The problem with Christianity is the book Christians claim to follow...

[Humanist_Activist]

I found the two threads about Christian values and/or actions fascinating, because apparently, the Christians on this board don't follow the Bible all that much, but cherry pick what fits with their secular morality, and claim its Yahweh's and/or Jesus's morality.

Seriously, how many Christians here have read the Bible? I mean cover to cover, and not just your favorite, cherry picked verses? Christians attach so many attributes to their god and Jesus that simply aren't supported in the Bible, or only are supported partially if you don't read even all of a single passage.

Jesus was more than the Beatitudes, and hell, those have the concept of mind crime, which is messed up in its own way, and isn't all that wise to begin with. You also cannot ignore the actions of the Old Testament Yahweh, read what he was celebrated to have done to a shit load of people in the Near East. Keeping 32 Midianite girls for his own pleasure? Yes, your god is a rapist.

Of course, in reality, he isn't really your god, is he? Most Christians in the world today don't support genocide, slavery, rape, or any of the innumeral immoral things both Yahweh and Jesus supported or were ambivalent about. Instead you use the names of these characters, and give them completely different personalities from the ones presented in the Bible. At some point it has to be asked, why don't you just start your own religion using different names for the beings you worship? Seems rather dishonest to say you are Christian, yet not follow the Bible in any way shape or form.

Of course, the funniest thing in the world is that I don't even have a bone in this fight, these are characters in mythology after all, can't really take them seriously. I mean, I still criticize the portrayal and actions of them, but its no different than me saying Zeus was an asshole for raping women and being a all around jackass. Doesn't mean I think the guy is real.

The problem is that, followers of Zeus are few and far between, if any still exist at all, but the followers of Yahweh and Jesus number in the billions. Thankfully most of them either don't care enough about their religion to know the Bible, or are smart enough to realize most of it is BS that they are, for all practical purposes, mostly secular in moral outlook. Even those who claim to still be religious don't really hold to so called Biblical values, why don't you make a list as to what is most important in your life, what values do you hold most dear, and then search for them, in detail, in your Bible, and see how well you morality and beliefs are derived from that book.

Of course, there are other Christians who also cherry pick the Bible, and take other verses to heart, the ones of violence and intolerance, but the key is this, whether fundie or liberal, all Christians cherry pick what they like, and both types derive their moral, political, ethical outlooks from extra biblical sources first. They just attempt to tack on Biblical justification later.

I think the key here is this, a Christian is anyone who thinks Jesus is Yahweh's only son and the Messiah. Everything else, moral or otherwise, is on the table, a Christian can be the nicest guy you meet, or a complete asshole, at best Christianity has a neutral affect on a believer's behavior, at worst its a motivation for the most violent of acts. But regardless of the actions of the believer, if they believe, they are still Christian.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. American Christians = Republicans. Anything other than that, is an exception.

And since Republicans are amoral, there's not much I can say for those that joined them.

[Kurmudgeon]

5. Sorry, but wrong. The GOP doesn't own Christianity, they only display the icons without the teaching

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. I've been around plenty of churches, and they all spew the same ideology

that Republicans do. I'm not saying there may have been some exceptions, but the American Christian churches brought the evil that has destroyed this country.

[Kurmudgeon]

9. As a generic Christian, I've been in many different churches.

While mostly religious and social services go on in the church, I've seen bumper stickers for all parties attached to cars parked outside. Yes, even independents.
I'm not Republican and the political split is just as evident in most churches as any other section of society.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

10. They're all similar. By rounding up Christians with anti-gay hatred, anti-abortion hatred, etc....

they managed to get a right wing trend going that lasted 31 years and is heading towards 32.

[Drale]

2. I've read both the Bible and the Quran cover to cover and

I find my views on God and the world have not changed because of it. My whole world view is basically treat everyone nicely until they treat you badly.

[Humanist_Activist]

8. OK, so you never followed it, correct? n/t

[Drale]

11. The Bible? No not really

although like all religious texts, it has some good ideas and some really bad ideas.

[Humanist_Activist]

12. Yeah, no different than any other source of literature and mythology. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Frankly, you sound as confused about the contents of that book

as do the religious people. Yahweh was never a physical being. So 'he' did not keep women for 'his pleasure' even as a literary character or myth. Some king did, I'm sure. But not Yahweh, which is your contention. Just as Hamlet did not do a tap dance, and also did not exist. See?

[Humanist_Activist]

7. Yahweh has actually manifested himself physically quite a few times in the Bible...

even wrestled one of his prophets(and lost)!

Numbers 31:40 And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD's tribute was thirty and two persons.

Note, God just ordered the Israelites to kill all males of the Midianites, and all "women who have known men" but to keep the "women children" who did not "know man" alive to use as they see fit. Of which, his cut is 32 of those people.

[provis99]

13. didn't God also show his ass to Moses?

something about showing himself from the front would blast ole Moses into oblivion, so he showed Moses his ass instead.

[okasha]

14. Numbers 31:41:

"Moses gave Eleazar the priest the portion set aside for Yahweh, in acordancce with Yahweh's instruction to Moses."

Theres also ambiguity about the identity of the figure who wrestles with Jacob, who's not, by the way a prophet. It may be Yahweh, but is more generally identified as an angell or even a man.

So, have you read the book yourself, or just cherry-picked websites? Sure looks like the latter.

[Humanist_Activist]

19. Half remembered passages from many years ago...

and yes I read it myself, studied to become a priest at one point, haven't cracked one open in about 10 years. Didn't remember who Yahweh wrestled, thought it was a prophet, owe well.

Of course, this doesn't resolve the issue of having 32 people set aside for rape, regardless of whether Yahweh did it himself, he instructed that they should be raped. I believe in a court of law, that would make him as bad as the perpetrators of the rape themselves.

[okasha]

21. Perhaps not rape.

All the spoils set aside and given to Eleazar were to be "an offering to Yahweh." Since there's no indication of human sacrifice in the story, this probably means they were dedicated as temple servants.

Given also that there's no indication that an invas ionof Canaan ever happened, and given that the numbers of captured cattle and humans are wildly improbabe (32,000! virgins) this story is best regarded as an embellishment of Israel's foundation epic.

[Humanist_Activist]

24. True, I wouldn't treat the story as historical fact, but the Bible is supposed to be this example...

of moral righteousness(according to Christians), and frankly it completely fails at this. You say temple servants, what you really mean are temple slaves. Why beat around the bush? According to the Bible, foreigners can be owned by Israelites for life, and be inherited as well.

Not to mention the treatment of such slaves, even being used for sex and procreation when convenient, and then discarded like used furniture when no longer needed.

[emilyg]

4. When I was 14 I read the

bible cover to cover. Re-read it in my 40's.

[rug]

15. The opposite of cherry picking is broad brushing.

[cleanhippie]

16. When the color is the same, a broadbrush is the right tool.

[rug]

17. When you close your eyes, you don't see any color at all.

[cleanhippie]

18. True, but I don't like to be blinded by willful ignorance.

Maybe thats your thing, but putting one's head into the sand does not solve any problems.

[Humanist_Activist]

20. What broad brush? Are you saying there are Christians out there that don't cherrypick? n/t

[uppityperson]

22. Have you read the Bible in its original or only translations with errors?

For you, Christians must believe Jesus was the Messiah, cross, risen, etc. For others, they believe in following what teachings were attributed to Jesus, "be as I am, do as I do" sort of thing.

Funny how those are 2 very different ideas, isn't it.

But back to my main question, have you read the Bible in its original form, not the error ridden translations?

[Humanist_Activist]

23. Does it magically make all the atrocities and contradictions disappear?

While I agree that translations are error prone, particularly for the Bible, you cannot honestly say that it changes things so much that what everything I've mentioned isn't still there.

And no, I didn't read it in its original form, besides, which form would that be, the one decided by committee about 1700 years ago? Or just the Torah?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

25. It's full of blood, guts, cruelty and violence in translation.

I come not in peace but with a sword, etc.

The joy of dashing the brains of the little ones against the rocks??

Etc. Etc.

[struggle4progress]

26. Your reading is uninteresting. Let me commend Ernst Bloch's "Atheism and Christianity,"

which is a capstone piece written by the old Marxist and atheist at the end of his life

Bloch, a German and a refugee from the Nazis, at least knew how to read. He probably deserves much of the credit for the influential post-WWII Marxist-Christian dialog.

I consider Bloch's text a serious piece of theological thinking by an atheist:

...Whose Bible?

The Bible speaks with special directness to the ordinary and unimportant. It alone can claim to be audible to everyone. As for the way the clerics have used it, that can largely be judged and condemned by the text itself ... True, it cuts right across the nations but, in its accepted form, it by no means cuts right across social classes. On the contrary, there is something very two-faced about it; something that is often a scandal to the poor and not always a folly to the rich ...

... And nowadays, when the biblical text is such a splendid thing, with such inner depths and authenticity, when it is demythologized at all costs, even at the cost of the fire, is it not true that the spark in it which flared up from below is also paralyzed, and can change nothing anymore? ... The Bible is, then, by no means zealous only for the cause of My little ones, of the murmurers and malcontents, quite the opposite.

But over and over again against all this stand sentiments no other religious book contains: suffering that will suffer no longer, buoyant expectation of Exodus and restoration transformation -- not in some psalms of lowliness, but definitely in Job, and elsewhere too. Piety here, from first to last, belongs to the restless alone; and the particular brand of Utopian loyalty which keeps him restless is the only thing that is, in the long run, deep ...

Translated by JT Swann

[Humanist_Activist]

27. Hmm, very arrogant and exclusionary, what advantage does the Bible have over the Bhagavad Gita?

Or any other of the numerous religious texts of all religions, both those that no longer exist and modern religions? The stupidest claim from that text you excerpted is the claim the Bible applies to all people, uh, the god of the Bible called himself the god of Israel how many times? The Bible is actually very provincial, because at that time, nations had not only state religions, but state gods, Marduk over Babylon, etc. Yahweh is no different, and things only changed much later in the Bible, but still, there are no truly universal themes in the entire book.

[okasha]

28. Define how you're using "universal theme," please.

n/t

[Humanist_Activist]

30. Something that would apply to all people at all times...

Frankly the Bible is a poor source for these, you can take a few verses out of context and say, these are universal(such as thou shall not murder), but that's only after pages of historical info, myth, rules for rituals no one does anymore, etc. Frankly you'd get more out of the writings of most philosophers if you are so inclined.

And again, this isn't any different from any other "holy" text from any other religion.

[okasha]

32. I disagree.

You have tales of sibling rivalry--Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and his brothers, Isaac and Ishamael, the prodigal son.

You have improbable love stories--Rachab, the prostitute with the heart of gold, performs an act of bravery and wins a good man. Ruth forsakes everything for Naomi and wins the favor of Boaz. David adn Jonathan. David and Bathsheba. Mary Magdalene (quite possibly) and Jesus.

You have classic rivalries between fathers and sons, of which Saul and Jonathan and David and Absalom are the most prominent.

You have, repeatedly, from the Old Testament to the New, the narrative of the small band of resistors fighting oppression--and winning out in the end even despite the death of the leader.

All of these are universal archetypes with appeal accross cultures and millenia. I think you're confusing "universal themes" with something like Kantian imperatives.

And of course, those basic rules are similar from society to society. You can't have a society if folk are allowed to go about killing each other or stealing each other's goods with impunity. On the positive side, you have such things as the Parable of the Good Samaritan, which says any fellow human being in need is your neighbor, and it's your duty (possibly your privilege) to help him. Ditto Lazarus and Dives. Most societies (except Republicans)have some provision for caring for the their poor and helpless. I don't think anyone with any knowledge claims these are unique to the Bible--but then, I don't see that uniqueness is important in this context.

[Humanist_Activist]

34. And again, none of those are unique to the Bible, nor did they originate there...

that's part of the point, any "universal" themes are there because they talk about HUMAN experiences, we are all the same species after all, with the same basic wants and needs, the fact that the Bible contains such stories isn't indicative of anything more than its authors being human.

ON EDIT: Wait a second, rereading your post, where does genocide fit in with "fighting the oppressor"?

[okasha]

36. Not all "fighting the oppressor" results in genocide.

Jesus, for example, did not commit genocide against the Romans, nor did the zealots among his followers. The Maccabees not only did not kill all the Seleucids, they intermarried with them. There was no Judahite massacre of the Assyrian or Babylonian nations. Etc. Why the automatic jump from "fighting the oppressor" to "genocide?"

As for where "universal themes" originate, one would be hard put to identify any one piece of literature, since these proceed from the collective unconscious that creates our archetypal narratives. And of course the Bible was written by humans. Did you suppose anyone thought zebras wrote it? Or little green men from Antares?

[Humanist_Activist]

37. Of course you can't pin down where these universal themes came from...

most likely they were passed down and invented in many different places around the world, mostly in oral form, but as soon as people developed writing systems, then they copied many of these myths and legends down. However, this doesn't mean the Bible was one of them indeed it was not, written down far too late, it instead adopted and adapted many of these stories from surrounding cultures, the myths of Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, Persian, etc. Many of which predate the Bible by thousands of years.

[struggle4progress]

29. Perhaps it depends on whose voice one hears. In the hands of Gandhi, for example,

the Gītā becomes an instrument for expounding satyāgraha and ahiṃsā, even where the plain meaning of the text might suggest a rather different reading. But there is an especially long Judaic tradition of such argument, rooted in the dissent of Abraham and in Jacob's wrestling and in the book about Job, of which Bloch writes:

... The picture Yahweh paints is atrociously disedifying, calling to mind as it does the eleventh song of the Bhagavad-Gita, where Krishna reveals himself to Arjuna as a repulsive maelstrom of death and monstrous birth. But none of that would have done anything to convert, let alone convince Job ... The final conversion scene .. may have been added by the author so that he could safely give vent to his heresy -- which he succeeds in doing ... The extent text, corrupt and incoherent, reads verbally thus: "And I know that my avenger lives, and at last he will stand up upon the dust. And after this my skin are destroyed, and from the flesh I shall see God. Whom I see for myself and my eyes behold and no stranger" ... Job stands in a world where terrible experience has proved the requital-dogma empty. It is not alone that he suffers: he protests as a representative ...

Trans. Swann

Like Abraham, Job talks back; like Jacob, he insistently fights back, even if he is damaged

[Humanist_Activist]

31. If someone's hearing voices, they should see s shrink...

but I digress, the fact is that if the interpretation of religious texts are so subjective, then what use are they? We advance, ethically, and instead of discarding these outdated and outmoded books, we reinterpret them. Why? What is the point?

ON EDIT: And you dodged the question by making things subjective. Again I ask, and expect a straight answer, does the Bible have any advantage over any other religious text? Better morals, more accurate, etc.

[struggle4progress]

33. If, when reading Gandhi, I "hear" Gandhi's "voice," that does not seem to me a psychiatric problem:

such texts were, after all, produced with the intent that these "voices" could carry over space and time

Nor do I find your distaste, for subjectivity, cogent: you speak of ethical advances, but ethics is a rather curious field, which in an essential way must always remain firmly rooted in an idea that "the subjectivity of the other deserves consideration." Of course, this "consideration of the subjectivity of others" is often the starting point for more "objective" thoughts -- but subsequently to set entirely aside "the subjectivity of others," in favor of a more "objective" ethical theory, would strip ethics of its any actual content

Finally, with regard to your claim that I "dodged the question" -- you began this thread by asserting "the problem with Christianity is the book Christians claim to follow." In response, I noted there were readings I find more interesting, and I pointed in particular towards the atheist Ernst Bloch and the post-WWII Marxist-Christian dialog to which he contributed. You then pointed to another religious text, and I provided a relevant excerpt from Bloch

[Taverner]

35. Look - even in its most liberal interpretation - the Christian Value System is impossible

That is, impossible to follow

Turn your cheek, EVERY TIME?!?!?

Forgive your trespassers? EVERY TIME?!?!?!

No sex, no intoxication (other than cannabis - PM me if you think this isn't so - hey! I'm for it!)

You have to live every moment while watching this transpire...

And at the same time, no lying, no fornication, no sex other than for procreation...


-----------------------------------


But at the same time, there have been "breaks" from this for war

You can kill as many people as you want, as long as it is for Jesus

------------------------------------


AND! If you are lukewarm about any of this

You have to opt out and go to hell!!!!

HELL

Eternal torment for not following this plan!!!!!!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

38. Lots of contradictions in the bible.

My examples of the cruelties endorsed by Jesus in the NT were removed by the moderators. The only response my opposition had was "pearls before swine" which is not even an argument.

It could be argued that atheists and secular humanists are MORE moral than Christians, because they intend to do the right thing without consideration of reward or punishment in the afterlife.

[okasha]

39. Where do you get the "no sex"

and "no intoxication?" from? Certainly not the Bible.

Now, Paul thought celibacy was preferable because he was expecting Jesus' return momentarily, and he thought Christians shouldn't encumber themselves with distractions such as marriage. But he also said, "It's better to marry than to burn."

And Jesus was apparently something of a party guy, comparing himself to the ascetic John the Baptist: "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they said, 'Look, a glutton and a drunkard.'"