Teach Me(et all) Your Religion!

[Deedles]

It's a religion thread, and it's not locked, so I would assume it's fine.

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

I have a Bible.
I can use this Bible to see how different translations can have completely different meanings and contexts.
But I am trying to use it for less confrontational means.

I'm interested that a passage talks about "Lucifer" in random stranger on internet's Bible. But in mine it speaks of The Morning Star.

I attend a homegroup which is a place to listen. The people who speak are extroverts.
It's hard hearing about all the terrible stuff that's going on in the lives of the people around me.

I used to be agnostic. Something in Spain triggered something in me which revealed that I was not happy. I was not happy not knowing.

[Tycherin]

"Lucifer" is a Latin word literally translating to "bearer of light," but another common translation is the "morning star" one. Unfortunately, this is one of those areas that depends heavily on the translation of the Bible you're reading - or if you're reading one at all. Much of our common cultural conception of Satan and of Hell comes from Dante's Inferno, rather than from anything you might consider authoritative.

I wish I could ignore the question of translation as a factor in interpreting the Bible, but unfortunately there are a lot of cases like this one where it can completely change the meaning of the underlying text. There are a number of verses related to homosexuality that can have completely different meanings depending on how you translate certain key words in the original language (often Hebrew, since most of them are in the Old Testament).

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

It is quite troubling where in Christianity, we believe the whole Bible is the word of God. But we see translation inconsistencies. We do not know if the person responsible for the translation would be pushing a personal agenda consciously or subconsciously, or it's just "lost in translation".

It also depends on context (either amongst other words) or the time.

It says "We're the Sons of God". And rightfully so it can be seen as a sexist passage as it's referring the Male pronoun, where as "children" would be more appropriate. But in the time which the words are set, Son means beyond "flesh and blood offspring". It's the person who inherits off their parents. So the word Son is used more in the context that we are inheritors of God (rather than we are male offspring).
-
On the flip side, this can cause some hilarity though.

Depending on your version, in Genesis it speaks about the Holy Spirit Being Above The Water.

In another, it speaks of the Holy Wind.

*fart noise*

Anyways...

[korvys]

One I found interesting, and I'd be curious if anyone here had looked into it further, was that old favourite in Leviticus. You know, the one that says (roughly) "Do not lie with a man as you would lie with a women, it is an abomination".

In addition to the various translations of "abomination", I had heard that while it is saying dudes shouldn't sleep with dudes, the context makes it far less... well, preachy. In a culture that treats women as less than men, and not much better than property, it could be saying not to sleep with another man the way you would sleep with a women, cause men deserve more respect than that.

I don't know how likely that version is, but I found the different interpretations interesting.

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

It could also be an innuendo. I mean, it's biologically impossible to lay with a man as a man than you would with a woman (I think it was Deedles who said that a few months ago when that line was brought up?). The jigsaw pieces are different.

There's rules against eating shellfish, and mixing dairy and meat. Hygiene things.
I'm wondering if any lines that explicitly forbids same-sex-male-sex is basically about anal sex. I know there are other ways to have same-sex-male-sex beyond anal. It seems the closest to heterosexual sex, the form of sex most ignorant people would assume homosexual males would have. Sex activity seems very broad anyway. I suppose it depends on how you perceive sex. Biologically it's fertilizing an ovum with sperm. Socially, you have quite a spectrum.

This would have been in the age where there were a lot more diseases floating around that can be passed via stools and before the age of condoms.
-
To me, I find it very difficult to see why a same-sex relationship is sinful.

It's a relationship between two people that is sincere and is unconditional. Just so happens they are both of the same gender.

The world is over populated. There will be a crisis over resources. Having less children being introduced into the world is not a bad thing.

Same sex couples can adopt children or foster children. This lets children in care have a chance to have a constant family life.

It seems amoral to force a person who is homosexual into a heterosexual relationship. It's not a relationship built on love. It's built off "duty". It's not fair on the partner, if the partner is not loved in a romantic/marriage context.

Hypothetically speaking, if it is indeed sinful, out of the list of sins, I think it's definitely the least damaging. Say it does distance you from God, at least you're not actually harming or hurting anyone else.

[Deedles]

Yeah, I tend to mention the 'it's physically impossible for a man to lay with a man as he does a woman' thing whenever that line gets brought up.

[Tycherin]

The verse in question is Leviticus 18:22 (or possibly Leviticus 20:13, which says a very similar thing), and it's one of the best cases of translation being critical to interpretation. The original Hebrew verse actually appears incomplete - transliterated to English, it runs something like "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman." Depending on how you fill in the missing logical bits of that sentence, it could mean anything from a complete ban on homosexuality to an injunction against having sex with a man in the same bed in which you would have sex with a woman, presumably because the bed of a woman was considered uniquely sacred in that respect. Also, depending on how you interpret the context of the passage, it is either describing a moral sin (i.e. a rebellion against God) like incest OR it's describing a pagan act objectionable primarily for being idolatrous, not for being homosexual.

(Source: Religious Tolerance, a website that has a wide variety of essays on these sort of subjects.

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

What makes me sad is that there are people who weaponizes these passages to attack other people.
Which is ironic, because in the Bible it also says "Don't judge others" and "Don't mock others".

It doesn't matter to me how someone else interprets the text in the Bible. I however, find it very hard to sit idly when someone's opinion begins to negatively affect someone else's life.

(Thanks for linking that website. Might save me having to write a blogpost where I will probably say the wrong things. I can just quietly refer to this site)

[MrPayneTrayne]

I was born some form of Christian, now I'm the only white dude at mosque. Phun thymes.

[AlexanderDitto]

I'm not convinced that these discussions are even worthwhile in the first place, given that the book in question also outright endorses slavery, including child slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46), as does Exodus (Exodus 21:2-6) including people selling their daughters into sexual slavery (Exodus 21:7-11). Unless you think slavery is totally OK, you've got some moral compass coming from somewhere other than the Bible's literal text. Where is that coming from? Maybe use that instead.

(Also, even if you bin the Old Testament, the New Testament toes this line (Paul to the Ephesians in Ephesians 6:5, and to Timothy, 1 Timothy 6:1-2). Jesus uses masters and "servents" in a bunch of his parables, never saying anything about the fact that having servents is kind of gross.

For example, the parable in Luke 12:22-48 uses the master/servent metaphor as a parallel to God/the faithful, teaching that you shouldn't be lax about doing God's will just because he might show up late. Outright endorsement of slavery isn't the point of the parable, but the use of the metaphor with no reservation makes it seem like it's no big thing, which, you know, for the Prince of Peace, you think he might have commented on that? (Luke, which was written around 80-100CE, is obviously trying to address early Christian expectations that Jesus would return a few decades after he died, and warning them against going on a bender just because Jesus hadn't shown up as quickly as they expected). In doing so, it's written (12:48) "and the servant who was ignorant of his master's will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly." (my copy of the New American Edition) Oh, well thanks Jesus. Only a light beating for people who don't know about Christianity when Jesus shows up again. Cool, that seems fair.)

[Tycherin]

My "counterargument" to the slavery piece is that the Bible was written at a time and in a culture where slavery wasn't considered a separate institution, it was simply a part of the way the world was. It's kind of like how we think of taxes nowadays - not as s distinct entity that you could rebel against or take issue with, but simply a fact of life. For Jesus to speak in terms of slavery says more about him speaking to the people of the times than it necessarily makes a moral statement.

...And that's why "counterargument" goes in quotes, because the obvious conclusion there is that the Bible was written for a different time and the things written in it cannot be safely copy-pasted into a modern context. So, y'know, essentially the same conclusion.

The bigger issue with the "moral compass" piece, I think, are people who genuinely believe that the Bible is the only consistent moral framework possible, and that (what they perceive as) atheistic or agnostic alternatives have no moral justification because they are just one person's opinion. If you really believe that, then it colors the whole debate in a way that's hard to work through. Discussions over Biblical inerrancy are no longer discussions over whether the Bible is universally right or wrong, but rather discussions over whether a universal moral framework exists - and the degenerate idea that there are no absolute, abstract concepts of moral right or wrong is terrifying, and there's a reason people fight against that.

[Elomin Sha]

Saying it's from those times doesn't really matter because the literature is supposed to be the Word of God and to be followed from then until now. And the reason for it not being a rule is because the world grew up and the religion had to follow.
The two forms of slavery was the taking of people from battle and indentured slavery.
Indentured slavery was laws about Jews enslaving Jews. It says how often you could beat them (and so long as they don't die before a certain number of days that was fine), how much they are worth and how to trick them be your slave forever. Paraphrasing: If they come with a wife they will leave with them. If they are provided with a wife, after 7 years the man may go but the wife and any children must stay. Then the man can say he doesn't want to leave because he wants to stay with his family he is tagged in the ear and becomes property.

The other slaves aren't so lucky, they were just owned.

I posted a link to these people in the Baldwin thread but I'd recommend watching The Atheist Experience. I watch them usually for entertainment but I learned quite a bit about the history and mythology in the bible (Gnostic Texts saying that Yahweh was created by another God and is actually a devil). It can be funny sometimes, example when a solophist phones in to have an argument with people who are basically a figment of his imagination.

[AlexanderDitto]

...And that's why "counterargument" goes in quotes, because the obvious conclusion there is that the Bible was written for a different time and the things written in it cannot be safely copy-pasted into a modern context. So, y'know, essentially the same conclusion.

What I'm trying to say is that that discussion (whether it was written for a different time, whether it's the Word of God, how we should interpret the Bible today, what "lying with a man" actually means) is irrelevant when it comes to using it as a basis for a personal moral compass.

If you feel that slavery is inherently wrong, your moral compass doesn't come from the Bible, because the Bible never says anything about slavery being wrong. Then your morality must come from somewhere else (your family, the guidance of your faith leaders, your friends and neighbors, the books you read as a kid, etc), in which case there's no point in discussing what you feel the Bible says is right or wrong about anything. There's clearly a higher authority to you, and that's what we should be talking about.

If, on the other hand, you don't think slavery is wrong (and I assure you there are plenty of people south of the Mason-Dixon who think that subjugation of certain races is perfectly good and natural), I'd believe you if you told me the Bible was your moral compass. But if you belong to this second group of people, there's a more fundamental and more terrifying issue at stake than how you feel about me sleeping with dudes.

I'm not talking about atheism, believing in a god/gods, divinity, etc. I'm talking about how we determine whether something is right or wrong, and my suspicion is that virtually no one really bases their morality on the Bible; they just use it as a cudgel against things they have already determined are wrong.

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

The expression I've come across regarding the Bible is:

"...through it [The Bible] Jesus wants to speak to your heart, wherever you read it."

So that can be interpreted any way.

Either 100% the words on the paper bound in the book are true.
Or, when you're reading, the thoughts and questions that arise are true.

Perhaps when you read a troublesome passage that seems, suspect, maybe you thinking "hang on. That's seems not right. That seems bad" is "Jesus speaking to your heart"?

How can you be sure (one of) the voice(s) you have in your head is (one of) your own voice(s)?

[Tycherin]

AlexanderDitto - I don't know that I'm willing to go that far. Just because the Bible isn't a basis for your entire moral system completely and entirely doesn't mean it can't play a large part. I think it's valid to reject parts of the Bible but accept the rest. In physics, quantum mechanics is an accepted theoretical framework despite the obvious and glaring omission of gravity from its equations. We know it's not universally applicable, but in other areas it still produces reliable results.

I think you're getting at a deeper question, though, which has to do with the difference between a theoretical moral system and people's actions in practice. The Bible presents a theoretical moral system - love your neighbor, have no other gods, honor the sabbath, that sort of thing. But do people actually follow that system? There's a decent argument to be made that we as human beings act and make decisions, then later on validate those actions or decisions with moral frameworks to see if they were right or wrong. You seem to be talking about how we make decisions in practice rather than in theory - deciding that slavery is wrong in practice, then going back and retroactively applying a theoretical framework that supports that.

How can you be sure (one of) the voice(s) you have in your head is (one of) your own voice(s)?

Yeah, but how can you be sure of that under any circumstances? If you believe in the Devil, it could just as easily be the Devil as the Divine. Neither interpretation is inherently better than the other.

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

I know. I have many questions. It was only recently I realised that having these questions were making me unhappy (as opposed to being content with not truly knowing).
I'm hoping one day I'll have some of the answers.

I'm also hoping I'm doing the right thing for the right reasons.

[Elomin Sha]

Don't use theory to describe morality in the Bible. They're are a hypothesis, because they're an idea.

[Matt]

They're barely hypotheses; biblical ideas are rarely falsifiable.

-m

[Tycherin]

They're a set of precepts that outline a model of how to live your life. I use the term "theory" less in the scientific sense and more to distinguish from practical application, but you're right that it's not the right term. Maybe "abstract" is a better way of putting it. Like, you're supposed to honor your father and mother, but what do you do if your father and mother are atheists? Or if they tell you to work on the sabbath? The Bible provides abstract precepts for these situations, but it's up to the individual to sort through the ones that are relevant and come to a decision about how to proceed. In that sense, it serves the same role as other moral frameworks, like Kant's categorical imperative.

[Elomin Sha]

My track pad deleted 'at best' from the message.

[AlexanderDitto]

AlexanderDitto - I don't know that I'm willing to go that far. Just because the Bible isn't a basis for your entire moral system completely and entirely doesn't mean it can't play a large part. I think it's valid to reject parts of the Bible but accept the rest....

The Bible provides abstract precepts for these situations, but it's up to the individual to sort through the ones that are relevant and come to a decision about how to proceed. In that sense, it serves the same role as other moral frameworks, like Kant's categorical imperative.

And therein lies my point: if you're going through the Bible and evaluating each of its tennants, keeping the good and rejecting the bad, you must already have some idea of what distinguishes good from bad.

If it's OK to say "Homosexuality is unacceptable because the Bible tells us so," then it must also be OK to say "Slavery is acceptable because the Bible tells us so." Both of these are "abstract precepts" provided by the Bible. There is little from the Bible that distinguishes these two positions (if anything, the first would be weaker than the second, because the first is only mentioned once or twice, while the second is reiterated a handful of times).

If you can distinguish between them, choose one and not the other (I don't think it's unreasonable of me to posit that MOST Christians would reject slavery as morally abhorrent), it means you have some other moral framework that you're using to evaluate whether beliefs or actions are right or wrong. In scenario, why not just use that moral framework? In which case, "because the Bible says so" provides no additional backing to your beliefs, since you've rejected some precepts from it already. You've undermined its authority as an foundation for distinguishing right from wrong.

I'm not at all saying every "abstract precept" (to continue using your phrase) in the Bible is without merit. Far from it! Many of its precepts are valuable. Many are not. What I'm saying is that it's not a sensible thing to base your morality on, to take as axiomatic truth.

[AdmiralMemo]

So, responses to things:

Now, what you believe is a personal thing, and you have to hash out your faith with God, not with us. Whether you believe He wants one thing or another is something to work out for yourself with Him. But at least go into the relationship with the understanding that He may know and understand things that not only we do not, but that we are actually incapable of knowing and understanding.

Emphasis added, because it raises a question: how do you propose someone is to divine what God wants from them?

That is also something to determine between you and Him. Clearly this isn't right:

how do you propose someone is to divine what God wants from them?

That's pretty easy. You starve yourself, go to a mountain cave, pray, chew hallucinogens to prevent yourself from feeling hungry and have vision from god. Simple no?

However, I'll raise this question: How do I propose to figure out what your needs, wants, and desires are? I'd, oh, I don't know, ask you about it, maybe? That's what prayer is all about: talking to God, as if you would talk to a trusted friend, parent, etc. He will respond to you.

Or consider Gods are more than likely not real so you don't have to do anything.

Say that atheism is true. What have we lost? Nothing. We all get treated to the same oblivion anyway, so why worry about what I'm doing, unless it's hurting you or someone else?

If, on the other hand, you don't think slavery is wrong (and I assure you there are plenty of people south of the Mason-Dixon who think that subjugation of certain races is perfectly good and natural), I'd believe you if you told me the Bible was your moral compass.

Here's a point I thought I'd bring up. Slavery =/= racism. I know that for several hundred years in the recent past, a majority of slavery was done on Africans by non-Africans. However, slavery in Biblical times wasn't, and the slave-owner and slave were typically of the same race.

Then, there's the fact to consider: How many people in the world are slaves right now? There are currently more sex slaves in the world alive today than there were racial slaves in the entire Trans-Atlantic African slave trade over several hundred years. Second to consider is how many people are essentially slaves now. How many people these days could just up and quit their job and still survive? Not very many, I would say. They essentially are slaves to their bosses. Just because you happen to get paid doesn't mean you're not a slave, especially if you're only getting paid just enough to survive and no more.

(I was going to say more on this, but decided it might get wildly misinterpreted, so I deleted it.)

Either 100% the words on the paper bound in the book are true.
Or, when you're reading, the thoughts and questions that arise are true.

This is why I mentioned the 3 things:

Biblical inerrancy
Biblical infallibility
Biblical literalism

The most strict is Biblical literalism, where, barring sections that are specifically said to be metaphorical in text (like Jesus' parables), the whole Bible is literally true. This interpretation is held by very few people.

Then comes Biblical inerrancy. This considers the Bible to be faithfully and accurately transcribed from the inspiration of God. This considers every word of the Bible to be true, but not necessarily literally true, and some parts are metaphorical. I'm basically in this camp, though there is a spectrum within it. Some in this group consider much of the Bible to be metaphorical, while others consider it to be mostly literal.

Finally, comes Biblical infallibility. This camp is the loosest and only considers the sections of the Bible concerning salvation to be true, and the other portions can have errors in them.

you must already have some idea of what distinguishes good from bad.

That, my friend, is a God-given gift called a "conscience."

[Elomin Sha]

Or consider Gods are more than likely not real so you don't have to do anything.

Say that atheism is true. What have we lost? Nothing. We all get treated to the same oblivion anyway, so why worry about what I'm doing, unless it's hurting you or someone else?

You pretty much quoted Pascal's Wager.

But then what if it hurts that individual? Being a decent person (or I try to be when I'm not being annoying) wouldn't it be best to try and help if it did have an effect on you. Example: Prayer healing. There are a minority of people who believe that not going for treatment and praying will cure them. There's been a quite a few of these cases in the US here family members have not sought treatment that can cure their ill family member, you usually hear it being children.

you must already have some idea of what distinguishes good from bad.

That, my friend, is a God-given gift called a "conscience."

You'd have to prove a God exists for it to be a God-Given gift. It's a non-answer.

[AdmiralMemo]

Or consider Gods are more than likely not real so you don't have to do anything.

Say that atheism is true. What have we lost? Nothing. We all get treated to the same oblivion anyway, so why worry about what I'm doing, unless it's hurting you or someone else?

You pretty much quoted Pascal's Wager.

But then what if it hurts that individual? Being a decent person (or I try to be when I'm not being annoying) wouldn't it be best to try and help if it did have an effect on you. Example: Prayer healing. There are a minority of people who believe that not going for treatment and praying will cure them. There's been a quite a few of these cases in the US here family members have not sought treatment that can cure their ill family member, you usually hear it being children.

That's exactly why I said "unless it's hurting you or someone else" in there. If someone is being hurt, then you have a right for concern.

But in the end, will it really matter in, say, 4 billion years whether a specific person lived to be 4, 14. 40, or 120? No. No one will even care. If you live and then die and that's it, it's all meaningless.

Dang... Now I want to read Ecclesiastes again.

you must already have some idea of what distinguishes good from bad.

That, my friend, is a God-given gift called a "conscience."

You'd have to prove a God exists for it to be a God-Given gift. It's a non-answer.

OK, barring "God-given gift" (which was a last-minute edit anyway), it's still a conscience... Unless you don't believe in those either.

Which, I guess, could apply to a lot of people.