Confused / Achilles12604 debate : "The End of Faith&quo

[achilles12604]

Confused and I have decided to debate Sam Harris's book, "The End of Faith". I believe that we will be using a similar formate to the recent "The God Delusion" debate. As this is a one on one debate, no one else may post in this particular thread. However, I am creating a "comments" thread in general chat.

As I require some time to read this book, and I am going out of town for 5 days at the beginning of August, I would suggest that this particular debate begin on August 10th or later.

Is this acceptable Confused?

[Confused]

I am going to address this scripture one at a time.

For middle ground:
Harris takes the position that moderates are a myth under the position that originally scripture was overwhelmingly considered literal. With time, more interpretations were tolerated and we see this with the various branches of Christianity that now exist. However, moderates clash with literalists and while literalists can scripturally validate their position, moderates would have a much more difficult time. I repeat my example of divorce: literalists have scripture to blatantly state it is only acceptable for adultery yet moderates would accept it of an abusive spouse, yet moderates cannot back this acceptance with scripture.

I can see where you are coming from. However, every verse in scripture is subject to personal interpretation.

Taking your example of divorce, if you read just the words of Jesus as the end all, then you have a point. However, the words of the bible were never meant to cover every eventuality or circumstance. Indeed it would be impossible to write a book with a direct answer for everything.

In my (and many others) opinions, if a husband is being physically abusive to the wife, he already cares more about something else than her and so has committed a form of adultery in his spirit. If he cares more about himself (or booze more likely) than her, and he is more faithful to himself or his booze, then does that not constitute adultery? Must adultery be physical?

Lets look to answer this question.

Jeremiah 3:6

Unfaithful Israel
6 During the reign of King Josiah, the LORD said to me, "Have you seen what faithless Israel has done? She has gone up on every high hill and under every spreading tree and has committed adultery there.

Here a nation is committing adultery. Obviously it can not be referring to a sexual or physical relationship. So it must refer to adultery of choices. Israel was worshiping other gods on top of the hills around Jerusalem. God equates worshiping other things with adultery.

Is He not referring to a nation committing adultery? One spreading their seed from tree to tree? Why can an entire nation not be committing adultery? Sodom and Gomorrah were both destroyed for their wickedness (Genesis 19:24-28). Sins to include adultery were involved (as well as other sexual misconduct). So yes, entire nations can be committing adultery, even with other men and animals.


But let's look at Jeremiah in closer detail.

3: 1: They say, 'If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another mans, may her return to her again? Would that land be greatly polluted? But you have played the harlot with many lovers" Yet you return to the Lord.3:2 Lift up your eyes to the desolate heights and see:
Where have you not lain with men? By the road you have sat with them Like an Arabian in the wilderness: and you have polluted in the wilderness, and you have polluted the land with your harlotries and your wickedness.3:9; "So it came to pass through her casual harlotry, that she defiled the land and committed adultery with stones and trees"
3:13: 'only acknowledge your iniquity, that you have transgressed against the Lord your God, And have scattered your charms to alien deities under every green tree, and you have not obeyed My voice,' says the Lord.


All of these seem to indicate that adultery was being committed by the state of Israel and your 3:6, when taken into context, provides more evidence that the entire nation of Israel did commit adultery.

[Confused]

I can see where you are coming from. However, every verse in scripture is subject to personal interpretation.

Under which scriptural law, do you have permission to take it as anything other than what is written? See, just as with the US laws, one can find loopholes in them to get murderers off. Lawyers could have a field day with scripture if God was to allow for personal interpretation. Now, if this is a book to find God, to understand Gods will, etc.... then who has it right? Who really knows what is meant by X, Y, and Z.

Sorry, had to ask that. Now I will continue on with your scripture.

Another example:

Matthew 5:27-29

Adultery
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[a] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Did the man every have sex with the other woman? No. He never touched her, yet the adultery remains.

Adultery is a fairly openly applied word in the bible. Therefore, Harris (and your) position that Jesus words MUST MEAN physical sex, is simply not supported. Even within the bible we see congruency between the word adultery and several different applications.

Lust is a facet of sex.

Therefore, if a man loves his power, or his bottle, or another woman, or whatever else is causing him to be abusive towards her, more than her, he is still guilty of "adultery" under the uses given in the bible. He loves something more than her, therefore he is guilty of adultery.

I admit, you may have case to a degree. Even with your passage of Jeremiah, Gods disdain can be seen as adultery against Him in that the nation loves something/someone greater than Him. But we cannot assume a direct link between the OT Jeremiah and the NT Matthew. If we do, then we would end up negating all the OT or all the NT since there is to many contradictions between them.

But I still have an issue with interpretations. I also have an issue with taking one scripture out of context to prove another. Jeremiah 3 refers to the commitment of adultery against God and how God can be forgiving and in 14 He speaks of His marriage to Israel. This is hardly comparable with Matthew.

Incidentally there is another verse which speaks to this end almost directly.

Malachi 2:16
16 "I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself [f] with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty.
So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.

I fail to see how this passage fits. Malachi 2 is about a man who dealt treacherously with his wife of his youth. Judah married the daughter of a foreign god. Now, I admit, my understanding of scripture isn't the best, so perhaps you might further explain this passage.

I concede that it could be seen that Harris is giving an opinion of how moderates have evolved. I also state for the record that I find it coincidental that the tolerance seems to parallel the advancements of society.

To be fair, tolerance across the board has increased, not only with regard to religion. Take slavery for example.

Phew.... Agreed.

Harris doesn't state the bible must be taken literally. But the holes that are created with all the various interpretations has diminished the credibility of scripture rather than increased it.

I am not sure I agree. As this is a matter of opinion I shall explain mine. I think that if God indeed does exist and was the author of life, then he would understand that people are all unique. If everyone is unique then it is not possible to write a book that is a "fit's all". However, if (like say . . . the US CONSTITUTION) you write a guiding document which is a "living document" open to interpretation within set solid boundaries, then each person could follow the "hard" laws and then interpret the others for themselves. Really this idea is ingenious because it allows for life to prosper as opposed to oppression of set rules which can not bend for different situations.

I think that allowing for personal interpretation around the "hard" laws is a great idea. What is think is harmful, is when once group (say the church) dictates that THEIR interpretation is the only correct one. Then we have defeated the purpose and caused problems.

Who gets to decide which are the "hard" laws and which others are allowed personal interpretation?

Question for you. . . . is it not a better idea to allow a certain amount of freedom with regards to personal life/worship than to try and force everyone into a set "box" of must's and laws?

If yes, then wouldn't the fault not be with the "moderates" but rather with those who refuse to acknowledge any beliefs but their own?

Sure, but who determines which laws you are free to interpret and which arent'?

I also agree with Harris that many moderates do loosely apply scripture and ignore some flat out.

I also agree.

Every once in a while, we are on the same page.

However, with tolerance, I will concede both can exist. I just don't think it is possible that both are right. And the literalists have scripture on their side.

On their side . . . . this implies again that interpretation is not allowed. But then I have gone into detail about this before.

As you have, yes. However, I have yet to get an adequate explanation as to where one is given the guidance on interpretation. The authority. Who determines what is literal and what isn't? Tell me, who will have a stronger defense at the "pearly gates": One man who says "God, your book clearly states this here...." , One man who says "God, when You say X in Book A, I took it to mean D".

[achilles12604]

I am going to address this scripture one at a time.

For middle ground:
Harris takes the position that moderates are a myth under the position that originally scripture was overwhelmingly considered literal. With time, more interpretations were tolerated and we see this with the various branches of Christianity that now exist. However, moderates clash with literalists and while literalists can scripturally validate their position, moderates would have a much more difficult time. I repeat my example of divorce: literalists have scripture to blatantly state it is only acceptable for adultery yet moderates would accept it of an abusive spouse, yet moderates cannot back this acceptance with scripture.

I can see where you are coming from. However, every verse in scripture is subject to personal interpretation.

Taking your example of divorce, if you read just the words of Jesus as the end all, then you have a point. However, the words of the bible were never meant to cover every eventuality or circumstance. Indeed it would be impossible to write a book with a direct answer for everything.

In my (and many others) opinions, if a husband is being physically abusive to the wife, he already cares more about something else than her and so has committed a form of adultery in his spirit. If he cares more about himself (or booze more likely) than her, and he is more faithful to himself or his booze, then does that not constitute adultery? Must adultery be physical?

Lets look to answer this question.

Jeremiah 3:6

Unfaithful Israel
6 During the reign of King Josiah, the LORD said to me, "Have you seen what faithless Israel has done? She has gone up on every high hill and under every spreading tree and has committed adultery there.

Here a nation is committing adultery. Obviously it can not be referring to a sexual or physical relationship. So it must refer to adultery of choices. Israel was worshiping other gods on top of the hills around Jerusalem. God equates worshiping other things with adultery.

Is He not referring to a nation committing adultery? One spreading their seed from tree to tree? Why can an entire nation not be committing adultery? Sodom and Gomorrah were both destroyed for their wickedness (Genesis 19:24-28). Sins to include adultery were involved (as well as other sexual misconduct). So yes, entire nations can be committing adultery, even with other men and animals.


But let's look at Jeremiah in closer detail.

3: 1: They say, 'If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another mans, may her return to her again? Would that land be greatly polluted? But you have played the harlot with many lovers" Yet you return to the Lord.3:2 Lift up your eyes to the desolate heights and see:
Where have you not lain with men? By the road you have sat with them Like an Arabian in the wilderness: and you have polluted in the wilderness, and you have polluted the land with your harlotries and your wickedness.3:9; "So it came to pass through her casual harlotry, that she defiled the land and committed adultery with stones and trees"
3:13: 'only acknowledge your iniquity, that you have transgressed against the Lord your God, And have scattered your charms to alien deities under every green tree, and you have not obeyed My voice,' says the Lord.


All of these seem to indicate that adultery was being committed by the state of Israel and your 3:6, when taken into context, provides more evidence that the entire nation of Israel did commit adultery.

This is a PERFECT example of what we are debating and I am so glad you brought it up.


You took one translation of the bible and read it totally litterally. While you may be correct if you only consider the sections you cited, if you look a little further you can see that God was not necessarily talking about sexual relations as "cheating" on him.

14 "Return, faithless people," declares the LORD, "for I am your husband. I will choose you—one from a town and two from a clan—and bring you to Zion.

If God is the husband and Israel is the wife, then this would indicate (as I mentioned above) that worship was in fact the equaivalent to adultery here, rather than the entire nation having physical intercorse in the hills. For Worship of God is our interaction with him, and for us to "cheat" on God would require worshiping another god.

If you look at other sections of the OT you can plainly see that this was in fact what Israel was doing. . .

Jeremiah 3:22-24

22 "Return, faithless people;
I will cure you of backsliding."
"Yes, we will come to you,
for you are the LORD our God.

23 Surely the idolatrous commotion on the hills
and mountains is a deception;
surely in the LORD our God
is the salvation of Israel.

24 From our youth shameful gods have consumed
the fruits of our fathers' labor—
their flocks and herds,
their sons and daughters.

Ezekiel 6:12-14

12 He that is far away will die of the plague, and he that is near will fall by the sword, and he that survives and is spared will die of famine. So will I spend my wrath upon them. 13 And they will know that I am the LORD, when their people lie slain among their idols around their altars, on every high hill and on all the mountaintops, under every spreading tree and every leafy oak—places where they offered fragrant incense to all their idols. 14 And I will stretch out my hand against them and make the land a desolate waste from the desert to Diblah [a] —wherever they live. Then they will know that I am the LORD.' "

These both contain the same imagery as the section you put forth, but in place of sexual references, are people with their idols. If you take these into consideration along with God's reference to him be "the husband", it becomes plain that idolatry was what God considered adultery. Thus my previous point on post 60

I can see where you are coming from. However, every verse in scripture is subject to personal interpretation.

Taking your example of divorce, if you read just the words of Jesus as the end all, then you have a point. However, the words of the bible were never meant to cover every eventuality or circumstance. Indeed it would be impossible to write a book with a direct answer for everything.

In my (and many others) opinions, if a husband is being physically abusive to the wife, he already cares more about something else than her and so has committed a form of adultery in his spirit. If he cares more about himself (or booze more likely) than her, and he is more faithful to himself or his booze, then does that not constitute adultery? Must adultery be physical?

[achilles12604]

I can see where you are coming from. However, every verse in scripture is subject to personal interpretation.

Under which scriptural law, do you have permission to take it as anything other than what is written? See, just as with the US laws, one can find loopholes in them to get murderers off. Lawyers could have a field day with scripture if God was to allow for personal interpretation. Now, if this is a book to find God, to understand Gods will, etc.... then who has it right? Who really knows what is meant by X, Y, and Z.

Sorry, had to ask that. Now I will continue on with your scripture.

Another example:

Matthew 5:27-29

Adultery
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[a] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Did the man every have sex with the other woman? No. He never touched her, yet the adultery remains.

Adultery is a fairly openly applied word in the bible. Therefore, Harris (and your) position that Jesus words MUST MEAN physical sex, is simply not supported. Even within the bible we see congruency between the word adultery and several different applications.

Lust is a facet of sex.

Therefore, if a man loves his power, or his bottle, or another woman, or whatever else is causing him to be abusive towards her, more than her, he is still guilty of "adultery" under the uses given in the bible. He loves something more than her, therefore he is guilty of adultery.

I admit, you may have case to a degree. Even with your passage of Jeremiah, Gods disdain can be seen as adultery against Him in that the nation loves something/someone greater than Him. But we cannot assume a direct link between the OT Jeremiah and the NT Matthew. If we do, then we would end up negating all the OT or all the NT since there is to many contradictions between them.

But I still have an issue with interpretations. I also have an issue with taking one scripture out of context to prove another. Jeremiah 3 refers to the commitment of adultery against God and how God can be forgiving and in 14 He speaks of His marriage to Israel. This is hardly comparable with Matthew.

Incidentally there is another verse which speaks to this end almost directly.

Malachi 2:16
16 "I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself [f] with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty.
So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.

I fail to see how this passage fits. Malachi 2 is about a man who dealt treacherously with his wife of his youth. Judah married the daughter of a foreign god. Now, I admit, my understanding of scripture isn't the best, so perhaps you might further explain this passage.

I concede that it could be seen that Harris is giving an opinion of how moderates have evolved. I also state for the record that I find it coincidental that the tolerance seems to parallel the advancements of society.

To be fair, tolerance across the board has increased, not only with regard to religion. Take slavery for example.

Phew.... Agreed.

Harris doesn't state the bible must be taken literally. But the holes that are created with all the various interpretations has diminished the credibility of scripture rather than increased it.

I am not sure I agree. As this is a matter of opinion I shall explain mine. I think that if God indeed does exist and was the author of life, then he would understand that people are all unique. If everyone is unique then it is not possible to write a book that is a "fit's all". However, if (like say . . . the US CONSTITUTION) you write a guiding document which is a "living document" open to interpretation within set solid boundaries, then each person could follow the "hard" laws and then interpret the others for themselves. Really this idea is ingenious because it allows for life to prosper as opposed to oppression of set rules which can not bend for different situations.

I think that allowing for personal interpretation around the "hard" laws is a great idea. What is think is harmful, is when once group (say the church) dictates that THEIR interpretation is the only correct one. Then we have defeated the purpose and caused problems.

Who gets to decide which are the "hard" laws and which others are allowed personal interpretation?

Question for you. . . . is it not a better idea to allow a certain amount of freedom with regards to personal life/worship than to try and force everyone into a set "box" of must's and laws?

If yes, then wouldn't the fault not be with the "moderates" but rather with those who refuse to acknowledge any beliefs but their own?

Sure, but who determines which laws you are free to interpret and which arent'?

I also agree with Harris that many moderates do loosely apply scripture and ignore some flat out.

I also agree.

Every once in a while, we are on the same page.

However, with tolerance, I will concede both can exist. I just don't think it is possible that both are right. And the literalists have scripture on their side.

On their side . . . . this implies again that interpretation is not allowed. But then I have gone into detail about this before.

As you have, yes. However, I have yet to get an adequate explanation as to where one is given the guidance on interpretation. The authority. Who determines what is literal and what isn't? Tell me, who will have a stronger defense at the "pearly gates": One man who says "God, your book clearly states this here...." , One man who says "God, when You say X in Book A, I took it to mean D".

Ok the majority of this section seems to me to be saying about the same thing (except for the part where you admitted I had a point about scriptural interpretation).

You seem to be asking, so who is right? You also seem to be asking what sections can be interpreted and which are hard core literal and who gets to decide?

Well I would have to ask for a specific section of disagreement. With regard to divorce over abuse, there are those people who would believe that an abused woman can not leave her husband because of the passage you indicate. But then again, this line of reasoning is not in keeping with Jesus, who historically was possibly the first advocate for women's rights.

So what are the possible solutions?

1) The literalists are correct and Jesus meant exactly what is written without exception or possibility for adaptation.

For this possibility to be correct, Jesus must have had multiple personalities as well as a severe case of double talk. Since the writings about him indicate that he was supportive of women and was quite enlightened for his time, this doesn't really make sense. Also and more importantly, the question of abuse is not one which is raised here. Adultery was raised as an issue, but as I have shown, adultery is not necessarily physical. Emotional adultery exists as well.

2) Jesus could have meant what was written about him, given the understanding and full use of the word adultery. Many words have multiple meanings which are dependent on various situations. For example, He Croaked.

Now which was I talking about. My observations about the verbal communications of a Rana catesbeiana, or an individual who recently passed from life into death?

I only used one word in my phrase. So decide on which definition of the word I used.



Now of course there will always be disagreements between sections. But as I have stated before, I am not entirely sure this is a bad thing. In fact I am not sure that it was not the intended outcome. The people on earth are so diverse that it was never be possible to have them all accept the same set of dogmatic regulations. Therefore, I find it entirely possible that God, having foreseen this eventuality, allowed his message to be written in such a manner as to result in different interpretations based on the readers preconceptions.

Certain sections are indeed hard.

Thou shalt not steal. This is an example of a section which has no alternative explanations. Stealing is a sin. There are no passages which indicate that stealing wouldn't be a sin. There are no passages which give an alternate definition of stealing. Thus this one would be hard.

The two greatest commandments. This is another example (NT this time) of something hard. It would be difficult to find passages which detract from or disagree with this section.


However, I think that most of the bible was intended to be "soft" or free for personal interpretation. That way, the individual would be able to accept and come to God under his own terms and would not be turned away by some detail or insignificant eventuality.

If salvation was of the utmost importance to God, which I believe it is, then a flexible reading of the bible, with multiple "correct" interpretations of the details would be the easiest route to accomplish this.


Ironically, even given the "soft" interpretation of the bible, most people chose not to follow even their own interpretations of the bible. People wont even do what they themselves believe to be right much of the time.

[Confused]

Ok the majority of this section seems to me to be saying about the same thing (except for the part where you admitted I had a point about scriptural interpretation).

You seem to be asking, so who is right? You also seem to be asking what sections can be interpreted and which are hard core literal and who gets to decide?

That is the exact point that Harris makes. Under whose authority does one get to take X literal but Y metaphorical?

Well I would have to ask for a specific section of disagreement. With regard to divorce over abuse, there are those people who would believe that an abused woman can not leave her husband because of the passage you indicate. But then again, this line of reasoning is not in keeping with Jesus, who historically was possibly the first advocate for women's rights.

First womans rights? HMMM:
Matthew 5:31-32: 31 Furthermore, it has been said, "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. 32 But I say that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; an whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

So, can a woman divorce him?

So what are the possible solutions?

1) The literalists are correct and Jesus meant exactly what is written without exception or possibility for adaptation.

They would likely be the only ones who could say they follow the teachings of Christ since they don't allow anything other than the words of Christ influence them. There is no mistakes if one follows the words to the letter?

For this possibility to be correct, Jesus must have had multiple personalities as well as a severe case of double talk. Since the writings about him indicate that he was supportive of women and was quite enlightened for his time, this doesn't really make sense. Also and more importantly, the question of abuse is not one which is raised here. Adultery was raised as an issue, but as I have shown, adultery is not necessarily physical. Emotional adultery exists as well.

Where is this support for woman being equal to men? I don't recall any scripture which says treat woman equal to man.

2) Jesus could have meant what was written about him, given the understanding and full use of the word adultery. Many words have multiple meanings which are dependent on various situations. For example, He Croaked.

Now which was I talking about. My observations about the verbal communications of a Rana catesbeiana, or an individual who recently passed from life into death?

I only used one word in my phrase. So decide on which definition of the word I used.

I understand what you are saying, but I would have to determine which definition was the accepted one during the time of Christ and from there, determine what the meaning was for the person He was speaking to. My guess would be that Christ would mean for His teachings to be used in the context of the society in which He preached to. So if croak meant died to those He lectured to, then croak means death.

Now of course there will always be disagreements between sections. But as I have stated before, I am not entirely sure this is a bad thing. In fact I am not sure that it was not the intended outcome. The people on earth are so diverse that it was never be possible to have them all accept the same set of dogmatic regulations. Therefore, I find it entirely possible that God, having foreseen this eventuality, allowed his message to be written in such a manner as to result in different interpretations based on the readers preconceptions.

If it was His intention, it was sorely misguided. The many facets of Christianity attests to such.

Certain sections are indeed hard.

Thou shalt not steal. This is an example of a section which has no alternative explanations. Stealing is a sin. There are no passages which indicate that stealing wouldn't be a sin. There are no passages which give an alternate definition of stealing. Thus this one would be hard.

So, is stealing an apple to feed your starving 4 year old daughter? Stealing the materials to make a nuclear bomb from a radical extremist group who intends to blow up New York and the surrounding states is wrong?

The two greatest commandments. This is another example (NT this time) of something hard. It would be difficult to find passages which detract from or disagree with this section.

Thats questionable

However, I think that most of the bible was intended to be "soft" or free for personal interpretation. That way, the individual would be able to accept and come to God under his own terms and would not be turned away by some detail or insignificant eventuality.

If salvation was of the utmost importance to God, which I believe it is, then a flexible reading of the bible, with multiple "correct" interpretations of the details would be the easiest route to accomplish this.


Ironically, even given the "soft" interpretation of the bible, most people chose not to follow even their own interpretations of the bible. People wont even do what they themselves believe to be right much of the time.

I don't dispute that some of your words make sense. But I see where Harris points to the truth: Unless one takes the words literal, they are on shaky ground. They cannot be sure their interpretation is correct. You can assume that Christ meant for some "soft" areas, but you cannot prove He did. Harris is accurate when he says that for the "moderate", the literal and metaphorical cannot both be right. If you say some parts are meant to be literal while others are meant to be metaphorical, you are charged with the burden of showing which are which and why you are deemed competent to make that distinction.

Simply put, Harris is correct when he claims that moderates seem to take literal what society still deems appropriate and science can't refute while they take metaphorical what society no longer deems appropriate or what science has since refuted.

[achilles12604]

Well I would have to ask for a specific section of disagreement. With regard to divorce over abuse, there are those people who would believe that an abused woman can not leave her husband because of the passage you indicate. But then again, this line of reasoning is not in keeping with Jesus, who historically was possibly the first advocate for women's rights.

First womans rights? HMMM:
Matthew 5:31-32: 31 Furthermore, it has been said, "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. 32 But I say that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; an whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

So, can a woman divorce him?

For this possibility to be correct, Jesus must have had multiple personalities as well as a severe case of double talk. Since the writings about him indicate that he was supportive of women and was quite enlightened for his time, this doesn't really make sense. Also and more importantly, the question of abuse is not one which is raised here. Adultery was raised as an issue, but as I have shown, adultery is not necessarily physical. Emotional adultery exists as well.

Where is this support for woman being equal to men? I don't recall any scripture which says treat woman equal to man.

Within reason of course. Comparing Jesus to Hilary Clinton, of course you are going to see Jesus as a chauvanistic pig. But then again you must take these comparisons in CONTEXT with their times. If Hilary Clinton was transported back to those days, she would be beaten and stoned to death, just for her views. So take my comments on Jesus in context of his times.

So what are the possible solutions?

1) The literalists are correct and Jesus meant exactly what is written without exception or possibility for adaptation.

They would likely be the only ones who could say they follow the teachings of Christ since they don't allow anything other than the words of Christ influence them. There is no mistakes if one follows the words to the letter?

To the letter huh. What if my position IS following them to the letter, while the literalists view lacks basic understanding of the total Hebrew concept of the word, adultery? After all we have seen what a strictly litteral view of the bible can lead to when taken to the extreams Harris purposes it should be.


Certainly you grasp why interpretation is necessary. If the ancient Jews understood that adultery included any form of love, physical, emotional or spiritual then Jesus words would have made a lot of sense to them, within CONTEXT.

Here is more evidence to support this view. Notice the multiple uses of the word and especially the bolded section below.

Adultery
Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
conjugal infidelity. An adulterer was a man who had illicit intercourse with a married or a betrothed woman, and such a woman was an adulteress. Intercourse between a married man and an unmarried woman was fornication. Adultery was regarded as a great social wrong, as well as a great sin. The Mosaic law (Num. 5:11-31) prescribed that the suspected wife should be tried by the ordeal of the "water of jealousy." There is, however, no recorded instance of the application of this law. In subsequent times the Rabbis made various regulations with the view of discovering the guilty party, and of bringing about a divorce. It has been inferred from John 8:1-11 that this sin became very common during the age preceding the destruction of Jerusalem. Idolatry, covetousness, and apostasy are spoken of as adultery spiritually (Jer. 3:6, 8, 9; Ezek. 16:32; Hos. 1:2:3; Rev. 2:22). An apostate church is an adulteress (Isa. 1:21; Ezek. 23:4, 7, 37), and the Jews are styled "an adulterous generation" (Matt. 12:39). (Comp. Rev. 12.)

Why is it so far fetched for Jesus to use this word in conjunction with a totality of behavior rather than simply a commentary on one possible problem?

2) Jesus could have meant what was written about him, given the understanding and full use of the word adultery. Many words have multiple meanings which are dependent on various situations. For example, He Croaked.

Now which was I talking about. My observations about the verbal communications of a Rana catesbeiana, or an individual who recently passed from life into death?

I only used one word in my phrase. So decide on which definition of the word I used.

I understand what you are saying, but I would have to determine which definition was the accepted one during the time of Christ and from there, determine what the meaning was for the person He was speaking to. My guess would be that Christ would mean for His teachings to be used in the context of the society in which He preached to. So if croak meant died to those He lectured to, then croak means death.

After reading the above citation on adultery does it make more sense? Jesus vey well could have been using the more general definition for adultery. Notice how he accuses the Jews of becoming an "adulterous nation" with reference to their idolatry.

Now of course there will always be disagreements between sections. But as I have stated before, I am not entirely sure this is a bad thing. In fact I am not sure that it was not the intended outcome. The people on earth are so diverse that it was never be possible to have them all accept the same set of dogmatic regulations. Therefore, I find it entirely possible that God, having foreseen this eventuality, allowed his message to be written in such a manner as to result in different interpretations based on the readers preconceptions.

If it was His intention, it was sorely misguided. The many facets of Christianity attests to such.

I think you may have missed my point. I am not so sure that the many facets of Christianity is in fact a BAD thing. It may be a very good thing. For example, if I lived around 1100 AD, I don't think I could adhere to the teachings of the church and may very well have left it because the teachings they had about religion, I disagree with. But because there have since been offshoots or as you said, facets of Christianity, I choose to love and worship God after all, instead of leaving religion for good.

I do not think (as contrary to modern thought as it is) that division is necessarily a bad thing. Now that being said, VIOLENCE between divisions, in my opinion is both stupid and evil. But if you examine what the violence is over, it is usually a small detail. I place the blame for the violence not on the religion, or even of the difference in interpretation. I blame people's arrogance and pride for the violence because with out the arrogance and pride, people can easily agree to disagree and leave as friends.

Certain sections are indeed hard.

Thou shalt not steal. This is an example of a section which has no alternative explanations. Stealing is a sin. There are no passages which indicate that stealing wouldn't be a sin. There are no passages which give an alternate definition of stealing. Thus this one would be hard.

So, is stealing an apple to feed your starving 4 year old daughter? Stealing the materials to make a nuclear bomb from a radical extremist group who intends to blow up New York and the surrounding states is wrong?

I knew you would put forth these arguements and my answer is yes. Stealing to feed your starving family is still a sin. But it can also be necessary. But if commiting a single sin is a horrendous attrocity, then I should certainly be put to death because I have done so much more than steal to feed my family.

Sin? Yea. Probably. Does it matter? Not really? What would God say? He would probably have asked if I could have worked for the store to pay for the apple rather than simply taking it, (which incidentally would have been my course of action)

The two greatest commandments. This is another example (NT this time) of something hard. It would be difficult to find passages which detract from or disagree with this section.

Thats questionable

Feel free to research and let me know if you find any verses which indicate that loving your God and loving your fellow man are not at the top of importance.

However, I think that most of the bible was intended to be "soft" or free for personal interpretation. That way, the individual would be able to accept and come to God under his own terms and would not be turned away by some detail or insignificant eventuality.

If salvation was of the utmost importance to God, which I believe it is, then a flexible reading of the bible, with multiple "correct" interpretations of the details would be the easiest route to accomplish this.


Ironically, even given the "soft" interpretation of the bible, most people chose not to follow even their own interpretations of the bible. People wont even do what they themselves believe to be right much of the time.

I don't dispute that some of your words make sense. But I see where Harris points to the truth: Unless one takes the words literal, they are on shaky ground. They cannot be sure their interpretation is correct. You can assume that Christ meant for some "soft" areas, but you cannot prove He did. Harris is accurate when he says that for the "moderate", the literal and metaphorical cannot both be right. If you say some parts are meant to be literal while others are meant to be metaphorical, you are charged with the burden of showing which are which and why you are deemed competent to make that distinction.

Simply put, Harris is correct when he claims that moderates seem to take literal what society still deems appropriate and science can't refute while they take metaphorical what society no longer deems appropriate or what science has since refuted.

*sigh* I am afraid that we may be forced to agree to disagree. I see no problems with personal interpretation of the bible. On the contrary I see personal interpretation as essential to the survival of the religion as a one-size-fits-all religion would probably not have many followers. Just as a once-size-fits-all government will quickly become a dictatorship with lots of laws, and very little justice.

[Confused]

Within reason of course. Comparing Jesus to Hilary Clinton, of course you are going to see Jesus as a chauvanistic pig. But then again you must take these comparisons in CONTEXT with their times. If Hilary Clinton was transported back to those days, she would be beaten and stoned to death, just for her views. So take my comments on Jesus in context of his times.

Don't jump to quick. I can't stand Hilary Clinton.

To the letter huh. What if my position IS following them to the letter, while the literalists view lacks basic understanding of the total Hebrew concept of the word, adultery? After all we have seen what a strictly litteral view of the bible can lead to when taken to the extreams Harris purposes it should be.


Certainly you grasp why interpretation is necessary. If the ancient Jews understood that adultery included any form of love, physical, emotional or spiritual then Jesus words would have made a lot of sense to them, within CONTEXT.

Yes, I do. But again, I have to defer to who is entiled to make the decision as to what is literal and what isn't. I understand the need for interpretation. But I have to agree with Harris, moderates and extremists cannot both be right. There is to much dissention.

Here is more evidence to support this view. Notice the multiple uses of the word and especially the bolded section below.

Adultery
Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
conjugal infidelity. An adulterer was a man who had illicit intercourse with a married or a betrothed woman, and such a woman was an adulteress. Intercourse between a married man and an unmarried woman was fornication. Adultery was regarded as a great social wrong, as well as a great sin. The Mosaic law (Num. 5:11-31) prescribed that the suspected wife should be tried by the ordeal of the "water of jealousy." There is, however, no recorded instance of the application of this law. In subsequent times the Rabbis made various regulations with the view of discovering the guilty party, and of bringing about a divorce. It has been inferred from John 8:1-11 that this sin became very common during the age preceding the destruction of Jerusalem. Idolatry, covetousness, and apostasy are spoken of as adultery spiritually (Jer. 3:6, 8, 9; Ezek. 16:32; Hos. 1:2:3; Rev. 2:22). An apostate church is an adulteress (Isa. 1:21; Ezek. 23:4, 7, 37), and the Jews are styled "an adulterous generation" (Matt. 12:39). (Comp. Rev. 12.)

Why is it so far fetched for Jesus to use this word in conjunction with a totality of behavior rather than simply a commentary on one possible problem?

If we were only speaking of adultery, you may have a lot of credence and I would have to defer it. But we aren't. In each case you refer to, God made the inference of example. He gave enough information for one to deduce what context He allowed it to be used in. There really isn't much metaphorical there. He isn't giving commands, rather throwing accusations which are fairly clear.

After reading the above citation on adultery does it make more sense? Jesus vey well could have been using the more general definition for adultery. Notice how he accuses the Jews of becoming an "adulterous nation" with reference to their idolatry.

Yes, I get more understanding from what you are saying.

I think you may have missed my point. I am not so sure that the many facets of Christianity is in fact a BAD thing. It may be a very good thing. For example, if I lived around 1100 AD, I don't think I could adhere to the teachings of the church and may very well have left it because the teachings they had about religion, I disagree with. But because there have since been offshoots or as you said, facets of Christianity, I choose to love and worship God after all, instead of leaving religion for good.

I do not think (as contrary to modern thought as it is) that division is necessarily a bad thing. Now that being said, VIOLENCE between divisions, in my opinion is both stupid and evil. But if you examine what the violence is over, it is usually a small detail. I place the blame for the violence not on the religion, or even of the difference in interpretation. I blame people's arrogance and pride for the violence because with out the arrogance and pride, people can easily agree to disagree and leave as friends.

Small detail or not, it is enough for violence to result. Don't you think Christ wanted to be clear enough to avoid such violence?

I knew you would put forth these arguements and my answer is yes. Stealing to feed your starving family is still a sin. But it can also be necessary. But if commiting a single sin is a horrendous attrocity, then I should certainly be put to death because I have done so much more than steal to feed my family.

Sin? Yea. Probably. Does it matter? Not really? What would God say? He would probably have asked if I could have worked for the store to pay for the apple rather than simply taking it, (which incidentally would have been my course of action)

If you knew I would, why did you do it? This could go way into another thread, so for the sake of staying on track, I will let this go.

Feel free to research and let me know if you find any verses which indicate that loving your God and loving your fellow man are not at the top of importance.

Hate is a necessary evil. Without it, we couldn't do some things that need to be done. But again, this is off topic.

*sigh* I am afraid that we may be forced to agree to disagree. I see no problems with personal interpretation of the bible. On the contrary I see personal interpretation as essential to the survival of the religion as a one-size-fits-all religion would probably not have many followers. Just as a once-size-fits-all government will quickly become a dictatorship with lots of laws, and very little justice.

But do you agree that you base this on your own personal opinion, not on the authority of scripture?

[achilles12604]

Within reason of course. Comparing Jesus to Hilary Clinton, of course you are going to see Jesus as a chauvanistic pig. But then again you must take these comparisons in CONTEXT with their times. If Hilary Clinton was transported back to those days, she would be beaten and stoned to death, just for her views. So take my comments on Jesus in context of his times.

Don't jump to quick. I can't stand Hilary Clinton.

I simply picked the first feminist idealist I could think of.

To the letter huh. What if my position IS following them to the letter, while the literalists view lacks basic understanding of the total Hebrew concept of the word, adultery? After all we have seen what a strictly litteral view of the bible can lead to when taken to the extreams Harris purposes it should be.


Certainly you grasp why interpretation is necessary. If the ancient Jews understood that adultery included any form of love, physical, emotional or spiritual then Jesus words would have made a lot of sense to them, within CONTEXT.

Yes, I do. But again, I have to defer to who is entitled to make the decision as to what is literal and what isn't. I understand the need for interpretation. But I have to agree with Harris, moderates and extremists cannot both be right. There is to much dissention.

Who is entitled? This question is only valid so long as Harris is right. If in fact there is supposed to be some freedom in personally analyzing the bible and worshiping God according to your own desires, then EVERYONE is entitled. I do agree however that moderates and extremists can not both be right.

Here is more evidence to support this view. Notice the multiple uses of the word and especially the bolded section below.

Adultery
Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
conjugal infidelity. An adulterer was a man who had illicit intercourse with a married or a betrothed woman, and such a woman was an adulteress. Intercourse between a married man and an unmarried woman was fornication. Adultery was regarded as a great social wrong, as well as a great sin. The Mosaic law (Num. 5:11-31) prescribed that the suspected wife should be tried by the ordeal of the "water of jealousy." There is, however, no recorded instance of the application of this law. In subsequent times the Rabbis made various regulations with the view of discovering the guilty party, and of bringing about a divorce. It has been inferred from John 8:1-11 that this sin became very common during the age preceding the destruction of Jerusalem. Idolatry, covetousness, and apostasy are spoken of as adultery spiritually (Jer. 3:6, 8, 9; Ezek. 16:32; Hos. 1:2:3; Rev. 2:22). An apostate church is an adulteress (Isa. 1:21; Ezek. 23:4, 7, 37), and the Jews are styled "an adulterous generation" (Matt. 12:39). (Comp. Rev. 12.)

Why is it so far fetched for Jesus to use this word in conjunction with a totality of behavior rather than simply a commentary on one possible problem?

If we were only speaking of adultery, you may have a lot of credence and I would have to defer it. But we aren't. In each case you refer to, God made the inference of example. He gave enough information for one to deduce what context He allowed it to be used in. There really isn't much metaphorical there. He isn't giving commands, rather throwing accusations which are fairly clear.

But this isn't true. You provided the faslifying evidence yourself a few posts back. You made a case that God was not speaking about a nation in spiritual rebellion but rather a nation who's members were all committing sexual sins.

How can the bold section above be true in light of this?

I think you may have missed my point. I am not so sure that the many facets of Christianity is in fact a BAD thing. It may be a very good thing. For example, if I lived around 1100 AD, I don't think I could adhere to the teachings of the church and may very well have left it because the teachings they had about religion, I disagree with. But because there have since been offshoots or as you said, facets of Christianity, I choose to love and worship God after all, instead of leaving religion for good.

I do not think (as contrary to modern thought as it is) that division is necessarily a bad thing. Now that being said, VIOLENCE between divisions, in my opinion is both stupid and evil. But if you examine what the violence is over, it is usually a small detail. I place the blame for the violence not on the religion, or even of the difference in interpretation. I blame people's arrogance and pride for the violence because with out the arrogance and pride, people can easily agree to disagree and leave as friends.

Small detail or not, it is enough for violence to result. Don't you think Christ wanted to be clear enough to avoid such violence?

Which do you think causes more violence?

1) Moderates who are willing to worship in a manner right to them and worshiping as a larger group with similar standards and beliefs although perhaps not exactly the same.

2) Hardcore literalists who insist that things MUST be a certain way and anyone outside of their own views should change their ways back to the light?

Feel free to research and let me know if you find any verses which indicate that loving your God and loving your fellow man are not at the top of importance.

Hate is a necessary evil. Without it, we couldn't do some things that need to be done. But again, this is off topic.

Hate a necessary evil? I am confused. First I put forth that these two commands were "hard" beliefs. Then you say it could be argued. Then I ask for a citation of other verses which would take another angle on this subject. Then you write hate is a necessary evil? I am totally confused here. Let's just drop this little topic.

Incidentally I agree with you. Hate is a necessary evil.

*sigh* I am afraid that we may be forced to agree to disagree. I see no problems with personal interpretation of the bible. On the contrary I see personal interpretation as essential to the survival of the religion as a one-size-fits-all religion would probably not have many followers. Just as a once-size-fits-all government will quickly become a dictatorship with lots of laws, and very little justice.

But do you agree that you base this on your own personal opinion, not on the authority of scripture?

Do I agree that my belief that scripture is supposed to be able to be interpreted is totally my own opinion?

While it is my opinion, it is not contrary to scripture. You asked me a while ago to cite scriptures which indicated that interpretation was allowed and I did so. (post 49)

So while it is my opinion, it is also backed by scriptural references which you requested.

[Confused]

Yes, I do. But again, I have to defer to who is entitled to make the decision as to what is literal and what isn't. I understand the need for interpretation. But I have to agree with Harris, moderates and extremists cannot both be right. There is to much dissention.

Who is entitled? This question is only valid so long as Harris is right. If in fact there is supposed to be some freedom in personally analyzing the bible and worshiping God according to your own desires, then EVERYONE is entitled. I do agree however that moderates and extremists can not both be right.

Ok, we both agree that both moderates and extremists cannot both be right. Now, in regards to who is entitled to interpret what is literal and what isn't, we are still at a stalemate. I don't see how one can be sure their interpretation is correct should they pick some scripture to be literal and some not. I fail to see how even the various "denominations" of moderates can all be right or coexist. If one denominations interpret scritpure to say men of cloth should be celibate and another interprets it to say that men of cloth should marry and procreate etc... how can both be right. These are two very distinctive extremes. Both cannot be right. So thus being the case, who is entitled to say what is correct and what isn't?

Which do you think causes more violence?

1) Moderates who are willing to worship in a manner right to them and worshiping as a larger group with similar standards and beliefs although perhaps not exactly the same.

2) Hardcore literalists who insist that things MUST be a certain way and anyone outside of their own views should change their ways back to the light?

Ok, we are way off topic again. There is a chapter further on in the book that deals more with this, so in an attempt to move forward, lets put this on the back burner until we reach that chapter.

*sigh* I am afraid that we may be forced to agree to disagree. I see no problems with personal interpretation of the bible. On the contrary I see personal interpretation as essential to the survival of the religion as a one-size-fits-all religion would probably not have many followers. Just as a once-size-fits-all government will quickly become a dictatorship with lots of laws, and very little justice.

But do you agree that you base this on your own personal opinion, not on the authority of scripture?

Do I agree that my belief that scripture is supposed to be able to be interpreted is totally my own opinion?

While it is my opinion, it is not contrary to scripture. You asked me a while ago to cite scriptures which indicated that interpretation was allowed and I did so. (post 49)

So while it is my opinion, it is also backed by scriptural references which you requested.

Your example for adultery and the various interpretations were backed with scripture yes. That was a good example for your case and I admit this. But I agree with Harris in that moderates pick and choose what they want to follow.

For example, Matthew 21 doesn't allow for justifiable homicide, but would you condemn one for killing someone to prevent them from killing you or someone close to you? Matthew 29, would you cut out your eye if it causes you to sin by looking at another in lust? Matthew 30, would you cut off your hand if it caused you to steal that apple to feed your daughter?

My point is that it seems awfully convenient that what most deem "metaphorical" is what costs the most. But as you have stated, we will have to agree to disagree here because IMHO, moderates practice a religion of convenience to a certain degree and when push comes to shove, the moderates wouldn't have a leg to stand on in the presence of God.

[achilles12604]

Yes, I do. But again, I have to defer to who is entitled to make the decision as to what is literal and what isn't. I understand the need for interpretation. But I have to agree with Harris, moderates and extremists cannot both be right. There is to much dissention.

Who is entitled? This question is only valid so long as Harris is right. If in fact there is supposed to be some freedom in personally analyzing the bible and worshiping God according to your own desires, then EVERYONE is entitled. I do agree however that moderates and extremists can not both be right.

Ok, we both agree that both moderates and extremists cannot both be right. Now, in regards to who is entitled to interpret what is literal and what isn't, we are still at a stalemate. I don't see how one can be sure their interpretation is correct should they pick some scripture to be literal and some not. I fail to see how even the various "denominations" of moderates can all be right or coexist. If one denominations interpret scripture to say men of cloth should be celibate and another interprets it to say that men of cloth should marry and procreate etc... how can both be right. These are two very distinctive extremes. Both cannot be right. So thus being the case, who is entitled to say what is correct and what isn't?

When it comes to many of the details which divide fundi's from mods, I have to wonder if God really cares?

Some issues are of utmost importance. But others . . . not so much. I am curious how many BIG points we differ on vs how many are small potatoes.

*sigh* I am afraid that we may be forced to agree to disagree. I see no problems with personal interpretation of the bible. On the contrary I see personal interpretation as essential to the survival of the religion as a one-size-fits-all religion would probably not have many followers. Just as a once-size-fits-all government will quickly become a dictatorship with lots of laws, and very little justice.

But do you agree that you base this on your own personal opinion, not on the authority of scripture?

Do I agree that my belief that scripture is supposed to be able to be interpreted is totally my own opinion?

While it is my opinion, it is not contrary to scripture. You asked me a while ago to cite scriptures which indicated that interpretation was allowed and I did so. (post 49)

So while it is my opinion, it is also backed by scriptural references which you requested.

Your example for adultery and the various interpretations were backed with scripture yes. That was a good example for your case and I admit this. But I agree with Harris in that moderates pick and choose what they want to follow.

I suppose I also agree with this if viewed in a particular light.

I (a moderate I think . . . . oh wait I am "other" ) Could be accused by some of choosing not to follow the edict of Jesus to spread his love and words to all nations (although I seriously doubt the historicity of this particular section). On the other hand, I am here fighting for justice and righteousness among the internet dwellers.

I think it all matters on the person's opinion, but if individuals conflicting opinions is all Harris is building this point on, then how can Harris truly stand for ANY point? There are conflicting opinions about how everyone does everything.

For example, Matthew 21 doesn't allow for justifiable homicide, but would you condemn one for killing someone to prevent them from killing you or someone close to you?

I looked but couldn't find what you were citing. Could you hold my hand and pull it out for me so I understand what you are referring to?

Matthew 29, would you cut out your eye if it causes you to sin by looking at another in lust? Matthew 30, would you cut off your hand if it caused you to steal that apple to feed your daughter?

And it is not at all likely that Jesus was simply trying to drive a point home? I'm afraid I don't know of any Fundamentalists (much less moderates) who view this as literal. So if we both view this as figurative, then how is this a divisive point between fundi and mod?