first name basis

[Wahoo Redux]

These arguments always get rather silly, mostly because people seem to think that someone woke up the 1700s and made these arguments and they have never been addressed. This is convenient, because then you just get to make really simplistic arguments to people on internet forums without any sense of shame. Usually, people who do this justify this with a belief that theology is dumb.

I never said theology is "dumb."  That is a strawman.

Where are these arguments, then?  I have no doubt that they exist.  But no one, the Christians included, seem to be aware of them.

I see simple avoidance.

[marshwiggle]

But were they following Jesus? 

I expected this response.

Yeah, I'm sorry, but they did follow Jesus. They were Christian from birth and followed their understanding of scripture as you follow your understanding.  They were church members. They believed in the Trinity.  They prayed and looked to the Bible for guidance----and they found passages which they believed gave them sanction to do what they did.  And they felt righteous about their decisions and actions.

It's painful, I know, but there is not way to realistically say they were not Christians because, yeah, they were in the same way that the terrorists who flew planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were Muslims----the message may have been perverted, but they were acting on religious faith, like it or not.

In both cases, the question to be asked is whether these people were driven by "orthodox" faith, or by some flawed interpretation. Different denominations reflect the different interpretations of scripture on all kinds of things. Unless you believe that "true believers" should have some sort of personal revelation from God on every point of theology, then you shouldn't be surprised that different interpretations exist on many things.  C.S. Lewis wrote Mere Christianity as an attempt to outline the pretty common understandings about the main points of Christianity which the vast majority of Christians would agree on. He explicitly avoids issues that denominations differ on because his point is that those are secondary. (Not unimportant; just less important than the "core" beliefs.)

[Wahoo Redux]

In both cases, the question to be asked is whether these people were driven by "orthodox" faith, or by some flawed interpretation.

How do you know that your faith is not a flawed interpretation?

[marshwiggle]

In both cases, the question to be asked is whether these people were driven by "orthodox" faith, or by some flawed interpretation.

How do you know that your faith is not a flawed interpretation?

No doubt it is in some ways. The point is that whether you blame "the faith" or "the individual" depends on your own interpretation of "the faith". The U.S. constitution is only a couple of hundred years old. Were the Jan.6 protesters upholding the constitution or violating it?

[Wahoo Redux]

In both cases, the question to be asked is whether these people were driven by "orthodox" faith, or by some flawed interpretation.

How do you know that your faith is not a flawed interpretation?

No doubt it is in some ways. The point is that whether you blame "the faith" or "the individual" depends on your own interpretation of "the faith". The U.S. constitution is only a couple of hundred years old. Were the Jan.6 protesters upholding the constitution or violating it?

I don't know about the Constitution (I will let the experts debate if Trump violated the 14th Amendment, and it does appear that he did), but there is no question that these people were outlaws.  The people who support the seditionists believe unfounded conspiracy theories and outright lies.  I'd be careful trying Jan. 6th atrocities to religious faith; it may not be an analogy that sheds a good light on faith.

I think the point, Mighty Marshman, is to point out the tremendously subjective nature of the scriptures and how they can be manipulated to mean largely whatever one wants it to mean.

[apl68]

But were they following Jesus? 

I expected this response.

Yeah, I'm sorry, but they did follow Jesus. They were Christian from birth and followed their understanding of scripture as you follow your understanding.  They were church members. They believed in the Trinity.  They prayed and looked to the Bible for guidance----and they found passages which they believed gave them sanction to do what they did.  And they felt righteous about their decisions and actions.

It's painful, I know, but there is not way to realistically say they were not Christians because, yeah, they were in the same way that the terrorists who flew planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were Muslims----the message may have been perverted, but they were acting on religious faith, like it or not.

I can so deny that they were Christians, if a Christian is understood as somebody who devotes his or her life to following the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament.  Which is the definition that Jesus himself said was the only definition that ultimately mattered.  Jesus said to love your enemies--the Crusaders killed them in Jesus' Name, which was no less than blasphemy.  He said "My kingdom is not of this world"--the Inquisitors were part of a secular political system that provided a religious veneer to secular power, which included more of that killing people in Jesus' Name.  Jesus said "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, strength, and mind, and your neighbor as yourself,"--but lots of professing Christians decided to follow these violent, hate-preaching, neo-pagan Nazis because they thought it would be to their worldly advantage.  Jesus told his followers to beware of false messiahs who would come after him--and David Koresh was pretty much the perfect model of such a false messiah.

Sure they all "were acting on religious faith" of some kind or another.  Which goes to show how trustworthy "religion" as it's usually understood is.  I'm not trying to argue for the validity of a "religion," Christian or otherwise, or talk anybody into following a "religion."  The hell with "religion"--it's one of the many clever creations the Devil has come up with to divert us from God.

I do practice a "religion" in the sense that I meet with other people to worship, and we have certain customs that we follow.  But that's not what guides my life.  It's not what has saved me from despair in this life, or gives me hope in the next.  That's Jesus who does all that.

Jesus said "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is life."  Jesus was speaking specifically to people worn out by the religious demands of their own time, but the principle holds for anybody who has anything that weighs us down.  Jesus offers rest for our souls if we follow him.  Not if we "become a Christian" or "practice a religion."  If we follow him.

[Wahoo Redux]

apl, I am not speaking of you, please understand, because I am positive you are a true, kindly Christian----our debates about lifestyles notwithstanding.

But how can you separate actions from the religion that sanctions said actions?

The apology that "[whoever] is not a true follower of Christ" is a facile and superficial response, even a cliched response.

[little bongo]

No, theology is not dumb.

"[Whoever] is not a true follower of Christ" is, in fact, absolutely true.

And it is, simultaneously, absolute bunk.

Let's tackle the bunk first--it's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy writ about as large as a fallacy can be writ. Who are we, and who is anyone, to say that a slaver didn't look at the Bible as carefully as they could, and say, "Okay then, that cotton isn't going to pick itself" and figure they're following Jesus? That's not just the individual, and that's not just the religion, it's both, together and intertwined--which is why there's no sense trying to artificially separate them.

But now let's look at the truthful part--for the believer, for the one who has felt the presence of God, Jesus, Allah, et al., a true follower of God will follow the true path, because the relationship (or lack thereof) between the individual and the deity is extremely, entirely, and fully personal. It is indeed the most intimate relationship into which we enter. It is also why the truth we discover cannot under any circumstances be anyone else's truth. Different believers might align on a few general concepts, and even worship together in a worthwhile way, but the believers do NOT share the same truth.

THEREFORE, Marshwiggle's comment about the advice we get from 3,000 years ago from the other side of the world is quite on point--of COURSE laws from 3,000 years ago from the other side of the world are going to be horrid in many cases, while others still hold up. Of COURSE there's no way to make a totally literal reading of the Bible work in our time (if indeed there was ever a time that it could). But an individual can, and often does, make it work for themselves--that's the point of religion and faith. Sometimes, you follow a just and loving master, and it makes you a more just, loving person. Sometimes, you follow the same master, and it makes you someone who just thinks they're the only good people in the room. And sometimes, you follow the same master and say, "So I like scallops and lobster, but I think gay people suck. Can I make that work?" And that's why "this is wrong because God says so" can work for person A or person B--but not ever for everyone all at once.

P.S. The Jesus as recorded in the Bible knew that, too. See the Sermon on the Mount: "But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

P.P.S. Is this thread derailed?

[Kron3007]

No, theology is not dumb.

"[Whoever] is not a true follower of Christ" is, in fact, absolutely true.

And it is, simultaneously, absolute bunk.

Let's tackle the bunk first--it's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy writ about as large as a fallacy can be writ. Who are we, and who is anyone, to say that a slaver didn't look at the Bible as carefully as they could, and say, "Okay then, that cotton isn't going to pick itself" and figure they're following Jesus? That's not just the individual, and that's not just the religion, it's both, together and intertwined--which is why there's no sense trying to artificially separate them.

But now let's look at the truthful part--for the believer, for the one who has felt the presence of God, Jesus, Allah, et al., a true follower of God will follow the true path, because the relationship (or lack thereof) between the individual and the deity is extremely, entirely, and fully personal. It is indeed the most intimate relationship into which we enter. It is also why the truth we discover cannot under any circumstances be anyone else's truth. Different believers might align on a few general concepts, and even worship together in a worthwhile way, but the believers do NOT share the same truth.

THEREFORE, Marshwiggle's comment about the advice we get from 3,000 years ago from the other side of the world is quite on point--of COURSE laws from 3,000 years ago from the other side of the world are going to be horrid in many cases, while others still hold up. Of COURSE there's no way to make a totally literal reading of the Bible work in our time (if indeed there was ever a time that it could). But an individual can, and often does, make it work for themselves--that's the point of religion and faith. Sometimes, you follow a just and loving master, and it makes you a more just, loving person. Sometimes, you follow the same master, and it makes you someone who just thinks they're the only good people in the room. And sometimes, you follow the same master and say, "So I like scallops and lobster, but I think gay people suck. Can I make that work?" And that's why "this is wrong because God says so" can work for person A or person B--but not ever for everyone all at once.

P.S. The Jesus as recorded in the Bible knew that, too. See the Sermon on the Mount: "But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

P.P.S. Is this thread derailed?

So, the Bible is the word of god but it is flawed and you can use it as you see fit.  You see the logical fallacy in this right?

Why bother with the bible at all?  Can't you be a good person without it if you are dismissing and selecting the parts you want?

Back to the post, you can use the bible to either support judging people for not calling you sir, or judge the person for judging, or to say that you shouldn't judge either person. 

This is one of the reasons religion seems so crazy to many of us non-religious.  You are openly embracing logical contradictions.  It's the word of god, but don't take it so literally, unless it is a passage I happen to agree with and anyone who interprets it differently is doing it wrong.  Basically, who do you want to hate/repress/judge, we have a passage for that! 

[Caracal]

This is one of the reasons religion seems so crazy to many of us non-religious.  You are openly embracing logical contradictions. 

I promise you, that you also embrace a whole series of logical contradictions, as do we all.

[marshwiggle]

In both cases, the question to be asked is whether these people were driven by "orthodox" faith, or by some flawed interpretation.

How do you know that your faith is not a flawed interpretation?

No doubt it is in some ways. The point is that whether you blame "the faith" or "the individual" depends on your own interpretation of "the faith". The U.S. constitution is only a couple of hundred years old. Were the Jan.6 protesters upholding the constitution or violating it?

I don't know about the Constitution (I will let the experts debate if Trump violated the 14th Amendment, and it does appear that he did), but there is no question that these people were outlaws.  The people who support the seditionists believe unfounded conspiracy theories and outright lies.  I'd be careful trying Jan. 6th atrocities to religious faith; it may not be an analogy that sheds a good light on faith.

My point is that no-one seems surprised that a document, written only a couple of hundred years ago, in the same country, in the same language, has debates about how it should be interpreted in the present. In fact, even countries with more recent constitutions also have Supreme Courts who also debate how those should be interpreted, and no-one is upset about that.

However, a document written millenia ago, (actually, a series of documents written over several centuries), in a different country and in a different language, (again, original documents were written in different languages), somehow cannot be taken seriously because not everyone agrees on how it should be interpreted.

[Wahoo Redux]

However, a document written millenia ago, (actually, a series of documents written over several centuries), in a different country and in a different language, (again, original documents were written in different languages), somehow cannot be taken seriously because not everyone agrees on how it should be interpreted.

I think any reasonable adult would agree.

But then, how can you take the Bible as the infallible Word of God?

I see a wonderful and unique mythology there, but a document you can base your faith and your life on...?

This guy has virtually the same take.  He's pretty brilliant, I guess (Harvard PhD in theology). 

His idea is that

The "contradictions" in the Bible aren't contradictions, for the Bible does not reflect the "perfectly consistent mind of God," but the diversity of time and place of the writers.

Okay.

He does not have a place to leave comments, but I would ask him the same question: if the Bible is just the history of religious perception, how can it be "holy."  And, BTW, that does nothing to eliminate the contradictions in the Bible or the aspects we reject; his explanation simply provides a context, as does yours, which makes the Bible sound like...a book, not The Good Book.

[marshwiggle]

However, a document written millenia ago, (actually, a series of documents written over several centuries), in a different country and in a different language, (again, original documents were written in different languages), somehow cannot be taken seriously because not everyone agrees on how it should be interpreted.

I think any reasonable adult would agree.

But then, how can you take the Bible as the infallible Word of God?

I see a wonderful and unique mythology there, but a document you can base your faith and your life on...?

This guy has virtually the same take.  He's pretty brilliant, I guess (Harvard PhD in theology). 

His idea is that

The "contradictions" in the Bible aren't contradictions, for the Bible does not reflect the "perfectly consistent mind of God," but the diversity of time and place of the writers.

Okay.

He does not have a place to leave comments, but I would ask him the same question: if the Bible is just the history of religious perception, how can it be "holy."  And, BTW, that does nothing to eliminate the contradictions in the Bible or the aspects we reject; his explanation simply provides a context, as does yours, which makes the Bible sound like...a book, not The Good Book.

His take is pretty good. He's summarized things better than me (so that Harvard PhD obviously had some value).

As he alludes to, if the "purpose" of the Bible is to give absolutely clear answers to every moral question for all time, it's a horrible failure. If it's "purpose" is to give us a window on the ongoing development of the relationship between God and humanity, it gives tons of insight.

Were the framers of the Constitution failures because there are still debates about how it applies to issues today? Should it be replaced with some newer document every generation or two because the "lived experience" of people has changed from that of the people who wrote it? Is the broadened interpretation of "All men are created equal" a rejection of the ideas of the framers, (who, as has often been pointed out, owned slaves), or is it a deeper understanding of the idea, which the framers themselves would no doubt embrace if they were living now?

[Caracal]

he role of Christianity in the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Nazi Holocaust, and the Branch Davidian, among many other examples. 
[/quote]

This is a very weird collection of examples. I mean ok, crusades, inquisition are pretty standard and I see the logic. But the other two examples are weird.

Nazism was pretty anti christian in its outlook and most of its leaders wanted to undermine and eventually destroy it in Germany. In the meantime they settled for trying to coopt it. Individual christians in Germany responded to this in a variety of ways. Some enthusiastically joined in, many others disapproved quietly, and a small number resisted, mostly paying for it with their lives. This included groups like the White Rose, a group of religious protestant teenagers who learned what was happening, decided they had to do something and distributed pamphlets denouncing the regime. Almost all of them were murdered by the regime. You could say various things about all of this, but it doesn't seem to fit with the first two examples.

The Branch Dravidians are even odder in this context. It was a tiny break away sect of the seventh day adventists which was taken over by David Koresh. Koresh's relationship with Christianity before the Branch Davidians was quite shallow-he converted and belonged to a church briefly in his early 20s before being thrown out after claiming a divine revelation that he should marry the pastor's 14 year old daughter. Blaming "Christianity" for Koresh is like blaming the 1960s counter culture for Charles Manson.

[Kron3007]

However, a document written millenia ago, (actually, a series of documents written over several centuries), in a different country and in a different language, (again, original documents were written in different languages), somehow cannot be taken seriously because not everyone agrees on how it should be interpreted.

I think any reasonable adult would agree.

But then, how can you take the Bible as the infallible Word of God?

I see a wonderful and unique mythology there, but a document you can base your faith and your life on...?

This guy has virtually the same take.  He's pretty brilliant, I guess (Harvard PhD in theology). 

His idea is that

The "contradictions" in the Bible aren't contradictions, for the Bible does not reflect the "perfectly consistent mind of God," but the diversity of time and place of the writers.

Okay.

He does not have a place to leave comments, but I would ask him the same question: if the Bible is just the history of religious perception, how can it be "holy."  And, BTW, that does nothing to eliminate the contradictions in the Bible or the aspects we reject; his explanation simply provides a context, as does yours, which makes the Bible sound like...a book, not The Good Book.

His take is pretty good. He's summarized things better than me (so that Harvard PhD obviously had some value).

As he alludes to, if the "purpose" of the Bible is to give absolutely clear answers to every moral question for all time, it's a horrible failure. If it's "purpose" is to give us a window on the ongoing development of the relationship between God and humanity, it gives tons of insight.

Were the framers of the Constitution failures because there are still debates about how it applies to issues today? Should it be replaced with some newer document every generation or two because the "lived experience" of people has changed from that of the people who wrote it? Is the broadened interpretation of "All men are created equal" a rejection of the ideas of the framers, (who, as has often been pointed out, owned slaves), or is it a deeper understanding of the idea, which the framers themselves would no doubt embrace if they were living now?

You keep trying to compare the constitution to the bible. 

However, the constitution was written by people and there is no reason to believe it cant be changed over time.  In fact, there is a process baked in to amend it recognizing this fact (hence why there are amendments). 

In contrast, most people view the bible as being the word of god, or inspired by god in some fashion and the idea of amending it is unheard of, even though it sounds like the new testament is an amended version, and there are various versions of the bible that were amended by various people.  However, the thought of altering biblical text would not fly well with most Christians, even though the current version is not the original, one of the many contradictions I suppose. 

Really, this comparison is apples and oranges.