Another reason I dislike Christianity

[salinen]

Verse after verse concern the torture of those who disobey. There is more talk of dastardly Abu Gahreb type technique than what heaven might be.

To me, this is tapping into the revenge gene. "That mother-fucker who cheated on me is going to fry because God is on my side"

There becomes no need to confront the perp in life because they know that there will be delicious revenge delivered by "my boy God" on that S.O.B.'s ass.

Not a surprise to me we live in an ultra violent society with those precepts.

[BOSSHOG]

1. I've yet to get a "Christian"

to tell my why they are not pursuing a constitutional amendment requiring the stoning to death of people who work on the sabbath as is dictated in Leviticus, the same book where we are told homosexuality is an abomination. Christians narrow the readings so that those they hate are the only ones subject to any biblical justice. Why, pray tell, can this not be admitted by those who perpetrate such action?

[salinen]

5. The clever dudes

who wrote it knew that without including the inferiors lust for revenge, it would be much less attractive.

[forgethell]

22. All right, I'll bite.

The law of the Torah applied to the Hebrew nation, not to Christians. It was the law not just for personal "moral" behavior, but for the governance of the nation.

Now, perhaps you can ask an Israeli why they don't apply it in Israel?

[TWiley]

29. Fundamentalists spend more time in the Old Testament

than the new.

Also, it is the homosexual hating Christians who have been tossing around this verse here in America during the past few years.

Now, perhaps you can ask a Christian which verse in the new Testament supports their hatred.

[forgethell]

33. No they don't.

Let me ask you: how many fundamentalists do you actually know? How many evangelicals? They're different you know. have you actually talked to any of them? I know plenty because I live in a conservative part of the country. And I talk to them because I work with them, and live next door to them.

Try this: 1 Timothy 1: 9-10. I'm not saying they are interpreting this verse correctly, but this is the answer to your last question. Shame, though, on you. The Bible, whether you agree with it or not, whether you think it is divinely inspired, or not, whether you think is is God's Word, total nonsense, or says some things relevant to ours times, but has a lot of irrelevant things in it too; is one of the most important books in the world, a founding document of Western civilization. Every educated person should have some acquaintance with it.


1 Timothy 1:


9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,


10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine





:)

[Katidid]

34. Every educated person should have some acquaintance with it ..

This is from the King James Version:

1 Tim 9: Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

1 Tim 10: For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Why I am quoting the KJV is because this was the 1st bibical reference written that the 'common man' was allowed to read ... and that was many decades after it was written.

Only priest and religious scholars were allowed to read the KJV. 'Common man' was put to death if he was caught reading the KJV until around the time of Martin Luther ... what was that just 3 or 4 hundred years ago .... hmmm.

Before that it was around 300 years AD when King Constantine decided to get his folks to 'interpret' and put together the "bible" which was called the 'geneva book'.... and then almost 2000 years later, in the 20th Century, there are scores of "re-interpretations" of the Bible. My facts are loose, but you get my drift.

(Have you ever played the game of "gossip", you tell one person something, and after about re-telling to 20 people see how the original statement has been changed).

My Point is: I have lots of reasons to question the validity of the "good book".....and to be pretty upset with the RR when they get behind their Polical Pulpit to tell me how I am to live, think and limit my freedom to be who I am .... which is just the way god made me.
:-)

[fishwax]

41. your facts are quite loose on the king james bible

which wasn't the first bible published in english, nor were people killed merely for posessing it. Nor did it predate martin luther, just for the record.

the first english bible (new testament) was william tyndales in the 1500s, and it was indeed outlawed (and people may have been executed for having it). Later, King Henry the 8th actually authorized and funded the printing of a Bible in English. This was done partly to spite the Roman church, which had forbade him to divorce (this lead to his renunciation of the church and the establishment of the Anglican Church of England). The common people risked nothing by reading it, but then most common people couldn't read anyway.

The King James Bible came out in the early 1600s, an attempt to create an authoritive text. Many Protestant churches today consider it the best Bible ever written and I've had a number of evangelicals and fundamentalists tell me that it was divinely inspired. In reality, though, the King James Bible (like just about everything else in the corridors of power) was a political exercise, and the motivation behind it's creation carried strong anti-catholic sentiments. Hardly pure.

Anyway, I get the drift of the gossip game, and can't argue with you about the RR and their attempts to contrl us all, but I thought I'd set the record straight on the KJV, just for kicks. :)

[Igel]

59. Wycliffe!!!

Unless you're only counting whole Bibles (but I don't think Tyndale's was the entire OT).

Don't know about "divinely inspired," the KJV translation, but I *do* like that it preserves the thou/ye distinction. (It's archaic, but I doubt you/youse or you/y'all would pass muster in most of America.)

[TWiley]

45. I know plenty of fundamentalists.

Plenty of evangelists also.

Most folk who go for a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible also are active in some form of evangelism. The fundamentalist is likely to speak in tongues, prophesy, cast out demons, and heal others by faith. This is due to their literal (fundamentalist) interpretation of the bible. They will also lead you in the magic prayer that will save your soul and forgive all your sins, past, present, and future.

and, uh "shame on me"?

How many fundamentalists or evangelicals do YOU know who cannot quote from the old testament as well as the new? Listening to you, one would believe that only the Jewish folks read the old testament.

[Igel]

60. Ack. You're obviously not up on your terminology.

It's like calling a Korean or Chinese Japanese.

One can be charismatic, evangelical, or fundamentalist. Or all 3. The church I was in was not charismatic, or evangelical. But it was fundamentalist.

Quick, rough and ready guide:
evangelicals = preach
fundamentalist = a heartfelt "Bible alone"
charismatic = "gifts of the Spirit". Glossalalia, etc.

[shawn703]

54. The Law does apply to Christians

Even Jesus said that He came to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it. (Matthew 5:17)

What happened is that the Savior came, so certain parts of the law are no longer necessary - such as atoning for sin with a sacrifice.

[Selwynn]

39. Because I am not a biblical literalist - there that wasn't so hard was it

Sincerely,
Your local christian.
Sel

[stray cat]

2. You must be in the Old Testament

The New Testament and Jesus Christ preach mainly the opposite. The christian fundamentalists have little to do with biblical christianity.

Christianity is to follow Christ - that path is laid out in the New Testament.

[Spider Jerusalem]

4. Most churches have little to do with "biblical Christianity"...

whatever "biblical Christianity" is. Jesus said "pray in a closet; do not be like the Pharisees who parade their piety" etc (paraphrased); so the whole idea of "church" seems kind of, well, anti-Christian...

[ProdigalJunkMail]

14. well, then there is that whole idea

of not forsaking the gathering together of the church...which has to do with corporate worship and support of one another...

theProdigal

[Spider Jerusalem]

17. Yeah...

But that is in the epistles of Paul, yes? I have no problem with the Gospels, for the most part, but I regard Paul as one of the bigger bastards to defile our planet. (Note: I'm not Christian, or a theist, but I do see admirable qualities in the figure of Jesus.)

[BOSSHOG]

6. You are exactly right, I am in the old testament

So are those who justify hating homosexuals. They refer to scripture from the pulpit to get the lemmings to hate and to vote for state constitutional amendments banning homosexuals from marrying. My point, if Leviticus is good for hating homosexuals, why isn't it good for legislating away working on the sabbath. Is it because christians work on the sabbath? Or bottomline, is it just because christians are hypocrites? I'm pretty sure I know the answer.

[salinen]

12. Add to the absurdity

that there are only 2 choices after death.

1. Fun in the Sun.

2. Burning painful flesh smoking misery.

3. Just the end. (Not an option)

[Mr.Green93]

18. So, you are against

the Jews?

[BOSSHOG]

21. I am for constitutional liberties for all citizens

The law of the land is the Constitution, not a religious reference. I'm not sure what your reference to Jews is about. I am AGAINST any religion attempting to codify their religious beliefs. I am also for religious freedom. That is the greatness of America. Christians whine that they are being persecuted when in fact they are being challenged and prevented from making their religious beliefs the law of the land, thus they are told from the pulpit that they are being persecuted. Pure garbage.

[salinen]

8. Definitely more in the Old Testament

[TahitiNut]

11. Not just the New Testament ... Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

These are the core of the Gospel ("good news") ... while Paul is political, not theological.

It's truly amazing how people who call themselves "Christians" don't even begin to comprehend the primacy of their own scriptural bases.

[rhino47]

3. That might be the case for some christians.Not all of them though.

I find god/christianity to be about love.I live by the creed I am my brothers keeper.There is over 3000 verses that deal just with taking care of the poor.Yes there are some that pervert the bibles words into hate.That is not the true meaning of being a christian in my view.
I think to equate all christians to the bloody violence of this society is to say americans are all conservative war mongering racist elitists.
I would think the poverty,lack of hope,leads more so to violence then christianity

[knitter4democracy]

27. Thank you!

Not all of us go along with the loudest so-called Christians. I know many have been hurt and even severely damaged by the actions of a few, but please don't overgeneralize.

[Bridget Burke]

7. So, you agree that the USA is a Christian Nation?

Since everything bad in our society can be blamed on Christianity, that is. Guess you aren't one of those who point out that many of the Founding Fathers were Christian in name only; their unorthodox beliefs are evident in the Declaration of Independance & the Constitution.

I'm not a believer myself, but why don't you check out the New Testament?

[salinen]

10. Yes, the Old testament

was really behind my rant.

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. Most of the Founding Fathers were "Christian" in name only...

but the historical background of the colonies prior to that is one of religious intolerance and often fanaticism, along with established churches...which is also a part of the history of the US. This counntry has most of its social problems, I think, precisely because, in the period from roughly 1600-1750, most of the religious fanatics of Western Europe wound up in British America...Puritans, Separatists, and so on. Which would tend to explain the strong Calvinistic streak that seems to dominate to this day.

[BOSSHOG]

15. It would be nice if those who perpetrate hate

from the pulpit and in the name of Jesus Christ would check out the new testament. And you are right about the founding fathers. One good example: Why do "Christians" need to amend the Constitution to prevent homosexuals from getting married? BECAUSE THE PREVENTION CLAUSE ISN'T IN THERE NOW. BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION ISN'T A WEAPON TO BE USED BY ONE SEGMENT OF SOCIETY AGAINST ANOTHER. That is not what the founding fathers envisioned when crafting the liberal document.

[Aristus]

19. I'm a Christian, but I believe that the U.S. is a secular nation,

not a Christian nation; no matter how much the fundies want it that way. Now, the Vatican, for instance, is a Christian nation. Whatever the Pope says, goes.

How long would we last if we were a Christian nation, I'd like to know? If the fundies took over, how would the traditional denominations feel about that? If the Lutherans were in power, how would the Presbyterians react? I think there would be a lot of bitter infighting and struggling for supreme power if we were, in fact, a Christian nation. It's like the old saying: be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. almost all religions have a consequence to 'immoral' behaviour

[ArkDem]

16. Brilliant reasoning. You should write for a living!

[ClassicDem]

20. Thats too bad,

It's a shame that there are people who are intolerant to religion and blame the bad behavior of people upon the religion they belong to.

[BOSSHOG]

23. Nothing intolerant here Buckeroo

I spent 24 years supporting and defending the Constitution (not the bible). Christians in America read the bible and pound the bible and are told from the pulpit to use the bible to institute political changes in this country even if that means restricting constitutional liberties of other Americans. Now thats a shame. You can practice your religion all you want, just don't try to make it law.

[salin]

25. Please distinguish

between general Christianity and the far-right politicized folks who use doctrine to justify their thirst for power for money for dominance... I completely agree that they are dangerous (in their efforts to disband a constitutional government in favor of a theocracy) - but I also recognize that what they are pushing is a far cry from what most people around the world understand Christianity to actually be. I certainly don't pin the blame on all who are Christians - because at least in the broad world population sense - our politicized fundies are NOT in the majority view.

[DrGonzoLives]

38. But that's too hard

It's just so much easier to type "Christians" than "right-wing fundamentalists out of touch with America." Besides, it gives them an excuse to look all cool by showing just how non-religious they are.

I wonder when we'll see BOSSHOG et al go off on a rant aobut Islam, or Buddhism, or Judaism, Hinduism, all of which have their fundamentalists who do not represent the mainstream. I won't be holding my breath.

[lazarus]

43. extremist Buddhists?

What, they're really, really, really meditating?

When fundamentalist Buddhists or Hindus or Jews or Muslims go about trying to change our Constitution to make bigotry official in this country, and gain a foothold in our government, I'll worry about them. In the meantime, I'm worried about the most dangerous enemy right now. And that's fundamentalist dominionist Christians.

They may be "out of touch with America", but they're running things for the most part right now. They have members on the Supreme Court, in the administration, they've cowed both parties' legislators, they're taking over school boards across the country.

But we should worry about these fundamentalist Buddhists? Not even.

[ClassicDem]

26. that statement alone proves my point

you paint with a wide brush.

[BOSSHOG]

31. Fundies Hate with a wide brush

"Not all Christians hate" does not end the argument. And what exactly is YOUR POINT? Only some christians hate so we should ignore them. If a religious belief is kidnapped by a minority of believers for nefarious reasons then it is incumbent on those in the majority to take action. Is your point that some people use your religious beliefs for things you don't believe in but thats alright? That if a small, vocal, aggressive minority is successful in stifling the constitutional liberties of others its okay? Those who hate in the name of Jesus Christ should be exposed. Those who are members of such churchs who do not hate and who are offended by my attitude should take action, and not against me. What's your action plan? Sit idly by and let the constitution be shredded because I proved you point?

[Telly Savalas]

36. "Since Fundies use a wide brush, it's OK for me to do it too."

What kind of fucked up ass logic is that?

Go to www.sojo.net and you'll see the existence of a large network of Christians fighting for social justice. When people make blanket insults of Christianity, these people are being attacked. If you had just a microgram of sensitivity, you'd see that this is wrong.

[salin]

24. There are many Christians who do not view things this way or act this way

Seems to be a human trait which doesn't need cloak of a religion to act... look at the mass slaughter of one third of the population of Cambodia under the Kmer Rhouge (sp)... or the slaughter in Rwanda.

Would take more issue with those who use the pulpit - of any religion... or even not a pulpit but a soapbox if they have power .... to pander to that base instinct and use tools of proporganda to normalize, legitamize, and spur action according to those base instincts.

Me, I find generalizations to a whole people be it based on gender, race, ethnicity or creed to be a bit distasteful and to always be inaccurate and seemingly intentionally offensive.

Note that I find the trends and pandering in the politicized extremist Christian churches in the US to be dangerous for the reasons I state above - the messages due tend to legitamize the worst in many and subtly encourage behavior that is in direct opposition to the teachings of the one for whom the religion is named. What I hear on their radio shows from the pulpit sounds nothing like the Christianity that I know.

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. So how about some reasons to like it?

--------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[Kitka]

30. You’re hurting your cause more than helping it.

If I am correctly guessing that your cause is protecting the separation of church and state, that is. Making broad statements about “Christians” and ignoring the reality that millions of Christians in the U.S. do not support melding the two isolates them. This is not helpful.

[Melynn]

32. You are correct

In my opinion all religions should be illegal. We have laws against fraud and con games, don't we? Until the existence of a "God" can be proved then religion is just a big fraud and should be illegal.

[Bridget Burke]

35. Yet another God-hating Left Wing Liberal....

Really?

Or just a semi-good imitation....

[AngryOldDem]

37. I wouldn't even call it "semi-good" n/t

[Selwynn]

40. So you dislike Biblical Literalists, not apparently all "Christians."

Not all Christians are fundamentalists biblical literalists. There are as many words of Jesus telling us that, though you've heard it was said this, I tell you this instead, and what he spoke of was mercy, and pacifism and non-violence towards "enemies."

I have no problem if you want to point out that the bible, when taken literally on all counts, is often contradictory. But you cannot ignore the fact that Jesus himself, the person supposedly central to Christian faith, taught about love for all people and for compassion and peacemaking to be the characteristics of the good life.

Because I am not a biblical literalist, I have no problem believing that human writers had different opinion about what the God they believed in was like - some of them even seeing him as vengeful and merciless. That is why I think the stories of Jesus are so beautiful - because though also written by feeble humans, they depict a radical departure from the coercive, authoritarian, vengeful God that had been depicted for so long.

The greatest tragedy is that this "revolution" in thinking about what God is like was so short-lived, and very soon organized Christianity was back to persecution and tyranny in the name of a vindictive god. :(

[lazarus]

44. However

"There are as many words of Jesus telling us that, though you've heard it was said this, I tell you this instead, and what he spoke of was mercy, and pacifism and non-violence towards "enemies.""

But what to make of these words of Jesus?

Matthew
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Looks to me like he's saying Leviticus is a go, in all its wretched glory.

OTOH, Matthew 5 is full of contradictions with other parts of the Bible, I'm sure he said elsewhere that the Law has been replaced by something kinder, like just burning in hellfire for eternity while he and the angels watch.

[Selwynn]

46. I've been waiting for the standard objection

Not that I mean that to sound glib. But I was sure you would ask that.

Number one, since I am not a biblical literalist, the fact that one specific text might actually contradict with another specific text is not particularly troubling to me. What I'm interested in looking at are themes. I think you would be very hard-pressed to attempt to deny that the theme of the words attributed to Jesus is one of compassion. You have to ignore far, far, far more words in order to claim that.

However, having said that - I don't believe there is any contradiction here. But that all hinges on a single word "fulfill."

When Jesus said "I have come to fulfill the law" - that is important. When he says not one word shall pass away until it all be fulfilled, you make one specific interpretation when you interpret this not passing away to mean that it all remains authoritative. If you see the law only as a list of rules, then this would make sense. However if you see the law as historical record of the emerging beliefs of a people - then the history of "laws" now redefined by Jesus become just as important to the fullest story of the people. Simply because something is later identified as needing change does not mean it has no value or relevance. As a witness of the spiritual progression of a people, the law has certainly not passed away - we continue to study it today. But through Jesus, we see the fullest interpretation of the spirit of the law.

Certainly Jesus say things that contrasted old views and law, but ultimately, his claim is that his words and exhortations represent the fulfillment of the spirit of the law. The law dealt with particular circumstances in particular contexts. Jesus talked about the "law" written on the human heart - to live and move via the spirit of the truth of the law, rather than by the letter alone. Jesus tells us what this spirit is which fulfills the law: "love the lord with all your heart, soul mind and strength and your neighbors as yourself - on this hang all the laws and the prophets."



OTOH, Matthew 5 is full of contradictions with other parts of the Bible, I'm sure he said elsewhere that the Law has been replaced by something kinder, like just burning in hellfire for eternity while he and the angels watch.


Again you speak of contradictions, as though contradictions bother me. But I am not a biblical literalist. I believe that a bunch of human Jews got together and wrote about their feeble, stuttering, stumbling attempts to describe their experience of God, and the nature of their relationship to him. It doesn't disturb me that during the course of that progression, there are some things that I consider to be theologically unsound and historically inaccurate. We've come along way since 600 B.C. It doesn't disturb me that we might have greater insight into certain things.

It certainly doesn't disturb me that the characteriture of Jesus in the Gospels is so strikingly different from many of the far more authoritarian depictions in the old testament. In fact that's what I love about it. It really seems to reflect a genuine season of crisis and revolution in how some people choose to think about the nature of their relationship to god and what God is like.

So anyway, as I said - I don't feel uncomfortable at all with the reality that there are often contradictions between different writers and between different time periods in the bible. It's exciting and joyful to think on such things.

Sel

[lazarus]

47. So, if the Bible isn't literal

Then how can you accept any part of it as being of any value whatsoever?

This is what a lot of atheists mean when we call Christianity the "cafeteria religion". You can just browse through, picking and choosing what you like and what you don't like, and jettison the rest.

This isn't even about literalism, it's about clear contradiction. He's a loving "lamb" who's planning to spend eternity watching sinners burn in torment. Is that a reality you find exciting and joyful to think on? Or is that just part of the Bible you choose not to believe?

In part of your post, you state Jesus' words as if they have some authority. Then you decide that nothing in the Bible really has any authority, since it was all written by men over varying times with varying degrees of insight. This seems an odd sort of religion.

BTW, I'm not hard pressed at all to think that Jesus just got some good PR with all that "lamb of God" talk. He spent a great deal of time talking about the punishment and torment that awaits those who don't do what he says.

As for "fulfill" being the key that lets you blithely write off Leviticus and the rest of the OT, go ahead. This seems to be yet another case where one can freely interpret the Bible to mean whatever is convenient at the time. Either the words mean what they say, or they don't. If they don't, then again I have to ask, why bother with the Bible at all?

[Stunster]

48. The Bible is a complex document

It's remarkable how incurious some people are.

What is the book of Leviticus really about? Why are there these strange rules? Were ancient Jews completely insane?

Suppose I posted a list of Native American or Zulu rites and customs
for the purpose of mocking them, but did not have a clue as to their
origin or meaning?

Well, as luck would have it one of the world's greatest cultural
anthropologists, Mary Douglas, published a book a few years ago which
has become essential reading for anyone attempting to interpret and
understand. It's called LEVITICUS AS LITERATURE.

*Description*
This first full-scale account of Leviticus by a world renowned
anthropologist presents the biblical work as a literary masterpiece.
Seen in an anthropological perspective Leviticus has a mystical
structure which plots the book into three parts corresponding to the
three parts of the desert tabernacle, both corresponding to the parts
of Mount Sinai. This completely new reading transforms the
interpretation of the purity laws. The pig and other forbidden animals
are not abhorrent, they command the same respect due to all God's
creatures. Boldly challenging several traditions of Bible criticism,
Mary Douglas claims that Leviticus is not the narrow doctrine of a
crabbed professional priesthood but a powerful intellectual statement
about a modern religion which emphasizes God's justice and compassion.
Features

* First attempt to present Leviticus from a literary and
anthropological perspective
* Shows Leviticus to be a major philosophical and rhetorical
achievement.

Reviews

"Douglas makes an effective case for an artful three-part structure to
the book that models the three parts of the tabernacle, the body, and
Mount Sinai. Douglas offers an effective introduction for both novice
and scholar to a book too often slighted or misread." - - Religious
Studies Review

You know, if you're are going to mock Biblical fundamentalists, it's
best if you don't read the Bible like one yourself.

[Selwynn]

53. Have you ever read Hesse's Demian?

Before I continue on, I need to point out that I neither ask you to share my point of view nor particularly care about your judgements on my point of view. It was was trying to persuade you to my point of view, your judgemnets would be relevant. Since I am not, they are little more than arbitrarily interesting - you can go your way, I can go mine.

That said, Hermann Hesse's Demian was a powerfully evocative book that I read at twenty-one which forever impacted me and influenced the kind of person I have become.

It was a work of fiction. There was really no Sinclair. There was really no Max. The entire story was fictitious. But the point of the book was not its literal truth. The point was to use the story as a vehicle to convey and express deeply rich and meaningful symbols and ideas about the very deepest of life questions.

Anyone who loves literature knows that a story need not be literally true to convey deep and meaningful truths about life and carry important themes that can be deeply meaningful to the human heart. What's more many important stories are specific intended not to be taken literally, as in allegorical writings or symbolic writings. That does not mean that they have no informative value. What a sad world it would actually be if people actually thought that.

Saying that biblical texts are a vehicle of metaphor and often non-literal symbolism used to convey deeper truths should not be a surprising claim. The reality of our distance from first-century Palestine immediately removes any reasonable possibility of interpreting biblical texts completely literally. The existential reality of our finitude precludes the possibility of direct literal statements about an infinite God.

So it is not really possible to say "this is what God is" with our theological statements. Instead it is possible to say, "this is what God is like" and we use metaphor and symbolism to express that. God is not literally a love ball in the sky, but if one is to say that God is like love, then we can think in interesting and positive implications from that claim.


This is what a lot of atheists mean when we call Christianity the "cafeteria religion". You can just browse through, picking and choosing what you like and what you don't like, and jettison the rest.


That's exactly right. :) There are four criteria I see when thinking about particular passages in the bible. This this text:

1. Theologically relevant and historically accurate
2. Theologically irrelevant and historically accurate
3. Theologically relevant but historically inaccurate
4. Theologically irrelevant and historically inaccurate

Texts in the bible can be any of these things. The sheer number of different writers, writing and different times and in different contexts, means that there are a multiplicity of perspectives on things. Some are valuable because of what they accurately express. Some are valuable for the very fact that they do not accurately express a truth about God. That can be just as instructional and valuable as any affirmative text.

The trouble that you are having is that you cant understand by what criteria I determine what I believe to be valid texts and invalid texts. If I don't take the text itself as self-justifying literal absolute in all cases, then in your mind there seems to be no criteria by which to appropriate interpret the texts.

The problem is that you don't understand or share the lens by which I approach both biblical scripture, all other sacred texts, and my relationship to god. That lens is heavily influenced by my personal experience and context.

It is a certain form of foundationalism -- I hold certain truths to be foundational, and they become the lens through which I interpret texts of the bible, or whatever else. Insofar as texts are harmonious and congruent with this lens, I accept them. When they are not, I still value their inclusion as historical record of human beings seeking God, but I reject their conclusions or assertions.

The result of this process has been a life in which my highest ideals are the deepening of my capacity for compassionate action in the world, and my continuing ability to be more deeply responsible and nurturing in all my personal relationships. Now, that's as noble a "mission statement" for living this life as any other you'll find. And insofar as my personal interpretations of religious texts and imagery aid in that mission, I value them. I don't ask you to share them.


In part of your post, you state Jesus' words as if they have some authority. Then you decide that nothing in the Bible really has any authority, since it was all written by men over varying times with varying degrees of insight. This seems an odd sort of religion.


You think of faith in very authoritarian ways. That's fine, but it is part of the reason you don't understand me. I state Jesus's words as though I accept their applicable value to me life and to the mission of my life. You're befuddlement comes from the fact that you are attempting to overlay a very authoritarian hierarchical thinking about religion onto a personal belief system that is neither authoritarian nor hierarchical.

Insofar as the words and teachings of Jesus are consistent with my moral philosophy and my mission and aims for living, I find them valuable to reflect on. It is entirely irrelevant whether or not they at all 100% valuable and/or accurate or not, as it is also irrelevant whether I pick the things I value and reject the things I don't. That's what people SHOULD do. It is irrelevant because I am not creating a system, nor a dogma, nor about to list for you fifteen doctrines you must accept in order to be a person of faith. I don't accept that kind of hierarchical thinking.

Paul Tillich says, "Being religious means asking passionately the questions of the meaning of existence, and being willing to receive answers, even when those answers hurt. Such a definition is not traditionally associated with religious institutions in its widest sense, but it is true of religion in its most inward sense."

I grant that this definition of religion is one that is likely to be foreign. But this is the reality of what personally inward faith is like to many who do not embrace the authoritarian hierarchical structures or religious institutions. You can critique these structures to me until you are blue in the face and I will do nothing but agree with you. However what kinds of stories, parables, metaphors or analogies I find personally informative and valuable for my life - whether they come from Hermann Hesse, Albert Camus, or the words attributed to Jesus Christ - is really not a subject on which yo can authoritatively make value judgments.


BTW, I'm not hard pressed at all to think that Jesus just got some good PR with all that "lamb of God" talk. He spent a great deal of time talking about the punishment and torment that awaits those who don't do what he says.


Did he really? You have an interesting definition of the phrase "great deal of time" that I was previously unaware of. Jesus does give parables in which he refused to the outer darkness, apart from the master, the bridegroom, the king, etc. He does say that there will be weeping and sorrow. Separation from God would probably feel like that. But as I said before, it requires much more acrobatic and creative interpretive leaps to spin the teachings of Jesus into something other than compassionate messages of hope and comfort.

Certainly, Jesus may have believed that those who did not love themselves, god or others might be in danger of great suffering - but it's clear by his (as I interpret it) sobbing, heartbroken exclamation at the gates of the temple that all he ever wanted was for everyone to avoid that fate. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem" he cries, "you who killed the prophets and stoned those sent to you. How often I have longed to gather you together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you were unwilling. Behold! Your house is left to you desolate!"

You can choose to interpret those words as vindictive: I tried to love you, you would not accept it, so now I am destroying your house. But as I have said, you have to ignore huge and massive chunks of Jesus' words and take a far greater interpretive leap of faith to conclude this was the intent. It is more realistic and consistent with other words of Jesus to assume that he longed for his love and fellowship to be accepted by the people, and he could see that their continuing refusal was leading to their great suffering, and it broke his heart.

I could be wrong on that interpretation. You could be wrong in your interpretation. Ultimately it comes down to a choice - what do I believe to be the most historically credible, internally consistent, theologically accurate interpretation of this texts that takes into consideration what the intent of the human author might have been, what the immediate first century readers might have understood, and what understandings I can appropriately arrive at today.

There is nothing absurd or confusing about this, whether you decide that such things are not important or relevant for your life or not.


As for "fulfill" being the key that lets you blithely write off Leviticus and the rest of the OT, go ahead. This seems to be yet another case where one can freely interpret the Bible to mean whatever is convenient at the time. Either the words mean what they say, or they don't. If they don't, then again I have to ask, why bother with the Bible at all?

All one need do is take an introduction to literature class and discover that it is categorically not true that "either the words mean what they say, or they don't." That's convenient absolutism, but it is also clearly false. We live in a word where metaphor, symbolism, allegory and imagery are frequently used to convey truthful concepts or experiences that cannot otherwise be literally expressed. Just ask a poet. Best get used to it. :)

Sel

[lazarus]

56. Oh, I'm used to it

I'm not befuddled, I'm more bemused, to be honest. You've just admitted that your flavour of Christianity is whatever you want it to be, based on your interpretation of whatever you feel like interpreting.

If you want to call that a religion, go right ahead.

The problem we have in this world is with the people who are literalists. And there are a lot of them, and they're gaining more and more power every day.

In the future, should we refer to you as a Christian or a Hessian, btw? Because you seem to lend equal weight to both Hesse and Christ.

In the meantime, atheists will continue to fight for reason and logic. Best get used to it.

[Selwynn]

58. Why label at me anything at all? Just take my hand against a common foe.

The problem we have in this world is with the people who are literalists. And there are a lot of them, and they're gaining more and more power every day.


I very much agree.


In the future, should we refer to you as a Christian or a Hessian, btw? Because you seem to lend equal weight to both Hesse and Christ.

You seem awfully preoccupied with what to label me. I saw a documentary on television about the life of Bruce Lee. In it, his wife mentioned that he always word a medallion that had an inscription on the back. Roughly translated, it reads: "Having no Way as Way; Having no limitation as limitation."

If you to label me anything, you may label me the man with no Way as Way. Hopefully, you can avoid looking too shocked when you see strange folk like me that bemuse you fighting by your side for reason and logic. Hopefully we can all get used to strange bedfellows in the upcoming fight against state-sanctioned religious tyranny.

It's like they say, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Don't take that too literally -- you are not at all my enemy; we're just to people who don't know the first thing about each other. We don't even actually know enough about each other to even say we "disagree." For example, you and I would need to have about an hour long converstation how I believe "religion" is nothing more than a language game before we coud really make some authoritative judgement calls about just how similar or different we really are...

..but that's not important, becuase we do know enough about each other to know we agree on one point: and that is the oppression and corruption of fanatical fundamentalists and their authoritarian, oppressive persecution of everyone who disagrees with them. I certainly offer you my hand in the fight to resist their takeover of the country.

Have a good evening.
Sel

[pelagius]

57. It's called hyperbole...

...It's a literary or rhetorical technique to drive a point home. Jesus used it a lot. He also used simile, metaphor, humor, and irony with equal ease.

The point Jesus was making was that following his way would result in adherence to the law in its smallest detail, not through human struggle but by living in a divine connection with the One who gave the laws.

(Also please note, he made a point that whether greatest or least, all parties concerned were present in the "kingdom of heaven." )

This sort of argument can only trip up Biblical literalists and Christians who don't know anything about the interpretation and application of the Law throughout Jewish history. If 1 in 100 "biblical literalist" Christians have even heard of the Talmud or rabbinic tradition I'd be amazed.

[Stunster]

42. If your characterization applied to all Christians,

or logically ought to apply to all Christians, then you'd have a reason for disliking Christianity.

As it is, you only have a reason for disliking some who call themselves 'Christian'.

I dislike some of those folks too.

On edit:

Why should we not say, "Another reason I dislike Islam is because Muslims think all non-Muslims are infidels who should have airliners flown into their buildings, or at least who will burn in hell"?

The reason we shouldn't is because most Muslims are not extremists, and because Islam needn't be interpreted that way.

FACT: Most Christians are not extremists, and Christianity need not be interpreted the way you're interpreting it.

[T_i_B]

49. What we are talking about here is bigotry

and whilst the left pretends to be enlightened and tolerant towards others, their bigoted attitude towards religion shows this to be a complete and utter lie.

Small wonder that Christians choose not to vote for you guys so often. And it's odds on that I'll get flamed for pointing this out.

[T_i_B]

50. What we are talking about here is bigotry

and whilst the left pretends to be enlightened and tolerant towards others, their bigoted attitude towards religion shows this to be a complete and utter lie.

If people were to write these things about Judaism they would rightly be condemmed as anti-semitic, if they were to do so about Islam they would rightly be condemmed as Islamophobic. And whilst there are traces of both these bigotries on the left the biggest double standard applies in the left's attitude towards Christians.

Small wonder that Christians choose not to vote for you guys so often. And it's odds on that I'll get flamed for pointing this out.

[GOPFighter]

52. Flame

No, not really. It is not bigotry to criticize someone or something based on facts, rather than prejudices. Many of us who were brought up as Christians are upset that many self-professed Christians either pick and choose the passages that support their pre-conceived beliefs, or distort Jesus's true message. That's bad enough, but then they try to force their skewed beliefs onto the rest of the population.

I'm now an atheist, but I respect people's religious beliefs as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs onto me.

[Dob Bole]

51. It was written pre-feudalism, pre-liberalism, and mostly pre-Christianity

The Bible does contain a very strict religous order. The purpose of Christ was to set us free from those religious laws, because there is no way that anyone can live up to those standards. Some fundamentalists act as if Christ did not come and continue to force "Biblical standards," "the laws of God," etc. on people.

That is the essence of what makes Christianity different from religions, however. (in its pure form) In other religions, people try to please God, live up to God's standards, become god-like, etc. In Christianity, there is an admission that no one can live up to such standards. There is the concept of God's grace, that God loves us enough even though we fail, and it is not necessary to earn God's favor.

[catbert836]

55. We're not all like that.

Just for the record. :)

[sakabatou]

61. There is one thing I don't like about Christianity

and that is people pushing others to convert.