Leviticus 20:13

[gb2000ie]

richym & diklik - I'm loving this back and forth between you guys, but I feel I need to point out that diklik keeps ignoring richym's most potent point:

We need to be careful of taking things that Paul writes to various churches and making them prescriptive of what must happen, when quite possibly they were just descriptive of what was happening.

I think this is a really crucial point. The reality is that Jesus didn't leave instructions on how to build a church around his teaching, all we have is the opinions of early followers, and we're not even sure whether they should be taken as advice or descriptions!

Diklik's argument that the early church ballooned therefore that model should be followed doesn't hold water for me. It misses the core point we've all been making in this thread, that context matters. Just because something worked in the Iron Age is no reason to assume it will work in the information age!

Iron Age people didn't have to worry about the realities of health insurance, mortgages, pensions, and so forth. The simple reality is that people HAVE to have a stable income to be able to take basic care of themselves these days. If you don't pay your health insurance bill you're in deep deep trouble when you inevitably get ill, and if you don't make provisions for your future, you'll be forced to work till you die.

The bit I think we all agree on is that it feels very very very wrong to see supposed men of God clearly enriching themselves by exploiting their flock. If every pastor, preacher, priest, bishop, etc. lived off the average industrial wage we'd be a lot better off I think.

I happen to live near a place that regularly hosts meetings of the Irish Bishops. You can always tell that there is a church-related event on because the carpark is full of very expensive black and dark-grey cars. BIG Volvos, BIG Saabs, BIG Hondas, and Luxurious Toyotas seem to be the most popular these days. They do at least seem to have the sense to steer clear of obviously flashy cars like BMWs and Mercedes, as well as bright colours. I guess they think we're too stupid to spot a darkly coloured off-brand expensive car or something! It really sickens me to see such outrageous ostentatiousness all paid for by the flock. And, lets be honest, that's nothing compared to what an American Televangelist makes!

Somewhere between this outlandish exploitation and being 100% dependent on donations there must be a happy medium where religious leaders can live in security and comfort without things evolving to profiteering.

B.

 

[richym]

Diklik, I think we basically agree. A minister should never see it as a job. this is a calling. Yes we get paid for it because we need to survive. But money should never be the deciding element in any decisions we make. So we should not move to another church because they will pay us more, but because we feel that is where God is leading us. It is easy to get caught up in the money issue, but as Jesus said, you can not serve two masters, so it must always be God's leading, as much as us humans can manage it. A year or two our church made a decision to put out envelopes for people to use to give money directly to support my position, I was against it because there was the posibility of them feeling they then had a right to control what I do. Luckily that has not happened. Yes Diklik it is a fine line that we in ministry walk, and we need to remember we are servants of the church.

 

[diklik]

richym & diklik - I'm loving this back and forth between you guys, but I feel I need to point out that diklik keeps ignoring richym's most potent point:
Quote:
We need to be careful of taking things that Paul writes to various churches and making them prescriptive of what must happen, when quite possibly they were just descriptive of what was happening.

I think this is a really crucial point. The reality is that Jesus didn't leave instructions on how to build a church around his teaching, all we have is the opinions of early followers, and we're not even sure whether they should be taken as advice or descriptions!

Agreed that Jesus (probably intentionally) left no clear instructions on building and running the Church. My contention is that He knew that men (meaning humans in general) would naturally use God-given intelligence and wisdom to figure out an equitable and spiritually-acceptable methodology. Taking everything in context, one needs to credit God as having called and empowered the humans of His choice to begin the operation of the early church, with all their failings and shortcomings - as these chosen ones would have the drive and the spiritual integrity to see the cause through.

This doesn't excuse Paul's apparent misogyny, or the lack of attention given to strict standardization of teaching and so forth. But since the Church (and salvation itself) was intended for humans, and since God does not direct a planet of robots, then some humanity will always be evident. No excuse there for "riotous living" or knowing commission of sin of course.

My argument regarding using a winning model of the early church is a basic statement. No, I don't believe that we need to return to every custom and habit from the Iron age (thanks gb2000ie), but the model is a good one, in fact a perfect one for seeding the Gospel among humans. If we make adaptations for our modern lifestyles, we can still very faithfully discharge the duty of witnessing the salvation of the Lord.

BTW, for those who are reading and following, and who have noted my diatribes against religion, please understand that religion and faith are two completely different things. Religion, a word from Latin (religare), means roughly to re-apply or reinstate rules and laws. The practice of worship of God as described of the early church was the exact opposite of organized religion. Those early Christians were fugitives from Roman idol worship and Judaism's horrendously created (by humans) numerous laws and regulations. God is pretty simple and easy when one boils it all down.

Just sayin', to bridge the apparent disparity between my intense dislike of organized religious crap and basic faith in a Deity. For those who don't believe in a God, I respect that too. The greatest thing that God gave was love - and that love is supposed to transcend all differences between humans. So there is lots of room in my world for people who believe whatever they'd like to believe.

Somewhere between this outlandish exploitation and being 100% dependent on donations there must be a happy medium where religious leaders can live in security and comfort without things evolving to profiteering.

Yes, I believe that too. Haven't found it yet and since humans are involved it may be difficult (maybe impossible in today's society) for men to overcome the easy temptation to control others and profiteer from that.

 

[ozium]

Then don't make such flippant and ignorant statements. They make you look like a loony - and clearly that's not a fair reflection on you. It's you who are doing yourself a dis-service, not anyone else.

My statement was "It disappoints me apologists even try defending some of this garbage." Apologists defend the worst passages with "everyone was ignorant and stupid back then" hand waving, and in my opinion any honest description of the book would include the word "garbage" to be very polite. Its good is mediocre, its bad is reprehensible. If disrespecting atrocity makes me sound loony, that's unfortunate.

This is a historical doent we're talking about - it's importance is in the combination of it's whole and and it's context. For all the same reasons you should not revise the word 'nigger' out of Huck Finn, you should not remove the utterly unacceptable bits from the bible, but instead teach it properly.

In short - the biggest problem with the bible is that almost no one who claims to follow it has actually read it all, or has had any actual education about it's origins or context. Basically, the problem is ignorance, much more than the book itself.

But this isn't Huckleberry Finn, this is a book of supposed moral instructions by the creator of the universe. It claims it's non-fiction, and so do most of its readers. If the bible was only being taught as a historical doent, like stories of Greek gods, I would have no problem with it (besides much of it being inappropriate for younger ages). I don't judge it by the standards of ancient times because it's believed in present times, in some places every word.

Looks like someone got called out there. By posting biting statements, one invites critique based on them. By claiming that one finds a book unreadable, one simply demonstrates their own inability to read and comprehend, since countless others find the same book enlightening, or at least fascinating and full of information about past generations of humans. One need not have any faith or belief in a book in order to read it and examine the thoughts contained therein. I do not believe in Islam or worship Allah according to the teachings of that faith. But I own a very good translation of the Qur'an, simply for my own edification and learning.

Another straw man. I've read the book several times, as a believer, a non-believer, and things between. I've read the Qur'an too, and it's similarly awful. Torah, same deal. They're essentially identical, rooted in one male god, Abraham and friends. I call the bible mostly unreadable because as a narrative it's less interesting and developed than "The Boxcar Children", and at its worst it's some of the least moral instruction anyone could still believe. As I said above, if it were only being taught historically I would have no problem with the bible. It is important historically, there are some redeeming passages, and its errors can be explained easily if its assumed fiction.

 

[ozium]

Are you mixing up the old testament with the Bible per-chance? Clearly, the NT is about no such thing. I'd argue the OT has no business being considered a Christian book, but that's a matter for another day. You can't pretend the whole bible is the OT, and you can't pretend the gospels teach any such thing as genocide.

B.

If there is no Adam and Eve/original sin, there is no need for Jesus. Noah, Moses, Abraham, etc are as important to Christianity or more than most NT figures. Psalms and Proverbs are favorites among Christians, the 10 commandments are revered. As the OP points out, people still cherry pick archaic OT verses against gays and others when the occasion suits. Jesus says to both keep and break OT law, and he's not as specific as he should be given the severity and number of laws in question. I will say the God character is gentler in the NT and that's nice, though highly suspect for an all-knowing God, but that doesn't erase the bloody, irrational past. As improved as the NT is ethically, there are some awful bits that need edited as well, most notably the introduction of a fiery hell. What is Jesus's sacrifice ultimately? Temporary suicide? And for the love of humanity, chuck out Revelation.

 

[diklik]

Another straw man. I've read the book several times, as a believer, a non-believer, and things between. I've read the Qur'an too, and it's similarly awful. Torah, same deal. They're essentially identical, rooted in one male god, Abraham and friends. I call the bible mostly unreadable

Yes, indeed. YOU call the bible and similar texts unreadable. That's fine, since you are entitled to your opinion. But your saying so doesn't make it so for anyone but you and those who believe likewise. What a wonderful world this is, with so many diverse opinions. They say that opinions are like assholes - each of us has one.

The fact remains that when you make sweeping critiques and broad statements as you have, you invite similar statements against your position. To whine after the fact is juvenile. Either state your case and stand up to objections, or don't bother. Interesting that, unless I've missed a post, no one has personally attacked you, just your opinions and statements which do tend to put you in a class almost by yourself.

 

[diklik]

If there is no Adam and Eve/original sin, there is no need for Jesus. Noah, Moses, Abraham, etc are as important to Christianity or more than most NT figures. Psalms and Proverbs are favorites among Christians, the 10 commandments are revered.

Yes this is true, but only to the extent of sin needing a sacrifice to deal with it. However revered some portions of the OT are, they are not the Gospels, nor are they canon law for Christians. Maybe law for certain denominational structures, but then those weren't called for or approved of by God anyway.

Jesus specifically taught that if one loves and worships God, and loves his neighbour and does to him as one does to oneself, then that person has fulfilled all the law and the Commandments. So the decalogue per se is nothing more than a reminder list of critical behaviours that God has spoken of.

I enjoy reading Psalms and Proverbs for some of the comparison lessons in life that they point out. But I don't take all my directions in living from them, nor from any specific portion of Scriptural text. Jesus did not give us any written rules or regs for Christianity. It is so basic, that humans miss it most of the time, in their search for some complex and secret club or grouping to which they must belong in order to get to heaven. Salvation couldn't be easier and faith in God couldn't be simpler. But hey, exclusive clubs are more fun for some folk.

 

[gb2000ie]

But this isn't Huckleberry Finn, this is a book of supposed moral instructions by the creator of the universe. It claims it's non-fiction, and so do most of its readers. If the bible was only being taught as a historical doent, like stories of Greek gods, I would have no problem with it (besides much of it being inappropriate for younger ages). I don't judge it by the standards of ancient times because it's believed in present times, in some places every word.

The bible is a book written by humans. The only difference between it and Greek or Roman or Egyptian religious texts is that some of the believers are still alive. It is every bit a valuable as the Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead for all the same reasons. At the time, that too was written by believers as a sacred text containing religious truths.

The fact that it was written as a religious book is just a part of the Bible's context. I don't see why it should be seen as any different to any other religious book, they were all written by believers and thought to be sacred. You could even argue that it's extra-interesting because it has remained in use for so many thousand years. The old testament in particular because of it's importance to three of the largest religions on the planet.

B.

 

[diklik]

The bible is a book written by humans. ................You could even argue that it's extra-interesting because it has remained in use for so many thousand years. The old testament in particular because of it's importance to three of the largest religions on the planet.

GB2000IE, that is the trouble with all the naysayers. They have their point of view and they're welcome to it. But - and this is the key point - they have nothing to replace the Bible with. As full as Scripture is of possible errors in translation, errors caused by human bias, conflicting details, and all that, the very fact that those three faith groupings have based themselves on the OT for some and both OT and NT for others does speak volumes about the importance of Scriptural text.

I criticize the Bible in many aspects, and certainly I would love to see an end to organized religion (organized servitude and emotional bondage in my view) - but the Bible still hangs in there as the most often purchased book on this planet. Scientology can't make that claim for L. Ron Hubbard's books; Mao's little red book falls far short as do other socio-political works. This would seem to say that many more people choose to read and study their faith information from the Bible than from other sources. Not everyone who reads the Bible and attempts to learn from it is duped or brain-washed. When another text comes forth, with as much background as the Bible has, and has stood the same test of time (various translations notwithstanding), I'll examine it with interest.

 

[jofra]

One must remember that this is the OLD Testament. If we went by the rules of the old Testament we would also be required to giving up offerings of sheep etc. The New Testament made things different.

 

[diklik]

About your ideology that because three religions found their bases in one book then it speaks volume about its importance, well let's say that it is very possible, and even plausible that all these people were completely wrong.

I'd agree that it's 50/50. But if one is doing an extensive critique of Scripture and wishes to poke holes in it, I accept..........on the basis of "show me something better, otherwise how can you be sure of the holes you poke?" In other words, true negation of something can only be validated by proof of it's opposite or alternate. Otherwise, all we have is an alternate theory. Great, the more the merrier and the more selection from which to choose which is logical for one's personal faith.

 

[diklik]

A claim is a claim and needs evidences to validate that claim. If there is no evidence for that claim, then it is nothing more than an anecdote and their extraordinary claim bears as much credibility as a lunatic in a psychiatric facility.

Well, since I have witnessed and been involved in a number of so-called anecdotes that convinced me of the existence and presence of God, and have no way of scientifically validating my claims at this time, I will raise my hand as a paid up member of the lunatics-in-a-psychiatric-facility grouping. One key difference is that I do not worry one bit about public credibility. I enjoy debate and discussion, but in the end I am not moved by others who do not believe. Perhaps that is my faith in operation. And, to top that spiritual ice cream sundae off with some Scriptural "whipped cream", the Bible does indeed warn believers that many will call them fools due to their belief. Nothing new here under the sun.

Just to keep my perspective clear for those reading, I assert only the existence of God, and decry the mockery of faith propagated by organized religion.

I assert that, since no one can prove the non-existence of God, it is conceivable that God exists. Many scientific facts of today were formerly disbelieved and un-verifiable at that time. Since humans do not have ultimate knowledge of everything on this planet, and certainly little knowledge of the rest of our universe and galaxy, I would say that it is not logical to flatly pronounce that God isn't there simply because no one can prove His presence. Until the first experiments with controlled fission were achieved, Einstein could not conclusively prove his theories. Many scientific authorities of the day denied that Einstein's theories had any possible truth to them. The lack of initial provability did not stop E=MC2 from being true, once it was finally demonstrated. The inability to see, feel, smell, touch, hear or otherwise perceive God with our sensorium does not invalidate God's existence.

William Shakespeare wrote it beautifully: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
(Hamlet Act 1, scene 5)

 

[diklik]

...................when we have an unknown, it is imperative to first know if it exists or not in the first place before starting to define it, which every religions do ad nauseam. Let's start with the premise instead of burning steps.

An anecdote is not "so-called" if there is no evidence.

Okay, I can accede to the unknown being properly undefined and remaining as a premise. Indeed, religious systems try to define deity according to their own preferences and ends. However an anecdote is just that - an experience without external or impartial validation or evidentiary backup. Anecdotal cures in medicine are known and results are observed but not repeatable in any scientific way. Perhaps my use of the descriptor 'so-called', coloured what I meant to express-----that the anecdotal experiences were very real and proven as far as I was concerned. So they were a personal validation for which I did not seek experiential proof from outside sources.

 

[diklik]

Well it might be your explanation that is valid though there are many other plausible explanations to these kinds of experiences...................who knows if that supernatural event one has witnessed was not the work of their god but one of their devil's or any other kind of impostors with super powers?

Absolutely! That's why I maintain that, for me, those experiences were sufficient to prove and encourage my own faith. I could never expect someone else to believe them, unless they heard my explanation, felt the same as I did/do, and chose to believe likewise. Sure, anything supernatural can have its origin in some power other than God. I would look for the end result in the person's life who experienced the occurrence. Did the experience improve their life, did it make them a better person, etc.? I would offer that an experience from some force other than God would not bring about betterment. Again, that's my own value judgment.

 

[diklik]

Again, what is a "betterment"? Isn't it something you do to your own life so you become better in your own eyes and the people around you?............. Good and evil don't exist, they depend on the personal values of the one who looks.

Betterment, at least in the context I use, is meant to express improvement of one's life in any way that makes them a better person - and this could also imply "better" as a human in general towards other humans.

On good and evil, I'd argue against limiting them to a personal value definition. There are basic human values that could be classed as good without religion or deity involved, with evil being the denial or denigration of those same values......preservation of life, defense of the weak or helpless, not willfully causing hurt or distress to another person..... could be some of what might be termed basic "good" values. Of course, the classic Christian statement is that those values are placed in every human by God.

 

[diklik]

xx