My point in using the name was that I wasn't talking about God there. I used Yahweh to differentiate the national deity of ancient Israel (which is basically an amalgamation of two different bronze age gods) from God in modern Judaism and God in modern Christianity.
Nope, none of these speak out for women or homosexuals.
Yes they do. In fact, go read the entirety of Luke chapter 10. Jesus addresses the question, "Who is my neighbor?" He launches into one of His patented parables, and I'm not gonna clog up the page posting an entire chapter of the Bible. The moral of the story is that EVERYONE is your neighbor.
I'm confused. What does "God gave them over to" mean? That's an odd phrasing, at least in modern English. The third verse in particular is weird, since the first clause of that verse makes it sound like it's saying "they weren't religious, so God made them gay."
I believe it means that God left them to their wicked ways basically. Keep in mind that there wasn't any knowledge of germs or viruses back then so sexually promiscuous people really did seem like they were being punished by God. Once again, as I often have to point out in the politics thread as well, comparing times of the past to today is like comparing black and white...
Pretty much that ^ God didn't take away their choices, but rather left them to their choices.
@LadyRhian I'm not familiar with "Hashem", did you pull that from Judaism, or was it used in an offshoot?
I'm confused. What does "God gave them over to" mean? That's an odd phrasing, at least in modern English. The third verse in particular is weird, since the first clause of that verse makes it sound like it's saying "they weren't religious, so God made them gay."
I believe it means that God left them to their wicked ways basically. Keep in mind that there wasn't any knowledge of germs or viruses back then so sexually promiscuous people really did seem like they were being punished by God. Once again, as I often have to point out in the politics thread as well, comparing times of the past to today is like comparing black and white...
Pretty much that ^ God didn't take away their choices, but rather left them to their choices.
That's probably one of the nicest ways of interpretending that snip o' Roman text I ever heard. And believe me... I heard a lot of not-so-nice ones over the years. Guess it doesn't help much that neither the Bible, Torah, Quran, Hadith or Sira seem to see homosexuals as part of their targeting audience for market research. Haven't got a clue of what's written in the Book of Mormon though, so there's that.
PS: I absolutely hate that new quote system on this site. Haven't a clue where one quote ends and one begins anymore. Grah!
PPS: Now it even bugs on me for setting a single word in bold. *sigh* PPPS: And don't get me startet with trying of placing quotes anywhere but the top! PPPPS: Honestly, this quote thing is baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.
Nope, none of these speak out for women or homosexuals.
Yes they do. In fact, go read the entirety of Luke chapter 10. Jesus addresses the question, "Who is my neighbor?" He launches into one of His patented parables, and I'm not gonna clog up the page posting an entire chapter of the Bible. The moral of the story is that EVERYONE is your neighbor. ~~~~~~~~ No, they do not.
Here is what I managed to find on the subject of homosexuality
Genesis 19:5
They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” (NIV)
Judges 19:22
22While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.” (NIV)
Leviticus 18:21-22
21“ ‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord. 22“ ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. (NIV)
Leviticus 20:13
13“ ‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (NIV)
Romans 1:27
27and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. (NRSV)
Romans 1:26
26For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, (NRSV)
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. (NRSV)
1 Timothy 1:8-10
8Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. 9This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, 10fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching (NRSV)
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (NKJ, Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)
What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (TNIV, Mark 7:20-23)
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV, 1st Corinthians 6:9-11)
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (NIV, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35)
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (NIV, 1 Timothy 2:11-12)
1 Corinthians 11:3Close
3But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ. (NRSV)
Ephesians 5:22-23Close
22Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. (NRSV)
1 Peter 3:1-6Close
1Wives, in the same way, accept the authority of your husbands, so that, even if some of them do not obey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives’ conduct, 2when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3Do not adorn yourselves outwardly by braiding your hair, and by wearing gold ornaments or fine clothing; 4rather, let your adornment be the inner self with the lasting beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in God’s sight. 5It was in this way long ago that the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves by accepting the authority of their husbands. 6Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him lord. You have become her daughters as long as you do what is good and never let fears alarm you. (NRSV)
And so on...
As a final word I hope we all understand how rules work: specific rules override general ones.
Once again, as I often have to point out in the politics thread as well, comparing times of the past to today is like comparing black and white...
I agree with that, with the caveat that for every moral issue that we debate today we can find historical evidence that certain educated people had thought about it long before it became a mainstream discussion (see Leonardo da Vinci as example regarding animal rights), so I do not think it absolves historical actors of all responsibility.
However, isn't this the religion thread, and not the politics thread?
To many people the idea of God includes that he transcends times and offers wisdom independent from the current zeitgeist, and most importantly, that God provides objective morality in the form of the Bible.
And so long as many Christians believe in this interpretation of the Bible, pointing out parts that seem wrong to us today is still a very relevant argument to make in discussions on religion... from both sides.
The more fundamental Christians will use Bible quotes to justify their belief that homosexuality is immoral and should be opposed, and the other side will use the same quotes to argue that the Bible is not a source of objective morality or that it is foremost a historical document.
And other people claim that the parts in the Bible that they like are divinely inspired, and the others are only historical... which makes those people hard to argue with, because they have no consensus on which part is which.
As a final word I hope we all understand how rules work: specific rules override general ones.
I would argue that this is not necessarily true in all cases, particularly in this one. The Bible is not intended to be a list of rules. It's a collection of varying types of documents, some of which are poetic in nature, others which are narrative, others which are closer to historical in the modern sense and others which are letters written for specific communities. What ties them together--from a Christian perspective--is their common account of Jewish heritage, spiritual beliefs and struggles in reconciling those beliefs with a messiah who functioned in a radically different way from what they expected. That final point is why I don't think the claim of specific rules overriding general ones applies in this instance.
Jesus specifically spoke against the reliance on religious law as a sign of one's faith or piety, hence his conflict with the Pharisees due to their legalistic interpretation of Judaism and insistence on an adherence to all rules. In contrast, he indicated that a general guideline did in fact matter more than specific rules: "But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" And he said to them, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."(Matthew 22:34-40)
Put into context, this relates to a fundamental pillar of the Christian faith: it's ultimately not about what good we do as individuals or what wrongs we commit, because no one is perfect: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (Romans 3:23-24)
That brings up the importance of context. I see this through three lens: the immediate context (surrounding verses and the type of document represented by that particular chapter), the wider context (the narrative flow of the scriptural account as a whole), and the intertwined cultural/historical context (which is far too often ignored in respect to interpretations and arguments).
You seem to be arguing that the verses you cited demonstrate that Christianity is against homosexuality and women's rights, and it therefore overrides what @ThacoBell indicated regarding the equality of all people. If we look at the first few verses you cite from the Old Testament, the immediate context is a historical account (disregarding for the moment whether it is in fact factually historical) and an account of the specific ways in which Moses was to lead his people in worship at the newly constructed Tabernacle. Jumping ahead for a moment to the other contexts, Leviticus was allegedly written after the Jews had completed their exodus from Egypt, during which time they had fallen into the worship of idols. This particular account was a direct response to that, as they were required to follow strict guidelines to restore their relationship with god. Further than this, some commandments (such as the dietary restrictions) had a historical context. For example, the term used in Leviticus 11:9-12 (sheqets) is often translated as detestable or abomination, but the actual meaning is closer to unclean, meaning that particular foods were likely unhealthy, whether due to the way they were prepared or other cultural reasons.
Putting these together, these verses regarding homosexuality (assuming correct translation) were historical in nature and a part of a greater set of rules intended to restore the relationship of a fallen people to their god. Now extrapolate to the wider context: Jesus again specifically spoke against pure adherence to the law as being the way to do this and instead argued that overarching commandments were at the essence of this relationship: loving god and loving one's neighbor. In that same vein, this ties back to Romans 3:23-24 (pointing to the fact that no one can fulfill the law perfectly) and further context of the New Testament scriptural account, which continually centers on love as being the core of faith: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." (John 13:34). This was further borne out by the very deliberate choice Jesus made in associating with those the law viewed as unclean, unworthy and separate from god: prostitute, lepers and other societal outcasts. His entire ministry rested on love for all people.
Looking at the New Testament verses you cited, a similar rebuttal can be made. In the first few, a historical context is being referred to, while in the latter, Paul was writing detailed letters to the fledgling churches with specific admonishments and praise based what was occurring within their communities, many of which were struggling to function within a different framework of faith from what was typical of the time. His focus is thus different in each, and I absolutely agree that he may have referenced specific sins. But at no time does this contradict the overarching message of the early Christian faith: that trust in Jesus was the key rather than trust in the law. This is best captured in Galatians 2:6: "Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified in faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified."
As a whole, it's thus incredibly problematic to argue that specific verses--outside of their immediate, wider and cultural/historical contexts--override the primary thematic core of the New Testament and its key teaching of the basic equality of all of us as sinners who cannot restore our relationship with god purely through moralization and an adherence to any particular ethical rules.
Finally, I think a great deal of this relates to the overarching stance one takes in relation to the Bible. The assumption from many non-Christians who vocally oppose the faith is that all Christians believing that the claim of the Bible being the divinely inspired word of god means they see it as 100% correct. That is wrong on two counts. First, it disregards the contexts I discussed. A prohibition against shellfish is naturally not going to be seen as a sin in the modern world, as it originated in a very specific place, time and culture. It's not about being "correct". Pointing out alleged inconsistencies in what is deemed right or wrong are often flawed in that sense, hence the importance of looking at the entirety of scripture rather than only isolating particular passages.
Second, and more importantly, there is a big difference between inerrancy and infallibility, and not all Christians adhere to the former. Inerrancy is the stance that the Bible is without error, whereas infallibility is the belief that the creation of the Bible may be divinely inspired, but it is still ultimately a collection of historical documents that reflect a wide range of purposes, styles and intentions. A large proportion of Christians, even if not familiar with the terms, fall in the camp of infallibility. I would argue that this stance also enriches the text insofar as it allows a deeper understanding of how and why particular events and themes are present. And once again, the core theme of the New Testament, as indicated previously, does center on the equality of all, albeit in a fallen state.
Well, that's a lot to unpack. Too bad the bloody quote system doesn't work...
"I would argue that this is not necessarily true in all cases, particularly in this one. The Bible is not intended to be a list of rules. It's a collection of varying types of documents, some of which are poetic in nature, others which are narrative, others which are closer to historical in the modern sense and others which are letters written for specific communities. What ties them together--from a Christian perspective--is their common account of Jewish heritage, spiritual beliefs and struggles in reconciling those beliefs with a messiah who functioned in a radically different way from what they expected. That final point is why I don't think the claim of specific rules overriding general ones applies in this instance."
Whether my claim about how rules work and whether the bible is intended to be a list of rules are completely separate issues. It seems like you're not arguing against the former but rather for the latter.
"Jesus specifically spoke against the reliance on religious law as a sign of one's faith or piety, hence his conflict with the Pharisees due to their legalistic interpretation of Judaism and insistence on an adherence to all rules. In contrast, he indicated that a general guideline did in fact matter more than specific rules: "But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" And he said to them, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:34-40)
Put into context, this relates to a fundamental pillar of the Christian faith: it's ultimately not about what good we do as individuals or what wrongs we commit, because no one is perfect: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (Romans 3:23-24)
That brings up the importance of context. I see this through three lens: the immediate context (surrounding verses and the type of document represented by that particular chapter), the wider context (the narrative flow of the scriptural account as a whole), and the intertwined cultural/historical context (which is far too often ignored in respect to interpretations and arguments)."
That's how you see it. Other people see it differently. Please contact the Westboro Baptists and they will explain to you why your interpretation is wrong. I don't care about subjective interpretations until someone can demonstrate the correct one. I am only concerned with what the book does and does not factually say.
"You seem to be arguing that the verses you cited demonstrate that Christianity is against homosexuality and women's rights, and it therefore overrides what @ThacoBell indicated regarding the equality of all people. If we look at the first few verses you cite from the Old Testament, the immediate context is a historical account (disregarding for the moment whether it is in fact factually historical) and an account of the specific ways in which Moses was to lead his people in worship at the newly constructed Tabernacle. Jumping ahead for a moment to the other contexts, Leviticus was allegedly written after the Jews had completed their exodus from Egypt, during which time they had fallen into the worship of idols. This particular account was a direct response to that, as they were required to follow strict guidelines to restore their relationship with god. Further than this, some commandments (such as the dietary restrictions) had a historical context. For example, the term used in Leviticus 11:9-12 (sheqets) is often translated as detestable or abomination, but the actual meaning is closer to unclean, meaning that particular foods were likely unhealthy, whether due to the way they were prepared or other cultural reasons."
No, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing what I said, i.e. it does not speak out for the rights of homosexuals or women as equal members of society. How are you simultaneously arguing the book is a historical account and asking me to disregard whether it actually is? That makes absolutely no sense.
"Putting these together, these verses regarding homosexuality (assuming correct translation) were historical in nature and a part of a greater set of rules intended to restore the relationship of a fallen people to their god. Now extrapolate to the wider context: Jesus again specifically spoke against pure adherence to the law as being the way to do this and instead argued that overarching commandments were at the essence of this relationship: loving god and loving one's neighbor. In that same vein, this ties back to Romans 3:23-24 (pointing to the fact that no one can fulfill the law perfectly) and further context of the New Testament scriptural account, which continually centers on love as being the core of faith: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." (John 13:34). This was further borne out by the very deliberate choice Jesus made in associating with those the law viewed as unclean, unworthy and separate from god: prostitute, lepers and other societal outcasts. His entire ministry rested on love for all people.
Looking at the New Testament verses you cited, a similar rebuttal can be made. In the first few, a historical context is being referred to, while in the latter, Paul was writing detailed letters to the fledgling churches with specific admonishments and praise based what was occurring within their communities, many of which were struggling to function within a different framework of faith from what was typical of the time. His focus is thus different in each, and I absolutely agree that he may have referenced specific sins. But at no time does this contradict the overarching message of the early Christian faith: that trust in Jesus was the key rather than trust in the law. This is best captured in Galatians 2:6: "Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified in faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.""
As a whole, it's thus incredibly problematic to argue that specific verses--outside of their immediate, wider and cultural/historical contexts--override the primary thematic core of the New Testament and its key teaching of the basic equality of all of us as sinners who cannot restore our relationship with god purely through moralization and an adherence to any particular ethical rules.
Finally, I think a great deal of this relates to the overarching stance one takes in relation to the Bible. The assumption from many non-Christians who vocally oppose the faith is that all Christians believing that the claim of the Bible being the divinely inspired word of god means they see it as 100% correct. That is wrong on two counts. First, it disregards the contexts I discussed. A prohibition against shellfish is naturally not going to be seen as a sin in the modern world, as it originated in a very specific place, time and culture. It's not about being "correct". Pointing out alleged inconsistencies in what is deemed right or wrong are often flawed in that sense, hence the importance of looking at the entirety of scripture rather than only isolating particular passages.
Second, and more importantly, there is a big difference between inerrancy and infallibility, and not all Christians adhere to the former. Inerrancy is the stance that the Bible is without error, whereas infallibility is the belief that the creation of the Bible may be divinely inspired, but it is still ultimately a collection of historical documents that reflect a wide range of purposes, styles and intentions. A large proportion of Christians, even if not familiar with the terms, fall in the camp of infallibility. I would argue that this stance also enriches the text insofar as it allows a deeper understanding of how and why particular events and themes are present. And once again, the core theme of the New Testament, as indicated previously, does center on the equality of all, albeit in a fallen state."
Once again, go ahead and engage with your fellow Christians until you find the correct interpretation. I will then tell you why your book is still wrong and immoral.
Well, that's a lot to unpack. Too bad the bloody quote system doesn't work...
"I would argue that this is not necessarily true in all cases, particularly in this one. The Bible is not intended to be a list of rules. It's a collection of varying types of documents, some of which are poetic in nature, others which are narrative, others which are closer to historical in the modern sense and others which are letters written for specific communities. What ties them together--from a Christian perspective--is their common account of Jewish heritage, spiritual beliefs and struggles in reconciling those beliefs with a messiah who functioned in a radically different way from what they expected. That final point is why I don't think the claim of specific rules overriding general ones applies in this instance."
Whether my claim about how rules work and whether the bible is intended to be a list of rules are completely separate issues. It seems like you're not arguing against the former but rather for the latter.
"Jesus specifically spoke against the reliance on religious law as a sign of one's faith or piety, hence his conflict with the Pharisees due to their legalistic interpretation of Judaism and insistence on an adherence to all rules. In contrast, he indicated that a general guideline did in fact matter more than specific rules: "But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" And he said to them, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:34-40)
Put into context, this relates to a fundamental pillar of the Christian faith: it's ultimately not about what good we do as individuals or what wrongs we commit, because no one is perfect: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (Romans 3:23-24)
That brings up the importance of context. I see this through three lens: the immediate context (surrounding verses and the type of document represented by that particular chapter), the wider context (the narrative flow of the scriptural account as a whole), and the intertwined cultural/historical context (which is far too often ignored in respect to interpretations and arguments)."
That's how you see it. Other people see it differently. Please contact the Westboro Baptists and they will explain to you why your interpretation is wrong. I don't care about subjective interpretations until someone can demonstrate the correct one. I am only concerned with what the book does and does not factually say.
"You seem to be arguing that the verses you cited demonstrate that Christianity is against homosexuality and women's rights, and it therefore overrides what @ThacoBell indicated regarding the equality of all people. If we look at the first few verses you cite from the Old Testament, the immediate context is a historical account (disregarding for the moment whether it is in fact factually historical) and an account of the specific ways in which Moses was to lead his people in worship at the newly constructed Tabernacle. Jumping ahead for a moment to the other contexts, Leviticus was allegedly written after the Jews had completed their exodus from Egypt, during which time they had fallen into the worship of idols. This particular account was a direct response to that, as they were required to follow strict guidelines to restore their relationship with god. Further than this, some commandments (such as the dietary restrictions) had a historical context. For example, the term used in Leviticus 11:9-12 (sheqets) is often translated as detestable or abomination, but the actual meaning is closer to unclean, meaning that particular foods were likely unhealthy, whether due to the way they were prepared or other cultural reasons."
No, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing what I said, i.e. it does not speak out for the rights of homosexuals or women as equal members of society. How are you simultaneously arguing the book is a historical account and asking me to disregard whether it actually is? That makes absolutely no sense.
"Putting these together, these verses regarding homosexuality (assuming correct translation) were historical in nature and a part of a greater set of rules intended to restore the relationship of a fallen people to their god. Now extrapolate to the wider context: Jesus again specifically spoke against pure adherence to the law as being the way to do this and instead argued that overarching commandments were at the essence of this relationship: loving god and loving one's neighbor. In that same vein, this ties back to Romans 3:23-24 (pointing to the fact that no one can fulfill the law perfectly) and further context of the New Testament scriptural account, which continually centers on love as being the core of faith: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." (John 13:34). This was further borne out by the very deliberate choice Jesus made in associating with those the law viewed as unclean, unworthy and separate from god: prostitute, lepers and other societal outcasts. His entire ministry rested on love for all people.
Looking at the New Testament verses you cited, a similar rebuttal can be made. In the first few, a historical context is being referred to, while in the latter, Paul was writing detailed letters to the fledgling churches with specific admonishments and praise based what was occurring within their communities, many of which were struggling to function within a different framework of faith from what was typical of the time. His focus is thus different in each, and I absolutely agree that he may have referenced specific sins. But at no time does this contradict the overarching message of the early Christian faith: that trust in Jesus was the key rather than trust in the law. This is best captured in Galatians 2:6: "Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified in faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.""
As a whole, it's thus incredibly problematic to argue that specific verses--outside of their immediate, wider and cultural/historical contexts--override the primary thematic core of the New Testament and its key teaching of the basic equality of all of us as sinners who cannot restore our relationship with god purely through moralization and an adherence to any particular ethical rules.
Finally, I think a great deal of this relates to the overarching stance one takes in relation to the Bible. The assumption from many non-Christians who vocally oppose the faith is that all Christians believing that the claim of the Bible being the divinely inspired word of god means they see it as 100% correct. That is wrong on two counts. First, it disregards the contexts I discussed. A prohibition against shellfish is naturally not going to be seen as a sin in the modern world, as it originated in a very specific place, time and culture. It's not about being "correct". Pointing out alleged inconsistencies in what is deemed right or wrong are often flawed in that sense, hence the importance of looking at the entirety of scripture rather than only isolating particular passages.
Second, and more importantly, there is a big difference between inerrancy and infallibility, and not all Christians adhere to the former. Inerrancy is the stance that the Bible is without error, whereas infallibility is the belief that the creation of the Bible may be divinely inspired, but it is still ultimately a collection of historical documents that reflect a wide range of purposes, styles and intentions. A large proportion of Christians, even if not familiar with the terms, fall in the camp of infallibility. I would argue that this stance also enriches the text insofar as it allows a deeper understanding of how and why particular events and themes are present. And once again, the core theme of the New Testament, as indicated previously, does center on the equality of all, albeit in a fallen state."
Once again, go ahead and engage with your fellow Christians until you find the correct interpretation. I will then tell you why your book is still wrong and immoral.
Immoral to you. Because your views are apparently the only ones that are valid.
I would argue that you are at least as dogmatic in your own way as the Fundamentalist Christians I grew up with...
Well, that's a lot to unpack. Too bad the bloody quote system doesn't work...
"I would argue that this is not necessarily true in all cases, particularly in this one. The Bible is not intended to be a list of rules. It's a collection of varying types of documents, some of which are poetic in nature, others which are narrative, others which are closer to historical in the modern sense and others which are letters written for specific communities. What ties them together--from a Christian perspective--is their common account of Jewish heritage, spiritual beliefs and struggles in reconciling those beliefs with a messiah who functioned in a radically different way from what they expected. That final point is why I don't think the claim of specific rules overriding general ones applies in this instance."
Whether my claim about how rules work and whether the bible is intended to be a list of rules are completely separate issues. It seems like you're not arguing against the former but rather for the latter.
"Jesus specifically spoke against the reliance on religious law as a sign of one's faith or piety, hence his conflict with the Pharisees due to their legalistic interpretation of Judaism and insistence on an adherence to all rules. In contrast, he indicated that a general guideline did in fact matter more than specific rules: "But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" And he said to them, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:34-40)
Put into context, this relates to a fundamental pillar of the Christian faith: it's ultimately not about what good we do as individuals or what wrongs we commit, because no one is perfect: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (Romans 3:23-24)
That brings up the importance of context. I see this through three lens: the immediate context (surrounding verses and the type of document represented by that particular chapter), the wider context (the narrative flow of the scriptural account as a whole), and the intertwined cultural/historical context (which is far too often ignored in respect to interpretations and arguments)."
That's how you see it. Other people see it differently. Please contact the Westboro Baptists and they will explain to you why your interpretation is wrong. I don't care about subjective interpretations until someone can demonstrate the correct one. I am only concerned with what the book does and does not factually say.
"You seem to be arguing that the verses you cited demonstrate that Christianity is against homosexuality and women's rights, and it therefore overrides what @ThacoBell indicated regarding the equality of all people. If we look at the first few verses you cite from the Old Testament, the immediate context is a historical account (disregarding for the moment whether it is in fact factually historical) and an account of the specific ways in which Moses was to lead his people in worship at the newly constructed Tabernacle. Jumping ahead for a moment to the other contexts, Leviticus was allegedly written after the Jews had completed their exodus from Egypt, during which time they had fallen into the worship of idols. This particular account was a direct response to that, as they were required to follow strict guidelines to restore their relationship with god. Further than this, some commandments (such as the dietary restrictions) had a historical context. For example, the term used in Leviticus 11:9-12 (sheqets) is often translated as detestable or abomination, but the actual meaning is closer to unclean, meaning that particular foods were likely unhealthy, whether due to the way they were prepared or other cultural reasons."
No, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing what I said, i.e. it does not speak out for the rights of homosexuals or women as equal members of society. How are you simultaneously arguing the book is a historical account and asking me to disregard whether it actually is? That makes absolutely no sense.
"Putting these together, these verses regarding homosexuality (assuming correct translation) were historical in nature and a part of a greater set of rules intended to restore the relationship of a fallen people to their god. Now extrapolate to the wider context: Jesus again specifically spoke against pure adherence to the law as being the way to do this and instead argued that overarching commandments were at the essence of this relationship: loving god and loving one's neighbor. In that same vein, this ties back to Romans 3:23-24 (pointing to the fact that no one can fulfill the law perfectly) and further context of the New Testament scriptural account, which continually centers on love as being the core of faith: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." (John 13:34). This was further borne out by the very deliberate choice Jesus made in associating with those the law viewed as unclean, unworthy and separate from god: prostitute, lepers and other societal outcasts. His entire ministry rested on love for all people.
Looking at the New Testament verses you cited, a similar rebuttal can be made. In the first few, a historical context is being referred to, while in the latter, Paul was writing detailed letters to the fledgling churches with specific admonishments and praise based what was occurring within their communities, many of which were struggling to function within a different framework of faith from what was typical of the time. His focus is thus different in each, and I absolutely agree that he may have referenced specific sins. But at no time does this contradict the overarching message of the early Christian faith: that trust in Jesus was the key rather than trust in the law. This is best captured in Galatians 2:6: "Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified in faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.""
As a whole, it's thus incredibly problematic to argue that specific verses--outside of their immediate, wider and cultural/historical contexts--override the primary thematic core of the New Testament and its key teaching of the basic equality of all of us as sinners who cannot restore our relationship with god purely through moralization and an adherence to any particular ethical rules.
Finally, I think a great deal of this relates to the overarching stance one takes in relation to the Bible. The assumption from many non-Christians who vocally oppose the faith is that all Christians believing that the claim of the Bible being the divinely inspired word of god means they see it as 100% correct. That is wrong on two counts. First, it disregards the contexts I discussed. A prohibition against shellfish is naturally not going to be seen as a sin in the modern world, as it originated in a very specific place, time and culture. It's not about being "correct". Pointing out alleged inconsistencies in what is deemed right or wrong are often flawed in that sense, hence the importance of looking at the entirety of scripture rather than only isolating particular passages.
Second, and more importantly, there is a big difference between inerrancy and infallibility, and not all Christians adhere to the former. Inerrancy is the stance that the Bible is without error, whereas infallibility is the belief that the creation of the Bible may be divinely inspired, but it is still ultimately a collection of historical documents that reflect a wide range of purposes, styles and intentions. A large proportion of Christians, even if not familiar with the terms, fall in the camp of infallibility. I would argue that this stance also enriches the text insofar as it allows a deeper understanding of how and why particular events and themes are present. And once again, the core theme of the New Testament, as indicated previously, does center on the equality of all, albeit in a fallen state."
Once again, go ahead and engage with your fellow Christians until you find the correct interpretation. I will then tell you why your book is still wrong and immoral.
Immoral to you. Because your views are apparently the only ones that are valid.
I would argue that you are at least as dogmatic in your own way as the Fundamentalist Christians I grew up with...
You're railing against dogmatic beliefs that really only Fundamentalists hold as unbendable truths. Just because there are zealots out there doesn't mean every Christian is a zealot. Nothing is going to convince a zealot that they're wrong, not logic, not debate and not even other Christians (maybe even especially other Christians).
Having aaid that, Christianity and most other religions have evolved over the centuries, maybe slower than society in general, but they have. They're not burning witches anymore...
Let me just add a side note to the current discussion. Fundamentalists are present everywhere. An atheist fundamentalist is as mind boggling as a christian one to me and they will hold their views even when presented with evidence they are wrong.
Not every Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, add your favorite religion here, is a zealot. Not every atheist, agnostic, add your favorite non-believer bland here, is rational.
Regarding biblical interpretation the only people who could answer what they actually meant have been dead for at least 1900 years... Everything else we discuss today is merely opinion. If it's official interpretation or not is irrelevant to the actual meaning of the text. Let's add all the changes of meaning that happened in who knows how many translations of the original text and we see we are all discussing opinion here.
To be clear people will choose their beliefs according to their preconceptions. If they believe homosexuals are wicked they will find religious texts to support their view of the world. If they believe that only god may judge who is right or wrong and they should treat everyone as equal, there is support for their view as well.
You're railing against dogmatic beliefs that really only Fundamentalists hold as unbendable truths. Just because there are zealots out there doesn't mean every Christian is a zealot. Nothing is going to convince a zealot that they're wrong, not logic, not debate and not even other Christians (maybe even especially other Christians).
Having aaid that, Christianity and most other religions have evolved over the centuries, maybe slower than society in general, but they have. They're not burning witches anymore...
No, I'm pointing out what the book factually says. As in the words that are actually in the book, not what people believe it says. I specifically said I care neither for the subjective beliefs of the Baptists nor of the liberal Christians until they can demonstrate the truth of their claims. I am also pointing out that it never says is that homosexuals are equal to straight people. I never argued every Christian is a zealot.
I agree that all religions have
zealots. However, one thing that is frustrating for a non-believer when arguing
with believers about the merits of their religion, is how often you run into
the no true Scotsman fallacy.
Very often when you talk about the
rampant homophobia in some (yes, just some) Christian Churches you get told
that those people are not true Christians and are reading the bible
incorrectly.
There is probably some truth to
that, but in general I would like to see more acknowledgement that the more
zealotry people self-identify as Christians for good reason: they go back to
the same roots, the same holy book and the same traditions as the more
progressive Christians. Instead there is often a flat "this has nothing to
do with us".
That does not mean that the more
progressive Christians are morally culpable for the Zealots, just that the
presence of those Zealots should not be simply dismissed, especially when comparing the relative merits of religions (or absences of religion).
Especially as the same people are
then quick to claim each other as follow Christians if it about something
positive (of which there are plenty of examples, I hasten to add).
I suspect that this might be where
@FinneousPJis coming from but might be totally wrong.
Incidently, here's a rather dated overview about believes in the US. All ranked nicely for acceptance of homosexuality. And while statistics are never accurate anyway, it's still mildly interesting to look at. If only to look at all the branches of Christianity popping up.
Uh... I can't be the only one here who probably never even heard about a good ²/³ of them, can I?
@Isandir Very well said. If I may ask, are you a practicing Christian or come from a Christian background? Your post is at least as nuanced as a career pastor. I'm very impressed.
@Ammar I have issues with the idea of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy as it seems to be applied here. When it comes a group that has either behavoral or philosophical requirements, then its expected to adhere to said requirements to be considered a part of said group. If someone claimed to be vegan, but ate meat regularly, no one would scream "Scotsman fallacy" at them. It would be expected that a vegan would not eat meat. So its not really fair to see people acting out the exact opposite of what Jesus taught and dissmiss it all as a fallacy when its pointed out that Christians should not act in such a way.
There is an extra complexity when it comes to a nuanced religion as opposed to a diet, admittedly, you can't just look at a person and immediately know the cause or frequency of their actions. For example, its easy to look at say, the Westboro church and their continual spreading of hate, and say "not Christian". They embody the exact opposite of Jesus' teaching. But a random person on the street, who you only encounter once, and have no idea where their affiliation is with? It could just be someone using religion as an excuse to show their darker side in relative safety, it could be an organized religion whose theology DOES advocate such things, or it could simply be an otherwise reasonable person who bought into a bad teaching.
Its unfair to just dismiss obvious breaches of theology with "fallacy", likewise you can't know what a random person believes or what the reason is without enaging in discussion with them. Everyone is imperfect, and otherwise decent people can get tripped up, or have bad judgement. A Christian who acts in a racist or predjudiced way, should come around when confronted about it and walked through Jesus' teaching again. Some people just want an excuse to be bigoted and don't actually care what religion they "pracice", so long as it gives "justification" for their actions. I've had plenty of encounters with both of these groups.
You're railing against dogmatic beliefs that really only Fundamentalists hold as unbendable truths. Just because there are zealots out there doesn't mean every Christian is a zealot. Nothing is going to convince a zealot that they're wrong, not logic, not debate and not even other Christians (maybe even especially other Christians).
Having aaid that, Christianity and most other religions have evolved over the centuries, maybe slower than society in general, but they have. They're not burning witches anymore...
No, I'm pointing out what the book factually says. As in the words that are actually in the book, not what people believe it says. I specifically said I care neither for the subjective beliefs of the Baptists nor of the liberal Christians until they can demonstrate the truth of their claims. I am also pointing out that it never says is that homosexuals are equal to straight people. I never argued every Christian is a zealot.
Can you please explain why I'm dogmatic?
Dogmatic meaning everything being black & white with no room for shades of gray. Even statements like 'this is what the book factually says' might not be correct. The Bible has many translations and has been translated from many languages.
@Isandir Very well said. If I may ask, are you a practicing Christian or come from a Christian background? Your post is at least as nuanced as a career pastor. I'm very impressed.
@Ammar I have issues with the idea of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy as it seems to be applied here. When it comes a group that has either behavoral or philosophical requirements, then its expected to adhere to said requirements to be considered a part of said group. If someone claimed to be vegan, but ate meat regularly, no one would scream "Scotsman fallacy" at them. It would be expected that a vegan would not eat meat. So its not really fair to see people acting out the exact opposite of what Jesus taught and dissmiss it all as a fallacy when its pointed out that Christians should not act in such a way.
There is an extra complexity when it comes to a nuanced religion as opposed to a diet, admittedly, you can't just look at a person and immediately know the cause or frequency of their actions. For example, its easy to look at say, the Westboro church and their continual spreading of hate, and say "not Christian". They embody the exact opposite of Jesus' teaching. But a random person on the street, who you only encounter once, and have no idea where their affiliation is with? It could just be someone using religion as an excuse to show their darker side in relative safety, it could be an organized religion whose theology DOES advocate such things, or it could simply be an otherwise reasonable person who bought into a bad teaching.
Its unfair to just dismiss obvious breaches of theology with "fallacy", likewise you can't know what a random person believes or what the reason is without enaging in discussion with them. Everyone is imperfect, and otherwise decent people can get tripped up, or have bad judgement. A Christian who acts in a racist or predjudiced way, should come around when confronted about it and walked through Jesus' teaching again. Some people just want an excuse to be bigoted and don't actually care what religion they "pracice", so long as it gives "justification" for their actions. I've had plenty of encounters with both of these groups.
I'm sorry, but that does not exclude the true Scotsman fallacy.
You're railing against dogmatic beliefs that really only Fundamentalists hold as unbendable truths. Just because there are zealots out there doesn't mean every Christian is a zealot. Nothing is going to convince a zealot that they're wrong, not logic, not debate and not even other Christians (maybe even especially other Christians).
Having aaid that, Christianity and most other religions have evolved over the centuries, maybe slower than society in general, but they have. They're not burning witches anymore...
No, I'm pointing out what the book factually says. As in the words that are actually in the book, not what people believe it says. I specifically said I care neither for the subjective beliefs of the Baptists nor of the liberal Christians until they can demonstrate the truth of their claims. I am also pointing out that it never says is that homosexuals are equal to straight people. I never argued every Christian is a zealot.
Can you please explain why I'm dogmatic?
Dogmatic meaning everything being black & white with no room for shades of gray. Even statements like 'this is what the book factually says' might not be correct. The Bible has many translations and has been translated from many languages.
Obviously I'm referring to the book I'm actually quoting from, not whence it was translated... Anyway, everything is not black and white to me, and I certainly do not ascribe to any dogma.
@Isandir Very well said. If I may ask, are you a practicing Christian or come from a Christian background? Your post is at least as nuanced as a career pastor. I'm very impressed.
@Ammar I have issues with the idea of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy as it seems to be applied here. When it comes a group that has either behavoral or philosophical requirements, then its expected to adhere to said requirements to be considered a part of said group. If someone claimed to be vegan, but ate meat regularly, no one would scream "Scotsman fallacy" at them. It would be expected that a vegan would not eat meat. So its not really fair to see people acting out the exact opposite of what Jesus taught and dissmiss it all as a fallacy when its pointed out that Christians should not act in such a way.
There is an extra complexity when it comes to a nuanced religion as opposed to a diet, admittedly, you can't just look at a person and immediately know the cause or frequency of their actions. For example, its easy to look at say, the Westboro church and their continual spreading of hate, and say "not Christian". They embody the exact opposite of Jesus' teaching. But a random person on the street, who you only encounter once, and have no idea where their affiliation is with? It could just be someone using religion as an excuse to show their darker side in relative safety, it could be an organized religion whose theology DOES advocate such things, or it could simply be an otherwise reasonable person who bought into a bad teaching.
Its unfair to just dismiss obvious breaches of theology with "fallacy", likewise you can't know what a random person believes or what the reason is without enaging in discussion with them. Everyone is imperfect, and otherwise decent people can get tripped up, or have bad judgement. A Christian who acts in a racist or predjudiced way, should come around when confronted about it and walked through Jesus' teaching again. Some people just want an excuse to be bigoted and don't actually care what religion they "pracice", so long as it gives "justification" for their actions. I've had plenty of encounters with both of these groups.
You are naming racism as an example of being against the teaching of Jesus. But American racism was historically justified by Christianity a lot (as was the opposition to be fair) - e.g. there was the justification based on the curse of Ham. Many Christians believes this to be a correct interpretation of scripture.
As for hate against gay people - there are Bible quotes justifying such hate, not only in the Old Testament. And it is hard to read Matthew 19:3 as not being in support of what is now called the biblical concept of marriage. I agree that there are more general rules to love all your neighbours but there is also the more general concept of Hell and just everlasting punishment of sinners. To me it seems both sides can call upon plenty of Bible quotes to support their views. Both sides claim to have studied the Bible in detail, with their studies showing that their interpretation is the correct one.
I know that I favor the liberal interpretation, but you seem to be saying that the more hateful interpretations are obviously false theology, and I can't agree with that.
I think we are almost on the page, as you say yourself that it is hard
to compare with with diet. But yes, the problem is that Christian
theology is so disunified that every fraction can call no true scotsman
on the others on every point they differ. With diet it is easy. Which
Catholicism it is still possible in many circumstances, given that the
Church has official Doctrine on many things. But Christianity in
general?
Give me your definition of
Christianity and I bet that it either includes those hate groups, or
that a significant portion (say at least one-third?) of self-identified
Christians would disagree with either the definition or the conclusions you would term obvious corollaries from the definition.
I don't want to overload us all on full quotes either, so I'll just break it down with references and specific quotes if necessary:
@FinneousPJ, I was specifically referring to the model of scripture as an actual example of an overarching commandment (the directive to love god and one's neighbor) having primacy over a specific one (the existing body of Judaic law). However, two other non-religious examples could be given. The first amendment in the United States has on numerous occasions--though not always--been used to rule against specific laws forbidding certain types of speech. (That being said, what typically follows is a specific law being established or overturned, but the point is that the model exists in the first place.) On a smaller scale, we have a policy in our workplace that allots a number of bereavement days. However, in cases in which a staff member has faced multiple deaths in the family, we override this specific rule in order to provide more days, under the explicit understanding that doing so ties to our greater values, which we do define as general guidelines for behavior and decisions. These are not abstract. They are real-life examples of how a general rule can override a specific one.
Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but your arguments from that point onward are based in the fact that there is subjectivity in the interpretation of the Bible. My response would be simple: when is there not subjectivity in the vast majority of human life? Most scientists agree that climate change is occurring. A small number disagree. Most agree that global warming is a part of that and is based in human causes. A small number again disagree. A larger number would disagree on timelines, scales, specific causes, etc. This doesn't invalidate the body of evidence that suggests that it is happening. Thinking more abstractly, poverty is a reality for many across the world. The causes of this are numerous, and can be related to education, environment, family situation, law and a vast range of other factors. However, politicians in both the United States and India publicly stated that poverty is a state of mind--their interpretation of a complex situation that no one can fully agree upon. Does that mean poverty does not exist simply because some people (and it is not just them to be clear) believe it to be a matter of perspective? Someone could point to the fact that we can observe poverty, but that doesn't negate their interpretation of what is causing that state of poverty.
In other words, interpretations need to be backed by contextual evidence. Westboro Baptist Church adopts a hardline Calvinist perspective that relies on the interpretation of a small number of specific verses while ignoring the other contexts I identified. They are thus rejected by most of mainstream Christianity just as the scientists who deny climate change are denounced by their peers, and just as most of us would denounce someone who claims poverty is a state of mind, even though there is no clear evidence of the exact causes, scope or scale of either.
Returning to the relevance of this to the Bible, you indicated that you are only concerned with what it factually says. Factually, we know the rough timeframe in which the various texts were written. Factually, we can compare them to other types of literature in those timeframes. Factually, we now have a more robust understanding of ancient Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek than in the past to better understand the linguistic connotations of the texts. Factually, we have the historical and cultural context of the people who wrote each of texts. Ignoring these is ignoring facts. The interpretation, just as with most evidence, is a necessity due to context. Again returning to law as an analogous example, legal interpretations follow these same types of standards: historical cases and precedents, cultural shifts, temporal considerations, etc. The bottom line is that interpretation is a necessary part of life and is not solely tied to religion.
Returning to your next response, you ask how I could be asking you both consider and disregard the historical context. To clarify, I was pointing out that Leviticus was written as an account of the guidelines established for worship at the Tabernacle, and how that was grounded in a specific belief about the fallen state of the relationship the Jewish people had with god at that time. The question in parentheses was indicating that the determination of whether every aspect of the specific historical event of the exodus occurred as written there is a separate matter from the overarching purpose of the text. This ties right back to what I observed previously: all contexts are important. Our view of written history in the modern Western world is fundamentally different from how it was seen in the ancient world. We see it as a logical ordering of facts, events and dates. This is a relatively new conception of how history should be documented. In contrast, ancient Jewish culture in particular was more concerned with narrative and relationships. Thus, the question is one of whether the historical account is historical by their definition or our definition. In either case, however, the Levitical rules you cited were specifically referring to the rules a small, ancient group of Jews established for the specific purpose of restoring their relationship to a god that they had forsaken for the worship of idols.
I get the sense--and perhaps this may derive from the interactions you've had with some Christians--that you see the Bible as a monolithic text. It's not, and that's the reason I touched on the inerrantist and infallibilist positions. We know by comparing certain books of the Bible to other historical texts that some were written as poetry (e.g., Song of Solomon). Some were historical (by their definition), as is the case with Leviticus. Within the New Testament, I already referenced the fact that several books were simply the letters that Paul wrote to churches. Ignoring the unique context of each one ignores the process we use to assess all evidence. You're seem to be trying to boil this down to "facts", but the point that can be made by all of this is that most facts are always subject to interpretation. (Note that I did say most...not all.)
As a final note, I find it interesting that you end on a blatant assumption, and one that comes across harshly, as @Balrog99 already observed: "Once again, go ahead and engage with your fellow Christians until you find the correct interpretation. I will then tell you why your book is still wrong and immoral."
Why would you assume I'm Christian?
@mlnevese captures one of the key points here: there are fundamentalists and extremists in all walks of life, and not only in religious circles, but also in politics, socioeconomics and science. The common denominator is humanity. I do partially disagree with the reference to interpretation. Again, the process applied to Biblical interpretation is not fundamentally different from the analysis of any other type of ancient text. The style of writing, language format and structure, historical and cultural context, contemporaneous writings, and similar considerations are all used to extrapolate meaning. Unfortunately, most people (to be clear, I'm not specifically referring to anyone here) simply don't take the time to do this and instead find it easier to adopt stances built upon talking points and surface-level analysis. In the religious context, this is unfortunately how cults and fringe denominations emerge: a disregard for proper consideration and interpretation of evidence. Is it more difficult when dealing with a 2,000-year-old text? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.
@Ammar, I think you're absolutely right that, historically, a major failing of many religions has been their unwillingness to address those within the overarching faith who hold to untenable positions that drive bigotry, hatred and violence. That being said, many are now doing that on a wider scale. Unfortunately, it's too late for many of them in respect to their reputation among those who do not hold to their beliefs. However, I do also agree with @Thacobell hat it's problematic to assume that the bulk of a religion's adherents should be held accountable for a fringe that violates a common, core element of their faith. Again returning to a few counterexamples, we don't lambast scientists for failing to address the small number who deny climate change. (We cheer when they do, but it's not counted against them if they don't.) We don't attack all teachers when one is convicted of child abuse though all are expected to abide by a few core principles in their practice, foremost of which is the safety of the children under their care.
I anticipate that the counterargument would be that religion should be treated differently. Well...why?
The core elements of Christianity that I think virtually all would accept would be the divinity of Jesus, his ministry and its specific call to love god and other people, his crucifixion, and his resurrection as captured in the Nicene Creed. I know that's opening another can of worms, but I'm fine with that!
@Thacobell, if I take your question at face value, no, I am not a practicing Christian and I have never formally studied theology. To provide wider context (as you can tell, I'm a strong proponent of context!), as some other long-time forum members may recall from other conversations, I'm originally from the United States but have lived in Asia for nearly 15 years. Although I was raised in an Evangelical Christian family, my parents left the church when I was five years old and never joined another. Currently, my wife is a Thai Buddhist, my best friends are an Indian atheist and Canadian agnostic, and I don't consider myself a part of any religious community.
I think you may be seeing the point I'm getting at. A massive issue in religion and other controversial areas is that we too often try, whether consciously or not, to make assumptions and fit others into neat little boxes in order to make ourselves feel more comfortable with our beliefs. The problem is that people just don't fit in those boxes. Without a genuine attempt to understand and empathize with others, we'll never be able to address the many issues we're facing in the modern world. "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Isandir said: The core elements of Christianity that I think virtually all would accept would be the divinity of Jesus, his ministry and its specific call to love god and other people, his crucifixion, and his resurrection as captured in the Nicene Creed. I know that's opening another can of worms, but I'm fine with that!
Actually, there are branches of Christianity that don't believe in the trinity. Traditional Unitarians can be counted here for instance. At least over here in Germany they seem to see Jesus and God as one and the same. Not father and son, mind you. But actually the same person.
Ironically, Unitarism is anything but a unified believe system. They even loose to their own name.
Incidently, here's a rather dated overview about believes in the US. All ranked nicely for acceptance of homosexuality. And while statistics are never accurate anyway, it's still mildly interesting to look at. If only to look at all the branches of Christianity popping up.
Uh... I can't be the only one here who probably never even heard about a good ²/³ of them, can I?
"Holiness"? Really...?
I've heard of probably 9/10th of them.
The only ones I haven't are Congregationalists, Disciples of Christ, Holiness (both of them), Restorationist, COGIC, and Pietist.
It is interesting seeing the spread. Not one mainline Protestant group below 50%. Not one Evangelical Protestant group above 50%. Could it be that casting out a sizable proportion of the population could affect your congregation size?! MADNESS!
And Catholics all over the place depending how orthodox they want to be.
It also has Friends in there.
The question is odd as well. Would you call heterosexuality a "way of life"? Seems a bit much to call your sexual orientation your way of life.
Comments
Pretty much that ^ God didn't take away their choices, but rather left them to their choices.
@LadyRhian I'm not familiar with "Hashem", did you pull that from Judaism, or was it used in an offshoot?
@LadyRhian I'm not familiar with "Hashem", did you pull that from Judaism, or was it used in an offshoot?
It's from Judaism. It literally means "The Name".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashem
~~~~~~~~
No, they do not.
Here is what I managed to find on the subject of homosexuality
Genesis 19:5
They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” (NIV)
Judges 19:22
22While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.” (NIV)
Leviticus 18:21-22
21“ ‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord. 22“ ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. (NIV)
Leviticus 20:13
13“ ‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (NIV)
Romans 1:27
27and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. (NRSV)
Romans 1:26
26For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, (NRSV)
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. (NRSV)
1 Timothy 1:8-10
8Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. 9This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, 10fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching (NRSV)
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (NKJ, Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)
What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (TNIV, Mark 7:20-23)
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV, 1st Corinthians 6:9-11)
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (NIV, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35)
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (NIV, 1 Timothy 2:11-12)
1 Corinthians 11:3Close
3But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ. (NRSV)
Ephesians 5:22-23Close
22Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. (NRSV)
1 Peter 3:1-6Close
1Wives, in the same way, accept the authority of your husbands, so that, even if some of them do not obey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives’ conduct, 2when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3Do not adorn yourselves outwardly by braiding your hair, and by wearing gold ornaments or fine clothing; 4rather, let your adornment be the inner self with the lasting beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in God’s sight. 5It was in this way long ago that the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves by accepting the authority of their husbands. 6Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him lord. You have become her daughters as long as you do what is good and never let fears alarm you. (NRSV)
And so on...
As a final word I hope we all understand how rules work: specific rules override general ones.
I would argue that this is not necessarily true in all cases, particularly in this one. The Bible is not intended to be a list of rules. It's a collection of varying types of documents, some of which are poetic in nature, others which are narrative, others which are closer to historical in the modern sense and others which are letters written for specific communities. What ties them together--from a Christian perspective--is their common account of Jewish heritage, spiritual beliefs and struggles in reconciling those beliefs with a messiah who functioned in a radically different way from what they expected. That final point is why I don't think the claim of specific rules overriding general ones applies in this instance.
Jesus specifically spoke against the reliance on religious law as a sign of one's faith or piety, hence his conflict with the Pharisees due to their legalistic interpretation of Judaism and insistence on an adherence to all rules. In contrast, he indicated that a general guideline did in fact matter more than specific rules: "But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" And he said to them, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:34-40)
Put into context, this relates to a fundamental pillar of the Christian faith: it's ultimately not about what good we do as individuals or what wrongs we commit, because no one is perfect: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (Romans 3:23-24)
That brings up the importance of context. I see this through three lens: the immediate context (surrounding verses and the type of document represented by that particular chapter), the wider context (the narrative flow of the scriptural account as a whole), and the intertwined cultural/historical context (which is far too often ignored in respect to interpretations and arguments).
You seem to be arguing that the verses you cited demonstrate that Christianity is against homosexuality and women's rights, and it therefore overrides what @ThacoBell indicated regarding the equality of all people. If we look at the first few verses you cite from the Old Testament, the immediate context is a historical account (disregarding for the moment whether it is in fact factually historical) and an account of the specific ways in which Moses was to lead his people in worship at the newly constructed Tabernacle. Jumping ahead for a moment to the other contexts, Leviticus was allegedly written after the Jews had completed their exodus from Egypt, during which time they had fallen into the worship of idols. This particular account was a direct response to that, as they were required to follow strict guidelines to restore their relationship with god. Further than this, some commandments (such as the dietary restrictions) had a historical context. For example, the term used in Leviticus 11:9-12 (sheqets) is often translated as detestable or abomination, but the actual meaning is closer to unclean, meaning that particular foods were likely unhealthy, whether due to the way they were prepared or other cultural reasons.
Putting these together, these verses regarding homosexuality (assuming correct translation) were historical in nature and a part of a greater set of rules intended to restore the relationship of a fallen people to their god. Now extrapolate to the wider context: Jesus again specifically spoke against pure adherence to the law as being the way to do this and instead argued that overarching commandments were at the essence of this relationship: loving god and loving one's neighbor. In that same vein, this ties back to Romans 3:23-24 (pointing to the fact that no one can fulfill the law perfectly) and further context of the New Testament scriptural account, which continually centers on love as being the core of faith: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." (John 13:34). This was further borne out by the very deliberate choice Jesus made in associating with those the law viewed as unclean, unworthy and separate from god: prostitute, lepers and other societal outcasts. His entire ministry rested on love for all people.
Looking at the New Testament verses you cited, a similar rebuttal can be made. In the first few, a historical context is being referred to, while in the latter, Paul was writing detailed letters to the fledgling churches with specific admonishments and praise based what was occurring within their communities, many of which were struggling to function within a different framework of faith from what was typical of the time. His focus is thus different in each, and I absolutely agree that he may have referenced specific sins. But at no time does this contradict the overarching message of the early Christian faith: that trust in Jesus was the key rather than trust in the law. This is best captured in Galatians 2:6: "Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified in faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified."
As a whole, it's thus incredibly problematic to argue that specific verses--outside of their immediate, wider and cultural/historical contexts--override the primary thematic core of the New Testament and its key teaching of the basic equality of all of us as sinners who cannot restore our relationship with god purely through moralization and an adherence to any particular ethical rules.
Finally, I think a great deal of this relates to the overarching stance one takes in relation to the Bible. The assumption from many non-Christians who vocally oppose the faith is that all Christians believing that the claim of the Bible being the divinely inspired word of god means they see it as 100% correct. That is wrong on two counts. First, it disregards the contexts I discussed. A prohibition against shellfish is naturally not going to be seen as a sin in the modern world, as it originated in a very specific place, time and culture. It's not about being "correct". Pointing out alleged inconsistencies in what is deemed right or wrong are often flawed in that sense, hence the importance of looking at the entirety of scripture rather than only isolating particular passages.
Second, and more importantly, there is a big difference between inerrancy and infallibility, and not all Christians adhere to the former. Inerrancy is the stance that the Bible is without error, whereas infallibility is the belief that the creation of the Bible may be divinely inspired, but it is still ultimately a collection of historical documents that reflect a wide range of purposes, styles and intentions. A large proportion of Christians, even if not familiar with the terms, fall in the camp of infallibility. I would argue that this stance also enriches the text insofar as it allows a deeper understanding of how and why particular events and themes are present. And once again, the core theme of the New Testament, as indicated previously, does center on the equality of all, albeit in a fallen state.
Whether my claim about how rules work and whether the bible is intended to be a list of rules are completely separate issues. It seems like you're not arguing against the former but rather for the latter.
Put into context, this relates to a fundamental pillar of the Christian faith: it's ultimately not about what good we do as individuals or what wrongs we commit, because no one is perfect: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (Romans 3:23-24)
That brings up the importance of context. I see this through three lens: the immediate context (surrounding verses and the type of document represented by that particular chapter), the wider context (the narrative flow of the scriptural account as a whole), and the intertwined cultural/historical context (which is far too often ignored in respect to interpretations and arguments)."
That's how you see it. Other people see it differently. Please contact the Westboro Baptists and they will explain to you why your interpretation is wrong. I don't care about subjective interpretations until someone can demonstrate the correct one. I am only concerned with what the book does and does not factually say.
No, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing what I said, i.e. it does not speak out for the rights of homosexuals or women as equal members of society. How are you simultaneously arguing the book is a historical account and asking me to disregard whether it actually is? That makes absolutely no sense.
Looking at the New Testament verses you cited, a similar rebuttal can be made. In the first few, a historical context is being referred to, while in the latter, Paul was writing detailed letters to the fledgling churches with specific admonishments and praise based what was occurring within their communities, many of which were struggling to function within a different framework of faith from what was typical of the time. His focus is thus different in each, and I absolutely agree that he may have referenced specific sins. But at no time does this contradict the overarching message of the early Christian faith: that trust in Jesus was the key rather than trust in the law. This is best captured in Galatians 2:6: "Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified in faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.""
As a whole, it's thus incredibly problematic to argue that specific verses--outside of their immediate, wider and cultural/historical contexts--override the primary thematic core of the New Testament and its key teaching of the basic equality of all of us as sinners who cannot restore our relationship with god purely through moralization and an adherence to any particular ethical rules.
Finally, I think a great deal of this relates to the overarching stance one takes in relation to the Bible. The assumption from many non-Christians who vocally oppose the faith is that all Christians believing that the claim of the Bible being the divinely inspired word of god means they see it as 100% correct. That is wrong on two counts. First, it disregards the contexts I discussed. A prohibition against shellfish is naturally not going to be seen as a sin in the modern world, as it originated in a very specific place, time and culture. It's not about being "correct". Pointing out alleged inconsistencies in what is deemed right or wrong are often flawed in that sense, hence the importance of looking at the entirety of scripture rather than only isolating particular passages.
Second, and more importantly, there is a big difference between inerrancy and infallibility, and not all Christians adhere to the former. Inerrancy is the stance that the Bible is without error, whereas infallibility is the belief that the creation of the Bible may be divinely inspired, but it is still ultimately a collection of historical documents that reflect a wide range of purposes, styles and intentions. A large proportion of Christians, even if not familiar with the terms, fall in the camp of infallibility. I would argue that this stance also enriches the text insofar as it allows a deeper understanding of how and why particular events and themes are present. And once again, the core theme of the New Testament, as indicated previously, does center on the equality of all, albeit in a fallen state."
Once again, go ahead and engage with your fellow Christians until you find the correct interpretation. I will then tell you why your book is still wrong and immoral.
I would argue that you are at least as dogmatic in your own way as the Fundamentalist Christians I grew up with...
Having aaid that, Christianity and most other religions have evolved over the centuries, maybe slower than society in general, but they have. They're not burning witches anymore...
Can you please explain why I'm dogmatic?
I agree that all religions have zealots. However, one thing that is frustrating for a non-believer when arguing with believers about the merits of their religion, is how often you run into the no true Scotsman fallacy.
Very often when you talk about the rampant homophobia in some (yes, just some) Christian Churches you get told that those people are not true Christians and are reading the bible incorrectly.
There is probably some truth to that, but in general I would like to see more acknowledgement that the more zealotry people self-identify as Christians for good reason: they go back to the same roots, the same holy book and the same traditions as the more progressive Christians. Instead there is often a flat "this has nothing to do with us".
That does not mean that the more progressive Christians are morally culpable for the Zealots, just that the presence of those Zealots should not be simply dismissed, especially when comparing the relative merits of religions (or absences of religion).
Especially as the same people are then quick to claim each other as follow Christians if it about something positive (of which there are plenty of examples, I hasten to add).I suspect that this might be where @FinneousPJis coming from but might be totally wrong.
And while statistics are never accurate anyway, it's still mildly interesting to look at. If only to look at all the branches of Christianity popping up.
Uh... I can't be the only one here who probably never even heard about a good ²/³ of them, can I?
The question is odd as well. Would you call heterosexuality a "way of life"? Seems a bit much to call your sexual orientation your way of life.
@Ammar I have issues with the idea of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy as it seems to be applied here. When it comes a group that has either behavoral or philosophical requirements, then its expected to adhere to said requirements to be considered a part of said group. If someone claimed to be vegan, but ate meat regularly, no one would scream "Scotsman fallacy" at them. It would be expected that a vegan would not eat meat. So its not really fair to see people acting out the exact opposite of what Jesus taught and dissmiss it all as a fallacy when its pointed out that Christians should not act in such a way.
There is an extra complexity when it comes to a nuanced religion as opposed to a diet, admittedly, you can't just look at a person and immediately know the cause or frequency of their actions. For example, its easy to look at say, the Westboro church and their continual spreading of hate, and say "not Christian". They embody the exact opposite of Jesus' teaching. But a random person on the street, who you only encounter once, and have no idea where their affiliation is with? It could just be someone using religion as an excuse to show their darker side in relative safety, it could be an organized religion whose theology DOES advocate such things, or it could simply be an otherwise reasonable person who bought into a bad teaching.
Its unfair to just dismiss obvious breaches of theology with "fallacy", likewise you can't know what a random person believes or what the reason is without enaging in discussion with them. Everyone is imperfect, and otherwise decent people can get tripped up, or have bad judgement. A Christian who acts in a racist or predjudiced way, should come around when confronted about it and walked through Jesus' teaching again. Some people just want an excuse to be bigoted and don't actually care what religion they "pracice", so long as it gives "justification" for their actions. I've had plenty of encounters with both of these groups.
Good sir, may I interest you in some catma?
...
...I see myself out.
In other words, interpretations need to be backed by contextual evidence. Westboro Baptist Church adopts a hardline Calvinist perspective that relies on the interpretation of a small number of specific verses while ignoring the other contexts I identified. They are thus rejected by most of mainstream Christianity just as the scientists who deny climate change are denounced by their peers, and just as most of us would denounce someone who claims poverty is a state of mind, even though there is no clear evidence of the exact causes, scope or scale of either.
Returning to the relevance of this to the Bible, you indicated that you are only concerned with what it factually says. Factually, we know the rough timeframe in which the various texts were written. Factually, we can compare them to other types of literature in those timeframes. Factually, we now have a more robust understanding of ancient Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek than in the past to better understand the linguistic connotations of the texts. Factually, we have the historical and cultural context of the people who wrote each of texts. Ignoring these is ignoring facts. The interpretation, just as with most evidence, is a necessity due to context. Again returning to law as an analogous example, legal interpretations follow these same types of standards: historical cases and precedents, cultural shifts, temporal considerations, etc. The bottom line is that interpretation is a necessary part of life and is not solely tied to religion.
I get the sense--and perhaps this may derive from the interactions you've had with some Christians--that you see the Bible as a monolithic text. It's not, and that's the reason I touched on the inerrantist and infallibilist positions. We know by comparing certain books of the Bible to other historical texts that some were written as poetry (e.g., Song of Solomon). Some were historical (by their definition), as is the case with Leviticus. Within the New Testament, I already referenced the fact that several books were simply the letters that Paul wrote to churches. Ignoring the unique context of each one ignores the process we use to assess all evidence. You're seem to be trying to boil this down to "facts", but the point that can be made by all of this is that most facts are always subject to interpretation. (Note that I did say most...not all.)
Why would you assume I'm Christian?
I anticipate that the counterargument would be that religion should be treated differently. Well...why?
The core elements of Christianity that I think virtually all would accept would be the divinity of Jesus, his ministry and its specific call to love god and other people, his crucifixion, and his resurrection as captured in the Nicene Creed. I know that's opening another can of worms, but I'm fine with that!
I think you may be seeing the point I'm getting at. A massive issue in religion and other controversial areas is that we too often try, whether consciously or not, to make assumptions and fit others into neat little boxes in order to make ourselves feel more comfortable with our beliefs. The problem is that people just don't fit in those boxes. Without a genuine attempt to understand and empathize with others, we'll never be able to address the many issues we're facing in the modern world. "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Do you think we should care what the bible says (more than any other text)? Why?
The core elements of Christianity that I think virtually all would accept would be the divinity of Jesus, his ministry and its specific call to love god and other people, his crucifixion, and his resurrection as captured in the Nicene Creed. I know that's opening another can of worms, but I'm fine with that!
Actually, there are branches of Christianity that don't believe in the trinity. Traditional Unitarians can be counted here for instance. At least over here in Germany they seem to see Jesus and God as one and the same. Not father and son, mind you. But actually the same person.
Ironically, Unitarism is anything but a unified believe system. They even loose to their own name.
And Catholics all over the place depending how orthodox they want to be.