Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[Wahoo Redux]

I'd second that it's possible to be well aware of the various controversies regarding the dating and authorship of Scripture and still regard it as divinely inspired.  There's quite a bit of the Old Testament where it's pretty clear to a trained historian that older oral accounts were incorporated by much later editors (The New Testament's another matter.  Even secular scholars generally agree that it was written within less than a century after the time of Jesus--and one can make a fair case that it was written within a few decades).  Which can be understood as showing that divine inspiration worked in different ways.

It doesn't have to be an "either-or" proposition--that the Bible was either written by human beings or is the Word of God.  It can be both at the same time. 

That's part of the fascination of it.  God works with people.  He is not impossibly remote.  It is possible for people, in some limited (in this life at least) manner to gain insight into the mind of God.  People can know God.  We see examples of it in the Old Testament.  The New Testament is about how anybody can know God--regardless of whether they're men, women, Jews, Gentiles, members of this or that nation, or the most downtrodden members of human society.  What's important is not who or what we are to start with, it's whether we're prepared to get over ourselves and admit that it's we who have to answer to God, and not God who has to answer to us.  Often it is the people least respected by society who have the humility to do this.

Sure. There's some happy dogma in there, but that's a good explanation.

You must understand, however, how this history is problematic if Christians expect culture to adhere to its tenets (which is very often the case) because of the notion of divine intervention----which is how this whole mess got started.

[Kron3007]

Discussing the bible with Christians is like arguing conspiracy theories with truthers.  Any logical argument you can make is simply deflected as part of gods plan or part of the conspiracy.  Both are excellent mental gymnasts that can rationalize fundamental contradictions and massive holes in the story. 

Once someone decides the earth is flat, it is hard to convince them otherwise.  They would have to betray themselves...

[marshwiggle]

I'd second that it's possible to be well aware of the various controversies regarding the dating and authorship of Scripture and still regard it as divinely inspired.  There's quite a bit of the Old Testament where it's pretty clear to a trained historian that older oral accounts were incorporated by much later editors (The New Testament's another matter.  Even secular scholars generally agree that it was written within less than a century after the time of Jesus--and one can make a fair case that it was written within a few decades).  Which can be understood as showing that divine inspiration worked in different ways.

It doesn't have to be an "either-or" proposition--that the Bible was either written by human beings or is the Word of God.  It can be both at the same time. 

That's part of the fascination of it.  God works with people.  He is not impossibly remote.  It is possible for people, in some limited (in this life at least) manner to gain insight into the mind of God.  People can know God.  We see examples of it in the Old Testament.  The New Testament is about how anybody can know God--regardless of whether they're men, women, Jews, Gentiles, members of this or that nation, or the most downtrodden members of human society.  What's important is not who or what we are to start with, it's whether we're prepared to get over ourselves and admit that it's we who have to answer to God, and not God who has to answer to us.  Often it is the people least respected by society who have the humility to do this.

Sure. There's some happy dogma in there, but that's a good explanation.

You must understand, however, how this history is problematic if Christians expect culture to adhere to its tenets (which is very often the case) because of the notion of divine intervention----which is how this whole mess got started.

There's lots of examples in the Bible of how a theocracy doesn't work well. (Jesus himself said "My kingdom is not of this world.") Most Christians don't advocate for some Christian version of Sharia Law. At the same time, as members of a democratic society, Christians have the same right as anyone else to vote for the policies of which they approve.

[Wahoo Redux]

There's lots of examples in the Bible of how a theocracy doesn't work well. (Jesus himself said "My kingdom is not of this world.") Most Christians don't advocate for some Christian version of Sharia Law. At the same time, as members of a democratic society, Christians have the same right as anyone else to vote for the policies of which they approve.

Fair enough.

Again, take into account the alt right Christian zealots as well as the more mainstream Christian views----there are lots who call for an American (and world) theocracy.  Don't pretend it is not there.  Those are probably the people who make your life and ours more difficult in this matter.

And this digression in the thread started in large part because some posters were citing Scripture for the purpose of proving a prejudice, and the resulting commentary points out why many of us reject this view.  We don't want Christianity used as a bully pulpit for bigotry.  Sit down at the table with Caesar and you are going to have an argument.

[kaysixteen]

If Christians say publicly that the Bible teaches against homosexuality, and that abortion is murder, what do you suggest doing about it?

[marshwiggle]

If Christians say publicly that the Bible teaches against homosexuality, and that abortion is murder, what do you suggest doing about it?

As voters, Christians have the same right as anyone to vote according to their own principles, whatever they are.

There's lots of examples in the Bible of how a theocracy doesn't work well. (Jesus himself said "My kingdom is not of this world.") Most Christians don't advocate for some Christian version of Sharia Law. At the same time, as members of a democratic society, Christians have the same right as anyone else to vote for the policies of which they approve.

Fair enough.

Again, take into account the alt right Christian zealots as well as the more mainstream Christian views----there are lots who call for an American (and world) theocracy.  Don't pretend it is not there.  Those are probably the people who make your life and ours more difficult in this matter.

And this digression in the thread started in large part because some posters were citing Scripture for the purpose of proving a prejudice, and the resulting commentary points out why many of us reject this view.  We don't want Christianity used as a bully pulpit for bigotry.  Sit down at the table with Caesar and you are going to have an argument.

I admit it's kind of odd for people with any religion or ideology to expect that appeals to that religion or ideology should somehow sway people who don't share that religion or ideology. In a pluralistic democracy, everyones' votes are their own business, both in what they are  and why they are.

There is one caveat to this, especially in the US. Lots of politicians and leaders of corporations and other organizations including universities feel the need to appear to subscribe to certain beliefs. For instance, every president in decades has made some kind of claim to being "Christian", including those who probably haven't darkened a church's door in decades. (Jimmy Carter was the one memorable exception. His actions in office and subsequently suggested he was the real deal- whatever you think of his beliefs and/or his politics, he did seem to be consistent in following them.) For this reason, I'd say the apparent influence of religion in American political life is larger than the actual importance of peoples' faith in their lives. (It's more of a proxy for a certain community membership than deeply-held principle.)

[jimbogumbo]

If Christians say publicly that the Bible teaches against homosexuality, and that abortion is murder, what do you suggest doing about it?

Nothing, as long as said Christians don't pack the Supreme Court and enact laws making them illegal.

[Wahoo Redux]

If Christians say publicly that the Bible teaches against homosexuality, and that abortion is murder, what do you suggest doing about it?

I would do what I do here: express my opinion.

[Wahoo Redux]

I'd say the apparent influence of religion in American political life is larger than the actual importance of peoples' faith in their lives. (It's more of a proxy for a certain community membership than deeply-held principle.)

That's a good comment.  I would agree.

And I think the point is to keep it that way.

[marshwiggle]

If Christians say publicly that the Bible teaches against homosexuality, and that abortion is murder, what do you suggest doing about it?

I would do what I do here: express my opinion.

Exactly. And this is one of the reasons that I'm intrigued by discussion of a Universal Basic Income. There are both liberals and conservatives who think it's a good idea, for different reasons, so it's one of those rare issues that could potentially build a coalition for some version of it that would reflect a lot of different values.

[FishProf]

If Christians say publicly that the Bible teaches against homosexuality, and that abortion is murder, what do you suggest doing about it?

I do what I always do such statements - I ignore it.  What you believe isn't my business, nor do I care.

But if you try to FORCE others to follow your beliefs, I'll fight you on that.

[Wahoo Redux]

If Christians say publicly that the Bible teaches against homosexuality, and that abortion is murder, what do you suggest doing about it?

I would do what I do here: express my opinion.

Exactly. And this is one of the reasons that I'm intrigued by discussion of a Universal Basic Income. There are both liberals and conservatives who think it's a good idea, for different reasons, so it's one of those rare issues that could potentially build a coalition for some version of it that would reflect a lot of different values.

Start a thread.

[nebo113]

I'd second that it's possible to be well aware of the various controversies regarding the dating and authorship of Scripture and still regard it as divinely inspired.  There's quite a bit of the Old Testament where it's pretty clear to a trained historian that older oral accounts were incorporated by much later editors (The New Testament's another matter.  Even secular scholars generally agree that it was written within less than a century after the time of Jesus--and one can make a fair case that it was written within a few decades).  Which can be understood as showing that divine inspiration worked in different ways.

It doesn't have to be an "either-or" proposition--that the Bible was either written by human beings or is the Word of God.  It can be both at the same time. 

That's part of the fascination of it.  God works with people.  He is not impossibly remote.  It is possible for people, in some limited (in this life at least) manner to gain insight into the mind of God.  People can know God.  We see examples of it in the Old Testament.  The New Testament is about how anybody can know God--regardless of whether they're men, women, Jews, Gentiles, members of this or that nation, or the most downtrodden members of human society.  What's important is not who or what we are to start with, it's whether we're prepared to get over ourselves and admit that it's we who have to answer to God, and not God who has to answer to us.  Often it is the people least respected by society who have the humility to do this.

Sure. There's some happy dogma in there, but that's a good explanation.

You must understand, however, how this history is problematic if Christians expect culture to adhere to its tenets (which is very often the case) because of the notion of divine intervention----which is how this whole mess got started.

There's lots of examples in the Bible of how a theocracy doesn't work well. (Jesus himself said "My kingdom is not of this world.") Most Christians don't advocate for some Christian version of Sharia Law. At the same time, as members of a democratic society, Christians have the same right as anyone else to vote for the policies of which they approve.

Rushdooney.  Christian Reconstructionism.  Biblical justification for SCOTUS decisions.  Catholic bishop applies for religious charter school in Oklahoma.  Feel free to add to the list.

[kaysixteen]

Do you know what Rushdoony and his Recons taught?  Sharia ain't it.

[Wahoo Redux]

Do you know what Rushdoony and his Recons taught?  Sharia ain't it.

Tell us.