I get very pissy when people say the Bible is a "metaphor" or that it needs to be interpreted in a "cultural or historical context." This is rarely what they mean. What they usually mean is "I need an excuse to ignore what the Bible says and this sounds nice."
Let's look at the example of the Flood story. We have Yahweh bringing a flood down to earth because humanity pisses him off and he regrets making them. He tells one guy he likes to build an ark with a roof sealed with pitch, and load animals on it, some for sacrifice. He then floods the earth by opening the "windows of the sky" and the "fountains of the deep." After the flood subsides, the man sacrifices a bunch of animals to Yahweh, who likes the smell, and then decides maybe he should keep humans around after all, he just needs to institute some changes so they don't piss him off in the future. And hence, laws.
Now, most Christians today know that the story, as written, is ridiculous, because there never was a global flood and you can't fit every species into an ark. So, they say, it's a "metaphor," or "it needs to be looked at in context."
Let's look at each of these claims.
It's a metaphor. For what? In order for something to be a metaphor, the author has to have something else in mind that the metaphor points to. Is it a metaphor for natural catastrophes that struck ancient humanity? No, because the Hebrews who wrote the story had no idea. Is it a metaphor for some kind of moral lesson about God's wrath? There's certainly a moral lesson in the story, but the story itself is not a metaphor. The claim just makes absolutely no sense on the face of it.
It should be interpreted in its cultural context. I agree! As someone who's studied ancient near eastern mythology, it makes a great deal of sense to look at the Biblical flood story in the context of greater Mesopotamian mythology. Because the Bible's flood story is nearly identical to earlier Akkadian and Sumerian flood myths.
The Akkadian flood story, the Epic of Atrahasis, follows the exact same structure: humans piss off god, god decides to flood the earth and kill everyone, man is saved, man loads up animals for sacrifice, does so, god likes the sacrifice and changes his mind, and institutes changes so humans don't piss him off in the future. It has the same details too—the ark is sealed with pitch, doves fly from the windows and don't come back. The Bible flood story follows the exact same template as the Atrahasis story; the Hebrews simply plugged in a different God (which actually explains why God appears so schizo in the Bible story—in Atrahasis, a second, Prometheus-like god saves the wise man from the flood). They also plugged in a different moral lesson—for the city-dwelling Akkadians, overpopulation and "noise pollution" is what pissed off the gods, and so the gods instituted population control devices (like miscarriages) post-Flood to solve the problem. For the seminomadic tribal Hebrews, murder and "blood pollution" was the problem that pissed off the god, and so the god institutes Law post-Flood to solve the problem (and says "go forth and multiply, rejecting the Atrahasis moral).
Furthermore, in the context of the ancient near east, the cosmology of the flood story makes perfect sense. The Hebrews, like everyone else at the time, believed that the sky was a solid dome that held up an ocean of water. They believed there was an ocean below the ground too. So Earth is like a bubble sandwiched between these two oceans. When God opens the windows of the sky, he is essentially "popping" this bubble—which is why the ark needs to have a roof sealed with pitch (it's a submarine). This sound strange, but it makes quite a bunch of sense if you're a prescientific bronze-age nomad. The sky, like large bodies of water, is blue. Rain and snow fall from it. Something must hold it up. And if you dig deep enough, you'll run into the "ocean" of groundwater. It's not like they could have easily known better.
So the point being here, if you interpret Genesis in its historical and cultural context, you will discover that it is an example of Mesopotamian mythology. But this "interpretation" in no way corroborates or helps explain Christian faith, or helps bring Christianity in line with modern values and science. It just implies that Christian faith is based on mythology.
TL&DR: people who say the Bible is "metaphor" and "needs to be interpreted in cultural/historical context" are usually either ignorant of what the Bible actually says or are just engaging in intellectual dishonesty.
I get very pissy when people say the Bible is a "metaphor" or that it needs to be interpreted in a "cultural or historical context." This is rarely what they mean. What they usually mean is "I need an excuse to ignore what the Bible says and this sounds nice."
Let's look at the example of the Flood story. We have Yahweh bringing a flood down to earth because humanity pisses him off and he regrets making them. He tells one guy he likes to build an ark with a roof sealed with pitch, and load animals on it, some for sacrifice. He then floods the earth by opening the "windows of the sky" and the "fountains of the deep." After the flood subsides, the man sacrifices a bunch of animals to Yahweh, who likes the smell, and then decides maybe he should keep humans around after all, he just needs to institute some changes so they don't piss him off in the future. And hence, laws.
Now, most Christians today know that the story, as written, is ridiculous, because there never was a global flood and you can't fit every species into an ark. So, they say, it's a "metaphor," or "it needs to be looked at in context."
Let's look at each of these claims.
It's a metaphor. For what? In order for something to be a metaphor, the author has to have something else in mind that the metaphor points to. Is it a metaphor for natural catastrophes that struck ancient humanity? No, because the Hebrews who wrote the story had no idea. Is it a metaphor for some kind of moral lesson about God's wrath? There's certainly a moral lesson in the story, but the story itself is not a metaphor. The claim just makes absolutely no sense on the face of it.
It should be interpreted in its cultural context. I agree! As someone who's studied ancient near eastern mythology, it makes a great deal of sense to look at the Biblical flood story in the context of greater Mesopotamian mythology. Because the Bible's flood story is nearly identical to earlier Akkadian and Sumerian flood myths.
The Akkadian flood story, the Epic of Atrahasis, follows the exact same structure: humans piss off god, god decides to flood the earth and kill everyone, man is saved, man loads up animals for sacrifice, does so, god likes the sacrifice and changes his mind, and institutes changes so humans don't piss him off in the future. It has the same details too—the ark is sealed with pitch, doves fly from the windows and don't come back. The Bible flood story follows the exact same template as the Atrahasis story; the Hebrews simply plugged in a different God (which actually explains why God appears so schizo in the Bible story—in Atrahasis, a second, Prometheus-like god saves the wise man from the flood). They also plugged in a different moral lesson—for the city-dwelling Akkadians, overpopulation and "noise pollution" is what pissed off the gods, and so the gods instituted population control devices (like miscarriages) post-Flood to solve the problem. For the seminomadic tribal Hebrews, murder and "blood pollution" was the problem that pissed off the god, and so the god institutes Law post-Flood to solve the problem (and says "go forth and multiply, rejecting the Atrahasis moral).
Furthermore, in the context of the ancient near east, the cosmology of the flood story makes perfect sense. The Hebrews, like everyone else at the time, believed that the sky was a solid dome that held up an ocean of water. They believed there was an ocean below the ground too. So Earth is like a bubble sandwiched between these two oceans. When God opens the windows of the sky, he is essentially "popping" this bubble—which is why the ark needs to have a roof sealed with pitch (it's a submarine). This sound strange, but it makes quite a bunch of sense if you're a prescientific bronze-age nomad. The sky, like large bodies of water, is blue. Rain and snow fall from it. Something must hold it up. And if you dig deep enough, you'll run into the "ocean" of groundwater. It's not like they could have easily known better.
So the point being here, if you interpret Genesis in its historical and cultural context, you will discover that it is an example of Mesopotamian mythology. But this "interpretation" in no way corroborates or helps explain Christian faith, or helps bring Christianity in line with modern values and science. It just implies that Christian faith is based on mythology.
TL&DR: people who say the Bible is "metaphor" and "needs to be interpreted in cultural/historical context" are usually either ignorant of what the Bible actually says or are just engaging in intellectual dishonesty.
Thanks for that. I think I've read it in other threads (but since I never took part in those threads I'd half-forgotten it), and I pretty much agree with it. One thing that I'd say, though, is that saying that the Bible requires interpretation != saying that the Bible is a metaphor. There are a number of other forms of figurative meaning, added to which even a command as seemingly simple as "Love one another" requires interpretation (and I'd be very hard put to accept gaybashing, "God hates fags" and the Phelbs spawn as valid interpretations thereof). In any case, though, this is not the discussion going on here, so I'll leave it at that.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Here's basically what I've got to say about this, and then I'm out of here because as usual the religious thread devolves into the same "you can't make moral decisions if you believe in God" crap.
Qingu, I voted for Obama. I did this because the religious right, to me, is exactly the same as the Pharisees. Obsessed with outward appearances of purity, but rotten to the core on the inside. They may profess the same belief as I do but their actions betray them. Bush was this way and McCain promised to be more of the same. While I believe Obama is informed by his Christianity, I do not believe he will attempt to enforce that belief upon everybody else in an attempt to make them conform to his moral automaton ideal. In addition, the policies he espouses are much more in line with what I believe to be moral, as opposed to the Republican policies which are basically prosperity gospel bullshit.
In terms of homosexuality, I think that Christians in general have horned in on it as some sort of über-sin, which I find ridiculous. I am well aware of Paul's viewpoint on it and I dismiss it because, at several points in the Epistles, he makes spiritual claims that he admits are informed by his own interpretation and not by the Holy Spirit. Now, from any standpoint, I have done some pretty horrible things in my life. It makes more sense to me that I should be alienated from others for those things than for something ridiculous like homosexuality, but instead Christians have this dumb idea that there are more "acceptable" sins and more "unacceptable" sins. In any case, it is absolutely not my place to judge anybody, and I know the second I do point a finger at somebody else that there will be three pointing back at me (and probably for something that actually deserves a finger-pointing).
My morals are mine. I don't enforce them on anybody else. I don't make other people feel guilty for not conforming to my moral structure.
And it seems odd to me that there are people who think that I ought to instead espouse the philosophy of the religious right and the Pharisees. Well, I'm not going to.
Yeah, thinking less of gay people or whatever is going to in some way affect how you think. It might (hell likely will) be in a subtler way, for example subconsciously affecting how you act with them. Maybe not even in a directly bad fashion, but none the less holding a belief is going to change you be it in a very minute way. Let’s not pretend this isn’t the case. Me? I’d rather challenge those subtle influences and have them discarded then go ‘hey believe what you want without criticism as long as I don’t see you do/say something directly bad with influence on the external world’.
I may be misinterpreting you, but are you suggesting that all Christians have at least some latent hatred of homosexuals? If so, I'd have to take issue with that. Some of my best friends in the world are gay.
Because you hate the sin, not the sinner.
Well, some people would take issue to the characterization of their natural feelings and loving relationships with other human beings as a sin. Maybe your best friends don't care though, who knows.
Also, Josh, do you realize that "some of my best friends are X!" is sort of this cliched joke defense against accusations of bigotry? It is weird to see someone actually make this argument in earnest.
Yeah, thinking less of gay people or whatever is going to in some way affect how you think. It might (hell likely will) be in a subtler way, for example subconsciously affecting how you act with them. Maybe not even in a directly bad fashion, but none the less holding a belief is going to change you be it in a very minute way. Let’s not pretend this isn’t the case. Me? I’d rather challenge those subtle influences and have them discarded then go ‘hey believe what you want without criticism as long as I don’t see you do/say something directly bad with influence on the external world’.
I may be misinterpreting you, but are you suggesting that all Christians have at least some latent hatred of homosexuals? If so, I'd have to take issue with that. Some of my best friends in the world are gay.
Because you hate the sin, not the sinner.
Well, some people would take issue to the characterization of their natural feelings and loving relationships with other human beings as a sin. Maybe your best friends don't care though, who knows.
Also, Josh, do you realize that "some of my best friends are X!" is sort of this cliched joke defense against accusations of bigotry? It is weird to see someone actually make this argument in earnest.
Surely as invalid as "Christian = homophobe", no?
Well his statement that most Christians have a degree of homophobia isn't really that controversial. I don't know what kinds of studies have been done on prejudice towards homosexuals, but there have been studies on other types of prejudice. It has been scientifically demonstrated over and over again that even though we've really improved race relations over the last fifty years, people are still a little bit racist. They tend to view blacks a little bit worse than whites, on average, and that goes for almost everyone... including blacks.
It's not a stretch to say the same thing of homosexuality, especially considering that orthodox Christian teaching holds homosexuality as an abominable sin.
Here's basically what I've got to say about this, and then I'm out of here because as usual the religious thread devolves into the same "you can't make moral decisions if you believe in God" crap.
Qingu, I voted for Obama. I did this because the religious right, to me, is exactly the same as the Pharisees. Obsessed with outward appearances of purity, but rotten to the core on the inside. They may profess the same belief as I do but their actions betray them. Bush was this way and McCain promised to be more of the same. While I believe Obama is informed by his Christianity, I do not believe he will attempt to enforce that belief upon everybody else in an attempt to make them conform to his moral automaton ideal. In addition, the policies he espouses are much more in line with what I believe to be moral, as opposed to the Republican policies which are basically prosperity gospel bullshit.
In terms of homosexuality, I think that Christians in general have horned in on it as some sort of über-sin, which I find ridiculous. I am well aware of Paul's viewpoint on it and I dismiss it because, at several points in the Epistles, he makes spiritual claims that he admits are informed by his own interpretation and not by the Holy Spirit. Now, from any standpoint, I have done some pretty horrible things in my life. It makes more sense to me that I should be alienated from others for those things than for something ridiculous like homosexuality, but instead Christians have this dumb idea that there are more "acceptable" sins and more "unacceptable" sins. In any case, it is absolutely not my place to judge anybody, and I know the second I do point a finger at somebody else that there will be three pointing back at me (and probably for something that actually deserves a finger-pointing).
My morals are mine. I don't enforce them on anybody else. I don't make other people feel guilty for not conforming to my moral structure.
And it seems odd to me that there are people who think that I ought to instead espouse the philosophy of the religious right and the Pharisees. Well, I'm not going to.
And with that, I'm out.
Wait so I'm confused. You say that Paul's viewpoints are probably wrong because elsewhere he says that they're his own interpretations. And then you say that there aren't "acceptable" and "unacceptable" sins, and then you say it's not your place to judge.
But do you think that homosexuality is immoral or not? Is it a sin or not? Yes or no?
Hey now. I never said (or meant to imply) that Christian = homophobe.
I do think it's clear that homophobia is encoded in the sacred text of Christianity. But obviously many Christians ignore or else have no idea what that sacred text says.
Hey now. I never said (or meant to imply) that Christian = homophobe.
I do think it's clear that homophobia is encoded in the sacred text of Christianity. But obviously many Christians ignore or else have no idea what that sacred text says.
Well to be fair it isn't homophobia so much as it is "fags are sinning and going to burn in hell"
Hey now. I never said (or meant to imply) that Christian = homophobe.
I do think it's clear that homophobia is encoded in the sacred text of Christianity. But obviously many Christians ignore or else have no idea what that sacred text says.
Well to be fair it isn't homophobia so much as it is "fags are sinning and going to burn in hell"
Whoa, did we switch places or something?
Many Christians would object to that statement. Many Christians would not use the word "fag." And many Christians don't even believe in hell, let alone that homosexuality gets you sent there.
Of course, I think the reason this is the case is because they ignore/are ignorant of what the Bible says, but whatevz.
Hey now. I never said (or meant to imply) that Christian = homophobe.
I do think it's clear that homophobia is encoded in the sacred text of Christianity. But obviously many Christians ignore or else have no idea what that sacred text says.
Well to be fair it isn't homophobia so much as it is "fags are sinning and going to burn in hell"
Whoa, did we switch places or something?
Many Christians would object to that statement. Many Christians would not use the word "fag." And many Christians don't even believe in hell, let alone that homosexuality gets you sent there.
Of course, I think the reason this is the case is because they ignore/are ignorant of what the Bible says, but whatevz.
So THIS is what it feels like to live the movie Freaky Friday.
Hey now. I never said (or meant to imply) that Christian = homophobe.
I do think it's clear that homophobia is encoded in the sacred text of Christianity. But obviously many Christians ignore or else have no idea what that sacred text says.
Well to be fair it isn't homophobia so much as it is "fags are sinning and going to burn in hell"
Whoa, did we switch places or something?
Many Christians would object to that statement. Many Christians would not use the word "fag." And many Christians don't even believe in hell, let alone that homosexuality gets you sent there.
Of course, I think the reason this is the case is because they ignore/are ignorant of what the Bible says, but whatevz.
Makes you wonder... They don't believe in hell. They don't believe that homosexuality is a sin. They probably don't think lots of other things are sins (premarital sex comes to mind). Why not just go all the way and just make the very obvious rational step: The Bible is not the inspired word of God. It's just a book and should not be a guidebook to moral thinking. And it isn't really a rock solid basis for believing in the Resurrection or any Christian teaching really, on it's own.
Makes you wonder... They don't believe in hell. They don't believe that homosexuality is a sin. They probably don't think lots of other things are sins (premarital sex comes to mind). Why not just go all the way and just make the very obvious rational step: The Bible is not the inspired word of God. It's just a book and should not be a guidebook to moral thinking. And it isn't really a rock solid basis for believing in the Resurrection or any Christian teaching really, on it's own.
Thing is, the Bible doesn't claim to be the unfiltered word of God - which the Quran does, for instance. It's quite explicitly authored by a number of people, and it even pulls a Rashomon on us with the Gospels. All of this suggests that as readers we may be screwed if we interpret the text as God's literalist dictation. At the very least we'd be guilty of pretty naive text comprehension. There's a number of thoughts that can follow from that, yours being one but not the only, and not even necessarily the only intelligent one.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Makes you wonder... They don't believe in hell. They don't believe that homosexuality is a sin. They probably don't think lots of other things are sins (premarital sex comes to mind). Why not just go all the way and just make the very obvious rational step: The Bible is not the inspired word of God. It's just a book and should not be a guidebook to moral thinking. And it isn't really a rock solid basis for believing in the Resurrection or any Christian teaching really, on it's own.
Thing is, the Bible doesn't claim to be the unfiltered word of God - which the Quran does, for instance. It's quite explicitly authored by a number of people, and it even pulls a Rashomon on us with the Gospels. All of this suggests that as readers we may be screwed if we interpret the text as God's literalist dictation. At the very least we'd be guilty of pretty naive text comprehension. There's a number of thoughts that can follow from that, yours being one but not the only, and not even necessarily the only intelligent one.
I didn't say the "unfiltered" word of God. I said the inspired word of God. Catholic teaching holds the book to be inerrant, but with specific restrictions. There are many orthodox Christian views of scripture - and the one thing they all hold in common is that the Bible is, in some sense, "true."
Makes you wonder... They don't believe in hell. They don't believe that homosexuality is a sin. They probably don't think lots of other things are sins (premarital sex comes to mind). Why not just go all the way and just make the very obvious rational step: The Bible is not the inspired word of God. It's just a book and should not be a guidebook to moral thinking. And it isn't really a rock solid basis for believing in the Resurrection or any Christian teaching really, on it's own.
Thing is, the Bible doesn't claim to be the unfiltered word of God - which the Quran does, for instance. It's quite explicitly authored by a number of people, and it even pulls a Rashomon on us with the Gospels. All of this suggests that as readers we may be screwed if we interpret the text as God's literalist dictation. At the very least we'd be guilty of pretty naive text comprehension. There's a number of thoughts that can follow from that, yours being one but not the only, and not even necessarily the only intelligent one.
But even accepting that the Bible isn't the unfiltered word of God, there's only so many intellectually honest conclusions you can come to when you read the thing.
I agree with Melkster. The way many Christians understand and interpret the Bible (apart from how they claim they interpret it), the Bible might as well be the Iliad.
Calling Paul 'misogynistic' or 'homophobic' is a bit inaccurate. He was definitely not a progressive feminist by our own standards, and probably not by those of his own day, either. And I have no doubt that he believed homosexuality - or at least homosexual behavior - was sinful.
But the idea that he was some sort of 21st-century gay-obsessed homophobe simply doesn't pan out with his texts. In his lengthy (by ancient standards) writings that we still have, homosexuality is mentioned exactly once, in a letter to a specific congregation amidst a laundry list of sexual practices he disapproves of. The idea that he was constantly bringing up homosexuality the way modern religious fundamentalists do simply isn't true.
Also, to call Paul and the early Christians misogynists is also a misunderstanding. No doubt Paul saw women as social and civic inferiors, second-class citizens and whatever, but women were often prominent members in the early Church, and were even designated as the leaders of given communities. It was not uncommon for wealthy female converts to allow the church to hold meetings in their homes and obviously these women were also given a degree of respect and authority. If you want to read a really misogynistic ancient writer you don't have to look very far. Misogynistic literature was an entire genre back then, where philosophers would basically write book-length diatribes on how awful women were and why. You don't get that in Paul, at least not in any of his extant texts.
I think a lot of people project their feelings on modern Christianity onto the founders, but the world was so different back then that to do so you have to twist the text in some rather contorted ways. If you disagree with the sentiment of ancient writers that's fine, but I think it's best to realize that the ancient world was an extremely complex society with radically different social mores - it was not simply the Victorian/Puritanical West, only longer ago so a lot lot more conservative.
Also, to call Paul and the early Christians misogynists is also a misunderstanding. No doubt Paul saw women as social and civic inferiors, second-class citizens and whatever, but women were often prominent members in the early Church, and were even designated as the leaders of given communities.
Let's not conflate Paul and later early leaders of the Christian church.
The "Christian church" was by no means coherent or unified—as Paul's letters railing against rival sects of Christians show.
I do agree with your general points. Though in general I would also add that Paul was a demagogic piece of shit.
The "Christian church" was by no means coherent or unified—as Paul's letters railing against rival sects of Christians show.
Point taken, and I'll admit that I'm not familiar enough with such texts to make such a statement about other early Christian thinkers/writers.
Not yet, anyway.
I do agree with your general points. Though in general I would also add that Paul was a demagogic piece of shit.
You can interpret Paul that way, and I'm not going to say it's necessarily an invalid interpretation, although in general I try not to make a value judgement on the authors of ancient sources. There's so much more to any person than can be communicated in a text, especially the fragmentary and secondhand examples we often get from antiquity. A lot of us have our ideas on such figures as Julius Caesar (or whoever) and what sort of person they were, but I don't think we'll ever really know the true personality and motivations of even extremely prolific ancient people. There's just nowhere near enough to go on.
In my field of study we're generally supposed to refrain from making any judgement unless we've got some pretty weighty physical evidence behind it, but in historical or textual analysis such judgements are and always have been considered an acceptable method of scholarship and interpretation. It feels jumping to conclusions to me... but I'll admit that we can be notoriously conservative and cautious in how we interpret data, simply because we often have so little to work with.
I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out that a number of epistles said to be written by Paul probably were not written by Paul. In fact, that's pretty much the consensus of Biblical scholars today, sort like the theory of evolution for Biologists.
One of my favorite religious-studies words. Along with hermeneutics, eschatology, soteriology, and demonology.
I always liked eisegesis and exegesis.
Wait is anyone else a Religious Studies major besides me? :O
I thought I was alone...
I study archaeology but I want to go into religious archaeology, so I've tried to pick up a few classes.
Also, I've grown quite partial to the phrase The Dead Sea Scrolls. Not only is it a great name, but the setup is too good to be fictional - in the middle of a vast and hostile desert, by the shores of an inland ocean so salty that no life exists in it at all, there was an ancient religious community focused on asceticism and prophecy who were waiting out the literal end of the world.
Then, when they were attacked by a powerful foreign empire bent on destroying their religion and culture, they hid their library - in which was contained all their sacred and forbidden knowledge, taboo to even speak of to outsiders - in the caves nearby, where they sat undisturbed for two thousand years. They were finally discovered by desert nomads, at exactly the moment when their descendants, two millenia removed, were again fighting a war for their independence.
It turns out I'm going to be celebrating with a massive sigh and a hearty "Fuck the Church".
I was raised Catholic, and due to parental pressure I did the whole bit of catechism, altar serving, etc. These formative years coincided with the revelation of clerical sex abuse at the Mount Cashel orphanage in Newfoundland, which was when English speaking Canada started waking up to the issue of fairly widespread institutional abuse in the Church (this was already old news in Quebec of course). These kinds of things were whispered about among my peers, but I don't personally know anyone who was abused in that way. I did get a pretty good dose of the old guilt and shame for having the sort of sexual desires common to hetero teenager boys everywhere. When I left for university at 18, I stopped going to church, and now its been 14 years since I've set foot in a Catholic Church.
This summer, the diocese neighbouring the archdiocese where I grew up agreed to a multi-million dollar payout to sex abuse survivors. This seemed like a positive step as the Church seemed more conciliatory and less set on discrediting the victims, as had previously been the case.
Well today it was was revealed that the Bishop who oversaw this settlement (not the one who oversaw the abuse) has been arrested for the possession and sale of child pornography. Apparently some people do not ever fucking learn simple lessons like "people seem to disapprove of the sexual abuse of children".
One of my favorite religious-studies words. Along with hermeneutics, eschatology, soteriology, and demonology.
I always liked eisegesis and exegesis.
Wait is anyone else a Religious Studies major besides me? :O
I thought I was alone...
I study archaeology but I want to go into religious archaeology, so I've tried to pick up a few classes.
Also, I've grown quite partial to the phrase The Dead Sea Scrolls. Not only is it a great name, but the setup is too good to be fictional - in the middle of a vast and hostile desert, by the shores of an inland ocean so salty that no life exists in it at all, there was an ancient religious community focused on asceticism and prophecy who were waiting out the literal end of the world.
Then, when they were attacked by a powerful foreign empire bent on destroying their religion and culture, they hid their library - in which was contained all their sacred and forbidden knowledge, taboo to even speak of to outsiders - in the caves nearby, where they sat undisturbed for two thousand years. They were finally discovered by desert nomads, at exactly the moment when their descendants, two millenia removed, were again fighting a war for their independence.
So awesome.
Haha, wow, when you phrase it like that it sounds awesome.
Oh yeah, have a picture from my Archaeology and the Bible class:
One of my favorite religious-studies words. Along with hermeneutics, eschatology, soteriology, and demonology.
I always liked eisegesis and exegesis.
Wait is anyone else a Religious Studies major besides me? :O
I thought I was alone...
I study archaeology but I want to go into religious archaeology, so I've tried to pick up a few classes.
Also, I've grown quite partial to the phrase The Dead Sea Scrolls. Not only is it a great name, but the setup is too good to be fictional - in the middle of a vast and hostile desert, by the shores of an inland ocean so salty that no life exists in it at all, there was an ancient religious community focused on asceticism and prophecy who were waiting out the literal end of the world.
Then, when they were attacked by a powerful foreign empire bent on destroying their religion and culture, they hid their library - in which was contained all their sacred and forbidden knowledge, taboo to even speak of to outsiders - in the caves nearby, where they sat undisturbed for two thousand years. They were finally discovered by desert nomads, at exactly the moment when their descendants, two millenia removed, were again fighting a war for their independence.
So awesome.
Haha, wow, when you phrase it like that it sounds awesome.
Oh yeah, have a picture from my Archaeology and the Bible class:
Blasphemy Day International takes place every September 30th to commemorate the publishing of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons. Blasphemy Day International promotes free speech and solidarity for the freedom to challenge, criticize, and satirize religion without fear of murder, litigation, or other reprisals.
So what do you plan on doing to celebrate it? I plan on treating it like "Talk like a pirate day", a fun little holiday to give some face time to. Maybe I'll say something bad about Christianity. Probably not in public, however, because I live in Oklahoma and I value my life.
I plan on going to a town hall meeting and blaspheme the God-Emperor Obama by suggesting that His health care reform won't pay for itself. :winky:
I think I'd get more hate doing that than actually blaspheming God in a Christian church since a lot of pastors I've spoken to will actually answer honest, real questions that don't line up with their beliefs.
Posts
Let's look at the example of the Flood story. We have Yahweh bringing a flood down to earth because humanity pisses him off and he regrets making them. He tells one guy he likes to build an ark with a roof sealed with pitch, and load animals on it, some for sacrifice. He then floods the earth by opening the "windows of the sky" and the "fountains of the deep." After the flood subsides, the man sacrifices a bunch of animals to Yahweh, who likes the smell, and then decides maybe he should keep humans around after all, he just needs to institute some changes so they don't piss him off in the future. And hence, laws.
Now, most Christians today know that the story, as written, is ridiculous, because there never was a global flood and you can't fit every species into an ark. So, they say, it's a "metaphor," or "it needs to be looked at in context."
Let's look at each of these claims.
It's a metaphor. For what? In order for something to be a metaphor, the author has to have something else in mind that the metaphor points to. Is it a metaphor for natural catastrophes that struck ancient humanity? No, because the Hebrews who wrote the story had no idea. Is it a metaphor for some kind of moral lesson about God's wrath? There's certainly a moral lesson in the story, but the story itself is not a metaphor. The claim just makes absolutely no sense on the face of it.
It should be interpreted in its cultural context. I agree! As someone who's studied ancient near eastern mythology, it makes a great deal of sense to look at the Biblical flood story in the context of greater Mesopotamian mythology. Because the Bible's flood story is nearly identical to earlier Akkadian and Sumerian flood myths.
The Akkadian flood story, the Epic of Atrahasis, follows the exact same structure: humans piss off god, god decides to flood the earth and kill everyone, man is saved, man loads up animals for sacrifice, does so, god likes the sacrifice and changes his mind, and institutes changes so humans don't piss him off in the future. It has the same details too—the ark is sealed with pitch, doves fly from the windows and don't come back. The Bible flood story follows the exact same template as the Atrahasis story; the Hebrews simply plugged in a different God (which actually explains why God appears so schizo in the Bible story—in Atrahasis, a second, Prometheus-like god saves the wise man from the flood). They also plugged in a different moral lesson—for the city-dwelling Akkadians, overpopulation and "noise pollution" is what pissed off the gods, and so the gods instituted population control devices (like miscarriages) post-Flood to solve the problem. For the seminomadic tribal Hebrews, murder and "blood pollution" was the problem that pissed off the god, and so the god institutes Law post-Flood to solve the problem (and says "go forth and multiply, rejecting the Atrahasis moral).
Furthermore, in the context of the ancient near east, the cosmology of the flood story makes perfect sense. The Hebrews, like everyone else at the time, believed that the sky was a solid dome that held up an ocean of water. They believed there was an ocean below the ground too. So Earth is like a bubble sandwiched between these two oceans. When God opens the windows of the sky, he is essentially "popping" this bubble—which is why the ark needs to have a roof sealed with pitch (it's a submarine). This sound strange, but it makes quite a bunch of sense if you're a prescientific bronze-age nomad. The sky, like large bodies of water, is blue. Rain and snow fall from it. Something must hold it up. And if you dig deep enough, you'll run into the "ocean" of groundwater. It's not like they could have easily known better.
So the point being here, if you interpret Genesis in its historical and cultural context, you will discover that it is an example of Mesopotamian mythology. But this "interpretation" in no way corroborates or helps explain Christian faith, or helps bring Christianity in line with modern values and science. It just implies that Christian faith is based on mythology.
TL&DR: people who say the Bible is "metaphor" and "needs to be interpreted in cultural/historical context" are usually either ignorant of what the Bible actually says or are just engaging in intellectual dishonesty.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Qingu, I voted for Obama. I did this because the religious right, to me, is exactly the same as the Pharisees. Obsessed with outward appearances of purity, but rotten to the core on the inside. They may profess the same belief as I do but their actions betray them. Bush was this way and McCain promised to be more of the same. While I believe Obama is informed by his Christianity, I do not believe he will attempt to enforce that belief upon everybody else in an attempt to make them conform to his moral automaton ideal. In addition, the policies he espouses are much more in line with what I believe to be moral, as opposed to the Republican policies which are basically prosperity gospel bullshit.
In terms of homosexuality, I think that Christians in general have horned in on it as some sort of über-sin, which I find ridiculous. I am well aware of Paul's viewpoint on it and I dismiss it because, at several points in the Epistles, he makes spiritual claims that he admits are informed by his own interpretation and not by the Holy Spirit. Now, from any standpoint, I have done some pretty horrible things in my life. It makes more sense to me that I should be alienated from others for those things than for something ridiculous like homosexuality, but instead Christians have this dumb idea that there are more "acceptable" sins and more "unacceptable" sins. In any case, it is absolutely not my place to judge anybody, and I know the second I do point a finger at somebody else that there will be three pointing back at me (and probably for something that actually deserves a finger-pointing).
My morals are mine. I don't enforce them on anybody else. I don't make other people feel guilty for not conforming to my moral structure.
And it seems odd to me that there are people who think that I ought to instead espouse the philosophy of the religious right and the Pharisees. Well, I'm not going to.
And with that, I'm out.
Surely as invalid as "Christian = homophobe", no?
Well his statement that most Christians have a degree of homophobia isn't really that controversial. I don't know what kinds of studies have been done on prejudice towards homosexuals, but there have been studies on other types of prejudice. It has been scientifically demonstrated over and over again that even though we've really improved race relations over the last fifty years, people are still a little bit racist. They tend to view blacks a little bit worse than whites, on average, and that goes for almost everyone... including blacks.
It's not a stretch to say the same thing of homosexuality, especially considering that orthodox Christian teaching holds homosexuality as an abominable sin.
Wait so I'm confused. You say that Paul's viewpoints are probably wrong because elsewhere he says that they're his own interpretations. And then you say that there aren't "acceptable" and "unacceptable" sins, and then you say it's not your place to judge.
But do you think that homosexuality is immoral or not? Is it a sin or not? Yes or no?
I do think it's clear that homophobia is encoded in the sacred text of Christianity. But obviously many Christians ignore or else have no idea what that sacred text says.
Well to be fair it isn't homophobia so much as it is "fags are sinning and going to burn in hell"
Many Christians would object to that statement. Many Christians would not use the word "fag." And many Christians don't even believe in hell, let alone that homosexuality gets you sent there.
Of course, I think the reason this is the case is because they ignore/are ignorant of what the Bible says, but whatevz.
So THIS is what it feels like to live the movie Freaky Friday.
Makes you wonder... They don't believe in hell. They don't believe that homosexuality is a sin. They probably don't think lots of other things are sins (premarital sex comes to mind). Why not just go all the way and just make the very obvious rational step: The Bible is not the inspired word of God. It's just a book and should not be a guidebook to moral thinking. And it isn't really a rock solid basis for believing in the Resurrection or any Christian teaching really, on it's own.
Specifically this quote in response:
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I didn't say the "unfiltered" word of God. I said the inspired word of God. Catholic teaching holds the book to be inerrant, but with specific restrictions. There are many orthodox Christian views of scripture - and the one thing they all hold in common is that the Bible is, in some sense, "true."
I agree with Melkster. The way many Christians understand and interpret the Bible (apart from how they claim they interpret it), the Bible might as well be the Iliad.
Calling Paul 'misogynistic' or 'homophobic' is a bit inaccurate. He was definitely not a progressive feminist by our own standards, and probably not by those of his own day, either. And I have no doubt that he believed homosexuality - or at least homosexual behavior - was sinful.
But the idea that he was some sort of 21st-century gay-obsessed homophobe simply doesn't pan out with his texts. In his lengthy (by ancient standards) writings that we still have, homosexuality is mentioned exactly once, in a letter to a specific congregation amidst a laundry list of sexual practices he disapproves of. The idea that he was constantly bringing up homosexuality the way modern religious fundamentalists do simply isn't true.
Also, to call Paul and the early Christians misogynists is also a misunderstanding. No doubt Paul saw women as social and civic inferiors, second-class citizens and whatever, but women were often prominent members in the early Church, and were even designated as the leaders of given communities. It was not uncommon for wealthy female converts to allow the church to hold meetings in their homes and obviously these women were also given a degree of respect and authority. If you want to read a really misogynistic ancient writer you don't have to look very far. Misogynistic literature was an entire genre back then, where philosophers would basically write book-length diatribes on how awful women were and why. You don't get that in Paul, at least not in any of his extant texts.
I think a lot of people project their feelings on modern Christianity onto the founders, but the world was so different back then that to do so you have to twist the text in some rather contorted ways. If you disagree with the sentiment of ancient writers that's fine, but I think it's best to realize that the ancient world was an extremely complex society with radically different social mores - it was not simply the Victorian/Puritanical West, only longer ago so a lot lot more conservative.
The "Christian church" was by no means coherent or unified—as Paul's letters railing against rival sects of Christians show.
I do agree with your general points. Though in general I would also add that Paul was a demagogic piece of shit.
Which is to some,unfortunately, blasphemy in and of itself. 'Tis a sad,sad world.
Quick, everyone rape a cow!
Because the idea anyone could ever wed you is a bla...
Okay I got nothing.
Oh you were on to something there for a second.
Point taken, and I'll admit that I'm not familiar enough with such texts to make such a statement about other early Christian thinkers/writers.
Not yet, anyway.
You can interpret Paul that way, and I'm not going to say it's necessarily an invalid interpretation, although in general I try not to make a value judgement on the authors of ancient sources. There's so much more to any person than can be communicated in a text, especially the fragmentary and secondhand examples we often get from antiquity. A lot of us have our ideas on such figures as Julius Caesar (or whoever) and what sort of person they were, but I don't think we'll ever really know the true personality and motivations of even extremely prolific ancient people. There's just nowhere near enough to go on.
In my field of study we're generally supposed to refrain from making any judgement unless we've got some pretty weighty physical evidence behind it, but in historical or textual analysis such judgements are and always have been considered an acceptable method of scholarship and interpretation. It feels jumping to conclusions to me... but I'll admit that we can be notoriously conservative and cautious in how we interpret data, simply because we often have so little to work with.
One of my favorite religious-studies words. Along with hermeneutics, eschatology, soteriology, and demonology.
"Things which have been hidden"? It's perfect.
I always liked eisegesis and exegesis.
Wait is anyone else a Religious Studies major besides me? :O
I thought I was alone...
I study archaeology but I want to go into religious archaeology, so I've tried to pick up a few classes.
Also, I've grown quite partial to the phrase The Dead Sea Scrolls. Not only is it a great name, but the setup is too good to be fictional - in the middle of a vast and hostile desert, by the shores of an inland ocean so salty that no life exists in it at all, there was an ancient religious community focused on asceticism and prophecy who were waiting out the literal end of the world.
Then, when they were attacked by a powerful foreign empire bent on destroying their religion and culture, they hid their library - in which was contained all their sacred and forbidden knowledge, taboo to even speak of to outsiders - in the caves nearby, where they sat undisturbed for two thousand years. They were finally discovered by desert nomads, at exactly the moment when their descendants, two millenia removed, were again fighting a war for their independence.
So awesome.
I also like antedeluvian.
I was raised Catholic, and due to parental pressure I did the whole bit of catechism, altar serving, etc. These formative years coincided with the revelation of clerical sex abuse at the Mount Cashel orphanage in Newfoundland, which was when English speaking Canada started waking up to the issue of fairly widespread institutional abuse in the Church (this was already old news in Quebec of course). These kinds of things were whispered about among my peers, but I don't personally know anyone who was abused in that way. I did get a pretty good dose of the old guilt and shame for having the sort of sexual desires common to hetero teenager boys everywhere. When I left for university at 18, I stopped going to church, and now its been 14 years since I've set foot in a Catholic Church.
This summer, the diocese neighbouring the archdiocese where I grew up agreed to a multi-million dollar payout to sex abuse survivors. This seemed like a positive step as the Church seemed more conciliatory and less set on discrediting the victims, as had previously been the case.
Well today it was was revealed that the Bishop who oversaw this settlement (not the one who oversaw the abuse) has been arrested for the possession and sale of child pornography. Apparently some people do not ever fucking learn simple lessons like "people seem to disapprove of the sexual abuse of children".
So, yeah, fuck those guys.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Haha, wow, when you phrase it like that it sounds awesome.
Oh yeah, have a picture from my Archaeology and the Bible class:
We had way too much fun.
(Guess which one I am.)
Are you the white shoulder?
Damn I'm a beast.
For you Blasphemy Day was the most important Wednesday of your life, but for Penny Arcade Forums... it was Tuesday.
I plan on going to a town hall meeting and blaspheme the God-Emperor Obama by suggesting that His health care reform won't pay for itself. :winky:
I think I'd get more hate doing that than actually blaspheming God in a Christian church since a lot of pastors I've spoken to will actually answer honest, real questions that don't line up with their beliefs.
Margaret Thatcher
I may be late to the party but.....tetragrammaton.
Damn, so badass.
Is it bad that I wikipedia'd that and immediately was reminded of overcompensating, because Jeffrey Rowland tends to use YHWH...
On second thought, if that's bad, I don't want to be good.
Or is it just me?
(Yes, I've got a degree in Religious Studies and I'm an atheist. Long story.)