Evidence the 'Truths' of the Bible are Culturally Bound, Not Eternal or Universal Verities.
Few care much about clothing or barbering conventions when it comes to Biblical pronouncements, but the Biblical references to such trivial concerns may be instructive when it comes to issues about gender preference and other more fundamental issues regarding our conduct as human beings.
Most of us don't get too excited about Biblical admonitions to not wear blended fabrics and other Levitical preachments about minor details of daily life. However, it is the assertion of this sub topic, that Biblical rules about how to dress or how to cut one's hair demonstrate that other rules are equally temporal and should be ignored. A prime example are the "rules" about gender roles and prohibitions regarding homosexuality.
Evidence the 'Truths' of the Bible are Culturally Bound
Moderator: Moderators
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #2
The first example that we can dismiss some Biblical "laws" and separate them from the Ten Commandments is the Levitical rule about facial hair.
Leviticus 19:27, “Do not round the corner of your head, nor destroy the corner of your beard�. This may have had some significance for the culture in which the pronouncement was made. But it is hard to see how this "law" has some universal principle it defends.
An example of the absurd efforts some go to in order to make such a justification:
"God created facial hair for men to protect us from the harmful ultraviolet radiation, because we as men get more exposed to sun light than women when we work outdoors."
_ http://www.messianicjews.com.au/article ... tudy-Paper
I don't know how to be charitable about such silliness. Whether you're a man or a woman the nose is the the place that gets the most sun and it's the one place on the face that has no substantial amount of hair on it.
At any rate, aren't there many examples from the Bible that demonstrate such prohibitions are purely cultural, bound to both a special time, place, and culture?
Leviticus 19:27, “Do not round the corner of your head, nor destroy the corner of your beard�. This may have had some significance for the culture in which the pronouncement was made. But it is hard to see how this "law" has some universal principle it defends.
An example of the absurd efforts some go to in order to make such a justification:
"God created facial hair for men to protect us from the harmful ultraviolet radiation, because we as men get more exposed to sun light than women when we work outdoors."
_ http://www.messianicjews.com.au/article ... tudy-Paper
I don't know how to be charitable about such silliness. Whether you're a man or a woman the nose is the the place that gets the most sun and it's the one place on the face that has no substantial amount of hair on it.
At any rate, aren't there many examples from the Bible that demonstrate such prohibitions are purely cultural, bound to both a special time, place, and culture?
-
AlanFromMI
- Student
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:45 pm
Post #3
Well, it appears that all religions (including mythologies) seem to have a heavy dose of culture from the time period they're most prevalent in. Cultural influence seems to be more substantial as the more details about gods, their personality, wants, commandments, and so forth are inserted into a religion's texts or belief systems.
This, IMHO, is a strong piece of evidence that convinces me that the more that a particular religion tries to define a god the more of that religion is man made.
This, IMHO, is a strong piece of evidence that convinces me that the more that a particular religion tries to define a god the more of that religion is man made.
Post #4
I haven't met too many Christians that would disagree with something like this. As far as gender preference in this context, I think most would say they still consider it an issue because it is re-visited in the New Testament by Paul.
Of course there are other arguments that one could present in Christians being inconsistent, but this specifically seems generally accepted via Progressive Revelation or a similar way of thinking.
Of course there are other arguments that one could present in Christians being inconsistent, but this specifically seems generally accepted via Progressive Revelation or a similar way of thinking.
-
AlanFromMI
- Student
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:45 pm
Post #5
[Replying to post 4 by Pompey]
They're also ignoring that other animals exhibit homosexual behavior. It could be that religion itself is what originally created homophobia in the first place. It would seem to me that a being that could see future problems would say something like, "although, uncommon, man will lay with man, and this is natural for some."
Instead of the favorite punishment of stoning to death.
They're also ignoring that other animals exhibit homosexual behavior. It could be that religion itself is what originally created homophobia in the first place. It would seem to me that a being that could see future problems would say something like, "although, uncommon, man will lay with man, and this is natural for some."
Instead of the favorite punishment of stoning to death.
Post #6
[Replying to post 5 by AlanFromMI]
A sophisticated Christian (at least ones I talk to) would say this is a symptom of progressive revelation. That is, these things are just the Jewish people's laws, and like all other ancient cultures, they automatically attribute them to God. As you read the bible, which eventually accumulates into the New Testament, you see the Jewish people progressively developing a more advanced understanding of God. That is why, they claim, Jesus said he was coming at the "perfect time." The perfect time would be when the Jewish people were finally advanced enough, largely thanks to helenism, to have God actually come himself.
Jesus taught to not change anything about the OT, because if changed you would lose the important overarching story: That man continuously fails to properly discern God's will. The OT is therefore a story of the failure of man, and these absurd laws make sense in that they were indeed the distorted perception of man. The sophisticated Christian views the OT only in light of the NT, and Jesus.
The real problems come from the realization that this may be still true for the New Testament, that is that man's views distort the teachings of Jesus. We see this in that Jesus seems to teach conflicting things at times. Matthew, for example, portrays a very Jewish Jesus, seemingly belittling to gentiles, while other gospels portray him as almost the opposite.
These topics have to be dealt with in the grounds of the New Testament, the OT is an old covenant, probably distorted by the developing Jewish people. Christians aren't going to have their minds blown when you point out seemingly radical OT passages.
A sophisticated Christian (at least ones I talk to) would say this is a symptom of progressive revelation. That is, these things are just the Jewish people's laws, and like all other ancient cultures, they automatically attribute them to God. As you read the bible, which eventually accumulates into the New Testament, you see the Jewish people progressively developing a more advanced understanding of God. That is why, they claim, Jesus said he was coming at the "perfect time." The perfect time would be when the Jewish people were finally advanced enough, largely thanks to helenism, to have God actually come himself.
Jesus taught to not change anything about the OT, because if changed you would lose the important overarching story: That man continuously fails to properly discern God's will. The OT is therefore a story of the failure of man, and these absurd laws make sense in that they were indeed the distorted perception of man. The sophisticated Christian views the OT only in light of the NT, and Jesus.
The real problems come from the realization that this may be still true for the New Testament, that is that man's views distort the teachings of Jesus. We see this in that Jesus seems to teach conflicting things at times. Matthew, for example, portrays a very Jewish Jesus, seemingly belittling to gentiles, while other gospels portray him as almost the opposite.
These topics have to be dealt with in the grounds of the New Testament, the OT is an old covenant, probably distorted by the developing Jewish people. Christians aren't going to have their minds blown when you point out seemingly radical OT passages.
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #7
Precisely! The absolute truth of this statement is obvious to the few and incomprehensible to the many.AlanFromMI wrote: Well, it appears that all religions (including mythologies) seem to have a heavy dose of culture from the time period they're most prevalent in. Cultural influence seems to be more substantial as the more details about gods, their personality, wants, commandments, and so forth are inserted into a religion's texts or belief systems.
This, IMHO, is a strong piece of evidence that convinces me that the more that a particular religion tries to define a god the more of that religion is man made.
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #8
I agree, at least that it is common among a certain strain of Christian; unfortunately they are not heard from enough. Instead Christianity seems to be represented most vocally and loudest by those who disagree and may not even understand this point.Pompey wrote: I haven't met too many Christians that would disagree with something like this. As far as gender preference in this context, I think most would say they still consider it an issue because it is re-visited in the New Testament by Paul.
Of course there are other arguments that one could present in Christians being inconsistent, but this specifically seems generally accepted via Progressive Revelation or a similar way of thinking.
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #9
[Replying to post 6 by Pompey]
I've attempted to deal with this issue more specifically here:
Gender Orientation: An Example of Error in Morality Analysis
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 088#694088
I'd appreciate comments. I think this concept is integral to understanding how Jesus tried to distill the essence of the law.
I've attempted to deal with this issue more specifically here:
Gender Orientation: An Example of Error in Morality Analysis
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 088#694088
I'd appreciate comments. I think this concept is integral to understanding how Jesus tried to distill the essence of the law.
-
AlanFromMI
- Student
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:45 pm
Post #10
[Replying to post 6 by Pompey]
That could be an explanation, but I personally believe that Jesus should have said something that transcended understanding & knowledge of the time to truly show (for people of today's cultures) that he was who the Bible claims him to be.
For example, you don't see him speak out against slavery. In fact, you have him saying things like:
“The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." - Luke 12: 47 and 48
Now, God is supposedly unchanging. If true, and if this God is as benevolent as the Bible portrays him to be, then it would seem to me that slavery (any form) would be sin he would command his followers to speak out against. Slavery is one of the most vile and disgusting things ever committed by humans. Wouldn't God, in the flesh of a man that was suppose to be perfect, not by then speak out against atrocity instead of speaking about actually condoning the beat of a slave?
OH, and *wink* welcome to the forums!
That could be an explanation, but I personally believe that Jesus should have said something that transcended understanding & knowledge of the time to truly show (for people of today's cultures) that he was who the Bible claims him to be.
For example, you don't see him speak out against slavery. In fact, you have him saying things like:
“The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." - Luke 12: 47 and 48
Now, God is supposedly unchanging. If true, and if this God is as benevolent as the Bible portrays him to be, then it would seem to me that slavery (any form) would be sin he would command his followers to speak out against. Slavery is one of the most vile and disgusting things ever committed by humans. Wouldn't God, in the flesh of a man that was suppose to be perfect, not by then speak out against atrocity instead of speaking about actually condoning the beat of a slave?
OH, and *wink* welcome to the forums!
