|
daedalus 2.0
|
 |
« on: December 27, 2007, 01:44:11 PM » |
|
The idea that much of the Bible is irrelevant, even among those who regard themselves as Christian, can be demonstrated empirically very easily. For decades, the Gallup Organization has conducted surveys on biblical literacy. These surveys show that, despite professed adherence to the Bible, most Christians are either ignorant of the Bible or their appeal to the Bible is very limited. For example, a 2005 Gallup poll shows that 78]
John Bright, one of the most prominent American biblical scholars of the last century, reflected a similar sentiment regarding the Sabbatical and Jubilee years in Leviticus 25. Bright remarked that “the regulations described therein are obviously so little applicable to the modern situation that a preacher might be pardoned if he told himself that the passage contains no relevant message for his people whatever. In fact, if we went verse by verse, I suspect that 95% of the Bible would not even be missed, as it reflects many practices, injunctions, and ideas not much more applicable than Leviticus 25.[80]
So the idea that Christians will not accept such a breach with canonical tradition is false. They are practicing such breaches with tradition all the time if that means ignoring or never appealing to myriad texts that are present physically in their Bibles. What remains is the bold announcement and development of a clear principle of nonviolence as a new theological criterion of canonicity. Michael Coogan, the noted biblical scholar, admits that some biblical practices are so objectionable that churches try to hide them:
Conspicuously absent from lectionaries are most or all of such books as Joshua, with its violent extermination of the inhabitants of the land of Canaan at divine command, or Judges, with its horrifying narratives of patriarchy and sexual assault in chapters 11 and 19—to say nothing of the Song of Solomon, with its charged eroticism, or of Job, with its radical challenge to the dominant biblical view of a just and caring God.[3] Indeed, the same texts that were being cited to commit violence in pre-modern times are the same texts that are being used to commit violence today. Robert W. Funk, president of the Society of Biblical Literature in 1975, observed the following concerning the killing of thousands of witches on both sides of the North Atlantic world for hundreds of years:
The justification for this holocaust was the statement in the book of Exodus (22:18; Deut 18:10; cf. Gal 5:20): “You shall not suffer a witch (a female sorcerer) to live.” The execution of witches did not cease until the end of the eighteenth century and then only under the influence of the Enlightenment.[5]
In my own work, Fighting Words, I catalogue how sacred texts have been used to justify violence repeatedly in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam from ancient to modern times.[6]
http://www.plowsharesproject.org/journal/php/article.php?issu_list_id=8&article_list_id=22Now, Bright was and the other people noted are Conservative Xians (Avalos is not). These are people who study the Bible, believe in Jesus Christ and God, and yet who are aware of the brutality and irrelevence of the Bible in modern times. One has to wonder why churches don't teach these things to the average Xian... because it wouldn't be profitable. Consider the most popular preacher today of Xianity (though conservatives call him a heretic), Joel Osteen. He brings in almost 100 million dollars a year by preaching that God wants you happy and rich and he doesn't mention one bit about the torture that awaits you if you don't do it right. We are witnessing a new Reformation in Xianity. One that is changing with the times, with the more Liberal and peaceful times and we will see more and more of the violence of the Bible explained away. In fact, modern publishers are publishing two different Bibles. One real one for the scholars and one that softens the murder, rape, violence, anti-semitism, misogongy, infantcide, etc. Consider RF who expalins away the violence, and continually reminds us that Jesus is all about love and peace. This is NOT what Xianity was founded on. It totally whitewashes Xian history and tradition. I know one Xian who doesn't even accept anything in the Bible that is violent. He only accepts as true, the nice parts. I for one welcome a softer, gentler Xianity but am amazed it took 2000 years - and that some people will resist it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
tadpol
|
|
« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2007, 02:37:29 PM » |
|
I am skeptical of any source that says the book of Job is skipped.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2007, 03:01:51 PM » |
|
I am skeptical of any source that says the book of Job is skipped.
Good. I would encourage you to be skeptical. If you go to church, visit the Lecture listing (usually made public) and see if Job is on the list. I certainly remember it, but it was always turned to show how you need to submit to faith in god despite your wretched condition. That you take it up the ass like a man and praise the guy doing it. I don't think every church ignores them (here's one that doesn't: (but only in 2002-2003) http://www.cbc-tunkhannock.org/ListSermons_OT/sermonlistJob.html), but I think his experience is that it is not present. I'm sure many preachers would take it as a challenge to present the horrors in the Bible as a positive thing. I wonder if this invalidates everything from these Conservative Xians? i doubt it, but it certainly makes you wonder. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
Maxmillian
Full Member
Karma: +6/-5
Posts: 125
Voluminious words don't make one perspicacious.
|
|
« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2007, 02:44:59 AM » |
|
Oh my god, the Song of Soloman is so goddamned hot.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Opmod
|
|
« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2007, 11:40:43 AM » |
|
You don't change the meaning of the bible becuase you do not like how it makes you feel. If thats the case then don't bother. Live a hedonistic self pleasuring life. Get it over with.
The relevence of the bible is subjective. This person says 95% but I would argue that he needs to study his bible more with an eye towards asking himself how he can live as christian a life as possible in modern times.
But I realise you didn't really WANT to discuss this so why am I bothering?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\"Something witty\\\" Some self impotant blowhard
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #5 on: December 28, 2007, 11:59:17 AM » |
|
You don't change the meaning of the bible becuase you do not like how it makes you feel. If thats the case then don't bother. Live a hedonistic self pleasuring life. Get it over with.
The relevence of the bible is subjective. This person says 95% but I would argue that he needs to study his bible more with an eye towards asking himself how he can live as christian a life as possible in modern times.
But I realise you didn't really WANT to discuss this so why am I bothering?
I do want to discuss it. 1. They guy who said it was a conservative evangelical Bible scholar. He knows more about the Bible than most people and he is referring to the many parts in the Bible that relate to outdated rituals or brutal or sexist acts - which is about 95% of the Bible. 2. It is all subjective, true, so why leave all of that in and let the Fred Phelps of the world twist it into their Holy War on gay people? The books of the Bible aren't set in stone, they were voted in, why not have a recount? 3. While one can read the Bible and find relevence (as one can in the Kuran and Book of Mormon), it hardly speaks of many modern issues. It gives little guidance in the area of science, politics, etc. (I believe even RF admits this, and he's the most Fundi here). If it is just a book on how to save yourself (which I claim) and its subjective (as we both claim) how does that work? What value is a book that says "The key to salvation is for you to figure out what it means for yourself, but if you don't get it right you'll rot in Hell. Good Luck!". Lets face it, the world is looking at religion differently today than it did 300 years ago and 2000 years ago. All religions must change or perish (look at the graveyard of the Gods.. it's vast). Look at how the Catholic Church is struggling. They are even changing the requirements for what it takes to become clergy because no one is willing to do the heavy lifting. Also, consider the attack on fundimentalism (mostly directed at Islam) - and rightly so - but it will come full circle when we recognize that Fundi's live in America and are Xian. Already you can see the lack of respect and standing they get (ID was shot down, Creationism isn't allowed in schools, and other expressions of Fundimentalism in the public realm is rightly muted.) And what makes a Fundi? Someone who takes the Bible as literal truth. Someone who can't seperate the obvious mythical elements from the good stuff. So, if Liberal Xians are already self-editting the Bible, why not finish the job? Or, if it is all relative, why not add ALL the ancient gospels and epistles? Add the Gopel of Judas and Revelation of Peter, and the Shephard, and the Mary, and... I don't think you get rid of the Bible as it is - its a nice piece of history, but its not an Idol. Its not something that is a Holy Relic. After all, its in the 10 C's not to have Idols and Idolzing the Bible is the same thing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Opmod
|
|
« Reply #6 on: December 28, 2007, 12:32:16 PM » |
|
I would agree that much of the things it speaks of are refering to situations which would never come up in modern society but there IS a grain in many that can be applied to modern life.
You say simply rewrite it? Well I am sure that ,much of the constitution is out of date as well, lets get to work on that.
You don't rewrite it becuase some of the wisest people in history, in 2000 years have time and again realised that the MEANING did not need to be changed, only some of the words which had gone out of usage or shifted meaning AWAY from the original.
The bible has been translated into more languages than any text in history COMBINED!!! There are mnore versions of the bible than any other book as well. And each on of these can be taken and compared to another from some other time in history and the MEANING is the same.
Given the despotic nature of many rulers in the middle and dark ages, it is a wonder that the bible survived in its current, none repressive form. I mean think of the absolute power a despotic monarch would have by rewriting the bible to suit himself. Taxes? Why bother, rewrite the passage to say "Render unto ceaser what is ceasers and the churches as well"
Now I have no dount it would be evern WORSE but not for despotic aims but for conforming aims. You mentioned gays, I happen to agree with you on most of this issuie BTW, but I have little doubt that what would end up in a modern, liberalized bible would be the most outrageous and unchristian rendering possible, I honestly can not even IMAGINE what the wording would be but it would have nothing to do with MY FAITH!
you don't change a text just becuase you don't like what it says, those who interpret the bible for thier own gains or in Phelshes case, hatreds will reap thier rewards in time. And wouldn't I just love to take a peek into that useless turn straped onto the pommel horse at the Rope em and poke em round up in hell.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\"Something witty\\\" Some self impotant blowhard
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #7 on: December 28, 2007, 12:41:05 PM » |
|
1. I am not opposed to rewriting the constitution. Its not a Holy Relic either.
2. The Bible never needed to be re-written most of the time because it didn't matter. It worked just fine for the Despots, in fact, it started to have trouble when Democracy started flourishing (remember Jeffersons Bible....)
3. I'm not suggesting re-writing it, just editting out certain books or passages, but only for the church services. Let the scholars have all of the text. This is essentially what happens anyhow. It is like those childrens Bibles that are 12 pages long and talk about how great Jesus was cause he saved a leper.
4. I honestly don't know what the "right" thing to do is: Do you choose a religion and stick to it ALL OF IT, do you choose a religion for its comfort and selectively edit (does God approve of this?), or do you stick to the relgion that will get you the greatest reward, or save you from the worst Hell, or the one that is most plausible, or most accepted in your community, or the one you are familiar with, or the one with the fewest flaws, or the most relevence, or ....
I think you choose your path in life as best you can and if you need a book to refer to, fine. I just worry about the people who are angry and nasty who can refer to the same book you feel Holy and Righteous and find a reason to kill.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Opmod
|
|
« Reply #8 on: December 31, 2007, 06:57:14 AM » |
|
I don't CHOSE a religion, I chose a FAITH. My FAITH is in Jesus Christ as the resurrected son of GOD. I do not HAVE a religion. Christianity is a FAITH. Catholisism would be a religion, or Babtist, or yada yada yada....
Religion is mans poor attempt to CODIFY that faith and every religion I have ever interected with fails at that. They ALL drop parts of the Bible that either are too difficult to deal with as in the case of my last church where the preacher blantnatly REFUSED to speak about Revalaltions, or becuase they do not fit with what the patriarches of the church think is appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\"Something witty\\\" Some self impotant blowhard
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #9 on: December 31, 2007, 08:23:22 AM » |
|
If men who have studied the Bible and all the documents of the Era, and in 4 different languages have not convinced you of the method that God prefers to be thought of, how do you have so much confidence that you are right?
It seems odd that you simply put Faith in Jesus because some men told you he was God, but then you reject what men - very learned men about the subject - would tell you about it.
It would be like me claiming I have Faith in Darwin, but then saying Science and the Science Community is a bunch of bull.
I see that you are walking a fine line between making your religion or faith fit your personality and not try to fit your personality into a religion or faith.
Do you follow everything Jesus commanded you to?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Opmod
|
|
« Reply #10 on: December 31, 2007, 09:07:27 AM » |
|
You misunderstand me. I DO beleive that the Bible is either the word of god or is laid down with his intent. It is those who would say to me, "This is how this should be interpreted, the only way, any other thought on this is heretical" that I reject. It is those supposedly learned scholars who would try to dictate to me the TERMS of my faith that I reject.
Not to say I will not read what those people write. That I will not consider if they are correct or not. But at the end of the day, it is how I worship, how I beleive that is important and nothing else. Further I beleive that if my interpretation is incorrect, I will be guided to modify it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\"Something witty\\\" Some self impotant blowhard
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #11 on: December 31, 2007, 09:18:13 AM » |
|
But WHY do you believe the Bible is either the word of God, or the intent? Many books claim to be the word of God, why this one?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Opmod
|
|
« Reply #12 on: December 31, 2007, 10:15:11 AM » |
|
I believe becuase I am cynical. I understand human nature well enough that I realize that if it was made up of lies, deciet, it would be for a more outwardly neffarious intent. It doesn't really teach a person to do anything BAD as I would term it.
If it was written by humans with no guidance, they woiuld have screwwed it up.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\"Something witty\\\" Some self impotant blowhard
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #13 on: December 31, 2007, 10:27:03 AM » |
|
Maybe we're not talking about the same book...  Besides, the Constitution was written by men, did they screw it up? What about a typical college math text book? What about "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"? All books are written by men or women, and all of them have good and bad, right and wrong points. Some more than others. A college text book has vastly fewer numbers of errors than the Bible. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 31, 2007, 10:29:24 AM by daedalus 2.0 »
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
