Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[Kron3007]

So how, exactly, would the distinction between being written by fallible human beings versus being written by God change what could be expressed for posterity, given the limitations of the human language that would have to be used in any case? Presumably the words that God could use would be the same words that fallible human beings could use. (Especially since no-one disputes the fact that the Bible was actually written by fallible human beings, whether is was inspired by God or not.) Why should God's "inspiration" somehow result in the impossibility of anything other than a single, timeless, context-insensitive interpretation?

That's some tortuous prose there, my friend.  Can you make your thoughts a little clearer?

Are you talking about the "impossibility" of language to accurately relay the Word?

I was saying we either consider the Bible is a work of fallible humans with all their prejudices and mistakes----and thus we admit that we cannot necessarily accept as law what is in it

That would be the ultra-liberal position.

-----or we concede that God was very contradictory and His messages are very confusing.  We either take the Bible as the Word of God, therefore reading literally

That would be the ultra-conservative position.

, or we accept that we have a human artifact with typical human blunders in it, therefore we take into consideration culture and context, including our own culture and context and what is important to us now.

That would be the atheistic position.

Many, if not most, Christians would disagree with both the ultra-conservative and ultra-liberal positions, and would say something more along the lines of "The Bible was written over centuries in different geographical and cultural contexts, and so explanations, instructions, and advice given in any of those contexts would have been clear to those people *in those contexts. The best way for us to determine how they are relevant to us is to look at them in the context of all the rest of the Bible to see what seems to be universal and what seems to be culturally-specific." (Note: This differs from the ultra-liberal position because it doesn't assume our current culture as somehow of greater importance than Scripture. Where the consistent message of Scripture contradicts things in our culture, then our culture is wrong.)

*Even at those times, it's clear that prophets and Jesus himself said things that many or most people misinterpreted because they did not want to consider the implications of certain interpretations. When Jesus' own words to people in person could be misinterpreted, it's ridiculous to suggest that at great historical, linguistic, geographical, and cultural remove there should be no possibility for confusion.)

I think your "atheistic" interpretation is actually any non-christian, not just atheists.  One of the funniest parts of the religious is how christians think the bible is above reproach, while viewing other religious documents as a farce and abomination, and vice versa.  The saddest part of this, is how it is used to wage war, genocide, and other ungodly acts. 

I forget who said it, but I always liked the statement that the only difference between a christian and an atheist is that the atheist believe in one less god out of thousands. 

[onthefringe]

So how, exactly, would the distinction between being written by fallible human beings versus being written by God change what could be expressed for posterity, given the limitations of the human language that would have to be used in any case? Presumably the words that God could use would be the same words that fallible human beings could use. (Especially since no-one disputes the fact that the Bible was actually written by fallible human beings, whether is was inspired by God or not.) Why should God's "inspiration" somehow result in the impossibility of anything other than a single, timeless, context-insensitive interpretation?

That's some tortuous prose there, my friend.  Can you make your thoughts a little clearer?

Are you talking about the "impossibility" of language to accurately relay the Word?

I was saying we either consider the Bible is a work of fallible humans with all their prejudices and mistakes----and thus we admit that we cannot necessarily accept as law what is in it

That would be the ultra-liberal position.

-----or we concede that God was very contradictory and His messages are very confusing.  We either take the Bible as the Word of God, therefore reading literally

That would be the ultra-conservative position.

, or we accept that we have a human artifact with typical human blunders in it, therefore we take into consideration culture and context, including our own culture and context and what is important to us now.

That would be the atheistic position.

Many, if not most, Christians would disagree with both the ultra-conservative and ultra-liberal positions, and would say something more along the lines of "The Bible was written over centuries in different geographical and cultural contexts, and so explanations, instructions, and advice given in any of those contexts would have been clear to those people *in those contexts. The best way for us to determine how they are relevant to us is to look at them in the context of all the rest of the Bible to see what seems to be universal and what seems to be culturally-specific." (Note: This differs from the ultra-liberal position because it doesn't assume our current culture as somehow of greater importance than Scripture. Where the consistent message of Scripture contradicts things in our culture, then our culture is wrong.)

*Even at those times, it's clear that prophets and Jesus himself said things that many or most people misinterpreted because they did not want to consider the implications of certain interpretations. When Jesus' own words to people in person could be misinterpreted, it's ridiculous to suggest that at great historical, linguistic, geographical, and cultural remove there should be no possibility for confusion.)

I think your "atheistic" interpretation is actually any non-christian, not just atheists.  One of the funniest parts of the religious is how christians think the bible is above reproach, while viewing other religious documents as a farce and abomination, and vice versa.  The saddest part of this, is how it is used to wage war, genocide, and other ungodly acts. 

I forget who said it, but I always liked the statement that the only difference between a christian and an atheist is that the atheist believe in one less god out of thousands.

When Fringehusband and I met he described himself as an agnostic, feeling that as a scientist he couldn't rule out the possibility of a god of some kind. While I ageed with him on some levels, I told him I used "atheist" because a) when many people hear "agnostic" they understand it to mean that you think it's a 50:50 chance that there's a god and b) that I was sure I didn't believe in any of the gods described by existing religions so I am an atheist for all practical purposes.

[marshwiggle]

Are you sure you are using "ultra-liberal" and "ultra-conservative" correctly?  I think of the Duggars as "ultra-conservative" and "ultra-liberal" as, I dunno, name someone----I'm not sure who.  Jerry Garcia?

And I think what you are arguing is the "atheistic position" is pretty much the same thing as your definition of the "ultra-liberal" position.  It is more or less what I said.  Atheists just pretty much denounce the whole shebang, however; that is their position, generally speaking.

Absolutely! You get a gold star. The churches in the steepest decline are the ultra-liberal ones since they don't really have anything to offer that isn't just normal (non-religious) culture.

Oh well, it doesn't really matter.  I think you pretty much agree that the Bible is very open to interpretation, so when it comes to things like, say, oh I don't know, sexual orientation (which comes up sometimes) we cannot simply denounce them because of the OT anymore than we can kill witches.  If we can deny that God wants slaves, we can deny that God disowns gays.

Don't forget liars, adulterers, gossips, people who don't respect their parents, and so on. No-one* gets a free pass.
(*except Jesus)

I think your "atheistic" interpretation is actually any non-christian, not just atheists. 

Sure. Any religious people will make a similar distinction between their own sacred texts and anything else.

One of the funniest parts of the religious is how christians think the bible is above reproach, while viewing other religious documents as a farce and abomination, and vice versa. 

That's kind of how any ideology works, religious or otherwise. By definition, some principle(s), document(s), or whatever are used as the basis for evaluating anything else. So even if one  claims to use the "principles of science" as fundamental, that takes those principles or ideas as axiomatic.

The saddest part of this, is how it is used to wage war, genocide, and other ungodly acts. 

All kids of horrific things have been blamed on love, freedom, and any other idea that people value. Psychology has shown that human reasoning is often post-hoc; i.e. we do things and then rationalize them. So we rarely even understand our own motivations, much less correctly determine other peoples' motivations.

I forget who said it, but I always liked the statement that the only difference between a christian and an atheist is that the atheist believe in one less god out of thousands.

And many (most?) Christians don't believe in the God the atheist thinks they do either.

[Kron3007]

Are you sure you are using "ultra-liberal" and "ultra-conservative" correctly?  I think of the Duggars as "ultra-conservative" and "ultra-liberal" as, I dunno, name someone----I'm not sure who.  Jerry Garcia?

And I think what you are arguing is the "atheistic position" is pretty much the same thing as your definition of the "ultra-liberal" position.  It is more or less what I said.  Atheists just pretty much denounce the whole shebang, however; that is their position, generally speaking.

Absolutely! You get a gold star. The churches in the steepest decline are the ultra-liberal ones since they don't really have anything to offer that isn't just normal (non-religious) culture.

Oh well, it doesn't really matter.  I think you pretty much agree that the Bible is very open to interpretation, so when it comes to things like, say, oh I don't know, sexual orientation (which comes up sometimes) we cannot simply denounce them because of the OT anymore than we can kill witches.  If we can deny that God wants slaves, we can deny that God disowns gays.

Don't forget liars, adulterers, gossips, people who don't respect their parents, and so on. No-one* gets a free pass.
(*except Jesus)

I think your "atheistic" interpretation is actually any non-christian, not just atheists. 

Sure. Any religious people will make a similar distinction between their own sacred texts and anything else.

One of the funniest parts of the religious is how christians think the bible is above reproach, while viewing other religious documents as a farce and abomination, and vice versa. 

That's kind of how any ideology works, religious or otherwise. By definition, some principle(s), document(s), or whatever are used as the basis for evaluating anything else. So even if one  claims to use the "principles of science" as fundamental, that takes those principles or ideas as axiomatic.

The saddest part of this, is how it is used to wage war, genocide, and other ungodly acts. 

All kids of horrific things have been blamed on love, freedom, and any other idea that people value. Psychology has shown that human reasoning is often post-hoc; i.e. we do things and then rationalize them. So we rarely even understand our own motivations, much less correctly determine other peoples' motivations.

I forget who said it, but I always liked the statement that the only difference between a christian and an atheist is that the atheist believe in one less god out of thousands.

And many (most?) Christians don't believe in the God the atheist thinks they do either.

There is a big difference between science and religion as an ideology.  One who follow science as an ideology readily accepts new ideas and incorporates them into their world view.  Christians only have the bible, which dosnt change, and do not need to change their view despite "evidence".   In fact, that is really just a test of their faith or something.

This is a pretty old straw man argument.  There are some superficial similarities, but with closer inspection the parallels crumble.  It's kind of like when people say "athiests believe....".  The reality is that athiests have no guiding document and only definitely agree on one thing. 

   

[Kron3007]

So how, exactly, would the distinction between being written by fallible human beings versus being written by God change what could be expressed for posterity, given the limitations of the human language that would have to be used in any case? Presumably the words that God could use would be the same words that fallible human beings could use. (Especially since no-one disputes the fact that the Bible was actually written by fallible human beings, whether is was inspired by God or not.) Why should God's "inspiration" somehow result in the impossibility of anything other than a single, timeless, context-insensitive interpretation?

That's some tortuous prose there, my friend.  Can you make your thoughts a little clearer?

Are you talking about the "impossibility" of language to accurately relay the Word?

I was saying we either consider the Bible is a work of fallible humans with all their prejudices and mistakes----and thus we admit that we cannot necessarily accept as law what is in it

That would be the ultra-liberal position.

-----or we concede that God was very contradictory and His messages are very confusing.  We either take the Bible as the Word of God, therefore reading literally

That would be the ultra-conservative position.

, or we accept that we have a human artifact with typical human blunders in it, therefore we take into consideration culture and context, including our own culture and context and what is important to us now.

That would be the atheistic position.

Many, if not most, Christians would disagree with both the ultra-conservative and ultra-liberal positions, and would say something more along the lines of "The Bible was written over centuries in different geographical and cultural contexts, and so explanations, instructions, and advice given in any of those contexts would have been clear to those people *in those contexts. The best way for us to determine how they are relevant to us is to look at them in the context of all the rest of the Bible to see what seems to be universal and what seems to be culturally-specific." (Note: This differs from the ultra-liberal position because it doesn't assume our current culture as somehow of greater importance than Scripture. Where the consistent message of Scripture contradicts things in our culture, then our culture is wrong.)

*Even at those times, it's clear that prophets and Jesus himself said things that many or most people misinterpreted because they did not want to consider the implications of certain interpretations. When Jesus' own words to people in person could be misinterpreted, it's ridiculous to suggest that at great historical, linguistic, geographical, and cultural remove there should be no possibility for confusion.)

I think your "atheistic" interpretation is actually any non-christian, not just atheists.  One of the funniest parts of the religious is how christians think the bible is above reproach, while viewing other religious documents as a farce and abomination, and vice versa.  The saddest part of this, is how it is used to wage war, genocide, and other ungodly acts. 

I forget who said it, but I always liked the statement that the only difference between a christian and an atheist is that the atheist believe in one less god out of thousands.

When Fringehusband and I met he described himself as an agnostic, feeling that as a scientist he couldn't rule out the possibility of a god of some kind. While I ageed with him on some levels, I told him I used "atheist" because a) when many people hear "agnostic" they understand it to mean that you think it's a 50:50 chance that there's a god and b) that I was sure I didn't believe in any of the gods described by existing religions so I am an atheist for all practical purposes.

I am in a similar boat.  I would not rule out some sort of higher power/connection/something, but dont think God as we know it would be the right term.  More importantly, I know for a factthat I dont believe any of the organized religions I am familiar with.  So, it is generally easier to say I am an athiest (except when I lived in the deep South, then I tried to avoid it in general....).

[dismalist]

One who follows science as an ideology readily accepts new ideas and incorporates them into their world view.

Nay. The German physicist Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Or more precisely: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

[Kron3007]

One who follows science as an ideology readily accepts new ideas and incorporates them into their world view.

Nay. The German physicist Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Or more precisely: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Well, I think that is a little melodramatic.  I do take his point, but I have seen the position of science slowly change during my lifetime on several topics so I dont think it is so dire.  I suppose during this time there were many deaths, so he still could have a point, but the point remains that science is not static and adjusts over time based on new information (as intended)

Regardless, you are referring to the scientific community, whereas I am discussing it as a personal ideology, which is different.  If you structure your beliefs around science and the scientific method, and someone comes to you with new evidence that conflicts with your existing belief, you would review the new information and adjust your beliefs accordingly.  I'm not saying that people are good at doing that in practice, but from an ideological standpoint I feel that is very different than people who will not, and cannot, change their opinion because something is clearly stated in a/the bible.   

[Wahoo Redux]

The churches in the steepest decline are the ultra-liberal ones since they don't really have anything to offer that isn't just normal (non-religious) culture.

What I find is that Protestant churches are seeing the most decline, but that all denominations are losing membership.  The decline seems to have more to do with generational perceptions of the church.  It is actually difficult to find numbers of decline by denomination.  And it is interesting how conservatives are fascinated by "liberals."  I think this is a bit of false dichotomy.  I see articles with this angle in religiously affiliated magazines back in 2011.

Southern Baptists lost over a million attendees between 2018-2021. ---they were at their lowest point in 40 years----while Episcopalian churches are at half their numbers since 2010.

Catholic attendance had declined by 20% by 2021.

Church decline has been going on for generations, but it has apparently been hastened by, you guessed it!, COVID. 

In some ways, the problems facing churches in the United States mirror the problems facing colleges.  Societal upheaval, anyone?

[Wahoo Redux]

One who follows science as an ideology readily accepts new ideas and incorporates them into their world view.

Nay. The German physicist Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Or more precisely: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

I know you enjoy being a contrarian, but if Planck said that he was full of toro pucky.

[marshwiggle]

One who follows science as an ideology readily accepts new ideas and incorporates them into their world view.

Nay. The German physicist Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Or more precisely: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Well, I think that is a little melodramatic.  I do take his point, but I have seen the position of science slowly change during my lifetime on several topics so I dont think it is so dire.  I suppose during this time there were many deaths, so he still could have a point, but the point remains that science is not static and adjusts over time based on new information (as intended)

Regardless, you are referring to the scientific community, whereas I am discussing it as a personal ideology, which is different.  If you structure your beliefs around science and the scientific method, and someone comes to you with new evidence that conflicts with your existing belief, you would review the new information and adjust your beliefs accordingly.  I'm not saying that people are good at doing that in practice, but from an ideological standpoint I feel that is very different than people who will not, and cannot, change their opinion because something is clearly stated in a/the bible.

In fact, most religious people generally accept widely-accepted results of scientific investigation. The biggest areas of disagreement tend to be around perceived moral implications of scientific results. For instance, religious people don't dispute scientific research regarding the human reproductive system. They will likely have strong opinions about moral issues related to sexual behaviour. Strictly speaking, science has nothing to say about morality; at most it illuminates probabilities of different consequences of various choices and actions.

[apl68]

I'm still waiting to hear what advice you would give to women in Afghanistan today, that will make sense for the next 2000 years to all of the people who read it regardless of the context in which they live.

??????

EDIT: Wait, I get it.  You want me to put myself in the place of early Christians 2,000 years ago.  The issue is drafting a sacred text that would be resonant now and equally resonant and practical to culture 2,000 years from now, right?  Yeah, that would be virtually impossible for a human being to do, huh?

However, if we are dealing with the infallible Word of God that we base our lives and beliefs around, that is a different story.  God should be able to tell us what to do 2,000 years ago and that same revelation should be perfectly relevant today.

So, if you tell me the Bible was written by fallible people, I would say, sure, that makes sense, and the Bible it is still a beautiful work of literature.

But if you tell me we should follow the precepts laid out in the Bible because it is the Word of God as recorded by Moses and the Apostles, well, then it's a problem unless God deliberately wants to confuse and confound us.

I see marshwiggle's point.  Taking the New Testament to task or writing it off as irrelevant because it fails to lay out a program for a society that we today would regard as ideal in today's world situation both judges it by an entirely anachronistic standard and completely misses the point of what it's trying to say.  Jesus and his early followers wielded no political power in their world.  They had no expectation of being able to do so.  Christians wouldn't come to wield such power until centuries later--by which time the church had mutated into something very different from what Jesus originally established. 

Jesus' teachings and the rest of the New Testament were never about starting a program to transform society and try to fix what was wrong with the world.  Jesus said quite plainly that the world  would not be fixed until he, himself, comes back someday to fix it.  The world is evil, and it's going to remain evil for the foreseeable future.  Following Jesus is about living for God in the midst of a world that doesn't want to do that. 

Part of following Jesus and living for God involves living in a body of Christian believers.  Which is what the section of Colossians we've been discussing is all about.  Colossians chapter 3 begins with a reminder that followers of Christ are now dead as far as this world is concerned and waiting for Christ's return.  While we're waiting here, we are to put to death in our own lives the sorts of attitudes and actions that govern life in this world--things like sexual immorality, greed, anger, malice toward others, lying, etc. 

Then Paul says, in verse 10, "You have put off the old self with his deeds, and have put on the new self, which is renewed in the knowledge of the Creator, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, Barbarian, Scythian, slave or free; but Christ is all, and in all."  And then we have the passages about what husbands and wives, and parents and children, and masters and slaves owe each other.

Colossians chapter 3 isn't about whether slavery is right or wrong.  It was a fact of life that the original hearers of the letter had to live with.  And Paul is saying here that as far as Christ is concerned these roles in society aren't what's important.  There are no slaves or free, or different races or nations, as far as Christ is concerned.  There are only those who have either chosen to follow him, or chosen not to.  And among those who have chosen to follow Christ, those distinctions shouldn't matter the way they do to everybody else.  The idea of a fellowship of believers who had that kind of recognition of commonality among themselves, as expressed in the bolded part above, was hugely radical in the first century.  It still is. 

I'm going into all this to say that using this New Testament passage to make arguments about slavery or whether the Bible accepts or condemns it is completely missing what it's all about.  It's completely missing what makes the New Testament meaningful and relevant to Christians.  It's easy to get into controversies like this over particular passages.  That's why marshwiggle said what he did about contexts.  It's why I'd encourage anybody to actually read (or if one read it long ago, to re-read) the whole New Testament to see what it says, instead of merely searching it for proof texts to prove this or that.

[Kron3007]

One who follows science as an ideology readily accepts new ideas and incorporates them into their world view.

Nay. The German physicist Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Or more precisely: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Well, I think that is a little melodramatic.  I do take his point, but I have seen the position of science slowly change during my lifetime on several topics so I dont think it is so dire.  I suppose during this time there were many deaths, so he still could have a point, but the point remains that science is not static and adjusts over time based on new information (as intended)

Regardless, you are referring to the scientific community, whereas I am discussing it as a personal ideology, which is different.  If you structure your beliefs around science and the scientific method, and someone comes to you with new evidence that conflicts with your existing belief, you would review the new information and adjust your beliefs accordingly.  I'm not saying that people are good at doing that in practice, but from an ideological standpoint I feel that is very different than people who will not, and cannot, change their opinion because something is clearly stated in a/the bible.

In fact, most religious people generally accept widely-accepted results of scientific investigation. The biggest areas of disagreement tend to be around perceived moral implications of scientific results. For instance, religious people don't dispute scientific research regarding the human reproductive system. They will likely have strong opinions about moral issues related to sexual behaviour. Strictly speaking, science has nothing to say about morality; at most it illuminates probabilities of different consequences of various choices and actions.

Depending on the topic....

When I lived in the deep South, they very much disagreed with some scientific findings.  They just like to cherry pick.

Regarding morality, you are right, science isn't a great oracle of wisdom for that.  However, in many ways, neither is religion.

[Wahoo Redux]

There are no slaves or free, or different races or nations, as far as Christ is concerned.  There are only those who have either chosen to follow him, or chosen not to. 

Respectfully apl, this is easy to say when one is not a slave. The acceptance is laudable, but it would have been much better if Christ had plainly said, "No person should ever own another person, and the slave has the right to refuse the master" as a good Christian should do.  If the Bible is the Word of God, who could see all time and space, then the Bible should have freed the salves as a moral imperative at least equivalent to coveting thy neighbor's wife.  And churches have used this argument to whitewash the relationship that Christians and Americans used to have toward slavery and, more recently, institutionalized racism.

I'm going into all this to say that using this New Testament passage to make arguments about slavery or whether the Bible accepts or condemns it is completely missing what it's all about.  It's completely missing what makes the New Testament meaningful and relevant to Christians.  It's easy to get into controversies like this over particular passages.  That's why marshwiggle said what he did about contexts.  It's why I'd encourage anybody to actually read (or if one read it long ago, to re-read) the whole New Testament to see what it says, instead of merely searching it for proof texts to prove this or that.

My point was that even the most devout people rationalize, contextualize, deny, and interpret the Bible to mean what they want it to mean.  I have read the NT and most of the OT.  I am a former acolyte and have gone through Confirmation and the whole lot.  The "once you read the whole thing it makes sense" doctrine is not necessarily true.

[dismalist]

 

Strictly speaking, science has nothing to say about morality... .

Absolutely: David Hume: You can't get from an is to an ought by logic alone!

Our morality comes from tradition -- what has worked in the past, worked to have us prosper. It is somewhat malleable, of course., as it must be. Its evolution is Darwinian.

Religion of course embodies somebody's tradition, hence multiple religions. One can look upon religion as an enforcement mechanism, from times in which getting thrown out of a community, even if only figuratively, usually resulted in death.

Our morality will continue to evolve, perhaps guided less by religions. But there's still a Darwinian process going on.

Best of luck, everybody. :-)

[jimbogumbo]

Cause begets effect begets cause begets effect ad infinitim.