Cherry Picking... especially interested in theist views

[Samael_Khan]

This does not speak of homosexuality..being wrong!.It speaks of the VERY STRONG bond of BELIEF OF LOVE they will feel within them.. and WILL go (AGAINST the ALL) that is against them. The part with the threats is NOT directed to them!..it’s directed towards the one whom will JUDGE them or DESTROY(ing) of the LOVE they have..(because it is the LOVE that is from GOD). For those many against that LOVE will be punishment!

I don't see your viewpoint regarding this text. It seems pretty straight forward to me. It would be great if you analyzed the text to help me understand how you come to that conclusion.

 

[Gandalf]

The best way to avoid this is to take all the scripture and chuck it out. These books were written ages ago in languages we barely understand by cultures far removed from our own. This is my main contempt with many religions but more so the silliness of contemporary pagans in America thinking they are cool worshiping Zeus. These scriptures are antiques of an era long gone and their mythos is now bonk in the age of science which puts to rest so much of the mythos behind them. We have moved beyond this and now embraced open fiction and no longer have to obfuscate our words to make them inherently truthful.

My lady went to see Les Misérables and was astonished by the moral dilemmas and the plight of the wandering hero. Far more relatable than angels, demons and other fantastical beings muddying the crux of the story. I actually cannot pull any worthwhile moral or philosophical behavior out of any scripture I have read that much quite frankly. They are all old, simple and not impressive to the point that not even a child benefits from reading them.

Lay these books to rest and look at nature, best scripture ever. But even I admit to copying religions quite often so, oh well

 

[Samael_Khan]

The best way to avoid this is to take all the scripture and chuck it out. These books were written ages ago in languages we barely understand by cultures far removed from our own. This is my main contempt with many religions but more so the silliness of contemporary pagans in America thinking they are cool worshiping Zeus. These scriptures are antiques of an era long gone and their mythos is now bonk in the age of science which puts to rest so much of the mythos behind them. We have moved beyond this and now embraced open fiction and no longer have to obfuscate our words to make them inherently truthful.

My lady went to see Les Misérables and was astonished by the moral dilemmas and the plight of the wandering hero. Far more relatable than angels, demons and other fantastical beings muddying the crux of the story. I actually cannot pull any worthwhile moral or philosophical behavior out of any scripture I have read that much quite frankly. They are all old, simple and not impressive to the point that not even a child benefits from reading them.

Lay these books to rest and look at nature, best scripture ever. But even I admit to copying religions quite often so, oh well

That is your experience though. I for one learn a lot from religions because they are expressing their viewpoint of the world and humanity. They are expressing it through creativity by using symbology. For instance to me sin was the writers way of expressing that know how we try to achieve perfection and peace, we will always fall short. Which I find to be very true. A sacrifice for forgiveness tells me that we must be self sacrificing and forgive other for their falling short. It requires a self sacrifice of our ego for the world to gain peace.

The reason why people embrace this "open fiction" is because these books address issues which science does not. It addresses psychology and emotional needs through creativity. They serve the same purpose that the arts do. And the arts are the vehicles for religion. People need the arts because it addresses the need for self expression. The Writers of religion are expressing themselves through their religious texts therefore they are valuable. Science is cold and objective. In fact religious books don't care about science. It is not what they exist to explain. Religious texts provides people with hope, especially for those who fear death. People would rather embrace a comforting illusion that a distressing reality.

Most people will only stop following religion once there is an alternative that satisfies their emotional and psychological needs. So far science doesn't offer that.

 

[Dan Mellis]

This does not speak of homosexuality..being wrong!.It speaks of the VERY STRONG bond of BELIEF OF LOVE they will feel within them.. and WILL go (AGAINST the ALL) that is against them. The part with the threats is NOT directed to them!..it’s directed towards the one whom will JUDGE them or DESTROY(ing) of the LOVE they have..(because it is the LOVE that is from GOD). For those many against that LOVE will be punishment!

I did NOT understand ANY of THIS! Perhaps if you use MORE capitals I will understand IT more EASILY

 

[Workman]

I did NOT understand ANY of THIS! Perhaps if you use MORE capitals I will understand IT more EASILY

Deepest apologies!..I should’ve explained before I used them..forgive me!.. i capital them to main point them..it is not a yell..again sorry!

 

[Gandalf]

That is your experience though. I for one learn a lot from religions because they are expressing their viewpoint of the world and humanity. They are expressing it through creativity by using symbology. For instance to me sin was the writers way of expressing that know how we try to achieve perfection and peace, we will always fall short. Which I find to be very true. A sacrifice for forgiveness tells me that we must be self sacrificing and forgive other for their falling short. It requires a self sacrifice of our ego for the world to gain peace.

What you described is something I learned when I was about 10. Self sacrifice has never been something I have learned from a mythos and to this very day it bugs my own lady I go out of my way for simple things. I do not see how mythos has enhanced this

The reason why people embrace this "open fiction" is because these books address issues which science does not. It addresses psychology and emotional needs through creativity. They serve the same purpose that the arts do. And the arts are the vehicles for religion.

Philosophy addresses these same issues, science is just built on the backbones of naturalistic philosophical systems. You even mention it yourself by bringing up psychology and the emotional crises that will naturally arise.

People need the arts because it addresses the need for self expression. The Writers of religion are expressing themselves through their religious texts therefore they are valuable. Science is cold and objective. In fact religious books don't care about science. It is not what they exist to explain. Religious texts provides people with hope, especially for those who fear death. People would rather embrace a comforting illusion that a distressing reality.

But what you fail to see is that these myths are or were taken as very real at one point and that is their ultimate origin. Even people at the crus of civilization understood this like Pythagoras and Xenophanes. Believing that a moon god is the originator of the moon is not beneficial. God has already given us a very true mythos partially thanks to science and also to the purity of reason.

The fact we live in a distressing reality seems to be no more problematic to me then the delusions we can install in minds which you endorse. The reason these mythos have been forgotten is because they have failed, the progress of man was not written by mythologist but by thinkers who expanded beyond the fables and legends. This need to go back to a more primitive age is destructive if not rationalized.

Most people will only stop following religion once there is an alternative that satisfies their emotional and psychological needs. So far science doesn't offer that.

You seem to believe I am somehow promoting science when I am not exactly gun ho about it myself. But when it comes to religious matter nature has still given us more than enough to have a grounded and real religion which is what a religion should be. The minute religion ungrounds itself is the instant it becomes illusionary and useless.

 

[Samael_Khan]

What you described is something I learned when I was about 10. Self sacrifice has never been something I have learned from a mythos and to this very day it bugs my own lady I go out of my way for simple things. I do not see how mythos has enhanced this

That applies to you which is your own unique experience. Others learnt that through various other methods including religion. Mythos has enhanced others "self sacrificing" spirit.


Philosophy addresses these same issues, science is just built on the backbones of naturalistic philosophical systems. You even mention it yourself by bringing up psychology and the emotional crises that will naturally arise.

Yet people still have a need for a creative outlet. What you mention above might describe the affects of emotion through observation, but doesn't solve the need to express ones self. Therefore it doesn't solve the emotional need expressed through creativity.

But what you fail to see is that these myths are or were taken as very real at one point and that is their ultimate origin. Even people at the crus of civilization understood this like Pythagoras and Xenophanes. Believing that a moon god is the originator of the moon is not beneficial. God has already given us a very true mythos partially thanks to science and also to the purity of reason.

We actually do not know the individuals who created these religions, therefore we do not know their origin. The origins of most of these religions is obscure. Also, you should study symbolism and religion.
Maybe you should look into themes, archetypes, images and patterns relating to mythology, since they are common among many cultures. The same stuff is pretty much used in stories today. Read relating to themes regarding moon Gods.:

Moon - Myth Encyclopedia - mythology, Greek, god, story, names, ancient, norse, Japanese, world, Roman, creation

The moon symbolised time, birth and death. Since that symbolism is common among many beliefs then it seems like there was a psychological need to interpret the Moon in such a way.

The fact we live in a distressing reality seems to be no more problematic to me then the delusions we can install in minds which you endorse. The reason these mythos have been forgotten is because they have failed, the progress of man was not written by mythologist but by thinkers who expanded beyond the fables and legends. This need to go back to a more primitive age is destructive if not rationalized.

Research modern cults. They provide comfort to people by providing them with hope and people will go to great lengths for that hope. Most people who join cults would rather be comforted by a delusion than a distressing reality.

You seem to believe I am somehow promoting science when I am not exactly gun ho about it myself. But when it comes to religious matter nature has still given us more than enough to have a grounded and real religion which is what a religion should be. The minute religion ungrounds itself is the instant it becomes illusionary and useless.

My apologies for misunderstanding your position then. What do you mean by "real religion"?

 

[Dan Mellis]

This does not speak of homosexuality..being wrong!.It speaks of the VERY STRONG bond of BELIEF OF LOVE they will feel within them.. and WILL go (AGAINST the ALL) that is against them. The part with the threats is NOT directed to them!..it’s directed towards the one whom will JUDGE them or DESTROY(ing) of the LOVE they have..(because it is the LOVE that is from GOD). For those many against that LOVE will be punishment!

While I love that you interpret it this way and wish that everyone did, I don't see how this follows. Nowhere in that text does it say anything remotely similar to what you suggest- indeed it says the exact opposite; that if two men sleep together they are both deserving of death.

Again, please don't stop believing in equal rights and love, but there a much better reasons to do so than the bible.

 

[sooda]

Hi all,

Especially interested in the Theist response to this; it's not meant to be a sneery sort of thread. I'm genuinely curious.

I've been in some debates on here where I've quoted scripture and been told I'm lying or deliberately misinterpreting the text. My view is that things like this are pretty hard to misinterperet...

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

I mean, what context am I missing here?

The question is, seeing how the above (and other morally questionable concepts) is written in the bible, and the bible is supposedly written by people who were channeling god or were inspired by god, how do you choose which bits are correct and why not just remove the bad bits?

I mean, if you believe it was a product of its time and doesnt really apply (why would that happen if god inspired it) why not just take it out as irrelevant? It gives bad guys a platform to spew hatred...

Seems to me that God also made homosexuals.

Further, I wouldn't agree that sex was made for reproduction. If that were the case, wouldn't humans just go into heat once a year like some other mammals?

 

[Dan Mellis]

Seems to me that God also made homosexuals.

Further, I wouldn't agree that sex was made for reproduction. If that were the case, wouldn't humans just go into heat once a year like some other mammals?

Agreed. I imagine the theist standpoint would centre on the "free will" not to do homosexual things and something around temptation and god's test.

Becausr that makes sense. After all, if I want my kid to eat healthily, I put out a plate of veggies but only if a bowl of marshmallows is also within his reach.

 

[sooda]

Agreed. I imagine the theist standpoint would centre on the "free will" not to do homosexual things and something around temptation and god's test.

Becausr that makes sense. After all, if I want my kid to eat healthily, I put out a plate of veggies but only if a bowl of marshmallows is also within his reach.

Not sure I understand your point.

 

[Dan Mellis]

Not sure I understand your point.

Just that if you want someone to do something, it doesn't make sense to make the opposite thing feel good. So if god wanted people not to jump into bed with eachother, why make it feel good? It would be like me asking my son to eat his greens, but leaving him unattended with the choice of broccoli or marshmallows.

I'd just leave him the broccoli.

 

[sooda]

Just that if you want someone to do something, it doesn't make sense to make the opposite thing feel good. So if god wanted people not to jump into bed with eachother, why make it feel good? It would be like me asking my son to eat his greens, but leaving him unattended with the choice of broccoli or marshmallows.

I'd just leave him the broccoli.

I get it.. Me too.

For those people who are offended by gays why not just ignore them rather than challenging them? I mean.... leave them in peace.

 

[Dan Mellis]

I get it.. Me too.

For those people who are offended by gays why not just ignore them rather than challenging them? I mean.... leave them in peace.

Exactly. That's how a reasonable person would see it... not necessarily one who sees it as their god-given duty to either purge the sin for the world, or save sinners by getting them to stop sinning.

We'll just keep on being decent humans haha

 

[sojourner]

Hi all,

Especially interested in the Theist response to this; it's not meant to be a sneery sort of thread. I'm genuinely curious.

I've been in some debates on here where I've quoted scripture and been told I'm lying or deliberately misinterpreting the text. My view is that things like this are pretty hard to misinterperet...

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

I mean, what context am I missing here?

The question is, seeing how the above (and other morally questionable concepts) is written in the bible, and the bible is supposedly written by people who were channeling god or were inspired by god, how do you choose which bits are correct and why not just remove the bad bits?

I mean, if you believe it was a product of its time and doesnt really apply (why would that happen if god inspired it) why not just take it out as irrelevant? It gives bad guys a platform to spew hatred...

Ok. Let’s unpack this piece by piece. First of all, the Bible never has been a changeless thing. First, the preponderance of the Bible began as oral transmission. There are usually changes that occur as the instances of telling progress. The ancients weren’t nearly as interested in verbatim as we are. Then, as the stories were written down, there were sometimes “versions.” The two creation accounts are a marvelous example of this. Both accounts are included, but, for some reason, the older account is listed second.

As the writings progressed, those who curated the texts redacted them. Sometimes massively. Then there are the translations, which are NEVER word-for-word. Then there was the canonization process, where it was decided by the authority-du-jour what was to be included and what was to be left out.

The texts certainly are products of their time, and yet the underlying, Mythic truths are timeless. The Bible does not claim to be inerrant, and it does not claim to be all things for all people. The Bible is nothing more or less than the written repository of the human story of the Judeo-Christian people, from a theological perspective. The writers and redactors attempted to include all the relevant stories and traditions, in some semblance of order, so that the written record could be as complete as possible.

Now, with regard to the passage in question, there is not only the grammar and syntax to be considered in the interpretive process, but also the cultural, historic, and literary contexts of the passage. Translation is difficult enough, but when the modern reader superimposes modern concepts onto ancient writings, the interpretation easily becomes muddied. Part of the interpreter’s job is to get out of her own way, and apply exegesis, or “reading out of the text” what’s there, as opposed to applying eisegesis, or “reading into the text” modern biases.

There are several cultural matters we have to bear in mind as we exegete the passage. First, the ancients had no concept of sexual orientation, as we do today. There is no ancient Hebrew or Greek term that means “homosexual.” Second, we have to understand that shame and honor were embodied in the sexes. Males embodied honor, while females embodied shame. That’s why the Levitican passage mentions only men and not women. One interpretation might be that the writer is concerned for the males’ honor. For a man to “bend over and take it like a woman” is a shameful act, not because sexual morality, but because it takes two equal males and places one in subservience to the other. Additionally, it would be shameful for one male to “dominate” another equal male. These relationships would have been viewed as merely lustful acts.

Another legitimate interpretation would involve acts of “battlefield rape,” which was fairly common in the ancient world.

Whatever the case, the passage patently cannot be prohibiting loving, committed, same-sex relationships, for that concept simply didn’t exist in that world. Therefore, it’s wrong to twist that passage to make it say “homosexuality is an abomination.” That’s not what the passage means.

In a world where shame/honor are not so conceptualized, the passage exists merely to tell us that “God wants us to treat ourselves and others honorably.”

The writers weren’t “channeling God.” That’s not what the term “inspired” means. And we don’t leave it in there because it’s “God’s words.” We leave it in so as to maintain as complete a record as we can.

 

[Dan Mellis]

Ok. Let’s unpack this piece by piece. First of all, the Bible never has been a changeless thing. First, the preponderance of the Bible began as oral transmission. There are usually changes that occur as the instances of telling progress. The ancients weren’t nearly as interested in verbatim as we are. Then, as the stories were written down, there were sometimes “versions.” The two creation accounts are a marvelous example of this. Both accounts are included, but, for some reason, the older account is listed second.

As the writings progressed, those who curated the texts redacted them. Sometimes massively. Then there are the translations, which are NEVER word-for-word. Then there was the canonization process, where it was decided by the authority-du-jour what was to be included and what was to be left out.

The texts certainly are products of their time, and yet the underlying, Mythic truths are timeless. The Bible does not claim to be inerrant, and it does not claim to be all things for all people. The Bible is nothing more or less than the written repository of the human story of the Judeo-Christian people, from a theological perspective. The writers and redactors attempted to include all the relevant stories and traditions, in some semblance of order, so that the written record could be as complete as possible.

Now, with regard to the passage in question, there is not only the grammar and syntax to be considered in the interpretive process, but also the cultural, historic, and literary contexts of the passage. Translation is difficult enough, but when the modern reader superimposes modern concepts onto ancient writings, the interpretation easily becomes muddied. Part of the interpreter’s job is to get out of her own way, and apply exegesis, or “reading out of the text” what’s there, as opposed to applying eisegesis, or “reading into the text” modern biases.

There are several cultural matters we have to bear in mind as we exegete the passage. First, the ancients had no concept of sexual orientation, as we do today. There is no ancient Hebrew or Greek term that means “homosexual.” Second, we have to understand that shame and honor were embodied in the sexes. Males embodied honor, while females embodied shame. That’s why the Levitican passage mentions only men and not women. One interpretation might be that the writer is concerned for the males’ honor. For a man to “bend over and take it like a woman” is a shameful act, not because sexual morality, but because it takes two equal males and places one in subservience to the other. Additionally, it would be shameful for one male to “dominate” another equal male. These relationships would have been viewed as merely lustful acts.

Another legitimate interpretation would involve acts of “battlefield rape,” which was fairly common in the ancient world.

Whatever the case, the passage patently cannot be prohibiting loving, committed, same-sex relationships, for that concept simply didn’t exist in that world. Therefore, it’s wrong to twist that passage to make it say “homosexuality is an abomination.” That’s not what the passage means.

In a world where shame/honor are not so conceptualized, the passage exists merely to tell us that “God wants us to treat ourselves and others honorably.”

The writers weren’t “channeling God.” That’s not what the term “inspired” means. And we don’t leave it in there because it’s “God’s words.” We leave it in so as to maintain as complete a record as we can.

I agree with everything you've said here. The problem is, it would be fine as a commentary of ancient times but not as a treatise for how we should behave or what we should believe today. That's where my issue lies.

That's the only value I can really see in the bible. It's use ends when we try to apply it to modern day - yes, there are good things in there but how do you distinguish what is good and what is bad? It sounds like an easy question but you have people who think it's good to send their gay sons to deconversion camps which are not only unethical, but harmful.

The way to reach the same "good" conclusions (as in the best way to treat eachother) is through critical thinking, not religious text.

 

[sojourner]

I agree with everything you've said here. The problem is, it would be fine as a commentary of ancient times but not as a treatise for how we should behave or what we should believe today. That's where my issue lies.

That's the only value I can really see in the bible. It's use ends when we try to apply it to modern day - yes, there are good things in there but how do you distinguish what is good and what is bad? It sounds like an easy question but you have people who think it's good to send their gay sons to deconversion camps which are not only unethical, but harmful.

The way to reach the same "good" conclusions (as in the best way to treat eachother) is through critical thinking, not religious text.

Well, yes. Remember, I said that most of the texts began as oral stories --campfire lore -- urban legend. Once those stories became solidified in writing, they became an authority unto themselves. IOW, the storytellers had to carry their own authority with the community in order to give the stories any authoritative weight: "Garneck said it, so it must be true!" Once they were written down, they became their own authority: "It's in the bible, so it must be true!"

Once the texts themselves became their own authority, people began to misuse them for purposes of power. Look at the Pharisees with their letter-of-the-law stubbornness. Look at the fundamentalists with their biblical literalism. The bible was never meant to be taken literalistically.

One of the worst things to happen to Christianity, IMHO, was the establishment of the sola scriptura heresy, to which the wacko fundigelicals hold. "It's all right here in the bible!" (as they wave a KJV in the air). We forget that the church existed for more than 400 years without a written bible. Authority was held by the apostles and, later, by their successors (bishops). Those people wrote letters to churches (like Paul). Those people taught with authority. Those people had the authority to select which texts would later become the bible. It was the sense of the church leaders that carried the authority for moral and ethical behavior. Only after the canon was closed and the Reformers trumpeted "scripture alone!" did the bible rise to authoritative prominence.

So yes, we should listen to the sense of the community. Yes, we should be aware of our spiritual history, and we should take the teachings of Jesus to heart, but we should not try to bring ancient morality codes into our modern present. Look, the gist of the biblical message is love. Act with love. Treat yourself and others with love. Act as if you are already reconciled to the God of love. Everything else is a fart in a windstorm, so far as I'm concerned. Jesus taught love above all, and the literalists who coveted power killed him for it.

Conclusion: yes. We have to read the texts critically and not idolize them.

 

[Dan Mellis]

Well, yes. Remember, I said that most of the texts began as oral stories --campfire lore -- urban legend. Once those stories became solidified in writing, they became an authority unto themselves. IOW, the storytellers had to carry their own authority with the community in order to give the stories any authoritative weight: "Garneck said it, so it must be true!" Once they were written down, they became their own authority: "It's in the bible, so it must be true!"

Once the texts themselves became their own authority, people began to misuse them for purposes of power. Look at the Pharisees with their letter-of-the-law stubbornness. Look at the fundamentalists with their biblical literalism. The bible was never meant to be taken literalistically.

One of the worst things to happen to Christianity, IMHO, was the establishment of the sola scriptura heresy, to which the wacko fundigelicals hold. "It's all right here in the bible!" (as they wave a KJV in the air). We forget that the church existed for more than 400 years without a written bible. Authority was held by the apostles and, later, by their successors (bishops). Those people wrote letters to churches (like Paul). Those people taught with authority. Those people had the authority to select which texts would later become the bible. It was the sense of the church leaders that carried the authority for moral and ethical behavior. Only after the canon was closed and the Reformers trumpeted "scripture alone!" did the bible rise to authoritative prominence.

So yes, we should listen to the sense of the community. Yes, we should be aware of our spiritual history, and we should take the teachings of Jesus to heart, but we should not try to bring ancient morality codes into our modern present. Look, the gist of the biblical message is love. Act with love. Treat yourself and others with love. Act as if you are already reconciled to the God of love. Everything else is a fart in a windstorm, so far as I'm concerned. Jesus taught love above all, and the literalists who coveted power killed him for it.

Conclusion: yes. We have to read the texts critically and not idolize them.

Again, I'm almost in agreement here. The problem I have is that the message in the bible being about love.

Firstly, there is no instruction leaflet or clarifying statement provided with the bible so we can't simply chuck out sections or twist their words to suit our modern morality (if we believe the bible is the book to be followed and is the word of god... if not, what basis does anyone have for being a christian? What other evidence is there?). We have to assume that it was written exactly as it was intended: meaning that the christian god requires genocide, thinks slavery is amoral (or even moral if done 'right) rather than immoral, and (weirdly enough) loves the smell of bbq.

Secondly, even if we take the messages about love, most of them speak of a conditional love. Love thy neighbour, unless they're canaanites, then you should murder them all. Or unless they're a blasphemer - then they've committed an eternal sin and cannot be forgiven.

Even having said all of this, I'm pleased you think the way you do and hope you don't think I'm trying to change your mind - a world full of loving people is better than a world full of the hateful ones described in the bible!

 

[sojourner]

Again, I'm almost in agreement here. The problem I have is that the message in the bible being about love.

Firstly, there is no instruction leaflet or clarifying statement provided with the bible so we can't simply chuck out sections or twist their words to suit our modern morality (if we believe the bible is the book to be followed and is the word of god... if not, what basis does anyone have for being a christian? What other evidence is there?). We have to assume that it was written exactly as it was intended: meaning that the christian god requires genocide, thinks slavery is amoral (or even moral if done 'right) rather than immoral, and (weirdly enough) loves the smell of bbq.

Secondly, even if we take the messages about love, most of them speak of a conditional love. Love thy neighbour, unless they're canaanites, then you should murder them all. Or unless they're a blasphemer - then they've committed an eternal sin and cannot be forgiven.

Even having said all of this, I'm pleased you think the way you do and hope you don't think I'm trying to change your mind - a world full of loving people is better than a world full of the hateful ones described in the bible!

You know, as a member of the clergy, I've spent a lot of time wrestling with the narratives surrounding the bible. I think the first big mistake many make is viewing the bible as a single, cohesive document. It isn't. It's a library of documents spanning centuries, several cultures and various languages. There really is no single, overarching and cohesive "biblical message." That being said, I think that we have to be cautious about what kind of God is portrayed, because God is portrayed through the various cultural lenses of biblical writers.

Second, another mistake that's made is in thinking that we have to just take the bible at face value. Those are not the kind of documents the bible contains. I think it's fair and responsible to weigh scriptures -- against each other, against moral sensibility, against tradition. Jesus is certainly documented as weighing scriptural passages: "It is written … but I tell you … " This isn't the same as "cherry-picking" for proof-texts. It's about "getting out of our own heads" and into the heads of the writers.

Let's look at slavery, since you mentioned it. In that culture, slavery was acceptable. In fact, much of the biblical slavery that's spoken in favor of is not the same as we think of slavery in the American South 150 years ago. In Judaic Palestine, there was a system of bond-servants. If you owed someone money, you could become a bond-servant and work off the debt. At the end of 7 years, the debt was forgiven, and the master had to release the slave with land, household goods, clothing, and enough animals (goats and the like) for the freed slave to be able to subsist on his own. It's not our system, but it was their system, and when the bible speaks "in favor" of slavery, that's probably the kind of slavery on it's radar.

Since that kind of slavery was part of that cultural system, the writers could only write from their own viewpoint. Therefore, the writers advocate for a more equitable slavery model. See, we get into trouble when we think of the bible as "God's words." The bible isn't God's words. It's the words of the various writers, who purport to speak on God's behalf.

Now let's deal with what you term "the Christian God." First off, God is portrayed completely differently in the OT than in the NT. Additionally, in the very early books of the OT, God is kind of a conglomerate of several older versions of tribal gods. The ancients who wrote those texts viewed God very differently than the Greeks of the NT. If we hold the texts very gently, we find that these differing views of God can be held in sort of cognitive dissonance with each other. That is, we understand how the ancients viewed God, because we have the writings. But that doesn't mean that we have to view God in that same exact way, ourselves. If there is connective tissue between the texts where a perspective of God is concerned, that connective tissue is that God always takes care of God's people The difference in viewpoint centers around who the writers (and readers) consider "God's people" to be. Today, our sensibilities usually provide for a much broader view of "God's people" than did that of the ancients. In the bible, if God didn't take care of someone, it's because the writer didn't consider them to be "God's people."

In fact, even the Canaanite God took care of outsiders. Levitican Law dictates that strangers and sojourners had to be shown hospitality, as if they were part of the family. For the time period, God was extremely hospitable and compassionate. For the time period.

When we draw those texts into our present, we have to temper what was written with our modern sensibility and determine what the lesson might be for us. "It's OK to keep slaves" certainly doesn't fit our sensibility. But, "Take care of the most vulnerable among you" certainly does. And remember: the bible cannot speak alone; it requires a community of voices, opinions, viewpoints for it to matter. Each voice has a bearing on the other, even the biblical voice.

 

[Dan Mellis]

You know, as a member of the clergy, I've spent a lot of time wrestling with the narratives surrounding the bible. I think the first big mistake many make is viewing the bible as a single, cohesive document. It isn't. It's a library of documents spanning centuries, several cultures and various languages. There really is no single, overarching and cohesive "biblical message." That being said, I think that we have to be cautious about what kind of God is portrayed, because God is portrayed through the various cultural lenses of biblical writers.

Second, another mistake that's made is in thinking that we have to just take the bible at face value. Those are not the kind of documents the bible contains. I think it's fair and responsible to weigh scriptures -- against each other, against moral sensibility, against tradition. Jesus is certainly documented as weighing scriptural passages: "It is written … but I tell you … " This isn't the same as "cherry-picking" for proof-texts. It's about "getting out of our own heads" and into the heads of the writers.

Let's look at slavery, since you mentioned it. In that culture, slavery was acceptable. In fact, much of the biblical slavery that's spoken in favor of is not the same as we think of slavery in the American South 150 years ago. In Judaic Palestine, there was a system of bond-servants. If you owed someone money, you could become a bond-servant and work off the debt. At the end of 7 years, the debt was forgiven, and the master had to release the slave with land, household goods, clothing, and enough animals (goats and the like) for the freed slave to be able to subsist on his own. It's not our system, but it was their system, and when the bible speaks "in favor" of slavery, that's probably the kind of slavery on it's radar.

Since that kind of slavery was part of that cultural system, the writers could only write from their own viewpoint. Therefore, the writers advocate for a more equitable slavery model. See, we get into trouble when we think of the bible as "God's words." The bible isn't God's words. It's the words of the various writers, who purport to speak on God's behalf.

Now let's deal with what you term "the Christian God." First off, God is portrayed completely differently in the OT than in the NT. Additionally, in the very early books of the OT, God is kind of a conglomerate of several older versions of tribal gods. The ancients who wrote those texts viewed God very differently than the Greeks of the NT. If we hold the texts very gently, we find that these differing views of God can be held in sort of cognitive dissonance with each other. That is, we understand how the ancients viewed God, because we have the writings. But that doesn't mean that we have to view God in that same exact way, ourselves. If there is connective tissue between the texts where a perspective of God is concerned, that connective tissue is that God always takes care of God's people The difference in viewpoint centers around who the writers (and readers) consider "God's people" to be. Today, our sensibilities usually provide for a much broader view of "God's people" than did that of the ancients. In the bible, if God didn't take care of someone, it's because the writer didn't consider them to be "God's people."

In fact, even the Canaanite God took care of outsiders. Levitican Law dictates that strangers and sojourners had to be shown hospitality, as if they were part of the family. For the time period, God was extremely hospitable and compassionate. For the time period.

When we draw those texts into our present, we have to temper what was written with our modern sensibility and determine what the lesson might be for us. "It's OK to keep slaves" certainly doesn't fit our sensibility. But, "Take care of the most vulnerable among you" certainly does. And remember: the bible cannot speak alone; it requires a community of voices, opinions, viewpoints for it to matter. Each voice has a bearing on the other, even the biblical voice.

Theres a lot to unpack there, but I'll try as best as I can

1. I accept that the bible isn't a single book but a collection of works. This raises the question: what sort of god expects people to believe in him, worship him etc or get sent to hell - but only leaves a collection of books which we must interperet in a very specific way as a way of understanding him or as evidence for him?

2. I'm sorry, but if we cant apply slavery to modern morals, we can't seek to soften it. It wasnt as recent as modern slavery, but we have no reason to believe it wasnt as brutal. When you could buy and sell people as property, it has always been and always will be an atrocity. The fact that jews had an easier ride of it doesn't mean that every other race of slave weren't subjected to a lifetime of labour and mistreatment. Remember, you can beat your slaves as hard as you like as long as they get up after a couple of days. If its wrong, its wrong. No point in making any bones about it.