms (specifically dungeons and dragons game terms) it would be like New testament is Pathfinder while old testament is 2nd edition. Two very different sets of rules that for the time dont apply to the other

That may have made more sense in my head...

Anyway, my earlier point about obediance not being a christian virtue is more inclusive to catholosism so maybe thats where the difference is?

Edit: Also I dont really care to debate it. Some people will swear up and down that thats the case and cling to the bible as a "you have to follow this" piece of evidence while failing to realize that its not followed to the letter. I dont care to get involved with thsoe people
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

DarklingAlice

#12
Quote from: Silk on August 28, 2010, 03:22:51 AM
As much as people like to pretend it isnt, the old testament is still part of the bible, so if you are to follow it in its ENTIRITY then that would include the old testament. If it was a seperate book you might have cause for arguement, but it isn't.

The bible is a plethora of separate documents written by disparate people in disparate times for disparate purposes. It has been collected by fallible mortal agency and should not be regarded as cohesive or entirely non-contradictory as it is a collection of multiple, separate pieces. Christianity, as the name indicates, is in its broadest sense the following of Christ. Who notably did not blindly follow the OT law.

And I continue to fail to see what relevance this has to the video <_<

(EDIT: Very much thanks to whoever split this off! ^_^)
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


Oniya

#13
Quote from: Silk on August 28, 2010, 03:22:51 AM
Its entirely relevant, because if Christians were to follow their book entirely, with no breaks or critical thinking involved. As much as people like to pretend it isnt, the old testament is still part of the bible, so if you are to follow it in its ENTIRITY then that would include the old testament. If it was a seperate book you might have cause for arguement, but it isn't.

But Christians do no blindly follow the bible to the letter, and as such. The Abhorrent practices seen within it are not continued.

I'm not a Biblical scholar either, although I did take a semester of Biblical Study in college - after coming out of the 'broom closet'.  I also went through Catholic religious education through 8th grade.

There are several places in the New Testament where the 'Old Covenant', i.e., that made with Moses, is said to be supplanted by the 'New Covenant', i.e., that made by the intercession of Jesus.  Specifically, in the Epistles, it is said that Gentiles are not under the jurisdiction of the Pentateuch: "I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (Gal.2:14).  The Old Testament is included as part of the history of the religion - how they got to where they are now - and in the New Testament, there is a profound shift that, as described in its text, caused a lot of turmoil. 

It's no different from an American History book describing the events prior to and including the Civil War.  Does that make that American History book abhorrent, just because it talks of condoned slavery, and then describes how the country has moved beyond it?

(By the way, Brandon - I really liked that analogy.)
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

HairyHeretic

Wasn't there a guy in recent years made a book or film about his experiences of spending a year following every rule in the Bible?
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Neroon

OK, it's a long time since I argued theology but here goes.  Please accept my apologies if the follwoing wall o' text is a bit garbled or sounds like a sermon; I'm sort of thinking aloud, and thinking in the religious mode brings back rhetorical habits which I forewent two decades ago.

Mainstream Christian belief is that the Old Testament  is not to be taken literally, either as a historical document or as a book of law.  It is provided as a resource of traditions so that the teaching of the New Testament can be understood in context.  Consequently, the OT contains not only the mythology of the Jewish people but also the development of their laws and also of their understanding of God.  This has to be the case in any document that is collated over thousands of years.

No doubt someone will try and say, "Ah, but isn't the Bible supposed to be written as a result of divine revelation and therefore can't  be false?"  Well, I would say then, yes and no.  The thing about divine revelation is that it is analagous to a parent talking to his or her child.  When I explain things to my two-year-old son I use very different concepts and tones than I do when I explain to my sixteen-year-old daughter.  With the two yeal old I am much more authoritarian and much less nuanced than when I talk to the sixteen year old.  It has to be like that because no matter how intelligent my son might be (and like every father I hope my child is very intelligent indeed) he simply lacks the knowledge and experience to be able to cope with more nuanced understandings.  Thus I tell him "Don't play with the electricity sockets, it's naughty, dangerous and you could die," while I am quite happy to teach my daughter how to wire a plug and discuss the relative merits of residual current circuit breakers and earth leakage circuit breakers.  He life and experience allows her to access the deeper and more nuanced understanding.

So we look at the beginnings of the OT and we see documents that were written for a primitive and nomadic society.  There may well have been some incredibly intelligent and talented people in it but, on the whole we're looking at a society that was just coming out of the stone age and into the Bronze age.  In what way would such a society be able to accept or understand the concepts which guide our modern society?  Much of what we consider to be necessary rules for civilised living would be met with blank incomprehension.

While the OT may not be particularly relevant to today's living, it is still important to see how the ideas therein developed.  In doing so, we gain a better understanding of current ideas and are therefore better able to understand them.  Thus we see a system in the OT which is excessively legalistic with a whole plethora of rules to cover every situation that the Isrealites might have had to deal with.  As the society evolved, the philosophy changed from the authoritan one of the OT to one which requires greater understanding in the NT.  All of the OT commandments (and there are a whole lot more than just ten) are condensed to the priciple of love: to love God and to love one's neighbour as oneself (for those obsessed with references you can find it in Matthew 22: 34-36, Mark 12: 28-34 and Luke 10: 25-28).  This is the fulfillment of the law of which Christ spoke.

Living with a guiding principle which you have to interpret isn't easy; it's hard.  There's none of the comfy certainty there that atheists often claim that Christians cling to, you have to work it out for yourself, which is scary stuff.  After all, you might get it wrong.  It's no surprise, therefore, that while much of the OT is set out as law, much of the NT is set as teaching, to furnish those that believe with the necessary understanding with which to apply the principle of love.  Again, you can see this transition as you look through the OT, with the teaching in the Book of Proverbs and later in the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon (the lack of which makes protestant bibles all the poorer).  It's not as expansive and is more authoritarian than the Pauline epistles but it shows the evolution of ideas.

So following that evolution of thought, Christianity is not meant to be a matter of blindly following rules. Judiasm was but Christianity wasn't.  Christian's are called to be obedient to the principle of love but not blindly obedient to the laws laid down in the OT: that's why Christians can eat pork and don't have to be circumcised, to give but two examples.  Inevitably, people will succumb to the temptation to go back to the legalistic living of the OT, after all people like certainty.  However, in doing so, they move away from the Christian ideal and, if they start using their rules as clubs with which to batter and beat and otherwise bully others into conforming to their twisted version of Christianity, they are not fit to own the name, Christian.

In the end, it's not the Bible nor Christianity nor- to widen things- religion in general that makes people blindly follow rules, it's basic human nature.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

My yeas and nays     Grovelling Apologies     Wiki
Often confused for some guy

Jude

#16
I could dig out plenty of quotes that encourage blind obedience in the bible, but unless someone would actually be convinced by such, I'm not gonna bother.  I have a feeling if I did, the argument would simply be about literalism as has been debated thus far.

It seems to me that biblical non-literalists forget the reason why biblical literalists believe what they do:  once you accept that something is fallible it becomes a question of "where does doubt stop?"  All of the arguments Neroon put forth about why the OT should be greeted with skepticism and doubt easily extend into the NT as well, as times have changed just as much going from the OT to the NT as they have from the NT to now.  Literalists know that once you open the door, further non-biased analysis and critical thinking leads to a rejection (or at the very least a deemphasis) on all of the tough-to-believe, supernatural, and faith-based concepts in the bible.

Or in short:  when you start cutting away non-logical and inconvenient with a scalpel, by the time you're done carving up the NT there isn't much left.  Any church who rigidly applies logical principles while accepting doctrinal fallibility may as well be distributing the Jefferson Bible for Sunday selected readings.

EDIT:  Edited upon request.

Brandon

#17
If you were to trim away aspects of the bible that no longer apply to society, lets say slavery for example. How does that stop one from believing in the, as you put it, "supernatural" events?

Edit: Also lets not refer to it as nonsense, I find that kind of offensive. If you like we could just call it things that dont make sense
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Jude

Because when you realize that some claims being made within the bible are inaccurate, false, or no longer applicable, you have to ask yourself why the same logic can't be applied to the entire book.  And given that there is no evidence to support the claims therein, admitting fault exposes a big chink in the armor of faith.  That's why fundamentalists exist.

Brandon

When in the case of any past document that governs a culture, the culture looks at it for guidance. Very similar to how the United states looks to the constitution to figure out what is within the power of the government or what kinds of rights the people have. In the case of religion and their own cultural evolution sometimes a situation comes up where they must rely on their religious texts to figure out how to deal with a specific situation. If there is only 1 mention of that subject in the entire text then theres really no wiggle room for them until the culture as a whole moves away from it (like christianity has done with slavery)

When a situation becomes irrelavant for any reason, that only means that the religion doesnt need to address it anymore. Its not a matter of whats true or false in that case, its a matter of does it still apply to the culture?

Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Neroon

I hinted, though I did not overtly state, that the reason fundamentalists exist is because they do not want to exercise their intelligence and will not try to live according to the principle and instead would rather legislate and I am not attempting to suggest in any way that all Christians view the evolving scripture model that I described.  The reason I presented it was to counterbalance the impression that had been given by others in this thread that all Christians are bigots that blindly follow rules that were written for a society that existed over 4000 years ago.  The point I was making that the Bibe talks of obedience to God, not to the words written therein.  No this might sound like a very fine hair but is a valid distinction, if you're talking about Christians.  Those who own the name base their beliefs on the actions of Christ as described in the gospels.  It is interesting that those who crucified him and who persecuted his followers were those who believed in blind obedience to the words written in scripture.  What does that tell you of the views of the Christ presented in the gospels to blind obedience to words written on paper?

I agree that the world has indeed changed since the time of the gospels, indeed, it has changed much more than it had to between the writing of the Pentateuch and the first century A.D.  However, our aility to interpret the principle of love has not.  If the cornerstone of your philosophy is that you have towork out for yourself how to apply the principle of loving God and then loving others as yourself to each situation you find youself, what more needs to be added to scripture?  It has taken us to the point where we have to be accountable for ourselves, where we use our intellects to judge each situation on its merits and then decide the right thing to do.

Where does the doubt end for me?  It doesn't.  However, I don't see doubt as a chink in the armour of my faith, I see it as a strength.  Doubt forces us to reevaluate our choices and if that evaluation shows up a fault in my choices I can do something to change it.

Just one thing I'd like to know, why is it so important to convince me that Christianity is wrong?  After all, I'm not trying to convince anyone it's right, I'm just trying to correct a misconception that Christians automatically and blindly follow everything written in the Bible.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

My yeas and nays     Grovelling Apologies     Wiki
Often confused for some guy

Jude

Quote from: Neroon on August 28, 2010, 05:45:17 PM
Where does the doubt end for me?  It doesn't.  However, I don't see doubt as a chink in the armour of my faith, I see it as a strength.  Doubt forces us to reevaluate our choices and if that evaluation shows up a fault in my choices I can do something to change it.

Just one thing I'd like to know, why is it so important to convince me that Christianity is wrong?  After all, I'm not trying to convince anyone it's right, I'm just trying to correct a misconception that Christians automatically and blindly follow everything written in the Bible.
I find your positions admirable and I am not seeking to convince you that Christianity is wrong.  My comments weren't aimed at someone with a position like yours, but at the kind of believer who resists, abhors, and denies doubt outside of the areas where they deem it acceptable for some indecipherable reason.

Faith isn't dangerous, absolute certainty is.

Neroon

Quote from: Jude on August 28, 2010, 06:02:41 PM
Faith isn't dangerous, absolute certainty is.

I'm absolutely certain you're right.

Sorry, couldn't resist it :p
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

My yeas and nays     Grovelling Apologies     Wiki
Often confused for some guy

Noelle

To my knowledge, the comparison between the Bible and the Constitution isn't entirely apt...I don't believe there are certain sections of the Constitution we ignore if society no longer needs it. If there is, I am honestly unaware of it. There are different amendments made and so forth, but the Bible has so many different translations and versions whereas the United States upholds but one Constitution. I suppose it's up to judges to make a "translation" thereof in various court cases, but their translations stem from one agreed-upon version of the document whereas you will get a million different answers talking to any given Christian as to what they believe is and is not relevant.

I guess this in of itself confuses me; just how irrelevant can the Bible become, and if it's the word of God, then what does that say of the influence the book should or should not have? If society's norms speak louder than the texts in a supposed holy book, what does that say of the religion it supports? Why should a person look towards it for guidance when the more influential source is what society is doing? It sounds to me like the Bible would be better written as a textbook that gets updated every few years (a la college students...can you imagine?) to reflect what should and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Serephino

I guess the best example of what I was saying would be the story of Jonah.  I can't remember what he was supposed to do, but he decided to disobey God.  Then God had him swallowed by a whale and carried to where he was supposed to go.  So yes, the choice is yours, but there will be negative consequences if you don't follow the rules.

I guess the rules depend on what detonation you are.  Catholics are the strictest I think, and I will never understand them.  The church I went to was Methodist.  In that church the sermons came from both OT and NT.  I do remember though on Rosh Hashanna (sp?) or otherwise known as Jewish New Years, we learned about it in Sunday School, and even went to a nearby river and threw dirt into it.  I felt really silly.

Before we attended the Methodist church, I went to Sunday School at a Lutheran church.  They focused mostly on the OT.  More than once I wondered why Jewish history was relevant to Christians.  Then I found out that the OT and the Torah are practically the same book and became really confused as to why it's included in the Bible.     

Brandon

I think your example misses the point. When you're trying to prove or disprove something about a culture the culture has to be judged on its merits and actions in the current form. By using the bible as the sole piece of evidence, or really any text that guides a culture, you're limiting that culture and your own view point. It would be like if I used the constitution of the united states to try and prove that American culture encourages arrogance

To put it another way, you have to look at the culture itself. Not the documents, scriptures, contracts, history, etc that it was formed from
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Noelle

Culture comes from people. If religion plays a large role in the way a person tries to live their life (as most religions tend to do), then a culture is indirectly shaped by religion on some level. If the Bible is including things such as slavery and selling your daughter, then how did we, as a culture, decide that it's no longer relevant? My questions aren't merely rhetorical, I'm actually wondering why certain things are okay to disregard because the culture has deemed it so (and not the religion itself) and not others, and just what that does for actual relevancy. If one part of the Bible is irrelevant, it could conceivably be that the whole thing is irrelevant. It really starts to put into question the credibility of the book to begin with and, by proxy, the credibility of those who draw on it for certain things (note that I'm not saying everything). If sections of the Bible are no longer in use, then couldn't it say that so-called Christian morals are merely just trendy? If the book itself loses meaning, then where exactly is the religion deriving its messages? A person would think that the creator of everything ever might've had a little foresight as to making a lasting holy book. :P

Brandon

Quote from: Noelle on August 29, 2010, 03:55:27 AM
Culture comes from people. If religion plays a large role in the way a person tries to live their life (as most religions tend to do), then a culture is indirectly shaped by religion on some level. If the Bible is including things such as slavery and selling your daughter, then how did we, as a culture, decide that it's no longer relevant?

I dont know, but Im sure there are a number of historians that could answer your questions. I surmize that the acceptance of slavery changed as the religion moved out of the middle east and toward Europe. As monarchy's were in control at the time and warred a lot, I think christianity's idea of if your a good person youll go to heaven and if youre a bad person youll go to hell was a view point that the citizens liked. If monarchs would tyrannize the people and tax people into starvation they would recieve a divine punishment despite their status.

That still asks the question, why did the transfer from the middle east to European countries change views on slavery? Well I really dont know

Quote from: Noelle on August 29, 2010, 03:55:27 AM
My questions aren't merely rhetorical, I'm actually wondering why certain things are okay to disregard because the culture has deemed it so (and not the religion itself) and not others, and just what that does for actual relevancy. If one part of the Bible is irrelevant, it could conceivably be that the whole thing is irrelevant. It really starts to put into question the credibility of the book to begin with and, by proxy, the credibility of those who draw on it for certain things (note that I'm not saying everything). If sections of the Bible are no longer in use, then couldn't it say that so-called Christian morals are merely just trendy? If the book itself loses meaning, then where exactly is the religion deriving its messages? A person would think that the creator of everything ever might've had a little foresight as to making a lasting holy book. :P

Let me ask you a counter question, because one of the amendments of the constitution was overturned and became irrelevant (Im talking about prohibition here) does that somehow make the entire constitution irrelevant? Does it harm its credibility or call the entire document into question?

Someone might argue its different being the constitution is a document that basicly is the law of the the United states. However I would argue that in that same context the Quran is the law of Islam, or the bible the law of christianity, or the Kama sutra (they have another sacred text but I dont remember the name of it) the law of Hinduism
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Silk

Quote from: Brandon on August 29, 2010, 04:34:04 AM
That still asks the question, why did the transfer from the middle east to European countries change views on slavery? Well I really dont know

Someone might argue its different being the constitution is a document that basicly is the law of the the United states. However I would argue that in that same context the Quran is the law of Islam, or the bible the law of christianity, or the Kama sutra (they have another sacred text but I dont remember the name of it) the law of Hinduism

Because initially it was the push against the Greek cities that dispised the idea of becoming slaves and fought back against the persian empire. Then when they got pushed through, the barbarian tribes of Europe never really stayed still when enslaved and thanks to things such as spartacus. With the fall of the roman empire, slavery was removed from alot of the societies for a time until the Black Slave trade, which ultimately ended the practice.

And there is a law of Islam, its called Sharia law. Which involves rape victims being stoned to death in the more extreme circumstances.

Neroon

Is there not a false here which is then expanded upon to create a false sense of insecurity.  The implied false assumption is that all things in a culture descend from what is written in that culture's scriptures.  It's been said that this is "on some level" but then then it is made to seem as if the effects of scripture are on every level.  Just as a child comes to life with his or her own innate characteristics which a good parent will cultivate (if they are beneficial) or curb (if they are not), so too will cultures have their own innate characteristics.  If scripture is then to mold that culture then it must, of necessity, discuss the issues within that culture.

Using the parent child analogy, if you are ever to develop a child's ability to think for himself, then you start of in an authoritarian mode with the basics and then work with what's there and engage with it.  While Abraham and his ilk held slaves, their descendents learned the horror of slavery themselves at the hands of the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians and the Romans.  Stories that tell of slaves escaping bondage, such as that in Exodus, are not en exhortation to hold slaves and are instead a message that slavery is to be abhorred.  Moreover, they hold a relevance to anyone oppressed by slavery, for they affirm the slave's right to be free and give hope that freedom can be won.  It is no wonder that when you look at the struggle of African Americans to move from slavery to equality, much of the imagery used to condemn slavery and to maintain hope in the rightness of the cause is Biblical.  Whichever way you cut it, it does show that those words, written in the time of the Pharoahs, are still relevant.  I would say that that would be a book that has lasted long enough for most people.

The fact that others have misused the Bible does not call the credibility of the Bible into question any more than the fact that science was used to create weapons that have killied billions discredits science.  As I said in an earlier post, the OT is there in the Bible to put the teaching of the NT in context.  Those that neglect to learn history are doomed to repeat it.  The temptation for Christians is to return to the security of rules and regulations rather than use their own critical faculties to interpret those two great commandments from Christ of which all the others are implications.  The meaning of those is not invalidated by the history and mythology that preceded them any more than Kepler's findings about the solar system is invalidated by his stubborn belief in perfect solids and that the planets should be bound by that doctrine. He had the courage to say, "Nice idea but the facts fit something else", much as Christ did not abolish the OT law but fulfill it when he decided that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.  He took the greater commandment of love and saw that it superseded the pharasaical rigour with which the Sabbath was being kept.

I must admit, I had thought that the discussion is about whether the Bible encourages Christians to blindly follow rules.  While it might be interesting to consider the effects of the scriptures of different religions on the cultures where those religions predominate, it is hardly germane to the discussion at hand, especially if one is going to take extreme examples from cultures that seem not to have regressed in the last seven hundred years.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

My yeas and nays     Grovelling Apologies     Wiki
Often confused for some guy

Jude

Comparisons between the Constitution and Religious Dogma fall flat when you realize the bible is supposed to be an account of truth and the Constitution is a set of legal principles formulated as an ends to a mean (more specifically, to create a just society).  Weand  can amend the constitution and not worry about having an impact on its purpose because we're coming closer to a more perfect union by recognizing the fault and correcting it.  The goal of the constitution is practical:  its objective is to create the best society possible.

The bible has no such goal, it's intended to be a record of fact.  Amending fact, or your interpretation of it, to create "better" fact is a thereby admitting the old truths were wrong.  Continuing to stick staunchly to a belief system and ignoring all doubt except in the areas you reject would be like hearing a scientific study that proves "a" and "b," you accept the premises as a result, then "b" gets disproven, but you still wholeheartedly cling to "a."  It's true that "a" is not necessarily false, but you have good reason to doubt it.

In the example of the Constitution, needing to pass an amendment could make you wonder about other provisions, and whether or not they too could use refinement.  For good reason, I think.  So I suppose the metaphor may be more apt than I realized, at least in that sense.  There's still a very large difference between the two:  one claims to be the divine inspired word of god and the other is an attempt at setting up a successful system of government.

RubySlippers

Christian Anarchists are easy on this we have the Words of Christ and God with the Holy Spirit teaching us and guiding us, who needs any mortal man or woman over us telling us what God wants.

And God can add to our knowledge and understanding I don't feel tied to books written almost or over 2000 years ago, Jesus however is the Way to God and only His teachings matter.

So I would say I'm obediant to God, not men or women that place themselves between Him and myself.

Neroon

It was said earlier that absolute certainty is dangerous.  I'm seeing a great deal of absolute certainty about what the Bible is, mainly in the form of: "The Bible is... ...therefore it's wrong."  This is not the approach employed by those who seek to understand or debate, it is rather that used by thoese who wish to ridicule or debunk.  To find such rigidity of thinking in avowed sceptics is frankly astonishing.  The first thing I learned was to be doutful of everything but above all to doubt most that which my heart cherishes, for such things are raely subjected to a true critical review. 

The pronouncements I've seen about the nature of Bible here do not seem to admit the possibility that they might be wrong, which speaks more of dogma than scepticism.  It has been repeated that the Bible is supposed to be truth or record of facts.  This is not the case.  Were it so, then there would be no place in the Bible for the poetry of the Psalms or the prophecies of Isaiah, Malachi, St John and so forth.  Neither poetry nor prophecy can be considered as recors of fact, unless you take it merely as a record of fact that someone said something like that once upon a time.

When I read Genesis, for example, I don't read it thinking that it's a historical account; to do so would require that I had given up my ability to reason.  However, I do read it as an account of what the Isrealites believed, because understanding the belief helps me understand the society to which Christ preached, which can only help me understand that teaching better. So yes, you can say the Bible is truth, but to do so, you need to emply a nuanced meaning of truth, one which I suspect you are not using.  The poetry, philosophy, mythology, teaching and transcribed oral histories presented in the Bible all have their truths.  However, the nature of truth for each one is different and I do not pretend to be that much of an expert to know beyond all doubt which is which.  Instead, I have to apply my reason to judge and determine how to interpret what I read in the Bible, which is, funnily enough, the same as I do with any other book.

It has been said that the aim if the writing of the Bible was not to create the best society possible.  Were that the case, then the book and its attached religion would be worthless.  The whole point of Christianity is salvation both in this life and the next.   Of course we've not got it right any more than any of the constitutions have done so.  To hearken back to an earlier post, how then might the divine word of God be require revision?  The answer is simple, the society to which that word was addressed changed (one would hope as a result of listening) and therefore the next words need to be different.  That neither invalidates the first words nor precludes the possibility of further refinements.

I think in the end, what's happening here is that in the end, the various people here are talking at cross purposes.  My initial intention was to address the title of the thread, to show that Christianity does not automatically mean blind obedience.  Since then, however, it seems that the thread has mutated into a discussion of the nature of the Bible, which is not strictly within the remit of this discussion.  I would note that the Bible's nature is evident to anyone who can read and the wit to reason.  Whether or not it is, in addition, divinely inspired is a blind ally which will only produce entrenched positions and frayed tempers and be ultimately counterproductive.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

My yeas and nays     Grovelling Apologies     Wiki
Often confused for some guy

Jude

What you say is reasonable Neroon, but it's not accurate when it comes to mainstream Christian dogma.  In fact, the evolving interpretation of the bible you are describing is moral relativism, which the Pope (the leader of the biggest group of Christians Worldwide) believes is the greatest evil of the 21st century.

Neroon

#34
Please don't use an appeal to authority, Jude, to tell me what you think mainstream Christian doctrine is, especially when there are a signifiacant number of Catholics who disagree with the current Pope's opinions not to mention the beliefs of the Protestant and Orthodox churches, who don't accept his authority.

I'm not talking about the Bible needing to continue to evolve, for I have already said that it doesn't need to.  For having reached the point where Christ gave us guiding principle of loving God first and our neighbours as ourselves second, there is no further need for evolution. The fact that a significant number of Christians have the same mindset as I do means that Christianity does not necessarily require blind obedience to everything in the Bible, which is the point of the discussion is it not?

Edited to deal with crap typing
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

My yeas and nays     Grovelling Apologies     Wiki
Often confused for some guy

Jude

It's not an appeal to authority.  Catholicism's official stance is determined by the Pope:  he's the earthly head of the religion.  You're saying his opinion doesn't determine Mainstream Dogma is outright false.  Papal religious opinions are infallible according to the rules of Catholicism, the edicts of the church made by him determine doctrine.  If Catholics disagree with him, that's nice, but by definition they are wrong as long as they remain Catholic.

Oniya

Christian does not equal Catholic.  Catholicism is a subset of Christianity, and considering the number of Protestant sects, I doubt it's even a majority subset.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Jude

It's not the majority, but it's the largest subset.  There are over a billion Catholics worldwide; that's 1/7 of the earth's population.

Pumpkin Seeds

Moral relativism believes that there is no right or wrong simply that all beliefs are valid and can be true.  There is no truth to be had.  Neroon is not making an argument in favor of that concept.  The argument he made is that the Bible operates as a continuum where the interpretation of the true meaning changes as people delve deeper into understanding the words.  The Truth exists but we must move forward in order to understand.  Neroon is wrong in believing that Jude is attempting to make an appeal to authority, instead he is attempting to falsely label an argument in order to force a contradiction with the Pope.  Neroon has outlined a beautiful interpretation of the Bible, one that will hopefully be mimicked by others.

The Protestant Reformation should be proof enough that Christians do not follow blindly.  An entire sect of Christianity was formed because people were displeased with their Church and the path they felt they were taking.  The many ideas, philosophies and writings that emerge from people with religious backgrounds should further uphold this point.  Among the Catholic Church alone are many Orders and Nunneries, each with their own stated missions and emphasis on what is valued.  There is a great diversity in thought and action among Catholics.  They are not to be easily pressed into a mold.

Oniya

Ooh - this is interesting (found while looking up 'Papal Authority')

Quote from: Catholic Encyclopediainfallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

    * The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
    * Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
    * Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
    * Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm  Emphasis mine.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Neroon

Actually Jude, yes it is an apeal to authority.  You're saying that because the Pope believes differently, it's not mainstream.  So you are using the authority of the Pope to justify your opinion.  That's plain and simple.  You have a reputation for rigour and honesty that means I really didn't expect such a tactic nor you to attempt to wriggle out of by trying to perpetrate the myth that the Catholics speak for all Christians.

As Oniya said, Catholicism isn't the definition of the mainstream of Christianity.  If you look at it historically, Rome is one of the five Patriarchates of the original Church and split from the other four over a number of things, not least the Roman patriarch wanting to be supreme over the others and the introduction of a word into the Roman version of Nicene creed that could be implied as a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (I believe the word might be filioque but I digress).  Now those churches got into the whole which is the right one or not and ended up adopting the terms Orthodox (i.e correct) and Catholic (i.e. Universal) much as the different manufacturers of Swiss Army Knives have adopted the terms Original and Genuine.  Just as the neither one of the Swiss Army Knives can reliably claim that they really are original or genuine, the Cathilics cannot claim to be the universal church anymore than the Orthodox can claim to be the only right church.  When you add the whole gamut of Protestants to the mix, then the situation becomes even murkier as to what the mainstream of Christian thought is.

Generally, the mainstream would be that Christ died to save us all, if we but ask for it, the idea that this salvation by grace and not by good works and those two commandments that I have repeated in this thread enough times that those reading must be becoming sick of seeing them: to love God first and to love our neighbours as ourselves second.  More than that, there's discussion and argument: as I pointed out above, even the Creed is not common ground.  Just because one segment is larger than the others it does not make it the majority nor does it have the right to speak for the others.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

My yeas and nays     Grovelling Apologies     Wiki
Often confused for some guy

Shoshana

#41
Quote from: DarklingAlice on August 28, 2010, 02:00:33 AMDon't forget that although a non-Christian now, I was educated by the Church and still remember both my scripture and catechism. Obedience to god is a major theme, and the primary virtue of both Abraham and the Virgin Mary.

Since Abraham is part of Jewish scriptures (which Christians later adopted), I thought I'd interject a Jewish viewpoint here.  ;)

To Jews, one of Abraham's greatest moments came when he argued with G-d, pleading for the people of Sodom. Abraham reminded G-d that the Judge of all the world must Himself be just.

And Jews are quite ambivilent to Abraham's near-sacrifice of Isaac. While some Jewish commentaries praise his faith and obedience to G-d's command, other Jewish commentaries take Abraham to task--why would he argue for the lives of strangers, yet fall silent when the life of his own son was at stake?

(For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter if there's any historical accuracy to the story of Abraham. It works just fine as mythology.)

But Jews have a long history of arguing with G-d. Abraham did for the sake of Sodom, Moses did for the sake of the Jewish people. But it doesn't end there.

There's a famous rabbinic story about a group of rabbis arguing over whether a particular stove had been properly kashered--in other words, was it ok for cooking kosher food? One lone rabbi--Rabbi Elizer--insisted that it was, and called upon G-d's miracles to prove it. If he was right, G-d would make a tree uproot itself and a river flow backward and so forth. G-d performed all these miracles--and yet the other rabbis were still unimpressed.

Finally Rabbi Elizer called upon the Divine Voice to prove his point and, sure enough, a voice from heaven confirmed that Rabbi Elizer was right.

But the other rabbis still would not accept Rabbi Elizer's opinion. They called right back to the Divine Voice, saying, "The Torah is not in heaven!"

The meaning we take from this story is that the Torah is here with us now, down here on earth--it's our responsibility to read it and interpret it. It's our duty to argue with each other about our interpretations and to judge strictly on the merits of the argument--G-d doesn't get a vote. No Voice from Heaven can compel us to do something against our own best judgment.

That's not to say that obeying G-d has no place in Judaism--far from it. It's just that arguing with G-d, when our best judgment requires it, is important and admirable too.

So the upshot of this is that obedience to G-d was only one of Abraham's virtues (and, in the case of the near-sacrifice of Isaac, a much contested virtue). Arguing with G-d was a virtue of his as well. Remembering only the obedience is remembering only one part of the story.
The door's open but the ride it ain't free.

~Bruce Springsteen

Jude

#42
Quote from: Pumpkin SeedsMoral relativism believes that there is no right or wrong simply that all beliefs are valid and can be true.  There is no truth to be had.  Neroon is not making an argument in favor of that concept.  The argument he made is that the Bible operates as a continuum where the interpretation of the true meaning changes as people delve deeper into understanding the words.  The Truth exists but we must move forward in order to understand.  Neroon is wrong in believing that Jude is attempting to make an appeal to authority, instead he is attempting to falsely label an argument in order to force a contradiction with the Pope.  Neroon has outlined a beautiful interpretation of the Bible, one that will hopefully be mimicked by others.
What you describing above is not moral relativism.  Moral nihilism is the belief that claims there is no right or wrong, not moral relativism.  Moral relativism claims that morals exist within a particular time and place and that moral beliefs are determined largely by culture and setting.  This is exactly what Brandon was describing when he mentioned the bits about slavery, etc.
Quote from: Pumpkin SeedsThe Protestant Reformation should be proof enough that Christians do not follow blindly.  An entire sect of Christianity was formed because people were displeased with their Church and the path they felt they were taking.  The many ideas, philosophies and writings that emerge from people with religious backgrounds should further uphold this point.  Among the Catholic Church alone are many Orders and Nunneries, each with their own stated missions and emphasis on what is valued.  There is a great diversity in thought and action among Catholics.  They are not to be easily pressed into a mold.
The Pope's authority in the church is absolute.  I'm sure there are those who disagree with him, but he sets the agenda and official opinions for the entirety of the church.  Disagreement doesn't change doctrine or dogma.  I was never arguing about individual opinion.
Quote from: Neroon on August 29, 2010, 04:56:06 PM
Actually Jude, yes it is an apeal to authority.  You're saying that because the Pope believes differently, it's not mainstream.  So you are using the authority of the Pope to justify your opinion.  That's plain and simple.  You have a reputation for rigour and honesty that means I really didn't expect such a tactic nor you to attempt to wriggle out of by trying to perpetrate the myth that the Catholics speak for all Christians.
You seem to be glossing over a very important part of what I said, they key word here is dogma.  Dogma is not determined by the opinions of laypersons.  I was not making the argument that because the Pope believes x, the entire Catholic congregation believes x (I can recognize that's a fallacy), I was making the argument that because the Pope has stated x in an official capacity the dogma reflects it.  I'm not debating the opinions of the masses because I don't have the numbers to do so.
Quote from: Neroon on August 29, 2010, 04:56:06 PMAs Oniya said, Catholicism isn't the definition of the mainstream of Christianity.  If you look at it historically, Rome is one of the five Patriarchates of the original Church and split from the other four over a number of things, not least the Roman patriarch wanting to be supreme over the others and the introduction of a word into the Roman version of Nicene creed that could be implied as a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (I believe the word might be filioque but I digress).  Now those churches got into the whole which is the right one or not and ended up adopting the terms Orthodox (i.e correct) and Catholic (i.e. Universal) much as the different manufacturers of Swiss Army Knives have adopted the terms Original and Genuine.  Just as the neither one of the Swiss Army Knives can reliably claim that they really are original or genuine, the Cathilics cannot claim to be the universal church anymore than the Orthodox can claim to be the only right church.  When you add the whole gamut of Protestants to the mix, then the situation becomes even murkier as to what the mainstream of Christian thought is.
You're right, but there is no universal church.  Christianity represents an umbrella of religions which is split into pieces by denomination.  They all have one thing in common:  the bible.  However, each denomination uses different translations.  Furthermore, every single religious individual has their own interpretations on top of that.  Take Brandon for instance, he identifies as Catholic but he's against their policies on homosexuals.  It's kind of meaningless (and completely impossible) in my opinion to discuss the beliefs of individuals while ignoring the source of those beliefs:  the Church's dogma.
Quote from: Neroon on August 29, 2010, 04:56:06 PMGenerally, the mainstream would be that Christ died to save us all, if we but ask for it, the idea that this salvation by grace and not by good works and those two commandments that I have repeated in this thread enough times that those reading must be becoming sick of seeing them: to love God first and to love our neighbours as ourselves second.  More than that, there's discussion and argument: as I pointed out above, even the Creed is not common ground.  Just because one segment is larger than the others it does not make it the majority nor does it have the right to speak for the others.
If the largest segment of Christianity that composes 1/7 of the entire world has written in its dogma what I said, that's a pretty good indication that it's a mainstream doctrinal concept.  Also, when the Pope said what he did about "moral relativism" it was during mass:  it was given in an official capacity.

Don't get me wrong.  I agree with you guys that a good number of Christians don't believe in a literal interpretation of the bible (though I don't know how high the percentages are), but it seems very disingenuous to me to claim that "Christianity" doesn't, considering there is no universal Christianity and the concept is part of the text that defines many denominations of the church.  There are also numerous quotes throughout (to bring this back to the original point) that demand obedience.  However, this is an argument that I've had before on E, and last time we talked about whether or not Christianity encourages blind faith it devolved into a discussion that went no where.

The truth of the matter is, there are some sects of Christianity that don't encourage blind faith.  There are some that do.  Just as there are some groups which believe in biblical literalism and those that do not.  There are Christians who make the world a better place to live in and there are those who exist as a force of self-righteousness and negativity.  Trying to paint an entire group one way or the other is an exercise in futility, especially with something as nebulous and difficult to comprehend as someone's personal religion, which has everything to do with practice not theory.

There are a great number of Christians in the world who are deserving of not simply tolerance, but respect.  I'd include nearly every Christian I've argued with on E in that group, Brandon, Neroon, and everyone else, you guys are incredibly forward-thinking and progressive.  In Brandon's case, he's doing his best to change the Catholic Church from within:  that is incredibly admirable.  My issue is not with you, but with the institutions and individuals that support the more obtuse Christian concepts.

I have to admit that when the discussion first started I assumed that several people were supporting a literal interpretation because of the discussion going on.  I'm finding that's a dangerous road to take, even if it seems rational at the time.  Just because someone is giving the beginning of an argument that you think you know where it ends doesn't mean it's fair or correct to assume the ending.  I was wrong to do so, but please extend the same courtesy to me.  In religious discussions time and time again people assume I'm trying to convince people to walk away from their faith, that I am claiming their beliefs are false, etc., but I never actually have said any of that.  It isn't what I believe.

I'm a dedicated agnostic, I place emphasis on doubt and not knowing.  I don't much care what other people believe so long as it does hurt other people, but I'm finding that the more extreme religious ideologies that eschew doubt also tend to be the groups that are more likely to impress their beliefs on culture, society, and government.  Living in America where religious belief is mainstream and its incorporation into public life is becoming increasingly prevalent colors my arguments, perhaps unfairly when I deal with people like Neroon who couldn't be farther from that sentiment.

Noelle

I feel like a question has largely gone unanswered, at least from me. What role does the Bible play in Christianity?

I guess I become confused at this part, so here's a breakdown of my thinking -- to my knowledge, the Bible is supposedly the word of God and the teachings of Christ. If parts of the Bible become irrelevant, what stops the whole book from becoming irrelevant? If there is something that prevents it from becoming irrelevant, then where are the lines drawn as to what is okay to ignore? If society deems which parts of it are no longer useful, then what does that say of society's power versus a holy book?

What's different between the Bible and the Constitution (among other things) is that when the Constitution is amended, the amendment made is made by men for a man-made doctrine. The Bible is never actually formally amended in a universally-accepted manner except to say X and Y groups don't agree with certain parts, not to mention the amendments are made by man/society for a document that is supposedly supposed to be divine or some such. It's a little bigger deal, it seems, when you're dealing with religion/God.

I don't actually know what I intend to prove on this point except to say I'm curious to know how Christians deal with these issues. Like Jude, I'm not here to axe anyone's beliefs, by all means believe as you'd like, but to me, these feel like rather confusing issues with no clear answer.

Neroon

#44
Before I start, I would like to thank Shoshana for her excellent post.  It is always a wonderful experience to read  something that both illuminates one's personal knowledge and expands upon it greatly.  I learned a fair bit there and that's no bad thing.  Quite how this new knowledge will be assimilated into the mental construct that's my understanding of the world remains to be seen; I'll let you know, perhaps, in a month or so, after I've done some more reading.  In the meantime, I'll have to find a place to fit arguing with God into my perception of Judaism.

Right, onto the whole moral relativism pickle.  Firstly, I don't want words put into my mouth (or whatever the word processed version of the metaphor would be).  I have not, anywhere said that morality changes.  What I have said is that priorities in morality change and that to judge one's priorities, one must have some over-arching guiding principle, lest one be accused of making up morals to suit one's actions.  I further stated that for all Christians that should be the principle outlined in the two commandments which I keep repeating.  I'll quote them fully for once, using the version from in Mark 12:28-31 in my preferred translation, the RSV.  The same account also appears in Matthew and Luke also, which emphasises its importance.
Quote
And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the first of all?" Jesus answered, "The first is, `Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this, `You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."
Now I'm sure that Shoshana could correct me if I'm wrong but these two first appear in the Old Testament in Dueteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 9:18 respectively.  Now, to my knowledge, Jewish teahing at the time limited the definition of neighbour to other Jews.  Where the variation came was that Christ expanded the definition of neighbour to include everyone, as exemplified in the parable of the Good Samaritan, which was told when Christ was asked, "Who, then, is my neighbour?"

Now this is my very point: neither the morality nor the words have changed but our understanding has.  As I said, the OT is there to put the understanding of the NT in context, to show that continuous line of changing understanding and emphasis, the better that we may apply our own faculties to the moral problems which face us each and every day.  That is not moral relativism, its the illustration of the fact that we become better able to understand the underlying principles on which our various moral codes are based.  I believe I used the example of how I talk to my 2 year old son and my 16 year old daughter about electricity to illustrate this.  The message needs to be different for each because of their differing needs but, the underlying truth behind the words is the same.

I would hope that the above answers the question of what role the Bible plays in Christianity, if my previous posts have not done so adequately.  The Lord knows, I have tried to explain that point on several occasions; I must have not done a good job of it.  So here is another attempt, so that I've got all bases covered.  The Bible is the collection of the poetry, philosophy, mythology, transcribed oral histories and teaching that make up Christian belief.  It is divided into the Old Testament (provided to put the teaching of the New Testament into its right context) and the New Testament, which concerns the teaching of Christ and our understanding thereof.  A Christian would largely be concerned with the latter, obviously, though as I've noted the OT is necessary to properly understand the NT by showing the progression of our understanding up until the point where Christ gave us our new covenant with God.  The relevance of each part of the Bible depends on the context in which it is read.  When I answered about slavery, I described how the treatment of the Israelites in Egypt and how they dealt with it inspired many of the leaders of the civil rights movement.    This way in which relevance can be context dependant answers your question in an earlier post of how the creator of all things could create a book that could stand the test of time.

If, as a teacher, I change how I express concepts to suit the needs of my students, de-emphasising the maths when teaching force, mass and acceleration, does that make the children I teach in charge or does it mean that I am looking at them where they are and then addressing my teaching to that and not wasting my time with concepts they won't understand.  Hopefully, I will have moved them closer to eventually being able to understand those concepts.  Likewise, when I read the Bible, my understanding of what I read depends on my experience and knowledge to date.  That will, of course, be different than someone else's undeerstanding, even if that person is the same age and nationality and part of the same society as myself.

Anyway, today is a miracle.  It is an August Bank Holiday in which the sun is shining and the rain is not falling.  Such things occur all too rarely in Britain and so I shall go and make the best of it.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

My yeas and nays     Grovelling Apologies     Wiki
Often confused for some guy

Shoshana

#45
Quick response to Neroon from my blackberry--

I don't have a copy of my Tanakh with me--the Tanakh is what Christians refer to as 'the Old Testament'-- but yes, those mitzvot (commandments; the singular is mitzvah) come from the Torah, specifically from Leviticus and Deuteronomy. (The Torah is the first five books of the Tanakh, sometimes called the Books of Moses. Just to make things complicated, though, you can also use the word 'Torah' to refer to the totality of Jewish teaching.)

Anyway, when asked which mitzvah (traditionally there are 613, though most don't come into play in anyone's daily life) he thought was the most important, Jesus chose to start with the Sh'ma, the central proclamation of Judaism, which observant Jews recite three times a day;

Hear, O Israel, HaShem is our G-d, HaShem is one.

(HaShem simply means 'the Name'--it's a common stand in for the actual name of G-d used in Hebrew, called the Yod Heh Vav Heh after the Hebrew letters that form it.)

The Sh'ma continues with the mitzvah to love HaShem our G-d   with all our hearts and strength, mind, etc--and it continues from there, but Jesus skips the rest (or he would have been there for a while) and jumps over to another mitzvah: love your neighbor as yourself.

Neighbor, in this context, specifically means fellow Jew. There is another parallel mitzvah in the Torah, however, that refers to gentiles; we are commanded to be kind to the stranger in our midst, remembering that we ourselves were strangers in Egypt.

Today, we regard the mitzvah of loving your neighbor as yourself as referring both to fellow Jews and to any neighbor, again depending on context.There is a special familial bond among Jews--some Jews love it and some Jew hate it, finding it stifling--and that bond entails a certain responsibility toward each other.

But Judaism is never content to leave the matter there, because while it is very much concerned with the particular--with one people--it is also deeply concerned with the universal, with all creation and all humanity.

But there's an advantage I see to sometimes focusing just on the particular: Judaism does not hold that everyone should be Jewish. If you want to join this people, you're welcome to; there are plenty of Jews by choice. But we won't come knocking at your door with pamphlets. You don't have to be Jewish to be 'right with G-d.' No gentile is obligated to observe Shabbat (the Sabbath) or light Shabbat candles or keep kosher or say blessings over bread and wine, etc--well, not unless G-d commanded you to do so through your own religion.

But while Judaism doesn't think that everyone needs to be Jewish, we do think that all humanity has the same moral obligations. Religiously, be anything you like. Or be an atheist, even. (Heck, plenty of observant Jews are atheists or agnostics, and Judaism is fine with that.) But morally, let's all get on the same page: let's treat each other with dignity and respect.

Of course, we'll still argue about moral issues. Liberal Jews and Orthodox Jews argue about whether to perform gay marriages, for example. (The three liberal branches of Judaism do; the Orthodox so far don't--although, overall, homosexuality has never been the big deal in Judaism that it is in Christianity. That's a cultural thing: Christians are obsessed with sex, but Jews are obsessed with food, lol!)

Ok, now I'm far off topic. But you get the idea.
The door's open but the ride it ain't free.

~Bruce Springsteen

Neroon

Food is never off topic.

Thanks for another informative post.  Whether our religions agree or disagree, I'm really enjoying these.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

My yeas and nays     Grovelling Apologies     Wiki
Often confused for some guy

Will

The Bible does equate loving God with following his commandments, though.  I think that's a pretty clear example of expecting obedience. 
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

Pumpkin Seeds

The Bible also speaks of forgiveness and knowing that followers are only human.  This speaks to knowing that people will not be obedient to the Commandments and that God will still love them.  The question is not whether obedience is expected, because any organization that has rules expects people to adhere to them, but whether obedience is considered a Christian virtue.

Will

Well, fair enough.  It's kind of hard to tell exactly what the discussion is about, since there's no OP in the usual sense, and the thread is kind of all over the place.
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

Oniya

I went looking, and I can't find any reference to 'obedience' as a Christian virtue.  The Seven Heavenly Virtues are listed as either: (Chastity, Temperance, Charity, Diligence, Patience, Kindness, and Humility) or (Prudence, Justice, Restraint/Temperance, Courage/Fortitude, Faith, Hope, and Love/Charity).  The 'Knightly Virtues' include Devotion, which is kind of close, the Prussian Virtues do include Obedience, but I'm not sure how 'religious' (I believe Prussia was Lutheran at the time) those are - they may be more political than Biblical in origin.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Noelle

I would say Mary represents a pretty great figure of obedience, at least from where I'm standing. While it may not be explicitly stated, I still feel like it's very strong message all the same -- you can always choose not to obey, but you're expected to always come back to God to 'come clean', so to speak. I guess this is where I ask, in a perfect world, would God prefer followers who obey him completely to those who err and repeatedly require forgiveness?

Neroon

I'm sorry, Noelle, I'm going to have a slightly off-topic rant now.  I apologise not just for the off-topicness but also for the possibility that I could be ranting at you, which I most emphatically am not.  Just so as we're clear about it.

You used the phrase, "you can always choose not to obey, but you're expected to always come back to God," and that is what's sparking my mini-rant.  I hear a lot about expectation in my line of work, usually along the lines of, "This is an optional after hours training session, but the expectation is that everyone will spend three hours doing this in service training on... ...and a register will be taken so we know exactly who has attended."  Clearly in this context, this is not an expectation, this is a requirement.  Increasingly, constructions like "You are expected to" are substituted for "You must" and that means that I have to look at "you can always choose not to obey, but you're expected to always come back to God" with some doubt as to what you mean with it.  That's why I get particularly pissed off with changing language patterns- they get in the way of genuine communication.

OK, the mini-rant is over.  Hopefully it explains why I must ask if by "expected to always come back to God" you mean "have to come back to God" or if you mean that "God wants you to come back to Him" or "God thinks it is likely that you will come back to Him".  If it's the first of the three, then one might say that there is no compulsion to return, at least as far as I have observed.  Of course, experience may force me to change that opinion at a later date but so far there is no reason for me to do so.  If it means that "God wants you to come back to Him" or that "God thinks it is likely that you will come back to Him" then quite clearly this is only reasonable.  When I have arguments with my daughter over whatever the thermonuclear-device-threatening-domestic-calm of the day is and she strops off to say she's going to live elsewhere, I expect her to come back to me, in that I want her to and think that she will do so.  I neither have the inclination nor the ability to force her to return to me and would be devastated if she were not to do so but that doesn't stop me expecting her return and the inevitable tearful and joyful reunion when it happens.  I would say that God expects our return in the same way, given the Father imagery of the New Testament and the teaching of the parable of the prodigal son.

The fact that my daughter strops off like that with almost clockwork regularity doesn't stop me from accepting her back, nor does it make me less keen to seek a reconciliation.  She's a teenager and such emotional outbursts are par for the course.  Would I prefer her to completely follow all of my rules and do as I say?  No, I would not, but neither do I prefer her rebelliousness.  It is, as some might say, a false dichotomy, to suggest that I would have to prefer one over the other.  If I am permitted that freedom to have no such preference I would suggest that God also lacks such a preference.  The father's answer to the "good" son in the parable certainly suggests so, why else would he be told that, though there was no celebration for him, he stiall had everything that the father had?
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

My yeas and nays     Grovelling Apologies     Wiki
Often confused for some guy

Shoshana

#53
Typing from my Blackberry again, so expect typos!

I just thought of another spot where biblical obedience wasn't ideal--or at least wasn't enough.

Some backround: a few years ago I was asked to take a long-term subbing job for kids with some deep problems--they had already driven off multiple subs. They were a tough class: apart from the near-constant fist fights and such, they would also sit there comparing their self-inflicted cuts and burns.

I felt sorry for them, but I didn't think I was prepared to handle them. I was dealing with two different tragedies in my own life, after all.

So I was sitting at an event in a Jewish museum in Manhattan, silently rehearsing my "I quit" speech, which I had intended to give the principal the next day.

And then this lay person came up to the podium to speak. I think he was a lawyer. He was supposed to talk about the Dreyfus Affair--but instead he talked about that week's parsha. (A parsha is the section of the Torah assigned to each week in the Jewish liturgical calendar--we read the whole Torah, in order, over the course of a year.)

The parsha for that week was about Noah. The speaker talked about how Jewish tradition has come down hard on him. Why? I mean, come on. Noah did everything G-d asked him to. But we still criticize him, the speaker said, "because the Jewish response to human suffering has never been to huddle in a boat and ride out the storm!"

Those words hit me like a thunderbolt. I never made that resignation speech. I decided to stick it out, figuring that if nothing else, I could give the kids some consistency. It turned out to be one of the best teaching experiences in my life.

Of course, maybe we're still too hard on Noah. That's something we debate every year in Torah study at my synagogue. But I think the lesson that obedience sure ain't everything holds true regardless. 
The door's open but the ride it ain't free.

~Bruce Springsteen

Oniya

It's interesting that you bring up the practice of reading the entire Torah.  I really doubt that the majority of religious people engage in that kind of in-depth study, discussion - and apparently debate.  I can guarantee that over the course of a year, the readings (one selection from the OT, one from the Epistles, and one from the Gospels) do not cover the entire Bible, and sometimes those that are read don't really stick.  When I was in catechism, there was an incident where we were asked what our favorite story from the Bible was.  I was somewhere around 10 at the time, and - while I couldn't remember where in the Bible it was - I said it was the part about the lady clothed with the sun, and the dragon.  (It's in Revelations, for the curious - yes, I was a strange kid.)

My teacher claimed to have never heard of that story, which frustrated me because I'd actually heard it in church multiple times.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Shoshana

#55
Quote from: Oniya on August 31, 2010, 11:07:02 AM
It's interesting that you bring up the practice of reading the entire Torah.  I really doubt that the majority of religious people engage in that kind of in-depth study, discussion - and apparently debate.  I can guarantee that over the course of a year, the readings (one selection from the OT, one from the Epistles, and one from the Gospels) do not cover the entire Bible, and sometimes those that are read don't really stick.  When I was in catechism, there was an incident where we were asked what our favorite story from the Bible was.  I was somewhere around 10 at the time, and - while I couldn't remember where in the Bible it was - I said it was the part about the lady clothed with the sun, and the dragon.  (It's in Revelations, for the curious - yes, I was a strange kid.)

My teacher claimed to have never heard of that story, which frustrated me because I'd actually heard it in church multiple times.

Interesting! I can understand why you'd be frustrated, lol.

If you go to synagogue on a regular basis, you'll be exposed to the whole Torah over the course of a year--every synagogue reads the same parsha each week, and Judaism has a big holiday on the day we finish the last parsha of Deuteronomy and start over with the first parsha of Genesis.

But you can sit in shul  (that's Yiddish for synagogue or school) and never pay attention. Especially since the reading from the Torah (and from the prophets--that's a separate reading called the Haftarah) are in Hebrew. So if you don't understand Hebrew and you don't follow along in the English, you can let the whole thing wash over you while you meditate or even chat with friends. (Many synagogues are quite informal during services.)

But there's always a group in every shul who meet with their rabbi to discuss, argue and debate the week's parsha. That's where you have the closest readings of the text, and, in my opinion, the most fun!

However, I've found that some Christians aren't comfortable with this kind of discussion. I think there may be a cultural divide here--Jews feel free in Torah study to criticize G-d, Moses, and anyone else in the text. We feel free to question the lessons the Torah seems to present and, heck, to bring up issues of textural criticism and atheist points of view--after all, a surprising number of observant Jews are atheists or agnostics.

As an extreme example, I remember our rabbis saying, "But why would G-d do such a thing?" One guy shrugged and answered, "Because He's a bastard."

Everyone laughed--including our rabbi. I thought it was hilarious, but when I relayed the story to a Christian friend, she was deeply offended. And I had trouble convincing her that the guy who called G-d a bastard is a deeply devout theist. But like all of us, he has some issues with the Almighty.

On the other hand, some Christians really love all the argument and debate in Jewish Torah studies and are fine with criticizing G-d and biblical figures. And some Jews prefer the more respecful approach of Christians. But, in general, I'd say that cultural divide exists.
The door's open but the ride it ain't free.

~Bruce Springsteen

Neroon

I go through phases in my Biblical study.  I did, for several years follow a pattern where I read through the whole Bible over a two year cycle.  It was an interesting experience but in the end after two cycles, I eased up on the planned route and moved to a more intuitive pattern following where I follow particular interests.  At the moment, for example, I'm looking at some of the Apocrypha as it seems to have been a while since I read them.  I have to say that I am particularly enjoying the story of Tobit.  While such an approach miight lack coverage, it does allow better depth of reading.  I imagine that, in some years, I might go back to the prescribed route again. It all depends.

Certainly, I like to argue about the actions of the people in the Bible and it's true that I do have serious issues with some of St Paul's teaching.  For all that the he did great things, I find it very hard to warm to the man, as he is described and that in turn means that my evaluation of his teaching is coloured by my emotions.  While I might not have gone so far as calling the Lord a bastard, I've certainly called St Paul a mysogynistic old git a time or two.  In the end, it is through such argument and debate that our understanding is deepened and that can only be a good thing.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

My yeas and nays     Grovelling Apologies     Wiki
Often confused for some guy

Lord Drake

One very interesting thing that I try to do when my brain is not melted too much is to try to correlate my religious themed readings with the historical and political settings. For example it is interesting to read the Revelations keeping in mind that it was a text probably written by a representative of a current that was averse to the one headed by St. Paul...

Actually to understand the Bible and in general the other religious texts of humanity one must always keep in mind the kind of society they were aimed to when they were written. Although I think Neroon already said that in a post before...
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

Oniya

Quote from: Lord Drake on August 31, 2010, 01:39:00 PM
Actually to understand the Bible and in general the other religious texts of humanity one must always keep in mind the kind of society they were aimed to when they were written. Although I think Neroon already said that in a post before...

Very agreed.  A good percentage of the proscriptions in Leviticus make perfect sense socially and even medically when you consider the fact that you're dealing with a small, mostly nomadic population surrounded by hostile nations.  Pork and shellfish are particularly prone to becoming unfit to eat in the conditions that you would encounter in that environment.  Large families would ensure survival in the face of high mortality, infant and otherwise.  I recently read that the deaths and sickness following the miracle of the quail (in Exodus, when the Israelites were getting tired of manna) could have been caused by a form of poisoning resulting from the migrating quail consuming quantities of hemlock.  (I think that's used as an example of disobedience being punished - I could be wrong.)

One thing I noticed when I was looking up virtues in general was that the Roman philosophers saw virtues as the 'golden mean' between two excesses.  Courage, for example is the virtue between cowardice (excessive caution) and foolhardiness (insufficient caution).  Obedience, under that definition of virtue, would also fall between two excesses - perhaps lawlessness and blind adherence?
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Shoshana

#59
Quote from: Lord Drake on August 31, 2010, 01:39:00 PM
One very interesting thing that I try to do when my brain is not melted too much is to try to correlate my religious themed readings with the historical and political settings. For example it is interesting to read the Revelations keeping in mind that it was a text probably written by a representative of a current that was averse to the one headed by St. Paul...

Actually to understand the Bible and in general the other religious texts of humanity one must always keep in mind the kind of society they were aimed to when they were written. Although I think Neroon already said that in a post before...

Well yeah, but that's only one component. History and textual criticism are important to understanding the texts--but so are the interpretations and commentaries and arguments and debates about the text throughout the centuries--up to and including our interpretations and commentaries and arguments and debates about the text today.

And, in Judaism at least, Midrash is important. The kind of Midrash I'm talking about is sort of our 'fan fiction' of the Bible--all the extra stories we've created to fill in the blanks the Tanakh leaves us with. ( Again, the Tanakh is the word we use for what Christians call the 'Old Testament.')

Part of what makes religious texts so eternally intriguing is the same thing that makes Shakespeare's plays so eternally intriguing--you start with flawed characters and moral quandries and then let generation after generation color the text with their own insights.

To make this point, Jews never use the expression "The G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." We always say, "The G-d of Abraham, the G-d of Isaac and the G-d of Jacob" (And some of us add the matriarchs, but that's another story.) But we phrase it that way to remind ourselves that every generation must experience G-d, the tradition and the text for themselves, bringing their own insights. No point in just worrying about what it meant to the original audience-- although, again, that needs to be part of the mix.
The door's open but the ride it ain't free.

~Bruce Springsteen

Serephino

I don't know if Noah is a good example.  The people who laughed at him died in the flood.  And if he hadn't obeyed God then his family would have died too.  Again, you don't have to obey, but in most stories there are serious consequences if you don't.  God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for disobeying... a lot....

I guess the actual literal text encourages blind obedience, but most don't take the Bible literally.  That I can accept, and believe to be a good thing.  I get along well with Christians who think for themselves instead of accepting what they're spoon fed in church.  I don't believe in the Bible at all except as a source for some entertaining stories.  Examples can be found for both sides of the argument because the stupid thing contradicts itself constantly.  That, and there are different versions.  It's supposed to be the infallible word of God, and anyone who changes it is supposed to be cast into the 9th circle of Hell, and yet, I have seen at least three different versions.

I've yelled at God before.  I've had bad days where I've cussed him up one side and down the other.  I'd like to think he understands that I'm blowing off steam and don't mean most of it.  He made me, short fiery temper and all.....

Shoshana, if you don't mind answering a few questions... I'm curious about a few things.  First of all, why do you write the word God with the hyphen in the middle?  I'm also wondering what the Jewish view on Jesus is, and why he isn't accepted as the Messiah.  If this is off topic you can pm me, but I am genuinely curious.     

Shoshana

#61
Quote from: Serephino on August 31, 2010, 10:30:02 PM
Shoshana, if you don't mind answering a few questions... I'm curious about a few things.  First of all, why do you write the word God with the hyphen in the middle?  I'm also wondering what the Jewish view on Jesus is, and why he isn't accepted as the Messiah.  If this is off topic you can pm me, but I am genuinely curious.     

Jew are quite careful with the names of G-d. The most important of all these is the actual name spelt by the Hebrew letters Yod Heh Vav Heh. We don't even pronounce that name--firstly because a tradition arose of only pronouncing it on certain high occasions at the Temple, and now there is no Temple. And secondly because we consider it too sacred.

(We took the opposite road of Hindus in that respect; Hindus also recognize the sacredness of the names they use for G-d, but many Hindu traditions encourage you to repeat names of G-d over and over. Same principle, but Judaism and Hinduism went in completely opposite directions with it.)

We have two main substitutions for the Yod Heh Vav Heh: while praying or while reading the Torah during services we use 'Adonai,' which means 'Lord.' (You'll notice that many Christian Bibles use "Lord" instead of the actual name of G-d. A few modern translations use the Name but, in most, whenever you see "Lord" in the 'Old Testament' referring to G-d, it's almost always a substitute for the Yod Heh Vav Heh.)

In more casual conversation, or when reading the Torah outside of services,  we use "HaShem" instead of the Name; that just means  "the Name."

Here's where the answer to your question comes in: we are very careful with the Name of G-d; we never throw out or crumple up or deface any paper that has the name written on it. We bury worn out copies of the Torah (or anything else with the Name) instead of just throwing them out.

Many Jews feel that all forms of the word 'G-d' should be so protected, and that's why they don't even write out the word 'G-d.' Because it's possible that someone could print this conversation and later toss it in the trash, I prefer not to spell out the word 'G-d.'

Other Jews are okay with spelling out G-d, feeling that only the Yod Heh Vav Heh requires protection. In general, the more Orthodox you are, the more likely you are to use the hyphen than to spell out G-d. But that's not always the case: I'm not Orthodox and I use the hyphen.

As for Jesus--the important thing to remember here is that Christians have a radically different understanding of 'messiah' than Jews. Jews don't see the messiah as a divine personage. The messiah is  just as a human being who brings about a just and righteous world. (Or sometimes multiple human beings, in the case of Jews who hold with a collective messiah.) 

So that's the role of the messiah according to Judaism: perfecting the world, bringing peace and righteousness throughout. That clearly hasn't happened. This is still an imperfect world. Ergo, no messiah yet.

And whatever Jews think of the idea of a messiah (some are quite hostile to it and don't believe in any messiah), we agree on this much: don't wait for a messiah; do your part to heal the world today. Help bring the world closer to perfection. This is the duty of every human being.

I think Christians agree. The Christians among my friends and family, anyway, don’t sit around just waiting for Jesus to return. They’re doing their best to make the world a better place.
The door's open but the ride it ain't free.

~Bruce Springsteen

Inkidu

Quote from: Serephino on August 28, 2010, 09:40:42 PM
I guess the best example of what I was saying would be the story of Jonah.  I can't remember what he was supposed to do, but he decided to disobey God.  Then God had him swallowed by a whale and carried to where he was supposed to go.  So yes, the choice is yours, but there will be negative consequences if you don't follow the rules.

I guess the rules depend on what detonation you are.  Catholics are the strictest I think, and I will never understand them.  The church I went to was Methodist.  In that church the sermons came from both OT and NT.  I do remember though on Rosh Hashanna (sp?) or otherwise known as Jewish New Years, we learned about it in Sunday School, and even went to a nearby river and threw dirt into it.  I felt really silly.

Before we attended the Methodist church, I went to Sunday School at a Lutheran church.  They focused mostly on the OT.  More than once I wondered why Jewish history was relevant to Christians.  Then I found out that the OT and the Torah are practically the same book and became really confused as to why it's included in the Bible.     

The Torah is the first books of the Old Testament. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (in no particular order.) The Old Testament has Psalms, David, Ruth, Joshua etc. with the first five. So they don't have the Torah in the Bible because it would be redundant (depending on your translation.)
If you're searching the lines for a point, well you've probably missed it; there was never anything there in the first place.

Shoshana

#63
QuoteThe Torah is the first books of the Old Testament. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (in no particular order.) The Old Testament has Psalms, David, Ruth, Joshua etc. with the first five. So they don't have the Torah in the Bible because it would be redundant (depending on your translation.)

Right--except the books of the Torah are in a particular order. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers need to be in that order because the narrative begins in Genesis, and continues through Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers--although the narrative is interrupted in Leviticus for some in-depth information on the Kohanim; that is, the priests and the priestly sacrifices and such.

Deuteronomy, on the other hand, doesn't exactly continue the story. Instead, Deuteronomy shows us Moses giving his last speech to the Israelite people, pulling no punches (he's pretty brutal to us) and summing up much of the rest of the Torah along the way. Deuteronomy does, however, sort of conclude the narrative as it ends with Moses's death.

Anyway, the Torah is those  first five books. The Hebrew Bible or Tanakh includes the Torah plus the Prophets and the Writings; altogether, that makes up what Christians call the "Old Testament."

However, while Jews and Christians have the books of the Torah in the same order, we use a different order for the rest of the Tanakh/"Old Testament." And to make things a bit more complicated, Roman Catholics include some books in their Old Testament  that Jews and Protestants leave out, such as First and Second Maccabees.  (The Tanakh leaves them out because they only exist in Greek; no Hebrew original survived. I'm not sure why Protestants leave them out. But both books are still important in Judaism; First Maccabees tells the story of Chanukah, after all.)
The door's open but the ride it ain't free.

~Bruce Springsteen

Serephino

Quote from: Shoshana on September 01, 2010, 07:23:37 AM
Jew are quite careful with the names of G-d. The most important of all these is the actual name spelt by the Hebrew letters Yod Heh Vav Heh. We don't even pronounce that name--firstly because a tradition arose of only pronouncing it on certain high occasions at the Temple, and now there is no Temple. And secondly because we consider it too sacred.

(We took the opposite road of Hindus in that respect; Hindus also recognize the sacredness of the names they use for G-d, but many Hindu traditions encourage you to repeat names of G-d over and over. Same principle, but Judaism and Hinduism went in completely opposite directions with it.)

We have two main substitutions for the Yod Heh Vav Heh: while praying or while reading the Torah during services we use 'Adonai,' which means 'Lord.' (You'll notice that many Christian Bibles use "Lord" instead of the actual name of G-d. A few modern translations use the Name but, in most, whenever you see "Lord" in the 'Old Testament' referring to G-d, it's almost always a substitute for the Yod Heh Vav Heh.)

In more casual conversation, or when reading the Torah outside of services,  we use "HaShem" instead of the Name; that just means  "the Name."

Here's where the answer to your question comes in: we are very careful with the Name of G-d; we never throw out or crumple up or deface any paper that has the name written on it. We bury worn out copies of the Torah (or anything else with the Name) instead of just throwing them out.

Many Jews feel that all forms of the word 'G-d' should be so protected, and that's why they don't even write out the word 'G-d.' Because it's possible that someone could print this conversation and later toss it in the trash, I prefer not to spell out the word 'G-d.'

Other Jews are okay with spelling out G-d, feeling that only the Yod Heh Vav Heh requires protection. In general, the more Orthodox you are, the more likely you are to use the hyphen than to spell out G-d. But that's not always the case: I'm not Orthodox and I use the hyphen.

As for Jesus--the important thing to remember here is that Christians have a radically different understanding of 'messiah' than Jews. Jews don't see the messiah as a divine personage. The messiah is  just as a human being who brings about a just and righteous world. (Or sometimes multiple human beings, in the case of Jews who hold with a collective messiah.) 

So that's the role of the messiah according to Judaism: perfecting the world, bringing peace and righteousness throughout. That clearly hasn't happened. This is still an imperfect world. Ergo, no messiah yet.

And whatever Jews think of the idea of a messiah (some are quite hostile to it and don't believe in any messiah), we agree on this much: don't wait for a messiah; do your part to heal the world today. Help bring the world closer to perfection. This is the duty of every human being.

I think Christians agree. The Christians among my friends and family, anyway, don’t sit around just waiting for Jesus to return. They’re doing their best to make the world a better place.

Thank you for answering my questions.  I like learning about others' beliefs.  I may not agree, but I don't see that as an excuse to bury my head in the sand. 

Ironwolf85

Prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, love...
debate everything as we might, those are the lessions I'm gonna hold on to
Prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, love...
debate any other aspect of my faith these are the heavenly virtues. this flawed mortal is going to try to adhere to them.

Culture: the ability to carve an intricate and beautiful bowl from the skull of a fallen enemy.
Civilization: the ability to put that psycho in prision for killing people.

Oniya

And above all the others, the greatest of these is Love.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Ironwolf85

yep... debate theology and dogma all we want, those virtues that christ taught remain unchanged, and the good book is supposed to teach them, that is it's pourpose, not to be used as a tool for persional ambition, not to act as a excuse to do bad things... it exists to teach virtue.

The Greatest is Love.....
Prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, love...
debate any other aspect of my faith these are the heavenly virtues. this flawed mortal is going to try to adhere to them.

Culture: the ability to carve an intricate and beautiful bowl from the skull of a fallen enemy.
Civilization: the ability to put that psycho in prision for killing people.