The Bible told me to

[Gone Apostate]

Here is my question: How can we call the Bible a good book or a moral book without disavowing the “naughty bits�? If we disavow the naughty bits how can we claim divine authority for any individual part of the book without claiming divine authority for all of it?

Here is my position:

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/loc ... 43719.html

Point 1. There seems to be much more to the story of their relationship than is discussed in this video clip. The written article adds only more murkiness. Perhaps the younger man was being abused, much of it is speculation at this point.

Point 2. I think it is relatively obvious that the young man was disturbed, either clinically or as a response to the relationship he had with the victim.

Point 3. Without more information, much discussion on this story is speculation and speculation based analysis is pretty pointless. There are a few facts and they alone warrant discussion, at least they do to me.

Point 4. He is totally correct in saying that the OT calls for the stoning death of homosexuals.

Discussion:
Even if the young man was deeply disturbed and even if it could be reasonably argued that he would have found another reason to kill this man, isn’t this still a very real condemnation of his Holy Book - that he derives his motivation from an accurate reading of its text?

People point to Catcher in the Rye as a book that has been inspiring to people, some of which have gone on to commit terrible crimes - including murder. Is this not the same thing?

No.

Catcher in the Rye is not held up by significant portions of our culture as the moral guidebook from the ultimate divine authority. Catcher in the Rye itself makes no claim of authority of any kind. Catcher in the Rye doesn’t explicitly call for (or glorify in) the killing, torture, rape or slavery of anyone let alone whole groups of people.

Disturbed people will find motivation for their crazy just about anywhere, true enough. However here we are, as a society, revering a book that explicitly calls for it. We endorse it and we give it special influence and privilege. Even if it could be argued that it is a “misinterpretation� – it’s not. Even if the same book says we should NOT kill. When the book is given unique and divine authority- its words, all of its words, take on the virtue of that authority, all of its words not just the ones we like.

The Bible is not anymore evil than any other book, as long as it is just a book. Once we start saying that passages such as the ones that justify the stoning of disobedient children are divinely inspired or the inerrant word of God that is something altogether different.

Many Christians, Jews and Muslims don’t hang their religious faith on the less popular and more bloody/bigoted passages in the Bible. Many of them will say those passages are irrelevant to their understanding of God and his message. That’s great. I applaud that. It just doesn’t change the urgency of this problem. The folks that hold these relatively moderate religious views do not make up a large majority of the faithful, especially not in America, as we often want to think

We cannot ignore that many people DO take these passages seriously and it’s NOT a small fringe group. The majority of Americans still oppose equal rights for Gays, the vast majority of them with biblical justification.
(55% oppose Gay marriage, and 51% oppose civil unions : http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/relat ... 40121.html)
That is just one of many statistics that support the Religious Right in their agenda to create a fundamentalist theocracy in this country.

I’m not saying all people that revere this book are bigots or violent, or even a majority. I’m saying that the book itself can be reasonably interpreted to endorse those things and it takes a more creative interpretation to disavow those messages. I’m saying that this book has too much influence in modern America and should be dismissed as a divine book, let alone an inerrant one. It is time for us as a society to renounce the special status of this book. Allowing us to more freely preserve what good messages are there (Charity, love, forgiveness) and dismiss the destructive ones. As long as the book is holy we will have to argue to establish any passage as immoral or irrelevant. Without that distinction each story, assertion, or value stands on its own, for better or worse, as what it is - the wisdom and understandings of an ancient culture, sometimes noble, often barbaric, simply what it is.

Indulge me a moment of even deeper and less founded speculation:
If it turns out that this killing was motivated in part due to a young homosexual being conflicted by his nature vs. his faith, as too many suicides have been, there also is a condemnation of the aspects of our culture that use this book, (as he did) to justify hatred against homosexuals, against self.

[Slopeshoulder]

I guess it's both. I welcome you to christian situational ethics.

If we think of the Bible as a perfect god-breathed manual, we are in for some serious mental gymnastics which strain credulity and lose the forest for the trees when it comes to issues like this. I don't even want to get into it.

But if we think of the Bible as a variegaed and evolving interpretive record of a people's relationship with its (actual/imagined/experienced/interpreted) God, as one (albeit priveledged) source for discernment and guidance within a living tradition, then we needn't worry so much about perfec clarity. When confronted with somethng problematic we can assign to an outdated mindset, look at it in terms of overarching themes that may trump a certain verse, read it in terms of other verses as well as all the theology since it was first set, down, informed by conscience and scholarship and the main thrust of community life. And it is often fuitful to have a teacher with great knowledge handy to work throuhg these conflicting passages; personally I prefer when they do it with honesty, great learning, and a modern sensibility (no magic). i find the elite educated pastors in the mainstream and liberal churches excel at this at a street level.

So for me, doing the latter, it's no big deal, but it's also a rich and powerful method of ethical discernment within a tradition/community and sure beats licking one's finger and waving it in the air or listening to the cacophany of uninformed and poorly reasoning voices in our pop culture.

If or when wondering if killing is justified in a certain circumstance, I suggest we look to conscience, community consensus, and the best thinking of (often disagreeing) theological and philosophiscal ethicists about 1. the verses, and 2. the topic in general. Insofar as one is Christian, one can do so informed by a set of thematic emphases (life, love, mercy, creation, hope, etc). Then make a decision if one is solo or cast a vote if in a group, or make a reco if asked.

But fundamentaists and biblicists will have a different take on it, more akin to the gymnastics in the former option. I imagine you'll be hearing from them presently.

[NMSquirrel]

the bible was not written by God.
it was written by man, inspired by God,

to use the bible as an excuse to do bad things is an irresponsible use of the bible,
most readers of the bible do not understand the old testament is outdated by the new testament,

isn't it in the old testament 'thou shall not kill'?
it does not have an exception list attached to it, (ie, thou shall not kill (except homosexuals))

because a person uses the bible to validate their own decisions does not make the bible a bad thing.

[Furrowed Brow]

I’m not saying all people that revere this book are bigots or violent, or even a majority. I’m saying that the book itself can be reasonably interpreted to endorse those things and it takes a more creative interpretation to disavow those messages.

The problem here is how to foster “creativity�. I recently watched a documentary on the Amish and learnt they only have a basic education that ends at 14. This would be an example where the chances of creativity are squashed if folk are not receiving the kind of education to get them thinking. It explains the Amish ultra conservatism. I think any organisation that places huge emphasis on obedience or submission like Islam washes out creativity. But I do not think the more literal Christian churches are so different in their reading methodology.

On the other end of the spectrum to Amish are the LDS which I am given to understand place large emphasis on education. Yet the conformity they demand works against creativity. I just read that Mormon boy51 who is about to commence his mission can no longer post here for the next two years because it is not allowed while on mission. If my 20 year old son said something similar I’d want to shake him and tell him to grow some gonads and think for himself. (I would do that except he is 6’ 7’’ and would shake me back and I am more fragile....the point is he would tell folk who made that restriction where to go stick it.....and in that attitude lies creativity).

There is a reason atheists and agnostics like to be thought of as free thinkers.

[Gone Apostate]

But if we think of the Bible as a variegaed and evolving interpretive record of a people's relationship with its (actual/imagined/experienced/interpreted) God, as one (albeit priveledged) source for discernment and guidance within a living tradition, then we needn't worry so much about perfec clarity. When confronted with somethng problematic we can assign to an outdated mindset, look at it in terms of overarching themes that may trump a certain verse....

I think that's great. That's essentially how i view the book myself and I'm an atheist. I think the same description applies to the writings of Socrates and Budda, etc. That approach is precisely what I propose. Relegate it to the same status as other ancient tomes and pull the good, and leave the bad. Are you saying then that you don't ascribe the book special and unique spiritual significance?

So for me, doing the latter, it's no big deal, but it's also a rich and powerful method of ethical discernment within a tradition/community and sure beats licking one's finger and waving it in the air or listening to the cacophany of uninformed and poorly reasoning voices in our pop culture.

If or when wondering if killing is justified in a certain circumstance, I suggest we look to conscience, community consensus, and the best thinking of (often disagreeing) theological and philosophiscal ethicists about 1. the verses, and 2. the topic in general. Insofar as one is Christian, one can do so informed by a set of thematic emphases (life, love, mercy, creation, hope, etc). Then make a decision if one is solo or cast a vote if in a group, or make a reco if asked.

But fundamentaists and biblicists will have a different take on it, more akin to the gymnastics in the former option. I imagine you'll be hearing from them presently.

"or listening to the cacophany of uninformed and poorly reasoning voices in our pop culture. and "look to conscience, community consensus, and the best thinking of (often disagreeing) theological and philosophiscal ethicists about " sound a lot a like to me because so few people seem to be able to tell the difference.

life, love, mercy hope are values humanity shares not just Christian's take out the bit about theological (maybe replace with historical) and you have the exact situational ethics we would have if there was no religion left. I think that's something that is unlikely, perhaps even unwise, but I think that we would be much better off if it's political, social influence was taken down about 3000 notches.

Thanks so much for your comments!

[Gone Apostate]

the bible was not written by God.
it was written by man, inspired by God,

to use the bible as an excuse to do bad things is an irresponsible use of the bible,
most readers of the bible do not understand the old testament is outdated by the new testament,

if that was the case then why do we even reference it except in support of the story of the New Testament. We can do without the ten commandments, we have a new law...

plus didn't Jesus say that the law (all of the law) was still in full effect?

1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.� (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)
2) "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)
3) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)
4) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

isn't it in the old testament 'thou shall not kill'?
it does not have an exception list attached to it, (ie, thou shall not kill (except homosexuals))

because a person uses the bible to validate their own decisions does not make the bible a bad thing.

The bible says in just a few verses later than thou shall not kill, to kill and to take the women as spoils of war, but you don't get to "know" them for thirty days, a woman can mourn, are we not merciful?

I ask again, how is it anything but all or nothing. You say the bible says not kill period, another person will also be accurate to say the bible says don't beat your slave so bad he can't live for three days, period. you would both be right. so as long as the book is our guide you will have a hard time making the case that the parts YOU like are important and the parts you don't, aren't.

[Slopeshoulder]

But if we think of the Bible as a variegated and evolving interpretive record of a people's relationship with its (actual/imagined/experienced/interpreted) God, as one (albeit priveledged) source for discernment and guidance within a living tradition, then we needn't worry so much about perfect clarity. When confronted with somethng problematic we can assign to an outdated mindset, look at it in terms of overarching themes that may trump a certain verse....

I think that's great. That's essentially how i view the book myself and I'm an atheist.

I find that athiests appreciate or agree with my position more often. But I'm OK with that, I'd rather hear atheists and agnostics say, "hmm...." than hear conservative believers say much.

I think the same description applies to the writings of Socrates and Budda, etc. That approach is precisely what I propose. Relegate it to the same status as other ancient tomes and pull the good, and leave the bad. Are you saying then that you don't ascribe the book special and unique spiritual significance?

On the one hand, no I don't give it special and unique spiritual signifiance in that I don't think it is magical and god-breathed.
On the other hand, I suppose I do insofar as it is the normative book of my tradition. (I also read the other books and traditions FWIW).
But there's a very subtle point I'd like to make...I also fight a bit against literary reductionism (e.g. the bible is merely wisdom), so what follows is a personal faith claim, not a generalizable fact claim: I tend to think of the bible (as well as other religious artifacts) as symbols, that is to say mytho-poetic entities that point to and participate in (whatever that means) the "reality" (whatever that means) of that to which they imperfectly point. I suppose, to the extent that I do that, I think of the Bible as "of God" (whatever that means). But I stay pretty unspecific, mystical and even buddhistic about what that might mean. But doing so makes it a bit more specfically spiritual in orientation vs. calling it simply a literary artifact. It's sort of a middle ground between considering it a manual and considering it literature. So in that sense I do give the world's scriptures siritual significance.

So for me, doing the latter, it's no big deal, but it's also a rich and powerful method of ethical discernment within a tradition/community and sure beats licking one's finger and waving it in the air or listening to the cacophany of uninformed and poorly reasoning voices in our pop culture.

If or when wondering if killing is justified in a certain circumstance, I suggest we look to conscience, community consensus, and the best thinking of (often disagreeing) theological and philosophiscal ethicists about 1. the verses, and 2. the topic in general. Insofar as one is Christian, one can do so informed by a set of thematic emphases (life, love, mercy, creation, hope, etc). Then make a decision if one is solo or cast a vote if in a group, or make a reco if asked.

But fundamentaists and biblicists will have a different take on it, more akin to the gymnastics in the former option. I imagine you'll be hearing from them presently.

"or listening to the cacophany of uninformed and poorly reasoning voices in our pop culture. and "look to conscience, community consensus, and the best thinking of (often disagreeing) theological and philosophiscal ethicists about " sound a lot a like to me because so few people seem to be able to tell the difference.

Yes, few people can. But to me the difference is that if we work to be among those people who can tell the difference, we find that the really good, grown up, scholarly thinkers and leaders, and the mature thoughtful communities, have a grounding, sophistication and depth to them that distinguishes them from the circus of confusion. I value them infinitely for that.

life, love, mercy hope are values humanity shares not just Christian's take out the bit about theological (maybe replace with historical) and you have the exact situational ethics we would have if there was no religion left.

Sure, but I do think religionists have their own take, have had a long time devoloping it, and at their best deserve a damn good listen. Arguably religionists introduced these ideas that secular society now values in the first place, or the way in whcih we now understand them.
I'm not talking about the religious bozos in the media (godamm the media to hell for focusing only on the bozos). I mean the grown ups who work behind the scenes and in the universities and think tanks. They deserve the ear and the respect of secular society, trust me. Magnificent stuff.

I think that's something that is unlikely, perhaps even unwise, but I think that we would be much better off if it's political, social influence was taken down about 3000 notches.

I agree. But again, allow me a two part answer.
On the one hand, I think it would be better if the political and social (as well as ethical, psychological and even spiritual) influence of "religion" were taken down 3000 (or 4000) notches if we are talking about the populist, fundamentalist, and biblicist hysteria that seems to have the country and media in its thrall in these days of rapid change and uncertainty.
But on the other hand, and this is one example among hundreds, when I was in seminary, concentrating in ethics (and reading a lot of philosophy, political economy and public policy and taking classes and-or attending lectures in the schools of law, medicine, magagement, and forestry), I once watched CSPAN coverage of a Jesuit from Georgetown University testifying on some issue (not abortion) before congress. He was extraordinarily learned, balanced, subtle, and erudite, with a great and supple mind and a well-developed conscience and a lot of wisdom; in other words, a grown up. He looked at the policy issue at hand from the perspectives of politics, philosophy, science, sociology, biology, law, ethics, and the major themes of religion. He had the commitee enthralled and they heaped praise on him at the end. I said , "YES! THAT'S the way you do it! THAT's what I'm talkin' about!" Those folks are still out there, and I think the world be a worse place if their influence was reduced. At all. I'd like to see it increased.

Thanks so much for your comments!

Thanks very much for your consideration.

I continue to think there's a boatload of value in religion that even atheists would like if they could get past the bozos who presume to speak for it and define it. But that takes some work.

[NMSquirrel]

I ask again, how is it anything but all or nothing. ...<deleted>... so as long as the book is our guide you will have a hard time making the case that the parts YOU like are important and the parts you don't, aren't.

the parts that i like are important to me..

other parts are important for others..

this does not make me right and them wrong.
thats what makes it a good guide book, it speaks to many different ppl.

should we hate ourselves because we cannot hold true ALL the laws?
scripture says we cannot hold onto all the laws, this does not mean to let go of all of them..

IMO, the bible has good wisdom in it, certain ppl recognized that as a good thing, and attempted to teach humanity such wisdoms, other ppl recognized how they can control others with this book..
unfortunatly for humanity it is much easier to 'do as your told' than to 'think for yourself', iow, they want to believe when the leaders say 'do this', and you will be assured salvation..

so religion capitalized on the bible, (didn't they have a hand in creating it?(see canonization)) made it about 'do as your told', discouraged 'think for yourself'.

now ppl are sick of 'do as your told', but they were never taught to 'think for yourself', some learn, but still want 'do as your told' (its easier to blame someone else).

those that have learned 'do as our told' and have began to 'think for yourself', expect others to 'do as your told' at first....

oops..sorry..i think i got carried away..anyway..

in summary,
the bible has wisdom in it, to dismiss this wisdom because the ppl who utilize the bible, use it as a tool to 'do as your told', is irresponsible to the wisdom of the bible.

[bjs]

For the moment I will set aside the important issue of reading the entire Bible (New and Old Testaments) to understand all that it mean. If we only take a literal look at the Old Testament law then this man still did not actually value the Bible because he complete ignored what it says.

The Pentateuch teaches that murder is always wrong. It does allow for capital punishment on the part of society for certain crimes, but it never allows for an individual to murder another individual.

To make an analogy it would be like saying, “In my society the death penalty can be enforced in certain cases. Therefore if I know someone to be guilty of a capital crime I have the right to go shoot them.�

That doesn’t work. Anyone who commits murder, even because of a crime which the Old Testament considers a capital offense, reveals that they have no respect for the Bible. They are just using the Bible as an excuse for their own psychosis or hatred.

[lastcallhall]

Here is my question: How can we call the Bible a good book or a moral book without disavowing the “naughty bits�? If we disavow the naughty bits how can we claim divine authority for any individual part of the book without claiming divine authority for all of it?

Here is my position:

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/loc ... 43719.html

Point 1. There seems to be much more to the story of their relationship than is discussed in this video clip. The written article adds only more murkiness. Perhaps the younger man was being abused, much of it is speculation at this point.

Point 2. I think it is relatively obvious that the young man was disturbed, either clinically or as a response to the relationship he had with the victim.

Point 3. Without more information, much discussion on this story is speculation and speculation based analysis is pretty pointless. There are a few facts and they alone warrant discussion, at least they do to me.

Point 4. He is totally correct in saying that the OT calls for the stoning death of homosexuals.

Discussion:
Even if the young man was deeply disturbed and even if it could be reasonably argued that he would have found another reason to kill this man, isn’t this still a very real condemnation of his Holy Book - that he derives his motivation from an accurate reading of its text?

People point to Catcher in the Rye as a book that has been inspiring to people, some of which have gone on to commit terrible crimes - including murder. Is this not the same thing?

No.

Catcher in the Rye is not held up by significant portions of our culture as the moral guidebook from the ultimate divine authority. Catcher in the Rye itself makes no claim of authority of any kind. Catcher in the Rye doesn’t explicitly call for (or glorify in) the killing, torture, rape or slavery of anyone let alone whole groups of people.

Disturbed people will find motivation for their crazy just about anywhere, true enough. However here we are, as a society, revering a book that explicitly calls for it. We endorse it and we give it special influence and privilege. Even if it could be argued that it is a “misinterpretation� – it’s not. Even if the same book says we should NOT kill. When the book is given unique and divine authority- its words, all of its words, take on the virtue of that authority, all of its words not just the ones we like.

The Bible is not anymore evil than any other book, as long as it is just a book. Once we start saying that passages such as the ones that justify the stoning of disobedient children are divinely inspired or the inerrant word of God that is something altogether different.

Many Christians, Jews and Muslims don’t hang their religious faith on the less popular and more bloody/bigoted passages in the Bible. Many of them will say those passages are irrelevant to their understanding of God and his message. That’s great. I applaud that. It just doesn’t change the urgency of this problem. The folks that hold these relatively moderate religious views do not make up a large majority of the faithful, especially not in America, as we often want to think

We cannot ignore that many people DO take these passages seriously and it’s NOT a small fringe group. The majority of Americans still oppose equal rights for Gays, the vast majority of them with biblical justification.
(55% oppose Gay marriage, and 51% oppose civil unions : http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/relat ... 40121.html)
That is just one of many statistics that support the Religious Right in their agenda to create a fundamentalist theocracy in this country.

I’m not saying all people that revere this book are bigots or violent, or even a majority. I’m saying that the book itself can be reasonably interpreted to endorse those things and it takes a more creative interpretation to disavow those messages. I’m saying that this book has too much influence in modern America and should be dismissed as a divine book, let alone an inerrant one. It is time for us as a society to renounce the special status of this book. Allowing us to more freely preserve what good messages are there (Charity, love, forgiveness) and dismiss the destructive ones. As long as the book is holy we will have to argue to establish any passage as immoral or irrelevant. Without that distinction each story, assertion, or value stands on its own, for better or worse, as what it is - the wisdom and understandings of an ancient culture, sometimes noble, often barbaric, simply what it is.

Indulge me a moment of even deeper and less founded speculation:
If it turns out that this killing was motivated in part due to a young homosexual being conflicted by his nature vs. his faith, as too many suicides have been, there also is a condemnation of the aspects of our culture that use this book, (as he did) to justify hatred against homosexuals, against self.

You make the assumption because he had a Bible that he is a christian.(I have a few auto mags in my house but I can barely change oil, they do not make me a mechanic) If he is following the old testament law he is either an orthodox Jew who took it upon himself to carry out the law (which I did not see any proof of) or he claims to be a christian but then has missed the whole we are living in grace thing, or he is insane. ( I go with that one) If you have hate in your heart you will always find a reason to hate, I go back to what Jesus said:

Matthew 22:36-40 (New King James Version)
36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?�
37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.�