The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
(Christian Theology) has Guitar, Story to Tell
rockrnger
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
The Bible is a pretty cool book.
Exhibit A:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u2PK1ymT68&feature=share&list=PL8YeFAQcLfNp7sJ7I70bzK73bz-tJ_wCF&index=2
Whats it about?
Nobody knows, or at least nobody can agree. That is what makes it so interesting to me. Some people look at it as book of case law, with individual verses acting like authoritative sources of specific commands. Some people view it as a story with a beginning and end that shows people how they should act in general rather than specifically.
So to get things started we talk about two separate issues and how the different ways of reading the bible can come to very different conclusions.
Acceptance of Homosexuality.
Against: The bible has a couple of specific places where it comes out against it so it wrong.
For: The course of the bible is one of greater acceptance of people different from the majority. Homosexuality at the time the bible was written was usually practiced in unequal power situations and in modern times is fine as long as both people are consenting adults.
Abortion
Against: The overall message of the Bible is putting others first so a woman should not put her interests ahead of those of another person.
For: The bible always treats unborn children's rights as less than those of other people so it is a woman's decision.
So who is right?
That's the point of the thread. How does (or should) Christians decide what it says?
What do you think?
Also, interesting stuff from the bible. Favorite bits. Naughty bits. Like I said, its a cool book.
Atheist corner
Exhibit A:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u2PK1ymT68&feature=share&list=PL8YeFAQcLfNp7sJ7I70bzK73bz-tJ_wCF&index=2Whats it about?
Nobody knows, or at least nobody can agree. That is what makes it so interesting to me. Some people look at it as book of case law, with individual verses acting like authoritative sources of specific commands. Some people view it as a story with a beginning and end that shows people how they should act in general rather than specifically.
So to get things started we talk about two separate issues and how the different ways of reading the bible can come to very different conclusions.
Acceptance of Homosexuality.
Against: The bible has a couple of specific places where it comes out against it so it wrong.
Leviticus 18:22
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." (NLT)
1 Timothy 1:8-10
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine ... (ESV)
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." (NLT)
1 Timothy 1:8-10
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine ... (ESV)
For: The course of the bible is one of greater acceptance of people different from the majority. Homosexuality at the time the bible was written was usually practiced in unequal power situations and in modern times is fine as long as both people are consenting adults.
Acts 10-9 About noon the next day, while they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted to eat, but while they were preparing the meal, a trance came over him. 11 He saw heaven opened and an object something like a large sheet descending, being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth and wild birds. 13 Then a voice said to him, “Get up, Peter; slaughter and eat!” 14 But Peter said, “Certainly not, Lord, for I have never eaten anything defiled and ritually unclean!” 15 The voice spoke to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you must not consider unclean!”
Abortion
Against: The overall message of the Bible is putting others first so a woman should not put her interests ahead of those of another person.
Luke 6:31
21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
For: The bible always treats unborn children's rights as less than those of other people so it is a woman's decision.
King James 2000 Bible
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no mischief follows: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Ordeal of the Bitter water(Numbers 5:11-31). Basically, if a man thinks that his wife has been unfaithful without proof he makes her take a poison that causes her to miscarry if she is pregnant
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no mischief follows: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Ordeal of the Bitter water(Numbers 5:11-31). Basically, if a man thinks that his wife has been unfaithful without proof he makes her take a poison that causes her to miscarry if she is pregnant
So who is right?
That's the point of the thread. How does (or should) Christians decide what it says?
What do you think?
Also, interesting stuff from the bible. Favorite bits. Naughty bits. Like I said, its a cool book.
Atheist corner
The bible is not real? There is no proof of god?
No shit. I am an atheist too but it is still possible to find meaning in a book of myth/satire/poetry/porn.
For the purpose of this thread (supposing you want to participate) assume that this is an elaborate ARG.
No shit. I am an atheist too but it is still possible to find meaning in a book of myth/satire/poetry/porn.
For the purpose of this thread (supposing you want to participate) assume that this is an elaborate ARG.
+1
Posts
I guess
Why? I suspect that the only reason that belief has become so abstract is that all of the non-abstract parts have collapsed or been proven false.
Which one do you like?
You would have hated the religion Jesus was born into.
Marc 2:23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”
25 He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”
27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
But when black people do it, it's the worst thing ever.
One thing I've been told once, that resonated with me since, is that there are two wrong ways and one correct way of reading the Bible.
Wrong way #1: By projecting the text onto the modern world.
People who do that often assume that the Bible was written for us today. This is to say that the Bible, no matter where and when and in what language it was written, was actually meant to speak to us, here and now and in whatever language we're reading it in. It is meant to give literally true statements we can observe in the world today, and exact commands directly applicable to the issues we are facing today. Evangelicals/Creationists in the southern USA are the most common examples of this, but Atheists often read the Bible this way as well (or accept the Evangelicals' reading in this way) in order to attack and discredit it.
Wrong way #2: By projecting the modern world onto the text.
People who do this often assume that the Bible is a kind of secret code meant for us today to understand. This is to say that the Bible is full of metaphors and images, and these are meant to represent things in our modern current world today. Once we interpret these literary symbols correctly and find the correct real-world element they represent, the text will unlock some great secret. A key point again is that, no matter when and where the Bible was written, the secret code was actually meant to be deciphered by us today, and the interpretation will always rely on modern scientific discoveries, current world events, and recent archaeological excavations. Doomsday cults and History Channel specials are common examples of this.
What's wrong with these readings? Obviously, in both cases, they ignore the fact that there is a significant time, space, linguistic, and cultural difference between ourselves and the people who wrote the Bible. The correct way of reading the Bible is by keeping these in mind.
Correct way: By realizing that the Bible was written by people with a completely different culture, literary conventions, language, history, and geographical surroundings than us (not to mention a ton of changes, both deliberate and involuntary, by copiers throughout the centuries). Only by being acutely aware of these differences can we appreciate what the authors said, what meaning they were trying to convey, and how it can relate to ourselves in the modern world. People who do this are usually dismissed as "cafeteria christians" who are not serious about their faith or who do not know or understand the Bible well enough.
So many, but the first few chapters of Genesis are a treasure trove of mysteries and secret hidden meanings for me. One fun mystery to think about as an example...
Throughout Chapter 1, when God creates the world, he gives direct commands. "Let there be light", "Let there be a firmament", etc., etc. That is, until we get to the creation of humanity, where it suddenly becomes "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness". Who is God talking to here? Why the plural? There are three typical explanations, none of which really hold when you think about them.
1. God is talking to his heavenly court. God does have a heavenly court later in the Bible, most famously in Job. But not in Genesis. And especially not in this part of Genesis, at which point we have a complete listing of what God has created and no mention of a heavenly court.
2. God is talking to himself using a Royal We. Unfortunately this is an explanation that only sounds right to us today because we are used to the Royal We. In fact, this grammatical form seems to originate in England no more than a thousand years ago, and we have no evidence of it being older, much less being present in the Middle-East thousands of years ago.
3. The text is based off of an older polytheistic legend, in which it made sense to have one god teaming up with other gods to create humanity, and whoever wrote Genesis just forgot to fix this. That explanation is convincing by itself (to err is human, after all), but quite suspicious when compared to nearby parts of the text. More specifically, the part where God creates the Sun and Moon is striking here... because God doesn't create the Sun and Moon, He creates "two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night". It's obvious the lights are the Sun and Moon, but the words "Sun" and "Moon" are never used. Why? Because they were also the names of deities in the Middle-East at the time, and it seems the author wanted to avoid any confusion whatsoever about the number of deities in this text, so he used these heavy circumlocution to avoid using the names of deities. It is hard to imagine the same author then slipping up at an obvious instance of God blatantly talking to other deities.
Like I said, these are the three explanations I am familiar with for this odd phrase in Genesis, and none of them make sense. So who was God talking to? We don't know. We might never know.
Does the Bible Condone Slavery?
Is the Bible Misogynist?
Take the part about men marrying women that they rape. Horrible in our modern world where women control their own bodies but in the deeply patriarchal society of the bible forcing a man to get married to a women was also forcing a man to take care of her.
So you could look at it as a horrible rule but then you would have to ask if a better rule would have ever gained acceptance and if a small improvement is better than nothing.
this... isn't really much of a defense, if it's meant to be one.
not recognizing horrible things as horrible until the modern age does not make the not horrible in the eras beforehand.
Particularly when part of the deal is that these are holy laws as decreed, or at least sanctioned, by the creator of humanity.
Especially when you couple that with all the bits about how said creator of humanity is unchanging
The stories themselves are pretty vague on this point with god walking around doing normal things a lot and never really implying he is more than a family god until you get to Moses.
That's the Christian reply I've seen most often. However, it begs the question "Why didn't God order his chosen people to create a more gender egalitarian society in the first place?"
Those people at the time weren't ready for it?
Like a parent often has to adapt rules for their children based on who they are, Heavenly Father often has to guide and teach his children towards perfection based on how close they can get to it in their current circumstance.
I can sorta answer this for you. It is fairly widely accepted that the use of 'we' in Genesis is referring to the concept of the holy trinity. That is, the idea that God has three distinct aspects or personas that make up God as a whole. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
Probably the most common passage that is cited when talking about this is the very start of the gospel of John:
When John says the 'word ' here, he's talking about Jesus.
There's a whole bunch of really interesting theological concepts surrounding the trinity and the sort of relationships mirrors but I'm phone posting so it'd be hard to get into them right now! If you're interested in it I can post some more stuff when I get home tonight.
Consistently.
Leviticus 18:22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 11:9-12 9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Leviticus 19:19 Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
Leviticus 18:22: No Homosexuality.
Leviticus 11:9-12: No shellfish
Leviticus 19:19: No Labradoodles, Efficient Farming, or Poly-Cotton blends.
That is the most problematic issue of Christian, or any religious, beliefs. When the book says to not do X and not do Y, and somehow that turns into doing X while outlawing Y.
You either believe 100% of what the book / prophet / mystical experience indicates, or you believe 0%.
Picking and choosing is for flea markets and scrap-booking, not theology.
This is assuming that you don't believe in modern prophets that can guide God's children today. Yes, if there is no revelation or guidance from anyone with authority to give laws applicable for today, then you better believe 100% or 0% of the old book you are holding.
However, the shellfish instance is invalid since that was actually reversed in the same book (New Testament).
How could they not be ready to not rape and enslave people?
Why wasn't "don't be a dick" established in the Garden of Eve and kept going from there?
Well since the thread is labelled Christian Theology I thought I'd offer a Christian interpretation. If that's not the case I suppose I'll bow out now?
Right. That's why it was book / prophet / mystical experience and not just "book".
I'd think that teaching the Israelites to regard menstruating women and everything they touch as unclean would be counterproductive to equality between the sexes. Also, don't forget that when God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah the only person he deemed righteous enough to spare was Lot, despite the fact that Lot had just tried to offer his virgin daughters to a mob of rapists.
Christians retcon the Old Testament all the time. For example, it is claimed that the divine figure that appeared in the furnace alongside Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the book of Daniel was Jesus.
However it is extremely important whenever you are looking at the Bible to understand that the original Hebrew/Greek may be different than the translation we have today and understanding it's original context is vital at determining it's true meaning.
They also retcon'd Mary into an eternal virgin.
Which I think is a far more impressive feat.
Chapter 14 of the Book of Daniel, sometimes known as "Bel and the Dragon", is (as far as I know) the first "locked room" mystery.
http://www.reddit.com/r/TheSimpsons/comments/1rq81d/dont_you_kids_know_anything_the_serpent_of/
Are those real things in the bible, or did the Simpsons make them up?
Your last sentence is interesting, and somewhat amusing.
In addition to understanding the nuances of the original language, one needs to understand the notion of truth utilized at the time. We, living after the scientific revolution / enlightenment, have a notion of truth that fits a scientific model, a kind of absolutist correspondence theory whereby a particular term denotes a particular, fixed, "clear and distinct" referent.
This is not the notion of truth utilized at the time of Christ, or for centuries afterwards. Their notions of truth were far more fluid and metaphorical, especially when it came to their religious myths.
So, it's kinda funny that one would strive to discern the exact, clear meaning of "Elohim" as it was used at the time, given that when it was used, at the time, it was likely not understood to have an exact, clear meaning. Part of the original "meaning" is that it's tricky and ambiguous.
Trying to get to the original meaning of a text involves discerning the original sense of "meaning" utilized at the time the text was written.
I never heard of any of them. A quick search finds that Rehoboam was a real King in the Book of Kings, but there's no mention of a serpent. The other two return nothing. So I'd say made up.
Of course this linguistic wiggle room is also part of why there is no consistency. If only the book had been written in something absurdly precise like German. :P If the Bible is the word of God, God is a mumbler.
According to the Book of Enoch the Nephilim are the offspring of human women and a group of angels called the Watchers. It is these evil creatures that are one of the primary motivations for God sending the flood, and it is their disembodied spirits that come to be referred to as demons.
It's especially interesting to see the concept (or at least term) of the Nephilim popping up in so many video games lately. It seems like a perfect idea for a game, and we even got one based on much of the story, El Shaddai. I'd love to see this explored in more video games and it seems like there are some great things they could do with the concept.
I think I agree with you? That last sentence especially is something I should have said and agree with 100%. Maybe I should have clarified that "true meaning" may not be exact. Anyways, the problem of course comes when trying to determine when exactly it was written and determining the author's intent.
This is an line of reasoning I see a lot when people try to massage away the terrible stuff in the bible, and it makes no sense.
I mean this is like an adult watching a 2 year old stab another 2 year old to death, and saying 'what could I do he had a knife'. Except only fractionally that, because you know an adult is not an omnipotent & omniscient being.
more over there aren't just 'weird rules you can sort of skew to be paternalistic 'father knows best' type stuff.
There's lovely chestnuts like:
Kill all the men, including the little boys, and kill all the women who have had sex. But the little girls, save em to rape later.
I read on a Christian apologetics site earlier that "keep alive for yourselves" must mean "adopt" in this context as rape is not condoned by the law; however, seeing as "thou shall not kill" apparently doesn't apply in wartime, I'm fairly skeptical of that interpretation. Besides, the whole point of killing all the females who aren't virgins is because virginity was prized in Israelite society (which, again, was a society set-apart by God and beholden to Him) and no man would get with a non-virgin.
I'm fairly certain that equality between men and women was never a goal of whoever was behind ancient Hebrew society (be it man or angry God). Many Christians today still believe that women should not be religious leaders and that a husband should have authority over their wife.
I really have a hard time defending some of the other stuff, but I just wanted to point out that there's a big difference between "thou shall not kill" and "thou shall not murder" which often gets misinterpreted. But of course the biggest thing I have trouble understanding is how Jesus can come around saying you're not really even allowed to even defend yourself.
I would consider myself a Christian, but I really just have huge problems comprehending the apparent change in God's attitude from the Old to New Testament.
So, from a Biblical point of view, women who identify as feminists defy God by embracing the curse he inflicted upon them for Eve's sin instead of accepting the subservient role they were born to fulfill.
Thankfully we have Christ-minded women who realize feminism for the Satanic lie it is.
It rather moors you to a very historical and not remotely omnipotent deity. Which I don't care about - if that's the theology for you then more power to you, but I cannot imagine that it's your theological preference.
Wait, what?
The New Testament records a debate in a historicised fashion between a number of factions within the early church - specifically do Christians need to follow the Torah and dietary laws and so forth? There are pronouncement to the effect of yes they do ala the "not one jot and tittle" speech and a few other things.
Seconds, the New Testament isn't a book, let alone the same book as Leviticus. The Bible is a collection of texts, not a single book and there is an absolute disunity throughout.
As such, your logic is flawed - there are messages which endorse Levitical and Kosher laws, secondly, your view of what the bible is is incorrect.
It's entirely invalid to read modern or even just later theology from subsequent books of the bible into the earlier books. They are a collection of books, written by entirely different authors at different times often with no interest in what others had written, or even as an attempt to correct what other books had said with a different understanding.
The idea that modern theology best explains the issues throughout the bible is a rather historical reconstructionist view that is bonkers.