|
Post by Electron on Mar 29, 2005 14:36:28 GMT -5
I understand that some people believe every word of the bible to be accurate and inerrant. This would seem to be an obvious requiremnet given that if some content were shown to be wrong, then we would not know which other parts might also be incorrect. This is a vital issue as all of the important propositions to do with divine revelations are untestable and need to be accepted on faith.
So what if something very significant was written that simply could not be so? Something unknown to men of the late iron-age, but well understood today?
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Mar 29, 2005 23:42:48 GMT -5
Yes, that would confirm the Bible, because in spite of the fact that it is literally ancient material, it is fresh and relevant today to people who share no cultural similarity to the people to whom it was given or written.
Startling, really, to consider that the greatest charge against the "Bible literalists" is that they follow the literal words of the Bible as they mean - and these people live in the 21st century! Surely, if the Bible were so old, it would be impossible to do so. Yet many people find no contradiction between the precepts of the Bible and post-modern life - in fact, the one explains the other.
I would strongly recommend John Stott's Why I Am a Christian.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Mar 30, 2005 22:04:02 GMT -5
Yes, that would confirm the Bible, because in spite of the fact that it is literally ancient material, it is fresh and relevant today to people who share no cultural similarity to the people to whom it was given or written. Startling, really, to consider that the greatest charge against the "Bible literalists" is that they follow the literal words of the Bible as they mean - and these people live in the 21st century! Surely, if the Bible were so old, it would be impossible to do so. Yet many people find no contradiction between the precepts of the Bible and post-modern life - in fact, the one explains the other. Hahahahaha. Yes, we'll just ignore the huge historical changes in the morality of the Church as a socially malleable institution. Modern day Christians, even so-called fundamentalists, do not obey the bible in many of its literal commands, such as women not wearing head coverings in Church and speaking in church, and inhabiting teaching roles in the church. There is also the Church's changing levels of acceptance of things such as divorce and remarriage, the gay community and the necessity of baptism for salvation. It is for these reasons that I find modern "fundamentalists" nothing more than self-glorified hypocrites
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Mar 31, 2005 1:38:32 GMT -5
Hahahahaha. Yes, we'll just ignore the huge historical changes in the morality of the Church as a socially malleable institution. Modern day Christians, even so-called fundamentalists, do not obey the bible in many of its literal commands, such as women not wearing head coverings in Church and speaking in church, and inhabiting teaching roles in the church. There is also the Church's changing levels of acceptance of things such as divorce and remarriage, the gay community and the necessity of baptism for salvation. It is for these reasons that I find modern "fundamentalists" nothing more than self-glorified hypocrites What fundamentalists are giving women authority over the congregations of churches? Where does the Bible say that women cannot speak, Shiggy? As far as wearing head coverings, I believe that you have misinterpreted that passage, Shiggy. As far as accepting the gay community (I assume you mean in leadership positions and so forth), I haven't heard of fundamentalists doing so. The people doing so would seem to be non-fundamentalists.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Mar 31, 2005 6:57:38 GMT -5
What fundamentalists are giving women authority over the congregations of churches? Female lay preachers are common in many of today's churches, as is their occupation of positions in clergy (this varies with denominations, though, of course, I freely admit). Female parishioners also often perform other tasks such as bible readings during services, and some would consider this a form of teaching. I am making the point that the Church's "lines" have become considerably more blurred as western society in general has moved towards a value-system which sees men and women as equal in their social rights and entitlements. Where does the Bible say that women cannot speak, Shiggy? In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 " women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. (35) If they want to enquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." - NIV I'm sure that even so-called "fundamentalists" today do not follow this passage. As far as wearing head coverings, I believe that you have misinterpreted that passage, Shiggy. Really? 1 Corinthians 11:3-10 (verse 5 in particular) seems quite a serious statement to me. The verses explain the need for women to cover their heads in Churches with reference to women's innate submissive role to males, as the Church should be to Christ himself. This is clearly not simply a cultural thing, as the Bible explains it in terms of its eternal spiritual significance. Women are supposed to show outwardly their submission to men through covering their heads when praying. How could this be a misinterpretation? As far as accepting the gay community (I assume you mean in leadership positions and so forth), I haven't heard of fundamentalists doing so. The people doing so would seem to be non-fundamentalists. Well, I guess that's just your personal view about which christian denominations are right and which wrong; they would claim, just as you do, to be interpreting the bible according to its true meaning. Again, my point here is simply that things have changed within the Church ENORMOUSLY over time, and there would be very few, if any, people alive today who follow the Bible in the same ways its always been followed.
|
|
|
Post by Electron on Mar 31, 2005 11:39:05 GMT -5
Yes, that would confirm the Bible, because in spite of the fact that it is literally ancient material, it is fresh and relevant today to people who share no cultural similarity to the people to whom it was given or written. But some extraordinary claims are made in Genesis, claims that are contradicted by todays knowledge. This shows the bible to be in error on certain issues, so why should the rest of the material be considered any more reliable?
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Mar 31, 2005 13:00:17 GMT -5
But some extraordinary claims are made in Genesis, claims that are contradicted by todays knowledge. This shows the bible to be in error on certain issues, so why should the rest of the material be considered any more reliable? Electron, this is the problem. Some people - astonishing though it is - will believe Genesis regardless of the scientific evidence to the contrary. Literalist Christians have no choice but to do so because if they admit to one thing in the Bible being wrong then their whole literalist house of cards falls down. They would find it harder, after all, to get away with saying that the Bible's the absolute and literal truth in some areas but not in other areas of their choosing.
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Mar 31, 2005 13:19:34 GMT -5
Shiggy -
If you want to condemn fundamentalists as "hypocrites," I find that a rather interesting statement. I assume that as you are not a theist then you are a humanist. May I ask you this question?
Why don't you sell everything you have, give up your career or schooling, and distribute that money in the poorest country in the world? Wouldn't that be the greatest good for the greatest number? Why should you live a more priviledged life than many in the third world?
And please, don't try to rationalize this by saying, "I'm going to use my position for good." The amount of resources you consume if you live in the Western world is incredible inefficient compared to the net worth of many in the developing world. Besides, why should you be the one who would get to help them from your priviledged position instead of the other way around?
I just think it is very interesting when non-Christians accuse Christians of being hypocrites when they themselves refuse to live up to their standard of morality.
With the head coverings - Paul himself says that they only do this "because there is no other practice in the churches" (rough paraphrase.) This passage certainly concerns cultural norms - the issue is not whether women are being submissive or godly, but rather how. Head coverings were seen not just as an act of submission but rather as a sign of moral propriety. In other words, Paul is telling them not to dress slutty.
I respect that.
Although I know that you do not understand the biblical model for marriage, I do not see how you can say that the 21st century is more women-friendly. Pornography, which de-legitimizes women far more than Paul's marriage views, is disgustingly prevalent in our modern society. Rape is epidemic. Abusive marriage is everywhere. The Christian ideal is far better than what is offered in our wonderful secular humanist society -- take your pick.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Mar 31, 2005 15:10:53 GMT -5
Just a couple of points here. Although I know that you do not understand the biblical model for marriage, I do not see how you can say that the 21st century is more women-friendly. Quite easily, because ... Pornography isn't what it was 20 years ago Bob. Women are now willing participants in it and, in fact, often drive major parts of the pornography business. It's now less to do with men exploiting women than it is to do with women exploiting men. Now before you polarise my viewpoint into something more extreme than it really is, I will admit that pornography - like most business sectors, actually - still has its shady side and it is wrong to force anyone to do anything they're uncomfortable with or which causes harm to them or others, but mainsteam pornography is a very different business now. Far less endemic than in the past I'd imagine. No, I don't have figures at hand to prove it (don't even know if there are any), but I'm prepared to stick my neck out and say that rape is far less prevalent now than it was in, say, the Middle Ages. Again, I'd say it's less so now than ever has been in the West. At least women are protected by the law now and not treated as 'lesser' individuals like there were under predominantly Christian societies. No it's not and I think history proves that point adequately. We (both men and women) live in a better, fairer society now in the West than we ever have done IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Mar 31, 2005 18:23:33 GMT -5
If you want to condemn fundamentalists as "hypocrites," I find that a rather interesting statement. Would you? I have demonstrated my reasons for this perfectly legitimate view; that so-called "literalists" do not obey the Bible's literal commands, so yes, that would make them hypocrites. Nothing surprising there. I assume that as you are not a theist then you are a humanist. A silly and blinkered assumption. Honestly, you must be extremely ignorant if you think that all people who aren't theists like yourself are humanists. Get your head out of the sand. Your argument requires that you put everyone in this classificatory box for your own convenience. The reality is rich diversity in beliefs, and your assumption is untrue and illogical. Why don't you sell everything you have, give up your career or schooling, and distribute that money in the poorest country in the world? Wouldn't that be the greatest good for the greatest number? Why should you live a more priviledged life than many in the third world? Because if I gave money to organisations such as CCF they would use most of it in either advertising their corporate interests or in westernising and Christian-ising vulnerable cultures and people. Even secular non-government organisations spend too much in advertising. Furthermore, all people have different life-circumstances and I believe I have a right to lead the kind of life I so choose. I do not have moral beliefs which contradict these beliefs, so, unlike literalist Christians, I am not a hypocrite. Furthermore it is quite possible and commonplace for humanism to have an individualist focus. It is not necessarily about utilitarian concerns of the greatest good for the greatest number. Your assumptions have little, if any, basis. I just think it is very interesting when non-Christians accuse Christians of being hypocrites when they themselves refuse to live up to their standard of morality. I live to my standard of morality, as I have argued. You do not live up to yours, as I have also demonstrated. With the head coverings - Paul himself says that they only do this "because there is no other practice in the churches" (rough paraphrase.) Er, I don't see this in my Bible; care to give a reference? And I have already pointed out specific verses in which Paul attributes the need for head coverings to women's innate subordinate position relative to men. If the verse you speak of exists, it is a scriptural contradiction; if not, literalists are indeed hypocrites. This passage certainly concerns cultural norms - the issue is not whether women are being submissive or godly, but rather how. Head coverings were seen not just as an act of submission but rather as a sign of moral propriety. In other words, Paul is telling them not to dress slutty. I believe this is a huge overextension in interpretation; the head coverings were to do with submission; they have absolutely nothing to do with sexual morality. The surrounding verses clearly say this; I really don't know where you're getting this from. Although I know that you do not understand the biblical model for marriage, I do not see how you can say that the 21st century is more women-friendly. And I don't know how you can be so utterly ignorant as to say something like this. You are definitely wrong about this. Thanks to the Church, women were legally the property of their fathers or husbands throughout their entire lives until the early 20th century in western society! This meant that physical "disciplining" of women was allowed, and even men's legal right as property owners. Women now have legal status as persons in their own right and are not legally property. Of course remnants of this past oppressive patriarchy remain today, but they are decreasing, as we can see from legal changes which allow women to choose a life free from this kind of treatment. It is a social work in progress and there are hugely obvious social changes. In the 19th century, and even into the early 20thC, women were seen as harlots if they walked in public places unescorted in the evenings, and thus had no independence. This has now changed; women now do this safely all the time; more often than not, they are safe. Pornography, which de-legitimizes women far more than Paul's marriage views, is disgustingly prevalent in our modern society. Do you think that pornography is a new thing? It has been in existence since the beginning of human society, Bob! And as Satori said, women now have independent legal status which has turned pornography into an industry, subject to legal regulations designed to protect the rights of its male and female workers, just as other industries. All that's changed is that there are now laws to protect women in the industry. It's sure not perfect, but it's a hell of an improvement; now women can earn huge amounts of money for what they do as legitimate work instead of unpaid sexual slavery to men with a (Christianity-induced?) superiority complex and the mistaken belief that women exist solely to serve men and submit to their "natural" authority. How ridiculous Not compared to how it was previously. At least it's now illegal and punishable. It is now perceived as a social evil! This is an improvement in itself! You wouldn't be saying this if you lived 200 years ago. It used to be perceived simply as women's lot in life; as normality. If you think rape is "epidemic" now, you should do some sociology and see that it happened to very nearly ALL women in previous times. Now the figure is much less. Abusive marriage is everywhere. See my earlier points about the previously legal status of "disciplining" one's wife as compared to today. We can now enforce laws which punish those who perform these crimes, which are now seen as crimes. It is far better now, and it will keep getting better as time passes, as we have seen it doing for a couple of centuries now. The Christian ideal is far better than what is offered in our wonderful secular humanist society -- take your pick. I have, and I choose freedom from the Church's patriarchal and sexist regime. Your "Christian ideal" was the cause of this huge mess of sexism in society in the first place. If it wasn't for Christianity's early influence, we wouldn't even HAVE these social problems in the first place. I am amazed by your ignorance to this obvious influence in social opinion.
|
|
|
Post by theditchmagnet on Mar 31, 2005 21:42:10 GMT -5
A silly and blinkered assumption. Honestly, you must be extremely ignorant if you think that all people who aren't theists like yourself are humanists. Get your head out of the sand. Your argument requires that you put everyone in this classificatory box for your own convenience. The reality is rich diversity in beliefs, and your assumption is untrue and illogical. what are you then shiggy? sir john huxley explains it as follows: "I use the word 'humanist' to mean someone who believes that man is just as much a natural phenomenon as an animal or plant; that his body, mind, and soul were not supernaturally created but are products of evolution, and that he is not under the control or guidance of any supernatural being or beings, but has to rely on himself and his own power." so that pretty much sounds like your worldview to me, unless i have misunderstood what you have meant in you words. also, i just want to say about the women in the church thing, back then, women were not as educated as the men, and becuase the women werent sitting by their husbands, but across the room, it was common for them to speak up asking for explanations, this was becoming so severe that they were told to not speak, then they could just ask thier husbands afterwards. this of course has changed in our days. i dont see how this makes us hypocrites. ok, thats all im saying for now...i know im all wrong with what i have said hehehe.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Mar 31, 2005 22:24:35 GMT -5
also, i just want to say about the women in the church thing, back then, women were not as educated as the men, and becuase the women werent sitting by their husbands, but across the room, it was common for them to speak up asking for explanations, this was becoming so severe that they were told to not speak, then they could just ask thier husbands afterwards. this of course has changed in our days. i dont see how this makes us hypocrites. I am talking about the bible verse in 1 Corinthians. It was not written for purely practical reasons, as evidenced by its moralistic condemnation of women speaking in churches: "... for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church" - DISGRACEFUL. It also clearly and obviously relates to the submissive position of women to men in the church; "she must be in quietness and full submission". There are many, many other verses which show this obvious fact, such as elsewhere in the NT (1 Timothy, I think), where women's compulsory submission to men is explained with reference to the fact that it was Eve who was tempted, and so women are "the weaker partner" and exist primarily as "helpers" for men, rather than as legitimate persons in their own right who possess rights and value apart from their relationships to men.
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Mar 31, 2005 23:15:45 GMT -5
Let me cover this again:
First of all, to say that if you are not a theist and you are a humanist is to simply state a truism. Theism implies any form of religion with any form of deity; this would include the vast majority of people living today. To deny a supernatural deity is to say that man is the measure of all things -- the supernatural either does not exist or is not relevant. Thus all good is determined in view of human good. At the point that one does not live for the good of humanity, then one is living immorally.
You cannot give me a reason why you should be priviledged with all of the benefits of Western society such as a college education and access to Internet while someone who is born in the third world and lives on a dollar a day does not. It is immoral and unethical. If you truly care about humanity you should give up your position in Western society and offer it instead to someone who was born without any of your priviledges.
If humanity is the measure of all things, then the only good is the greatest good for the greatest number. Everything else is evil. If I have the option to help 1000, and hurt 50, and the option to help only 10, and hurt 50, I must take the former always.
First of all, all your claims of Christianity "causing" sexism are non-unique because as you said, pornography has existed since the beginning of recorded time. A study of history will reveal that the status of women in Roman times was far cruder and far worse than the standards of the Christian faith. Thus to say that Christianity caused any degradation of women is simply not true; that existed before Christianity.
#1 Pornography, while it has existed for a long time, is epidemic right now. Internet pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry that ensnares not only older men and women but also preteens (to my disgust.) The sheer ubiquity of it is amazing. And pornography is legitimized by a humanitistic argument that "If it doesn't hurt anyone else, its ok." Basically, since pornography doesn't actually physically harm anyone, its harmless. I think that the spiritual and psychological effects of pornography are unbelieveable - but how could I explain that to someone who doesn't believe in a transcendent moral framework? Oh fine, they'll say, that's your beliefs, and I've got mine.
#2 Rape & Abusive Marriage
As I said, it is impossible to say that Christianity "caused" any of these things. Secondly, any legislation that has been passed would of course have come out of the Christian legal framework of protecting the individual. Any laws dealing with rape and abusive marriage would be fully supported by Christians - in fact, the number of private Christian crisis centers for women is substantial.
#3 Head coverings
1 Cor. 11:16 "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God." This is a very unique statement of Paul's, and it validates what I said earlier. The idea of the head covering and what it means is very important to their context, and it could not be ignored. Yet nowhere does Paul claim some sort of universal appeal for this practice - he merely says, if anyone doesn't like it, well, all the churches do it this way (there's no way to get around it, frankly.)
I can look up the issue with head coverings in that passage, if you want me to (Bible commentaries.) But suffice it to say that there's a reason why women in the church don't cover their heads - and that's not because they're not biblical either.
People have thought these things through many times.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Apr 1, 2005 1:43:37 GMT -5
First of all, to say that if you are not a theist and you are a humanist is to simply state a truism. So I guess you'd call Buddhists humanists then? Not that it matters as it's just a name. How people act is more important than what one calls them. Not necessarily. Buddhism doesn't believe that. Your God tells you to do exactly that too, but you don't. That isn't specific to humanism or Christianity or Buddhism or anything - we're born into a situation and have all the cravings and attachments associated with it. They're not easy to let go of, but I'd like to think that a lot of us at least try to make a difference, whether it's through charitable contributions, direct action or - for a selfless few - total devotion. You seem to have a warped view of things too: surely the aim is not for us to lower our standard of living in order to raise the standard of living for someone else, but to raise the standard of living overall isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by theditchmagnet on Apr 1, 2005 13:04:07 GMT -5
So I guess you'd call Buddhists humanists then? Not that it matters as it's just a name. How people act is more important than what one calls them. wouldnt buddhists be considered theists?
|
|