So how do you re-interpret the rules for slavery?
Religion, on the other hand, doesn't change but what people chose to ignore does.I'm afraid that once you strip the nasty prejudice out of this statement, it's not only wrong, but contradictory. How people interpret their religion (a more accurate statement than "what people chose to ignore") is part and parcel of any religious practice, so people changing the interpretation is religion changing.
And religions do change. Demonstrably. This is sometimes explicit, as with Talmudic scholarship enriching Jewish practice, as with theologians updating the Catholic magisterium to reflect new learning, or as with new revelations in any religion that accepts such (a rather famous example is LDS First President Kimball's 1978 revelation that blacks should be ordained to the lay priesthood and permitted to participate in temple "ordinances," meaning rites).
Sometimes it's less formal. When churches don't have formal doctrine (as many don't), the choice of interpretation is often left up to the individual congregation or pastor, and a group of like-minded people will often interpret a passage differently than other groups. That's, for example, how the Amish came into existence (as an offshoot from other Swiss Anabaptists) and how the various Amish communities in the United States have chosen to regulate themselves differently. As a simple example (thank you, Wikipedia), the Lancaster Amish do not allow themselves to use bulk milk tanks; the Kalona Amish do, and I assure you that the phrase "bulk milk tank" does not appear anywhere in Scripture. The difference then, is not Scriptural, and it's not a question of what they ignore. It's a question, instead, of what they interpret and draw from the Scripture, along with the rest of the cultural practices.
By understanding the rules and the cultural context in which they were laid down. Slavery was never mandatory (nor did the Old Testament rules make it so), but it was commonplace and accepted as a part of everyday life. What the Old Testament rules changed was how people were allowed to treat slaves, by forbidding what were relatively common practices. For example, you were not to enslave fellow Israelites (Lev 25:39-45). You weren't allowed to murder a slave (Ex 21:20), and if you injured one, you had to free him (Ex 21:26-27). Et cetera, et cetera, world without end,....
God never told you that you were supposed to have slaves, but He did tell you that you had to treat them well and respect what were, by Bronze Age standards, a substantial set of human rights.
Similarly, a lot of the apparently barbaric rules about when you were allowed to murder people are pretty good when you understand that that what they actually did was limited when you could murder people. And one of the key insights that Christians attribute (wrongly*) to the New Testament (Matt 12:12; Mark 3:4) is that "it is lawful to do good"; that God approves of the merciful application of his laws. Thus, God may allow you to murder your son, but He does not require it.
But this is taking us rather far afield, as it has little to do with the afterlife.
(* The reason that I say "wrongly" is that Jews have long recognized -- since before Jesus -- that God permits** them to break almost any of the commandments in the service of protecting human life. If it's a choice between eating bacon and starving, help yourself. That's actually a rule -- from Leviticus -- that many Christians would do well to heed.)
(** in modern Jewish understanding, for "permits" read "requires." I'm not sure how far back that goes.)
This article may be of interest.
The abstract of the study is here, but the study itself is behind a paywall.
The nice thing about being a current college student, I have access through that paywall via my library.
Having just read the study, I don't think it says what you think it says.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A brief perusal through the rules forums should show that there are many ways of interpreting the same text, with different levels of accounting for exigesis, eisegesis, rules lawyering, preconceptions, desired ends, and reading methodology
Society changes, as we became less vulnerable to food shortages and less dependent on human labor our view on slavery changed. The bible didn't change, there's nothing in the bible that says that I can't own people or beat them so long as they don't die within a certain time frame, there are probably more books on interpretations of the bible then denominations, but the bible itself hasn't been reworked since 325 AD, our science textbooks would be terrible if they were the same.
Caesar's Gallic Wars haven't been rewritten for longer than that, but our understanding of them has changed radically in the intervening 2,000 years.
The Bible isn't a religion, any more than Caesar's writings are history. Both are documents that have influenced our understanding of the respective fields. Some consider them even to be authoritative if properly understood. But proper understanding requires a lot more than simply picking and choosing quotes from English translations of the works themselves.... and anyone who tries to understand "Christianity" from the Bible is in approximately the same raither silly position as someone who tries to understand Roman history from Caesar's Gallic Wars (and no other sources).
if we're looking at [the Bible] as something laid down by a omnipotent, all knowing being you'd have to accept that beating your children (Proverbs 13:24) was the right thing to do.
No, and no. First, why on earth would we do such a stupid thing as look at the Bible that way, and secondly, even if we did, why would we completely ignore the cultural context of the receiver? If you have enough psychological knowledge to know that what "most child psychologists these days are saying," you would also have enough to know that, for proper understanding, a message must be tailored to its audience.
Basically, you're indulging in a straw-man version of Christianity here. You are assuming that all Christians are not only Biblical literalists, but also Biblical literalists who don't actually understand the Bible (because your understanding comes only from the English translation), and then criticizing them for not updating their understanding of the Bible despite the fact that they have literally been doing that since before the canonical list of the books was compiled.
A wise Christian listens to the experts and ignores that section of the bible.
Not in the slightest. A wise Christian understands that section of the Bible, and draws the most sensible moral lesson possible from it. You shouldn't ignore the statement "Don't beat your slave to death." You should instead understand it to mean "don't beat anyone to death even if the secular law permits it."
For what it's worth, the actual passage cited there, in the NIV, reads "He who spares the rod(1) hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline(2) him(3)."
1: Cross-referenced to 2 Samuel 7:14, a section on God's promise to David, "I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men." Verse 15 adds "But my love will never be taken away from him..." (This is not generally believed to be a literal "rod of men", but rather a description of general events and circumstances that could take many different forms. Contextually, it also suggests that parents should continue to love their children even if they must be disciplined, and act accordingly, and that the "rod" does not necessarily involve a physical beating.)
2: Cross-referenced to Proverbs 3:12, "because the Lord disciplines those he loves, as a father the son he delights in."
3: Cross-referenced to multiple places, including Proverbs 19:18, "Discipline your son, for in that there is hope; do not be a willing party to his death." (In a section about generally obeying instructions, working hard, and teaching people to not be hot-tempered types who constantly get themselves into trouble.)
I don't think Christians are necessarily inclined to interpret that passage literally - many are far more likely to take away the concept "Children should be disciplined appropriately, using whatever techniques we understand to be genuinely effective, to help raise them to be decent people". Many interesting turns of phrase in the Bible are a reference to something else, which is part of why we're often hesitant to accept literal interpretations at face value.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Guy: Well, there's a reason why I'm okay with gay marriage, equal rights, and so on. o wo/ As a Christian, I don't believe the old laws (i.e. broadly speaking, the earlier parts of the Old Testament - the latter half is mostly historical stuff) are really in force any longer (except for the Ten Commandments). They can be studied and all, and that can give useful insights and context, but the teachings of Jesus are more important and, in case of conflict, take priority. My faith teaches me to love everyone, not condemn them and push them away.
You mean to tell me that you've never heard a religious person say that the bible is the word of god?
No, and no. First, why on earth would we do such a stupid thing as look at the Bible that way,
Dozens. Hundreds. Millions believe it as official Catholic doctrine; millions more believe it as official doctrine in various other denominations. But very few of them are Biblical literalists, which is the straw man that you're insisting "Christians" must be. It's quite possible to believe that an omniscient God is smart enough to know about metaphor. What most Christians find incredible is the opposite, that God isn't smart enough to know about it.
I think we can agree that beating children is wrong but there are still sects of Christianity that believes that the rod is literal and have fought to keep their right to beat their kids.
Why on earth would you expect "Christians" to be a monolithic bloc?
As I said earlier, I'm not able to read ancient Greek never mind ancient Hebrew so I wouldn't even attempt to figure out what the bible actually means,
Very few can. Very few people can perform neurosurgery, either. That's one reason that universities, seminaries, and medical schools exist; to disseminate knowledge, to develop new knowledge, and to reexamine old knowledge in light of new findings.
And that's one reason that the priestly "caste" exists; interpreting the themes of old documents is hard work, whether we're talking about the Bible or Beowulf. As you might expect, scholars will sometimes disagree about the themes they're seeing.
In theory, the Holy Spirit is supposed to guide individuals in their understanding of God.... but there's also a long history of people mistaking other things (including, canonically, the deceptions of the Evil One) as a revelation from the Holy Spirit. So it's not surprising that there would be some misunderstandings around. There are also a lot of people who are not open to this guidance (Jude 1:17-20 “Dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ said before. They said to you, “In the last times there will be people who laugh about God, following their own evil desires which are against God.” ) -- would you expect them to participate in this revelation?
I wouldn't presume to tell a cardiac surgeon the best way to install a stent, and I'd not really argue with an professor of Old English about the difference between "treasure" and "hoard" (there's apparently a huge moral difference). I'm also not really going to tell someone that they're interpreting the Bible wrongly because of my decontextualized understanding of a set of words produced by some early 17th century translators.
@Guy: I'd like to think we can get along. o wo~ Or rather, I think that if you can't find common ground with anyone who thinks differently on some subjects, you've got a problem on a more fundamental level...
(Besides, free will is the core of my faith. I really can't object if other people think things through and come to a different answer than I did. XD)
I don't think I've ever said all Christians are literalists. I think I've said repeatedly now that most Christians ignore parts of the bible they don't like and that I'm super cool with that.
Apparently there is no middle ground in your universe between following the literal meaning of the words and "ignoring."
I stand by my writing. You apparently believe that all Christians are Biblical literalists whose only response when presented with a text whose literal meaning is problematic is to ignore it. I further stand by my writing that such a belief is a straw man that bears little resemblance to Christianity as it is actively practiced today.
I said "many", not "all". o wo/
Many interesting turns of phrase in the Bible are a reference to something else, which is part of why we're often hesitant to accept literal interpretations at face value.Sure but when the passage is didactic, like the bit from the Corinthian book I cited up thread, doesn't that require a literal reading?
Quick answer: no. Longer answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooo.
The opinion that it is didactic is yours, and not universally held. Even if it were universally held, that wouldn't mean it was correct. A God capable of omnipotence is presumably capable of metaphor, even if human readership doesn't instantly recognize it as such.
Meaning, in other words, the text is meaningless regardless. It may as well be gibberish as "metaphors men don't understand".
While I largely agree with you, I will point out that there are a lot of people doing their own interpretations of the Bible with no more expertise than you and the vast majority of them are Christian and include many preachers and other influential religious types.
... and opinions differ on the efficacy of that sort of study. While the guidance of the Holy Spirit is, in theory, always available to anyone who sincerely seeks His Grace, it's not promised to be available in a way that is conveniently packaged as Biblical understanding.
Some sects, such as Catholicism, actually discourage private study because of the obvious risks of misunderstanding, disunion, faction, and outright heresy. Other sects (my sister belongs to one of these) discourage private study except under carefully controlled conditions that amount to indoctrination and are vehemently opposed to the idea of "private interpretation." Still others consider private Bible study to be a waste of time, because God and the Holy Spirit will provide you with the spiritual knowledge you need whether you study or not -- and will not provide you with anything more even if you spend years of your life mastering Aramaic. Yet others insist that private study is the only way to get true understanding. And I've not exhausted the list yet, even among sects with official views on Biblical study.
And, of course, when you wander into the cesspit of nondenominational evangelism, preachers and worshiper can and will believe any damn thing they like, absolutely convinced that their particular interpretation is fixed and ordained by God. (And it's not like this is a new problem, since this issue is discussed extensively in the New Testament.)
All that this really means is that no one actually knows how to interpret the Bible.
And among that list of people who don't know are found both Quark Blast and Guy Hummel. (You will note, of course, that I have not been offering any of my own interpretations; I've been suggesting possible interpretations, and, when possible attributing them to the person or group responsible. You may not agree with C. S. Lewis' solution to the Problem of Evil. But don't tell me that he's wrong in some obvious or trivial way, because he was a much better theologian than anyone on this thread.)
Meaning, in other words, the text is meaningless regardless. It may as well be gibberish as "metaphors men don't understand".
No, because you don't actually know that it's a metaphor men don't understand, either. It might be a metaphor that (some) men understand quite well. Which is why I'd advise you to familiarize yourself with the relevant scholarship.
That the text is didactic is beyond reasonable dispute.
You have made it clear that that is your opinion. I have made it clear the value I place on your opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I largely agree with you, I will point out that there are a lot of people doing their own interpretations of the Bible with no more expertise than you and the vast majority of them...
That kind of hits the whole point. How does one determine expertise in an area where the only way to establish credentials is to be dead?
In addition to the Bible, indispensable to any Christian, one spiritual book dealing precisely with the subject matter of the afterlife is the famed Tibetan Book of the Dead.
I've not read this one yet, but I intend to.
Tangential to the topic, but worth a good read, there is an article on the dirty mysticism of some of the early 20th century quantum physicists. For the shame ;-) !
In any kind of scholarly arena, it's easy to distinguish between that and some raving street preacher who's never read anything but the King James.
And you remember the "if the author is dead, why is the english professor alive" thread.
People have done that, and people still do that, but have come to wildly different conclusions. That's fine in say, literary interpretation where the results mean nothing to anyone but other literature scholars.
But god would be the most important thing in the universe and whether we have life waiting for us after death or should be working on that problem now now now is kind of a big deal. Given how vastly different scholars come to vastly different conclusions I don't know if the scholar gets the right answer any more than the street preacher. They just have a fancier way of getting there.
For a believer if you follow their train of thought, it tends to go
God is good.
God is just right moral (because just right and moral are what good is)
God is what I think just right and moral are (because, obviously what you think is just right and moral are what you think is just right and moral)
Any reading is going to be done in that specific context and that opens up enormous loopholes and justifications that no other work of literature would get. (including unreliable narrator)
Here are some eloquently put thoughts about belief and reason, as told by a rabbi to some young scientists.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here are some eloquently put thoughts about belief and reason, as told by a rabbi to some young scientists.
I don't have a problem with people's beliefs, including yours. The problem I have is that you continuously try to claim that atheism is a belief.
It's not.
As soon as you stop trying to prove this point, which you can't, I'd guess that several people in this thread would stop having any problem with what you say. We just won't care.
My atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. I don't think that there's nothing to believe in, but rather that all evidence points to the fact that religious beliefs are invented by people and do not actually have a supernatural source. If you have evidence of a supernatural source, I'm willing to hear it, but so far none has been presented.
Science is not a religion, and your religion is not science.
Accept the fact that these are different things and stop arguing that they're the same.
the question is somewhere between bait and misleading. Why don't you just go ahead and either answer the "Yes, but..." or "yes, so?" that are being thrown around.
I'm not trying to bait or be misleading and I don't know why the question would be construed as such. It seems like people are assigning hostile intent to my statements when they're pretty straight forward. *shrug*
Science is limited to reality
Observable reality, right?
As long as you're looking science can find anything that exists.
This assumes that everything that exists is observable.
You have to show some kind of evidence that it exists before we need to actually debate this point.
Well the answer to the question "If something is unobservable. Does that mean it does not exist?" is either a "Yes", a "No" or a "Can't tell". My contention is that the only accurate answer is the third one. Would you disagree?
When science is told that a question can not be answered, that's a challenge for it to be disputed
How would science deal with something that has no impact on the observable universe?
I'll proceed with your discussion if you stop using the word "unobservable" and instead use the word "imaginary".
So you are claiming that if something is unobservable, that means it's imaginary?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not trying to bait or be misleading and I don't know why the question would be construed as such.
Because we've seen the same question before used to try to justify a maybe there's a god that we can't see hear or feel or anything" and that is a very arbitrary position to take
So then why don't you answer one of the "yes buts" floating around?
It seems like people are assigning hostile intent to my statements when they're pretty straight forward. *shrug*
Re hammering the point without moving forward isn't helping the perception that it's a gotcha question.
Observable reality, right?
Observable reality, deducible reality, and the quest to turn the latter into the former.
This assumes that everything that exists is observable.
Everything that matters is observable. (but not necessarily observed)
How would science deal with something that has no impact on the observable universe?
The same way anyone else should and not care?
There are so many more imagined than actual things that something imagined probably isn't real. The probability is so close to zero that i'm just going to go ahead and call it zero because my alternative is holding down the 0 key to demonstrate the odds and i have something SLIGHTLY more important to do.
And you remember the "if the author is dead, why is the english professor alive" thread.People have done that, and people still do that, but have come to wildly different conclusions. That's fine in say, literary interpretation where the results mean nothing to anyone but other literature scholars.
But god would be the most important thing in the universe and whether we have life waiting for us after death or should be working on that problem now now now is kind of a big deal. Given how vastly different scholars come to vastly different conclusions I don't know if the scholar gets the right answer any more than the street preacher. They just have a fancier way of getting there.
You're right that you don't know which one is correct; certainty is a luxury denied to everyone outside of pure math.
But normally it's fairly evident that the scholar is more likely to be correct. Her opinions tend, at least to be internally coherent, free from obvious internal errors, and also consonant with what we know about the world from other types of scholarship.
For example, an Ussherian Young Earth Creationist will hold that the world itself was created in 4004 BCE. Unfortunately, human artifacts have been excavated from all over the world that date from earlier than that, and of course, non-human artifacts such as fossils, or even radiometrically dateable rocks, go back billions of years. That's a dissonance; either the YEC is wrong, or literally everything else we belief about science is wrong beyond repair, and it's not hard to decide which side gets my vote.
But not all Christians are YEC, so this isn't an argument against Christianity -- in fact, it's not an argument against any major branch of Christianity with a scholarly tradition. Because this isn't a mistake that scholars make, and if they do, they're quickly corrected by other scholars as part of the scholarship process.
As another example -- Herod's Murder of the Innocents (Matt 2:16-18) appears not to have happened, or at least, it's not documented by any other historian, including some (like Josephus) who delighted in documenting Herod's misdeeds. There are several solutions available -- we can choose to believe that Matthew is not a particularly reliable source (which is my personal choice), we can believe that somehow more than 100,000 (Coptic tradition) infants were killed, but God mysteriously blotted all mention of it from other sources, or we can take a middle ground and believe that Bethlehem was small enough that there were only a dozen or so children killed and this particular act passed unnoticed among his other atrocities. But the scholar will at least be aware of this issue and have a sensible answer.
For a ludicrous example, consider the two geneologies of Jesus (Matthew and Luke), which are radically different after they leave the well-documented descent of David from Abraham. Modern Biblical scholars are aware of this discrepancy (most consider both geneologies to be spurious), but our street preacher may not be. If he's insisting that the Bible is inerrant,.... who was Christ's paternal grandfather?
Science is limited to realityObservable reality, right?
Nope. Numerous examples have been given of science applying to the then-unobservable based on logic and generalization.
So your restriction remains demonstrably false no matter how many times and no matter how many different wordings you use to propose it.
For a believer if you follow their train of thought, it tends to go
God is good.
God is just right moral (because just right and moral are what good is)
God is what I think just right and moral are (because, obviously what you think is just right and moral are what you think is just right and moral)
Any reading is going to be done in that specific context and that opens up enormous loopholes and justifications that no other work of literature would get. (including unreliable narrator)
That's certainly a train of thought. It's also one that scholarship tries to correct, precisely because there is enough variation in what people think "just, right, and moral" entails that fruitful discussions can be had.
The Jews, in particular, are great at that. That's a large part of what the Talmud is; a record of Jews arguing (in writing) about the interpretation of various passages, often in the context of specific moral challenges or events.
For example, when is it morally permissible to work on the Sabbath? Is it morally permissible to put out a fire on the Sabbath when there are lives at risk? Is it permitted to put out a fire on the Sabbath when only property is at risk? How about when only property is at risk right now, but there is a risk of the fire spreading? Two rabbis may have differences of opinion on that, but these differences can be and often are resolvable by discussion and scholarship.
The basic idea, of course, what I recognize as "good, just, moral," may be in error. Or it may be correct, and someone else may be in error. Even if we assume that God's goodness, justice, and morality is never in error, since neither of us actually have access to His thoughts, we can still muddle about trying to improve our own understanding.
... and in that regard, it's not much different from hard sciences. None of us actually know what an electron looks like, but after a hundred years, we're fairly confident that most of the ideas we used to have are wrong.
Because we've seen the same question before used to try to justify a maybe there's a god that we can't see hear or feel or anything" and that is a very arbitrary position to take
But I haven't even made *any* of those kinds of points. Things would be a whole lot simpler if you guys responded to what I'm actually saying instead of what you think I might say in the future. Yes?
Everything that matters is observable.
Okay. So here's a few things.
1. I'm assuming that you're not claiming that everything that exists is observable then?
2. You're making a value judgment that that the only things that matter are observable?
I'll proceed with your discussion if you stop using the word "unobservable" and instead use the word "imaginary".So you are claiming that if something is unobservable, that means it's imaginary?
I'm not claiming that at all. I've talked about things that have been/are unobservable, but you've said these don't meet your criteria. Since you don't get to define what words mean, I'm suggesting using a different word that might more closely fit your criteria.
Just like we wouldn't use the word "strawberry" to mean unobservable, I'm suggesting that the idea you are presenting is not best represented by the word "unobservable".
I'm not claiming that at all. I've talked about things that have been/are unobservable, but you've said these don't meet your criteria.
I thought I've been very clear. Something that has no impact on the observable universe.
That isn't what the word means.
Because we've seen the same question before used to try to justify a maybe there's a god that we can't see hear or feel or anything" and that is a very arbitrary position to takeBut I haven't even made *any* of those kinds of points.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Things would be a whole lot simpler if you guys responded to what I'm actually saying instead of what you think I might say in the future. Yes?
No. They would be a lot simpler if you got on with it already and said what point you were trying to make.
1. I'm assuming that you're not claiming that everything that exists is observable then?
I think it is.
2. You're making a value judgment that that the only things that matter are observable?
No. It's a tautology, like the one you used to start this. if it is unobservable (not merely unobserved) then it doesn't matter in any way shape or form because that's what unobservable means.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BNW, unobservable things can be important and impact the universe at large. We can even have a pretty good idea of what these things are and how they work, but we still can't actually observe them.
Unobseravle doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Unobservable means it can't be observed. That is it.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
That anything that has no observable impact on the universe is not within the purview of science.
No. They would be a lot simpler if you got on with it already and said what point you were trying to make.
I've been making them.
I think it is.
So you are really claiming that everything that exists is observable?
if it is unobservable (not merely unobserved) then it doesn't matter in any way shape or form because that's what unobservable means.
Unobservable in this discussion means something that has no impact on the observable universe
What matters or doesn't matter is a separate issue.
That isn't what the word means.
It does in the context of this discussion.
If you want me to I could expand it out then:
"If something has no impact on the observable universe. Does that mean it does not exist?"
"If something has no impact on the observable universe. Does that mean it does not exist?"
Oddly enough, when I asked you that same question, you refused to answer, to the point of hostility. Now you're berating others for refusing to answer the same question.
If you want to know why people think you're being disingenuous, your disingenuous behavior might provide some clue.