To finish the question, since the thread title limited my characters: Is or should religious "moderation" be the optimal weapon of choice to combat religious fundamentalism (or extremism)?
The question came to mind as I was watching a discussion/debate between Sam Harris and Rabbi David Wolpe.
As I'm sure many people here are aware, Harris isn't too fond of "religious moderation" or "healthy religion" as I think the Rabbi refers to it. For those who aren't familiar with Harris' stance, here's a very brief overview:
| Quote: |
Though Harris accepts that replacing religious extremism with religious moderation would be a positive step, he criticizes moderate theists. Harris argues that religious moderation gives cover to religious fundamentalism. Under the banner of moderation, respect and tolerance are sacred, thus preventing credible assaults upon extremism. Harris states:
To speak plainly and truthfully about the state of our world — to say, for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish — is antithetical to tolerance as moderates currently conceive it. But we can no longer afford the luxury of such political correctness. We must finally recognize the price we are paying to maintain the iconography of our ignorance. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29#Moderation
So as the discussion is being had Harris goes on with explaining his views of religious moderation and how it inadvertently creates a sort of shield for religious fundamentalism. Harris proposes that promotion of critical thought and reasoning is the answer to combating religious fundamentalism successfully. Rabbi Wolpe responds with the idea that "healthy religion" should be our main weapon of choice against religious fundamentalism, rather than Harris' (and others) primary choice of reason. Wolpe's defense for this is the claim that "healthy religion" in some ways speaks the language of religious fundamentalism and thus has a better chance of making advances against it. He implies using reason to combat this fundamentalism would be greatly unsuccessful as the rationale of reasoning with regards to religion is simply too different from the rationale fundamentalists live by.
**If you watch the debate and find that my summary is incorrect, I apologize. I watched it a few weeks ago and just got around to making the thread. If that's the case, I think the overarching question can still be discussed just fine. That question being, again:
Is or should religious "moderation" be the optimal weapon of choice to combat religious fundamentalism (or extremism)? | liljp617 wrote: |
| Harris goes on with explaining his views of religious moderation and how it inadvertently creates a sort of shield for religious fundamentalism. Harris proposes that promotion of critical thought and reasoning is the answer to combating religious fundamentalism successfully. Rabbi Wolpe responds with the idea that "healthy religion" should be our main weapon of choice against religious fundamentalism, rather than Harris' (and others) primary choice of reason. Wolpe's defense for this is the claim that "healthy religion" in some ways speaks the language of religious fundamentalism and thus has a better chance of making advances against it. |
This is a very good summary, and must have been a very good discussion to watch. I agree with Harris that "healthy religion" is not the answer for combating religious fundamentalism. In fact, it could turn out to be a red flag in front of the bull. Critical thought and reasoning would be better, but I wonder in the total picture whether it could make a "fundamental" difference. Fundamentalists are so far gone, I can't see any critical thought or reasoning getting to them, although at least standing outside religion, it would have a better chance. "Healthy religion" may just serve to harden the fundamentalists' position.
I can't agree that "healthy religion" in some ways speaks the language of religious fundamentalism. In some cases it may, but not in all cases. It will depend on the definition of "healthy religion" as what some see as "healthy" may be completely hazardous to others.I think the best thing to combat religious fundamentalism is a free information exchange (aka the internet) combined with a willingness for discussion. Other than that, you just need time.
Yes, Wolpe is just wrong - it's wishful thinking. There is no mechanism by which you can tame religious extremism by using religious moderation. It just can't happen. It's like trying to put out a forest fire by putting some tanning lamps in its path. You can't make a crazy person saner by feeding their delusions.
Wolpe can't even put forward a reasonable argument for why religious moderation might tame religious extremists, or how that might happen. He's got nothing.
On the other hand, Harris isn't particularly right, either. Approaching extremists with reason is only going to get you slapped away. Ranting about how their beliefs is "life-destroying gibberish" is not going to endear them to you, either. You can't reach extremists directly, and any attempt to do so is just going to make them more extremist, because you're feeding the beast.
However, Harris is closer to the truth than Wolpe is. You simply can't reach out to extremists, not by offering them watered down versions of their beliefs (as Wolpe wants to), and not by calling them stupid (as Harris wants to) - and you certainly can't reach out to them on their own terms, because they're nuts.
Do as i do? . . .by Bluedoll
Thank you all for writing, I am finding these subjects are helping me understand and encouraging me to learn more. My only comments are, I hope they apply.
The problem may be that many religious extremists are thinking they are normal like an extremist terrorist would think they are a person with a rightful cause so how could anything possibly appear reasonable to them.
If someone wrote a document that said, “there should be one leader to take care of a single household,” this could be a good thing for there is less likelihood of conflict.
However, if the owner extends that to mean when his wife is not following it, he will beat her to death until she submits, then the question is - has the owner actually followed the document to the letter (not a real leader)? If the original purpose of the writ was to keep the peace then this extremist husband has misinterpreted the statement in the first place.
The solution may simply be to encourage extreme righteousness and discourage basic wrongings? It is not really the document that is at fault but the person that mis-follows or misleads while using the document falsely.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| The solution may simply be to encourage extreme righteousness and discourage basic wrongings? It is not really the document that is at fault but the person that mis-follows or misleads while using the document falsely. |
From the Jewish scriptural document: If a man rapes a virgin woman who is not already betrothed for marriage, then he pays a "fifty shekel" fine to the father of the woman, and gets the woman as a wife (regardless of what the woman says).
From the Christian scriptural document: If a slave does something wrong, it is OK to beat him. If the slave does something wrong, but did not know they were doing something wrong... it is OK to beat him (just, not as severely).
From the Muslim scriptural document: Don't befriend anyone who isn't of the same religion as you, because they are all evil and liars and want to destroy you. Your god hates them and will eventually destroy them all, but in the mean time, don't get close, and don't trust them.
So, sorry, Bluedoll. The documents are at fault.Dear person's
I know how you feel Indi and I feel the same too. What I meant however is not that stuff but what was purposed by a writing in the first place.
What I am saying right here right now in this tiny little post located off in a very remote part of a very large cyber world (cyber means to talk right? - well for me it does) of the internet is when the . . .
Jew, Christian, Muslim or any other person interprets a meaning like that in our modern days or in many cases even previous days then it is the person(s) that are at fault and it was not the meaning of intent of the original writ.
I know there are lots of war references etc, etc because our human past is full of disasters but we (any person) should learn from our stupid mistakes not keep repeating them?
I would rather get the correct meaning of a writing than fight over who is in charge.
Here for example is part of a letter written in the Greek to a people called Galatians by a simple man – translated to English by Bluedoll
Galatians: 5:13 – 15
Writing to you woman to keep talking freely but please remember to do not for your gain only, but out of love like a slave for one each other for all the writings in the world really just come down to one thing and that is to love each other like ourselves. But if we keep biting each other we should look out that we don’t annihilate each other.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| Jew, Christian, Muslim or any other person interprets a meaning like that in our modern days or in many cases even previous days then it is the person(s) that are at fault and it was not the meaning of intent of the original writ. |
The issue is that your interpretation of the original meaning is no more "correct" than anyone else's interpretation. And, as I believe Bikerman has pointed out on these forums, there isn't really any scientific, systematic way of deriving the "correct" meaning from religious scripture. Speculation amid the context is really all you have in trying to find the original meaning...and I can't say that your speculation has any more authority than the random Islamic terrorist's (not singling out Islam at all, just an example).
Last edited by liljp617 on Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:00 pm; edited 2 times in totalYep, we can see 'religious moderation' practiced in the UK. I had a link somewhere where 15 protesters attending a anti-islamization rally were beset by... 1000 muslim men, and the police had to protect the 15 'evil' guys, while those muslims attacked the police.
Cute, huh?
That is an excellent point Liljp617 on interpretation. I agree, scientific systems do not stand a chance in achieving scriptural meanings. I do disagree with the authority part however.
I do appreciate peoples views and the idea that the ‘good book’ may seem in part to be not such a good thing but there is more to it than merely debate.
It is not really speculation to state an idea in writing that good always wins over evil and that peace and love are the only ways to achieve success in anything. It is an actuality. Anyone that believes otherwise and acts on that belief will not achieve anything but self destruction regardless of thier religion.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| It is not really speculation to state an idea in writing that good always wins over evil and that peace and love are the only ways to achieve success in anything. It is an actuality. Anyone that believes otherwise and acts on that belief will not achieve anything but self destruction regardless of thier religion. |
I would hope that good will always win over evil, but whether it will I don't think we can know, unless we have some fix on the future of mankind. Mao Tse Tung would have differed with you on the peace and love recipe for success. He believed in "no struggle, no progress". Wasn't that Edison's recipe for success as well? All the hundreds of tests he had done until he got a fix on his ultimate theory. Try, try and try again. Peace and love may even be counter productive, as maybe one needs the energy from struggle to be propelled foreward for greater effort. | Bluedoll wrote: |
| It is not really speculation to state an idea in writing that good always wins over evil and that peace and love are the only ways to achieve success in anything. It is an actuality. Anyone that believes otherwise and acts on that belief will not achieve anything but self destruction regardless of thier religion. |
If these were the only actions or ideas the book described or promoted, you would have a fair case. Unfortunately, it describes and promotes (off and on) many ideas that are in direct contradiction to those you mentioned.
What extra authority is granted to anyone who sides with the "peace/love" aspect of these holy books that isn't granted to those who side with the "kill heretics" side? As an example, why is your deriving "peace/love" from these books a more legitimate view than the person who derives "kill for [insert specific god] if the situation calls for it?" These books, at times, clearly call for the destruction of those who oppose [insert god], after all. | Bluedoll wrote: |
It is not really speculation to state an idea in writing that good always wins over evil and that peace and love are the only ways to achieve success in anything. It is an actuality. Anyone that believes otherwise and acts on that belief will not achieve anything but self destruction regardless of thier religion. |
so all the rich evil people like the president of Iran or some sort of billionaire who killed his way too the top, they used peace and love...
now dont tell me "later he will suffer" cause i will take 60 years of happines(drugs, money, sex etc) then get killed through evil means (shot, killed etc) then spend 80 years living helping and kissing everyone...
thats just me though
sometimes love does not do it mate, sometimes evil wins ps - what is love and peace a lot of iranians think killing off jews is the work of god and is just dandy....some dont...what is love? | Bannik wrote: |
| sometimes love does not do it mate, sometimes evil wins ps - what is love and peace a lot of iranians think killing off jews is the work of god and is just dandy....some dont...what is love? |
We probably need a little bit of balance between the two. Like cowboys and crooks. Would be boring if we would only have cowboys. We need at least a few crooks to spice things up a little bit. Makes life all that much more precious to live as well when we know we have to fight and possibly also die for it. 
| deanhills wrote: |
| . . .All the hundreds of tests he had done until he got a fix . . . We probably need a little bit of balance . . . |
When something is being made yes it does take time to construct, perfect and work out the bugs. Keeping a balance is always challenge.
| Bannick wrote: |
| . . . a lot of Iranians think killing off Jews is the work of god . . . |
Those Iranians are acting on their own logic. It is not the work of God! They are wrong.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| . . .What extra authority is granted to anyone . . . |
I am not making a case. Even if I were, I don’t think that posting something on the internet is going to have any dramatic effects on world conditions. Some case! I simply enjoy writing and reading. The scriptures do not say murder anyone in opposition to God! It is mankind that decides this on their own. Real leaders that follow the Koran do not state murder but it is a political, social and an extreme movement who quote the book without understanding it completely.
Extra authorty is given to those that write the truth over those that write garbage. The truth is evil destroys itself. Yes, it is a shame that evil men live with wealth and power, I agree, but we can ask ourselves a question.
How do we want to live?
We have a choice by, evil ways or by good ways?
____________________________________
The cowboy may ride away without the girl but the girl will always have the good man in her heart. | Bluedoll wrote: |
| I am not making a case. |
Sure you are. You're taking a specific position in a discussion and defending your viewpoint.
| Quote: |
| Even if I were, I don’t think that posting something on the internet is going to have any dramatic effects on world conditions. Some case! I simply enjoy writing and reading. |
"Be the change you want to see in the world" -Ghandi
Nobody here is trying to bring about world peace with a couple posts. We're here trying to discuss philosophical subjects that clearly have great influence throughout the world. If one person starts to think and reason a bit more because of posting here, I think most people will be happy with that. In fact, I don't really care to influence anyone here...I'm happy enough that I've been influenced by posting here and feel like I'm much more capable in combating nonsense with words.
Needless to say, I don't think it's a positive outlook to downplay your role as an individual in the world just because you can't end worldwide struggles by yourself in just a few minutes.
| Quote: |
| The scriptures do not say murder anyone in opposition to God! |
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; ... Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. -- Deuteronomy 17:2-3,5
There are others.
| Quote: |
| It is mankind that decides this on their own. Real leaders that follow the Koran do not state murder but it is a political, social and an extreme movement who quote the book without understanding it completely. |
What is a "real leader?" Perhaps your view of a real leader is completely different from Bin Laden's view? Perhaps he believes he is being a "real leader." He is following the Quran by the way, at least the parts of it that he wants to follow.
"...without understanding it..." -- what does this mean? Again, why does your interpretation or understanding of the book hold any more merit or authority than Bin Laden's understanding? Like I said, there is no specific way to derive a "correct" interpretation from any of these holy books.
| Quote: |
| Extra authorty is given to those that write the truth over those that write garbage. The truth is evil destroys itself. |
What is "the truth?" I'll say it again, there is no systematic method of deriving "the truth" from religious scripture. People constantly act like there is, but there just simply is not. Your view of "the truth" is clearly different from, say, Bin Laden's or Pat Robertson's (in no way equating the two). They read the same book you do, yet they come up with different interpretations; I ask again, why is your interpretation more authoritative than their interpretation? Why does your view hold more "truth" than their view? | liljp617 wrote: |
| Like I said, there is no specific way to derive a "correct" interpretation from any of these holy books. |
Isn't that an interpretation as well? I.e. that there is no correct interpretation possible? What standard is used to measure "correct interpretation" and why should this standard be held more valid than any of the standards that have been used to get to the interpretations by the individuals you referred to in your debate? | Bluedoll wrote: |
| The scriptures do not say murder anyone in opposition to God! It is mankind that decides this on their own. |
They do, however, give many examples of how God commanded people to kill others for being in opposition of God, or His people(Implying that killing in His name is not only Ok, but required).
In fact, God commanded so many people to kill other people in the Bible, that it's amazing anyone was left alive. Here are some examples:
Who God gave the killing orders to - Abraham
Who got killed - Isaac(Abraham's son)
Why - Sacrifice
Citation - Genesis:22:1-2
Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.
Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love,
and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering
on one of the mountains I will tell you about."
Who God gave the killing orders to - Saul
Who got killed - Amalekites
Why - Revenge
Citation - Samuel 15:2-3
This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites
for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.
Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them.
Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants,
cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "
Who God gave the killing orders to - Moses
Who got killed - Amorites
Why - Conquest
Citation - Numbers 21:34-35
The LORD said to Moses, "Do not be afraid of him, for I have handed
him over to you, with his whole army and his land. Do to him what you
did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon."
So they struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army,
leaving them no survivors. And they took possession of his land.
Who God gave the killing orders to - Moses
Who got killed - Midianites
Why - Revenge
Citation - Numbers 31:1-2
The LORD said to Moses, "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the
Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people."
Who God gave the killing orders to - Joshua
Who got killed - The entire city of Ai
Why - Conquest
Citation - Joshua 8:18-19
Then the LORD said to Joshua, "Hold out toward Ai the javelin that is
in your hand, for into your hand I will deliver the city." So Joshua held
out his javelin toward Ai. As soon as he did this, the men in the ambush
rose quickly from their position and rushed forward.
They entered the city and captured it and quickly set it on fire.
Who God gave the killing orders to - Israelites
Who got killed - Benjamites(and tens of thousands of Israelites, as well... more of a suicide mission, really)
Why - Conquest
Citation - Judges 20:18,23
The Israelites went up to Bethel and inquired of God. They said,
"Who of us shall go first to fight against the Benjamites?"
The LORD replied, "Judah shall go first."
The Israelites went up and wept before the LORD until evening,
and they inquired of the LORD. They said, "Shall we go up again to
battle against the Benjamites, our brothers?"
The LORD answered, "Go up against them."
Who God gave the killing orders to - Israelites
Who got killed - Enemies(this one is more of a general command, just an arbitrary 'kill your enemies' order)
Why - Reward
Citation - Leviticus 26:7-8
"You will pursue your enemies, and they will fall by the sword before you.
Five of you will chase a hundred, and a hundred of you will chase ten thousand,
and your enemies will fall by the sword before you."
That's not even including the over 2 million people that God Himself killed in the Bible. Or the fact that God allowed Himself to be used as an implement of death and destruction. Samson killed thousands with the power of "Lordspirit". And God even helped kill people for a variety of petty reasons...
Second Kings 2:23-24
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you bald head!" they said. "Go on up, you bald head!" He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
42 kids mauled by bears on Gods command, for making fun of a persons bald head. God even killed a guy for pulling out during sex. He didn't seem to mind that Onan was banging his brothers wife, just that he shot his wad on the ground:
Genesis 38:8-10
Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.
So you see, the point here is that yes, your scriptures do indeed support the killing of people who are in opposition of God, and for a litany of other reasons, many of which are utter madness. Why anyone would buy into this mumbo-jumbo is beyond me. Stop cherry picking your book for happy passages and face the fact that the God which the Bible describes is a sick, murderous, monster. | deanhills wrote: |
| What standard is used to measure "correct interpretation" |
I want to start a more focused topic. I do have some time constraints at the moment so it will have to be at a later date. I want to answer some questions put forth more specifically because it is easy to get off topic from the originally post.
| Ophois wrote: |
Why anyone would buy into this mumbo-jumbo is beyond me. Stop cherry picking your book for happy passages and face the fact that the God which the Bible describes is a sick, murderous, monster. |
Actually, I can appreciate the work that went into that post. That is so great! I can see this point of view and would like an opportunity to show how these scriptures are being mis-applied.
______________________________________
Just a note
We can always write what we believe and think but sometimes we have to realize that we do become personal when using quotes or "dialog". When we do communicate in this way there can repercussions.
In the above post it is clear that Ophois is talking directly to me (anyone is me I wrote the passage before he did) - telling me what I write, what I believe in, my thoughts, the things I want to share with other is mumbo-jumbo. Then Ophois goes on to tell me what to do.
Sometimes people do only look for the good. I suppose that is true. However, I do not have to do anything I am told by Ophois or anyone else for that matter nor must I face up to these so called ‘facts’.
God is not a monster, nor am I however please in the future perhaps we all should consider others in a respectful or reasonable manner? | Bluedoll wrote: |
| Actually, I can appreciate the work that went into that post. That is so great! I can see this point of view and would like an opportunity to show how these scriptures are being mis-applied. |
You have as much opportunity as you want.
| Quote: |
Just a note
We can always write what we believe and think but sometimes we have to realize that we do become personal when using quotes or "dialog". When we do communicate in this way there can repercussions.
In the above post it is clear that Ophois is talking directly to me (anyone is me I wrote the passage before he did) - telling me what I write, what I believe in, my thoughts, the things I want to share with other is mumbo-jumbo. Then Ophois goes on to tell me what to do.
Sometimes people do only look for the good. I suppose that is true. However, I do not have to do anything I am told by Ophois or anyone else for that matter nor must I face up to these so called ‘facts’.
God is not a monster, nor am I however please in the future perhaps we all should consider others in a respectful or reasonable manner? |
I don't think he insulted or criticized you. I think he criticized your beliefs. In which case, the only legitimate thing to say is "too bad." Your religious beliefs are no more deserving of respect than your political beliefs or which shoes you believe look cool. If you get offended by someone's criticism of your beliefs, respond to them with a logical counter-argument. I think it's fair to say the "my beliefs were insulted" victim card is dead...at least on these forums. | liljp617 wrote: |
| I don't think he insulted or criticized you. |
As far as I can see Bluedoll did not accuse Ophois of being "insulting" or "critical". Bluedoll was asking Ophois very nicely to make his criticism less personal and with a more respectful tone:
| Bluedoll wrote: |
In the above post it is clear that Ophois is talking directly to me (anyone is me I wrote the passage before he did) - telling me what I write, what I believe in, my thoughts, the things I want to share with other is mumbo-jumbo. Then Ophois goes on to tell me what to do.
Sometimes people do only look for the good. I suppose that is true. However, I do not have to do anything I am told by Ophois or anyone else for that matter nor must I face up to these so called ‘facts’.
God is not a monster, nor am I however please in the future perhaps we all should consider others in a respectful or reasonable manner? |
Think Bluedoll has been trying very hard in a number of postings in various threads to ask that the tone of postings be conducted in a respectful manner. It is one thing to be critical, but the following clearly goes beyond critical:
| Ophois wrote: |
| So you see, the point here is that yes, your scriptures do indeed support the killing of people who are in opposition of God, and for a litany of other reasons, many of which are utter madness. Why anyone would buy into this mumbo-jumbo is beyond me. Stop cherry picking your book for happy passages and face the fact that the God which the Bible describes is a sick, murderous, monster. |
With regard to the passages that Ophois quoted, all the criticisms that Ophois made are valid, and they are common sense ones. However, as far as I know the Bible was written by human beings, not God. And all the passages contain views by human beings that can be interpreted in many ways. Most of the stories are "word by mouth" and reflect a history of quite a number of centuries ago. Perhaps if we look at where science was at the beginning of time when the Bible was written for the first time, science has made enormous progress to date and given credit for it. Since the Bible is not a scientific reference book, most of the stories still stayed the same, however need to be interpreted differently and/or rewritten. Very few Christians for example believe that Abraham literally received instructions from God to sacrifice his son. Sort of absurd. It would be seen more as an allegory to teach people to have faith. | deanhills wrote: |
| As far as I can see Bluedoll did not accuse Ophois of being "insulting" or "critical". Bluedoll was asking Ophois very nicely to make his criticism less personal and with a more respectful tone: |
Be more respectful to whom? Bluedoll? If my criticism of religion offends her, there's nothing I can do about it. As far as my post seeming too personal, well, perhaps I could have worded it better. | Quote: |
| Think Bluedoll has been trying very hard in a number of postings in various threads to ask that the tone of postings be conducted in a respectful manner. It is one thing to be critical, but the following clearly goes beyond critical: |
Fine, I will amend it.
| I wrote: |
| (amended version)So you see, the point here is that yes, Christian scriptures do indeed support the killing of people who are in opposition of God, and for a litany of other reasons, many of which are utter madness. Why anyone would buy into this mythology is beyond me. I wish people would stop cherry picking the Bible for happy passages and face the fact that the God which the Bible describes is a sick, murderous, monster. |
The last part I will not change, as it is based not on my opinion, but on the actions of God Himself. | Quote: |
| However, as far as I know the Bible was written by human beings, not God. And all the passages contain views by human beings that can be interpreted in many ways. |
This is one of the most common apologies for God's horrific behavior. We are supposed to take the passages that have positive messages literally, while relegating the negative ones to "human error" or "misinterpretation". The entire religion is based on this book. Without the Bible, Christianity probably would not exist in modern times. I can't think of another religion which survived thousands of years into the present without having texts to keep it alive. The Bible, and all of it's stories within are the very basis of this faith. That's why I mentioned people cherry picking passages.
| Quote: |
| Very few Christians for example believe that Abraham literally received instructions from God to sacrifice his son. |
Um... on which planet? That story and the Book of Job are commonly cited by Christian leaders as examples of how we are supposed to put God first, and everything else after. | Quote: |
| Sort of absurd. It would be seen more as an allegory to teach people to have faith. |
As far as I'm concerned, that's exactly what it is. I don't think it actually happened, and that's my whole point. If you can so easily call stories like those "allegories", then where do you draw the line? Which parts of the Bible are factual? What about the part where God actually exists? Is that just another allegory explaining Nature to primitive minds?
Of course, if you say the God of the Bible is real because the Bible says so, then you can't so easily dismiss any other stories as allegories or misinterpretations or human error. If God is real, and the only reason to think He is real, is written in the Bible, then the rest of the Bible must be held as equally factual. And if that's the case, then yes, He is exactly what I called Him in my previous post.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| I can see this point of view and would like an opportunity to show how these scriptures are being mis-applied. |
I would be glad to hear how the examples I gave have been misapplied. The thing is, when people say that these passages(which seem very straight forward to me) are being misapplied or misinterpreted, I need to know the source of authority which determines exactly how to properly interpret or apply them, and exactly which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally. Simply saying that certain passages need to be viewed differently is not going to cut it. I need to know who says so, and where the line on literalism should be drawn in the Bible. | Ophois wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | However, as far as I know the Bible was written by human beings, not God. And all the passages contain views by human beings that can be interpreted in many ways. |
This is one of the most common apologies for God's horrific behavior. We are supposed to take the passages that have positive messages literally, while relegating the negative ones to "human error" or "misinterpretation". The entire religion is based on this book. Without the Bible, Christianity probably would not exist in modern times. I can't think of another religion which survived thousands of years into the present without having texts to keep it alive. The Bible, and all of it's stories within are the very basis of this faith. That's why I mentioned people cherry picking passages. |
Christians who hold the Bible dear to themselves are happy with how they interpret the Bible, it means something to them. Why does it bother you so much that you have to pick the Bible apart, especially in the very passionate way you are doing it? Why can't you just let Christians be? I can understand if Christians (or any other religious peoples) should judge you to your face and tell you that you will go to hell, or any of the other stupid/dangerous stuff that they do in the name of religion, you have every right to tell them to go to hell and then some. You do get zealots and bigots like that, but there are many Christians who aren't like that. Why is it so important to convince Christians that their God is a horrific God and then cherry pick passages from their sacred Book to underline your point of view? | deanhills wrote: |
| Christians who hold the Bible dear to themselves are happy with how they interpret the Bible, it means something to them. Why does it bother you so much that you have to pick the Bible apart, especially in the very passionate way you are doing it? Why can't you just let Christians be? |
(i think you will find the answer to that is quite universal. We can't let them be because they won't let us be. It's not simply a matter of them being happy with their Biblical interpretation - you know, as everyone knows, that in short order they will be on our doorsteps demanding that we "respect" their particular interpretation (not just respect their right to believe what they want, but to respect their conclusions). And from there, it's just a short hop, skip and jump to insisting that we change our lifestyles to suit their beliefs. This is not a slippery slope argument; it's happened so many damn times that there is no way any rational person can have any reasonable doubt that - unless it's stopped - it will happen again.
And, plainly enough, the mere fact that they care about how we feel about their interpretation of the Bible is proof positive that the process is already begun. Because if this was really just a personal belief, and not one that they wanted us to take seriously, they wouldn't care if we scoffed at it. Do you think i care about what other people think about my unholy love for Farscape? No. Because that really is a personal belief, that i never intend to foist upon others. A Biblical belief that people are demanding we take seriously... clearly is meant for more than just being held privately.
And that's the bottom line. Every day - and this is a fact you can't deny - people are using their religion to browbeat others into changing the way they live their lives. That is intolerable. And for us, the best way to defeat these attacks is to pull the rug right out from under their ideologies: their claim to be of a superior moral fibre. When we expose that for the obvious lie that it is, we take the power out of their demands and threats.
It's a matter of self-preservation: the preservation of our freedoms and our way of life. If their beliefs have to be a casualty, so be it; their beliefs were what caused the problem to begin with, after all.)
