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]

Harris claim is not accurate. Therefore, any conclusions drawn from this claim, can not be accurate.

The claim Harris makes isn't inaccurate either. It isn't complete. But it isn't inaccurate. Any conclusions may not be complete, but they cannot be considered inaccurate either. However, yes, Harris uses the description of extremists to explain moderates. Is there a better way to do so?

I'm not sure what you mean by it is incomplete. Could you explain this and how it solves the problem that Harris makes a claim about moderates which is simply unfounded?

My meaning behind this was simply that Harris doesn't indulge the reader as to how loosely one can interpret scriture or why. He simply says they can. This will be futher explained below.

I went into great detail with my example of Genesis.

There are two possibilities that I can think of.

1) Genesis is meant to be read literally in which case, Harris has a point.

2) Genesis is not meant to be read literally in which case, Harris' point falls flat because if it not SUPPOSED to be read literally, then he can not complain that moderates do not do this.


I explained this in great detail on my prior post and look forward to a through examination by yourself.

This is ultimately all going to be blended together at the end of this post, but for now, I will address this. Before the advances in science, scripture was taken literally. Anyone who didn't was deemed a heretic and either excommunicated or killed. Before advances in academic thought (philosophy, etc...), scripture was literal. It wasn't that long ago that the earth was believed to be 6,000 years old and that man was created as is, animals were created as are, etc.... Science has altered this view. Society has altered the interpretation of much scripture. The point is, originally, Genesis was meant to be taken literally. To take it any other way was essentially a death sentence in the early years. So there is no strawman if you take what Harris writes into historical context.

I find this sentence a little amusing because I'm fairly sure he is talking about me here. For example, my interpretation of Genesis, would probably fall into his category of "loose interpretation."

He would likely consider you a "moderate" yes. But I am trying to keep it out of the personal arena because you don't really fit his "moderate" description, nor his "extremist". You would almost be an "other" if one existed.

Other eh? I haven't been called an "other" very much before.

Your liberal views don't mesh well with Harris. This is all I meant here.

Just to be clear this is how I see it.

1) Harris position rests on a couple things.
a) That the bible is supposed to be taken literally
b) that a non-literal translation is necessary for a "moderate" to exist
c) That the "moderate" opinion would be the direct result of society gaining knowledge in science and that our culture was advancing.


2) Harris' position can not be valid because:
a) The bible is not supposed to be taken literally, therefore claiming that those who read it non-literally are "The product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance." (page 21)
b) He claims "The only reason anyone is "moderate" in matters of faith these days is that he has assimilated some of the fruits of the last two thousand years of human thought . . . " (Page 18). This is clearly untrue as we see in person's like Justin Martyr and St. Augustine and who knows how many others.


In general, Harris' strawman is the argument that he builds, that the bible should be read a certain way and those who do not must have assimilated knowledge over 2000 years. This argument is simply invalid.

If it is in fact OK to take a "loose interpretation" of the bible, does Harris still have a valid point?

When answering this question, remember what he has written on the subject.

"Moderates in every faith are obliged to loosely interpret (or simply ignore) much of their canons in the interests of living in the modern world." (page 17)

"Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance - and it has no bona fides, in religious terms, to put it on par with fundamentalism." (page 21)

Give me a bit to answer this one. You put much into it.

The rest I will answer in the next post since it blends it all together.

[Confused]

Just to be clear this is how I see it.

1) Harris position rests on a couple things.
a) That the bible is supposed to be taken literally

Originally it was. And many still do take it to be literal.

Let me give the whole context of your scripture:

2 Peter 1:19-21 (New International Version)
19And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Now, I read this to say the words the men spoke and ultimately wrote word the words of God carried to man by the Holy Spirit.

Deuteronomy 4:9-11 (New International Version)
9 Only be careful, and watch yourselves closely so that you do not forget the things your eyes have seen or let them slip from your heart as long as you live. Teach them to your children and to their children after them. 10 Remember the day you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, when he said to me, "Assemble the people before me to hear my words so that they may learn to revere me as long as they live in the land and may teach them to their children." 11 You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness.

This once again tells me that the words were spoken directly by God. If scripture is valid, then the words recorded are the words spoken by God. Would He not speak literally?

Deuteronomy 17:18-20 (New International Version)
18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites. 19 It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees 20 and not consider himself better than his brothers and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel.

Deuteronomy 31:11-13 (New International Version)
11 when all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place he will choose, you shall read this law before them in their hearing. 12 Assemble the people—men, women and children, and the aliens living in your towns—so they can listen and learn to fear the LORD your God and follow carefully all the words of this law. 13 Their children, who do not know this law, must hear it and learn to fear the LORD your God as long as you live in the land you are crossing the Jordan to possess."

Now, which of these passages gives man the right to take any other meaning than literal?

b) that a non-literal translation is necessary for a "moderate" to exist

Based on the distinction Harris makes of what a moderate is considered, then yes, a non-literal interpretation would be required. A literal interpretation doesn't allow for tolerance of other religious doctrine. Christ doesn't allow for tolerance of other religions. It is the duty of the Christian to spread the word of Christ and to turn away from those towns in which they refuse to accept His words. He demanded this as He sent His disciples out. He warned those who follow Him will suffer greatly, but they must. Simply put, it is the journey of His followers to spread His word and turn away from any refuse to convert to it.

c) That the "moderate" opinion would be the direct result of society gaining knowledge in science and that our culture was advancing.

Isn't it? Does any of the commandments Christ preached actually get practiced in todays society? Could one live in todays society and still live by the laws preached? Christ preaches against earthly possessions. So why is it there are Christians with computers etc... while famine is widespread? As society has progressed and science has answered many of the "mysteries" enshrouded by religious doctrine, many of the writings of scripture have become obsolete. As society progresses towards knowledge, we see evolution, we see moral and ethics that transcend scripture. Harris hammers this point in on page 18 when he quotes Deuteronomy 13:7-11, in regards to stoning children. We no longer see scripture as the ultimate guide to morality and ethics because for every ethical teaching, we find at least on contradictory unethical teaching.

[Confused]

:
2) Harris' position can not be valid because:
a) The bible is not supposed to be taken literally, therefore claiming that those who read it non-literally are "The product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance." (page 21)

Once again, where is it stated that the literal words of God shouldn't be taken literally. In the previous post I provided several passages in which God is quite specific about teaching His word verbatim. But supposing He does allow for some metaphorical or allegorical interpretation. Who is deemed qualified to interpret it? Who is deemed qualified to decide what is literal and what isn't. It seems that society has done just that. As we advance in knowledge etc... we interpret scripture differently. No longer does a church turn its back on you if you divorce an abusive spouse, if you are homosexual, etc... Religion has become quite liberal in many denominations. Tell me, if progress isn't the culprit causing us to alter our perceptions on translations, what is?

b) He claims "The only reason anyone is "moderate" in matters of faith these days is that he has assimilated some of the fruits of the last two thousand years of human thought . . . " (Page 18). This is clearly untrue as we see in person's like Justin Martyr and St. Augustine and who knows how many others.

Pages 19-22 do a phenomenal job of clarifying this position. Pg 19:

Religous moderation springs from the fact that even the least educated person among us simply knows more about certain matters than anyone did 2000 years ago--and much of this knowledge is incompatible with scripture

Pg 20:
It is not that texts (biblical scripture) have maintained their integrity over time (they haven't), it is just that they have been effectively edited by our neglect of certain passages. Most of what remains are the "good parts".....

Moderates tend to accept the positive teachings in scripture, then differ on their interpretations of the negative teachings or ignore them outright. Hell is a perfect example. You see it as the absence of God, literalists tend to see it as fire and brimstone. Do we stone a woman to death if she misleads her new husband about her virginity? Does the remarriage of a divorced man still cause not only the divorced man to commit adultery but his new bride as well? Moderates accept what is good and ignore what is bad about scripture. I have heard countless ones on this site alone who say that though scripture doesn't condone divorce except due to adultery, they cannot imagine a God who couldn't forgive divorce because of abuse. But simply, you are not given that option. Scripture doesn't allow it. This loose interpretation is essentially changing the meaning altogether.

In general, Harris' strawman is the argument that he builds, that the bible should be read a certain way and those who do not must have assimilated knowledge over 2000 years. This argument is simply invalid.

There is no strawman. Pg 20:

From the perspective of those seeking to live by the letter of the texts, the religious moderate is nothing more than a failed fundamentalist. He is, in all likelihood, going to wind up in hell with the rest of the unbelievers. The problem that religious moderation poses for the rest of us is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism. We cannot say that fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely practicing their freedom of belief; we cannot even say that they are mistaken in religious terms because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivaled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we do not like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us.

Is this not true. How many clashes have we seen between "moderates" and "literalists" on this forum alone. Can you say that you can accept the social and economical costs that literalists require? What we consider ethical and moral would be tossed out the window. We would be stoning children, turning father against son, etc..... No, moderates seem to accept the positive teaching and do exactly as Harris asserts, ignore or loosely interprets the negative.

If it is in fact OK to take a "loose interpretation" of the bible, does Harris still have a valid point?

When answering this question, remember what he has written on the subject.

"Moderates in every faith are obliged to loosely interpret (or simply ignore) much of their canons in the interests of living in the modern world." (page 17)

"

Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance - and it has no bona fides, in religious terms, to put it on par with fundamentalism." (page 21)

I recall what is said. But let me counter with a question, if religious moderation is acceptable and loosely interpreted scripture is condoned, does that make literalists "extremists" that would likely be associated with suicide bombers and annihilating anyone who don't adhere to the words of God as they are written in scripture?

[achilles12604]

Ok. Our debate has reached a point where we are going over 2 key issues. For the sake of clarity and congruency, I would like to focus down now.


1) Harris position that the bible must be taken litterally.

2) That religious moderates are the product of the last 2000 years of knowledge seeping into religion to tone it down a bit.




Is this right?

[Confused]

Ok. Our debate has reached a point where we are going over 2 key issues. For the sake of clarity and congruency, I would like to focus down now.


1) Harris position that the bible must be taken litterally.

2) That religious moderates are the product of the last 2000 years of knowledge seeping into religion to tone it down a bit.




Is this right?

Harris position is that historically, scripture was taken literally. As society has evolved, some literalists have evolved into becoming "moderates". The reason being is that much of scripture would be socially unacceptable in todays society. So interpretation has changed with the changes of society. The problem with this is that moderates and literalists are very different on the spectrum of faith and practice. How can a moderate say a literalist is an extremist, ie islamic suicide bombers or the Christian Jesus camps training youths for judgment day, when they are following the same scripture as the moderates. Tell me, would you consider yourself a fundamentalist. One who sees scripture as the literal and inerrant word of God? Harris point is that the fundamentalist is using the same scripture as you. Yet they follow it to the letter, theoretically, as has been the traditional path of Christianity. Would they stone a child to death or a woman to death based on scripture, I believe the most devout fundamentalists would. Harris makes that point as well. So what separates you from them. When did it become acceptable to interpret scripture so liberally and ignore certain passages or interpret them so loosely they can mean anything. How can moderates and literalists coexist?

The reason there is no strawman here is because of this precisely. He doesn't say it must be interpreted literally or liberally. But he does say that both ways cannot be correct.

[achilles12604]

Ok. Our debate has reached a point where we are going over 2 key issues. For the sake of clarity and congruency, I would like to focus down now.


1) Harris position that the bible must be taken litterally.

2) That religious moderates are the product of the last 2000 years of knowledge seeping into religion to tone it down a bit.




Is this right?

Harris position is that historically, scripture was taken literally.

This isn't what you were saying earlier. "historically it was taken lit." is a very far cry from "The bible should be taken . . . " or even "must be taken."


If all he is saying is that "historically it has been taken . . . " then his argument can not be that moderates can't exist because different interpretations are not allowed.

The question before Harris and you is not "has the bible been taken literally in the past?" The question before Harris and you is "MUST the bible be taken literally?" I think you recognize this fact because several of the last posts indicated this as you were backing up the claim that the bible CAN NOT be taken non-literally. You even requested that I provide examples which indicate that the bible does not need to be taken literally, which I did.

Each of my prior examples shows that scripture is INTERPRETED. It must be interpreted because text without context is a pretext for trouble. But if it is interpreted, then there must be different interpretations. Therefore, it can not be bound into stone as Harris demands.

And frankly if God truely is intelligent, allowing for interpretation was an ingenious idea. After all our own country's laws were set up such that the constitution is constantly being interpreted. It is called CASE LAW. Judges decide what the constitutionon means and how to apply it to each situation as it would never be able to be long enough to cover every contingency.


So I ask you again.

MUST the bible be interpreted literally? If it can be interpreted non-literally, then does Harris still have a solid argument or has it slipped into the realm of opinion?

As society has evolved, some literalists have evolved into becoming "moderates". The reason being is that much of scripture would be socially unacceptable in todays society. So interpretation has changed with the changes of society.

But this isn't always the case. There were "moderates" back over a thousand years ago, way before society changed at all.

Thus Harris CAN NOT say that moderate ideas are new and due entirely to 2000 years of advancement.


How can it be due to 2000 years of advancement if there were people 2000 years ago who felt the same way as moderates today?

The problem with this is that moderates and literalists are very different on the spectrum of faith and practice. How can a moderate say a literalist is an extremist, ie islamic suicide bombers or the Christian Jesus camps training youths for judgment day, when they are following the same scripture as the moderates. Tell me, would you consider yourself a fundamentalist. One who sees scripture as the literal and inerrant word of God? Harris point is that the fundamentalist is using the same scripture as you. Yet they follow it to the letter, theoretically, as has been the traditional path of Christianity. Would they stone a child to death or a woman to death based on scripture, I believe the most devout fundamentalists would. Harris makes that point as well. So what separates you from them. When did it become acceptable to interpret scripture so liberally and ignore certain passages or interpret them so loosely they can mean anything. How can moderates and literalists coexist?

1) No I don't take it literally.

2) There are sick individuals who would stone people probably although I doubt we have seen this is a while.

3) How can they coexist? The same way that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu's, Jainists, Native Americans, and witch doctors coexist. By tolerating one another.

This is something Harris doesn't seem to grasp. Different opinions on faith do not necessarily, (or even often) lead to violence and bloodletting. Considering that a very high percentage of people have religious beliefs, and in the past it was close to 100% of people, if a difference of opinion was all that was needed for violence to erupt then the human race should have killed itself off completely.

Remember my little experiment about violence and religion? 3.2: 1 ratio for non-religious vs religious deaths over the last 1000 years. If Harris was even close to right about his rather far out opinion, that ratio should be at the very least reversed.

The reason there is no strawman here is because of this precisely. He doesn't say it must be interpreted literally or liberally.

I disagree. If the bible is allowed to be interpreted non-literally, then what is the problem with "moderates"""? Why does he say it is impossible for a moderate to exist, if their interpretations of the bible are allowed and valid (not necessarily TRUE just to make that distinction.)

Without the precondition that the bible should and in fact must be taken literally, the condemning of the moderate position is unwarranted.

[Confused]

So I ask you again.

MUST the bible be interpreted literally? If it can be interpreted non-literally, then does Harris still have a solid argument or has it slipped into the realm of opinion?

I can find nowhere where Harris overtly suggests it must be taken literally. What he does say is pg 20:

While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence. From the perspective of those seeking to live by the letter of the texts, the religious moderate is nothing more than a failed fundamentalist.... The problem with moderation is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism.

Once again, when looking at the spectrum in which Harris places no religion on one side and extremists on the other, with moderates in between, how do we separate the moderates from the extremists when they are using the exact same book to come to their "interpretation". Once again, the idea is both cannot be right. God cannot say divorce is allowed only for adultery in one passage yet be interpreted liberally by another as an understanding God wouldn\'t want a woman to stay in an abusive relationship thereby giving the church the ability to be understanding and accept the divorce under these grounds. Yet the moderates would accept the divorce under these standards.

As society has evolved, some literalists have evolved into becoming "moderates".

The reason being is that much of scripture would be socially unacceptable in todays society. So interpretation has changed with the changes of society.

But this isn't always the case. There were "moderates" back over a thousand years ago, way before society changed at all.

Thus Harris CAN NOT say that moderate ideas are new and due entirely to 2000 years of advancement.


How can it be due to 2000 years of advancement if there were people 2000 years ago who felt the same way as moderates today?

He doesn't say this. He says it has evolved with society, not abruptly changed. Those who agreed with you 2000 years ago were excommunicated or simply killed. Very few could word it so as to get their point across without offending the church at the same time. St. Augustine is a perfect example of this. Unfortunately, most forget some of his most important liberal views on scripture.

The problem with this is that moderates and literalists are very different on the spectrum of faith and practice. How can a moderate say a literalist is an extremist, ie islamic suicide bombers or the Christian Jesus camps training youths for judgment day, when they are following the same scripture as the moderates. Tell me, would you consider yourself a fundamentalist. One who sees scripture as the literal and inerrant word of God? Harris point is that the fundamentalist is using the same scripture as you. Yet they follow it to the letter, theoretically, as has been the traditional path of Christianity. Would they stone a child to death or a woman to death based on scripture, I believe the most devout fundamentalists would.

Harris makes that point as well. So what separates you from them. When did it become acceptable to interpret scripture so liberally and ignore certain passages or interpret them so loosely they can mean anything. How can moderates and literalists coexist?

1) No I don't take it literally.

2) There are sick individuals who would stone people probably although I doubt we have seen this is a while.

3) How can they coexist? The same way that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu's, Jainists, Native Americans, and witch doctors coexist. By tolerating one another.

But once again, scripture doesn't seem to allow for tolerance.

This is something Harris doesn't seem to grasp. Different opinions on faith do not necessarily, (or even often) lead to violence and bloodletting. Considering that a very high percentage of people have religious beliefs, and in the past it was close to 100% of people, if a difference of opinion was all that was needed for violence to erupt then the human race should have killed itself off completely.

Remember my little experiment about violence and religion? 3.2: 1 ratio for non-religious vs religious deaths over the last 1000 years. If Harris was even close to right about his rather far out opinion, that ratio should be at the very least reversed.

Differences in opinion based on faith have been the root of some of the most gruesome acts in history. Once again, I am not saying that all are attributed to religious roots and Harris gives his weak disclaimer of "generally". But IMHO, those with roots in religion are the worst because they serve no purpose. The outcome is never good. Hitler annhilated Jews, why? Rwanda, why? Holy wars, why? Israel war, why? When the US fought for its independence from Britain, there was a cause. When the north fought the south, there was a cause. With religion as a root, there is no cause. Only bloodshed.

Ok, that was mostly my opinion.



The reason there is no strawman here is because of this precisely. He doesn't say it must be interpreted literally or liberally.

I disagree. If the bible is allowed to be interpreted non-literally, then what is the problem with "moderates"? Why does he say it is impossible for a moderate to exist, iftheirr interpretations of the bible are allowed and valid (not necessarily TRUE just to make that distinction.)

Without the precondition that the bible should and in fact must be taken literally, the condemning of the moderate position is unwarranted.

Ok, your point is made. I understand your discontent with the position Harris is stating. I happen to agree with Harris in that literalists and moderates cannot coexist. I fail to find where such a merger could be condoned in scripture. Yes, I recall the passages you have gave me. But basic concepts of scripture are defining differences in literalists and moderates. I also believe that moderates have evolved with society. I don't dispute some existed 2000 years ago. However, they were the minority and they are now the majority.

Recall however, by the Gallop poll shown on pg 17, 35% of Americans believe the Bible is literal and inerrant. I am sorry, but I find this scary in and of itself.

I will however agree that on page 17, Harris does make an opinion when he states moderates retreat from scriptural literalism draws its inspiration from cultural developments. I agree with his opinion but I cannot back it with facts I can only note the slight coincidences in how tolerance has increased as society has evolved.

But I cannot find a position that states one must take scripture literally. I think he is simply comparing literalists and moderates on a spectrum of belief and he does point to the tolerances religion has made as society has evolved. That cannot be ignored. It may not be the significant factor for the increase in tolerance, but Harris makes a strong argument for it.

I guess it boils down to Harris stating that it is inconsistent for literalists and moderates to exist under the same scripture, the same God without clashing. You say that can with tolerance. I am not so sure that a literalist would agree with you. But since I cannot state that as anything more than a strong opinion we need to come to some sort of middle ground here. Or we will never move on.

[Confused]

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 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.

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

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.

[Confused]

This will complete the cut and paste from our saved posts that got deleted in the hack job. It will take me a few days to review them and then review the chapter to see where we were at definitively. However, I will wait for a response to my last 2 posts which essentially summarize where I was at.

[achilles12604]

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.

Likewise, if someone loves the bottle more than his wife, has he not committed the same form of adultery?

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.

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.



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 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.

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.


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?

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

I also agree.

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.