Posted by Hemant Mehta on: 02.22.2006 /
I’ve mentioned I’m vegetarian– this was initially for religious reasons. As a child, I remember asking the monks at our temple if it was *ever* ok to eat meat. Say, I was on a deserted island and I would die if I didn’t do so. Would it be ok then?
The monks always said it would be ok in that case. Why? Because even if I did something that bad, I would be saving my own life, and I would be able to make up the bad karma by doing good deeds from that point on. I would have this “net-positive” karma for my action.
I say this only because people have asked Jim and the Off-the-Map people why they hired an Atheist if they are supposed to be good Christians.
Well, they are letting an Atheist see what Christianity has to offer and allowing him to question what he sees. If, in the process, I help people strengthen their own faith or make new people religious by encouraging them to explore Christianity the way I am doing so, I think OTM would have achieved something they believe is wonderful.
My point: It’s ok to do something that may seem “bad” if it can turn out better in the long run. I say this not because I think what OTM did in bidding on me was a bad thing, but because I get the sense others may feel that way.
Comment by: skikid
1Hemant~
Why did you do the e-bay auction?
Comment by: Hemant
2I did the eBay auction because I initally figured the money would motivate me to go to church– otherwise, I would simply keep assuming there is no god without seeing what the “other side” had to offer.
When the bidding increased, the questions people were asking and the interest in what I was doing became more of a motivation to go than the money– I would really be doing something interesting for all parties and people wanted to hear about it!– which is one of the reasons it was easy to give away the money to a group that I knew could use it.
I am sincere about being open to religion if I can find reason to believe in it. But I think it’s just as important that everyone has been participating in this positive, back-and-forth dialogue.
Hope that answers the question.
Comment by: skikid
3Yup… thanks
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
4Hemant,
You are a stud! I work at a University where I see a lot of people who talk about atheism, but never make the effort to examine their beliefs. And I attend a church where I see a lot of people who talk about Christianity, but never make the effort to examine their beliefs. You are stepping out of the box in a way that very few do. Way to go.
Let me add just one other comment. It is in regard to your thoughts on the story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac. (If you ask a Muslim about this story he will tell you that it was Ishmael who was on the alter. But that’s another post.) At the time of the story, Abraham lived in a religious environment in which the local pagan gods were regularly worshipped with human or infant sacrifice. So the willingness of Abraham to do this should not be seen as bizarre as such an act would be today. But — and here is the great point of the story — God wanted to emphasize to Abraham that He was not that sort of god.
The picture the bible portrays of God is of one who is loving and gracious. And so God gave Abraham an “object lesson” in His graciousness. He asked for an act of sacrificial worship. But He, Himself, provided the sacrifice. And, of course, millenia later He would once again demand a sacrifice. And again He would provide the sacrifice…this time He, Himself, WAS the sacrifice.
Hemant, I wish you all the best in your journey. I just found your story today, but I will be following it in the weeks to come.
God speed.
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: Jim Henderson
5Hemant
Does this version of Abraham do anything new for you?
What if I told you that Issac was 33 years old when he climbed up on that altar - what does that do for you?
Comment by: Ir
6Hi Hemant,
You wrote: “My point: It’s ok to do something that may seem “bad” if it can turn out better in the long run.”
I agree. In practice I try to check carefully how “bad” the “bad” thing is that might lead to a good thing in the long run, before going ahead with it, to make sure it’s worth it. (I expect you do too)
Along those lines, I don’t believe OTM would have entered into this project if they thought it was significantly likely to have the “bad” result of preventing you from ever becoming a Christian - even if they also thought it was significantly likely to help lots of other people become Christians in the long run. Their entire marketing budget for 2006 was not too high a price to pay, but I believe that “bad” result would have been, for them.
Comment by: luiza
7sometimes i think we don’t read our text anymore. the words pass in front of our eyes but what’s playing in our heads is the sermon we heard which ‘explained‘ everything to us. that’s sad because it means we’re not really reading and when we don’t read we can’t be touched or challenged. There are some really difficult and troublesome stories in the bible - look at judges for goodness sake! it occurs to me that many of the atheists who have contributed to this blog have read the bible with eyes far fresher than mine and it would be good for me to read the bible like that again…
Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania
8Hemant,
Back to your original question.
No, I think it’s not OK to do somehing bad if good will result. For so many reasons. I don’t think it’s ever OK to do something evil. And if you’re doing it because “good will result” or “good may result” you are basing the goodness or evil-ness of the thing you do on something that you can’t predict with pure certainty.
Of course, this is all based on my biblical and judeo-christian understanding of evil, isn’t it…
That said, this whole thing with OTM hiring you isn’t in the “bad” category anyway. I expect they truly believe that if you spend a great deal of time examining the Christian faith with an open mind, which you seem to have, that there is a good chance you may arrive at the conclusion that it has merit.
I’m really enjoying reading this. It’s very helpful!
Comment by: Mark
9At first I thought Hemant was unusual and pulling a stunt by doing this. I was relieved to find out it was a means to close the gap between atheists and theists. I am a little jealous/envious that I too am an atheist and have gone to various churches with my widowed grandma to help her find a community she loves. She finally did find a Baptist church she likes but shortly afterword she finally asked me about my beliefs, she had no idea I was an atheist and when she tried to prostelytize she got quite a shock at my biblical knowledge and yet remained an atheist. She’s moved past it and realized I’m happy she has a community but it’s not for me.
Comment by: Ir
10Mark, that was very kind of you to accompany your grandmother to churches to help her find one she liked. What effect did your church experiences have on you (if any)? I’m interested to hear about your church experiences as well as Hemant’s.
Comment by: Mark
11I found comfort in her happiness but if you are asking about the transference of the god/jesus idea on me there was none. I’m not close-minded about god but I am a content atheist. I was also the only one who would go see The Passion with her.
Comment by: Ir
12Mark, I somehow sensed that visiting churches had not made a Christian out of you :).
Was there anything else significant about your experiences visiting churches, apart from pleasure in being able to help your grandmother find comfort? Whether it’s positive or negative, and whether it has anything to do with the beliefs of Christianity or not, I’m interested to hear.
Comment by: Mark
13I was a Christian once and went to church a couple times a week. Nothing significant really, other than seeing my grandma happy. I’m not sure what you are looking for in an answer to be honest.
Comment by: Ir
14That was a fine answer - thanks.
Comment by: earlychurchfathers
15Hi Hemant,
You wrote: “My point: It’s ok to do something that may seem “bad” if it can turn out better in the long run.”
… I just thought I would let you know for the sake of information that this is not the Roman Catholic perspective. Here is the pertinent area of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
III. TO CHOOSE IN ACCORD WITH CONSCIENCE
1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.
1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.
1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.
1789 Some rules apply in every case:
- One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
- the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”56
- charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.”57 Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”58
Comment by: Siamang
16The answer for me is, it depends on the type of evil.
You could say that in performing surgery you have to slash a person open to save their life.
That’s an analogy, of course. I don’t believe that surgery is evil! ;-)
But I do think there are circumstances where actions can be taken that when examined seperate from the full sweep of consequence, seem evil.
Which is why to be a moral being, one must weigh consequence before acting.
The problem with the Jain monks story above is that it IMAGINES invisible consequences for the eating of meat, and then places that imagined consequence up against the real consequence of starvation.
Any time you place imagined invisible and faith-related consequences above verifyable real consequences, you get the potential for faith to be a blindfold.
Comment by: Lucas
17‘It’s ok to do something that may seem “bad” if it can turn out better in the long run.’
That’s an excellent point, and one that a lot of people (particularly Christians) tend to forget. Jesus did a lot of ‘bad’ things in his life; breaking religious laws, hanging out with prostitutes and lepers, etc. Fundamentally, the law of love supercedes all else, according to the teachings of Jesus.
Of course, that doesn’t mean we should justify stealing from people to donate to a charity or something like that; it simply means that something that is perceived as ‘bad’ may not always actually be bad.
Great post. Again, keep up the quality of the posts; it’s really encouraging to see someone being open-minded.
Comment by: skikid
18We have “God Talk” at my chruch… basically just an open ended discussion time… Someone asked if “it is ever ok to perpetrate violence?” The quick answer was “no”. The question was then rephrased “is it ever ok to perptrate violence in defense of someone who is defenseless?”. I know that I have been thinking about it for the past couple of weeks but I was wondering what you all thought?
Comment by: KSG
19This is an interesting dialog that could quickly dissolve into a discussion on post-modernism and relativism.
Unfortunately, people who are making every effort to live as Xians (regardless of denominational tag) and not just claiming to be Xians (but without the results evidenced in their lives) really don’t have the liberty to participate in concepts like moral relativism. The Bible (which Xians accept as the word of God) is fairly clear on many moral issues we wrestle with. The only challenge is living out those principles. The separation comes when we are more committed to following moral rules made by men instead of following moral principles given by God.
However, if I were an atheist I guess I would have no problem with relativism since the issues of an authority above my own wouldn’t exist.
So atheism does have some advantages.
Here’s a question for someone to try answer. If science is so great and the answer to all mankind’s woes, why does it create so many moral dilemmas?
We can keep a human body alive but then leave it up to another person to decide to shut off life support. We can keep a sick newborn alive but we send a man to jail for murder when he kills that same child 12 years later because for that 12 years the child suffered with severe cerebral palsy and seizures.
Science, reason, and logic requires faith to keep it from exalting mankind as god and thereby leaves us subject to the laws of physics where everything spirals downward into depravity, entropy and chaos. (I know I will get challenged on this. For you Xians - Rom 2:17-25)
I’m not knocking science or reason or logic as being bad, quite the opposite. I am merely saying that they need to be balanced by faith.
Science accounts for the physical, Reason accounts for the mental, and faith accounts for the spiritual.
Sorry for the length of my comments. I haven’t had time to post for a while so I’m making up for it. ;0
Comment by: Mark
20I don’t think science is the answer to all of mankinds woes. It appears you’ve tried to put science into the moral restraints. As far as morality it will continously change, imo.
Comment by: Siamang
21KSG made a lot of thoughtful points. I’m going to have to consider them all. There was one point that stuck out to me and I wanted to share my thoughts on the subject:
“However, if I were an atheist I guess I would have no problem with relativism since the issues of an authority above my own wouldn’t exist.”
I do not think that’s how most atheists view the world. I believe there is not SUPERNATURAL authority over me. But there are authorities over me.
My boss. My wife. The police. The army.
If I were to break small or large moral codes, I would have to answer to any and all of them.
To choose a simple example, cheating on my wife. I don’t have a “thou shalt not” against it. But I DO have the fact that I could lose my relationship with the love of my life if I did that. I would risk being ostracized by my friends. I would risk the custody of my children.
There’s no LAW against it. But there are authorities which hold very real threats over me should I sin in that manner.
A christian once asked me “how is there any morality if the individual makes the final call as to what’s right and wrong.”
I said, “the individual NEVER makes the final call. The individual makes the INITIAL call. Society then metes out the punishments for breaking the rules, including fines, sanctions, loss of trust, incarceration, banishment or death.”
Comment by: ike
22I believe, that you asked for it when you put yourself up for auction for the purposes that you are serving now.
I do not think that EITHER of you have done wrong.
What is your purpose and agenda in this Hemant? What do you hope to gain from this apart from the $504 that you were prepaid?
Comment by: Ir
23Ike, did you see comments #1 and #2 up above? #2 might help answer your questions.
Comment by: KSG
24Siamang,
The point I was making with relativism and being the final authority is not that as an individual I have the final answer to moral issues, but that as a post modern society we have the power to decide what is morally right and morally wrong. As a Xian, I don’t believe that society has the power to set moral standards. For example, as a Xian I choose to believe what the Bible says about being sexually active prior to marriage(I could choose much more divisive issues, but I’m not interested); however, society’s current moral judgement is not consistent with the Bible.
In a non-theistic society the moral standard is always fluctuating and what is not acceptable today may be tommorrow.
Comment by: Steve
25As a Buddhist and a vegetarian for religious (moral) reasons, the intro to this post caught my eye. I think that, in general, our American point of view is heavily focused on an absolute morality — we say “this is ok” or “this is not ok” which naturally leads to paradoxes (such as the deserted island)
The monks had it right, I think, but not because “a deserted island” is an exception to a rule, but that religious rules themselves are, at their best, guidelines that we choose to follow (or not) because they lead to happiness and enlightenment of many, ourselves not excluded.
Comment by: Ir
26KSG, to anyone who doesn’t believe the Bible is the Word of God, it makes sense that society’s moral standards change as society changes. What doesn’t make sense (to such people) is that society’s moral standards should be based on a book 2000-plus years old. The world was very different then.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
27Steve
As a practicing Buddhist, what is it about this blog that interests you?
What are you seeing that might interest us?
Comment by: Siamang
28KSG wrote “For example, as a Xian I choose to believe what the Bible says about being sexually active prior to marriage,….however, society’s current moral judgement is not consistent with the Bible.”
I would counter that society’s current moral judgement on the issue of slavery is not consistent with the bible.
Or genocide. Thinking of Amorites now.
Or selling your daughters.
Or stoning your son for disobedience.
Or castrating yourself. What the heck is that one about?!! Wierd!
It is essential that morals change. Tying morality to an old book chains people to the past. Literally, in the case of slavery.
Comment by: Steve
29Jim,
I grew up in a conservative Christian home, lost the belief system with my divorce (by lost, I mean it left me, not I left it), and later found Buddhism. My family and friends are mostly conservative Christian, so dialogue with them is an important topic to me. I consider this blog to be an interfaith dialogue as well, so I read it to see an outsider’s perspective on religious practice in general, and also the dialogue that follows.
Beyond that, the religious experience in general is an interesting topic.
Comment by: PGF
30Siamang,
If you take any part of the bible out of context, it doesn’t make sense. Just because you find slavery, incest, murder, etc. in the bible doesn’t mean it is promoted, especially by the time you get to the end.
My beliefs concentrate most on the words and story of Christ, for example, his coming to the aid of Mary Magdelen when she was being stoned. Here we find the type of human compassion that is needed in Modern society. Christ hung out with the most unsavory characters and loved them. Certainly, Christ would have done the same thing if Mary Mag was a homosexual male.
Often people are so focused on the literal words of the bible, they fail to see what it is saying.
I know this may not change your point of view, but at least it may help you see why some people appreciate the bible.
Comment by: KSG
31Siamang,
Are you saying that our current moral situation is superior to what was laid out as guidelines in the Bible?
I’m thinking of Rwanda & Sudan (genocide), South Africa (race & tribal issues), or my own nation, Canada (gay marriage, race issues, legalized swing clubs), Sweden & Holland (multipartnerships-MMF,MFF,FFMM), Nigeria & the Ivory coast (slavery, child soldiers) or your own nation (war for oil, castration -transvestites, 10 billion per year porn industry, race issues) The list could go on and on across the world. How about that bastion of atheist & communist thought, China (human rights abuses)?
Am I to equate from your comments that today’s culture is superior?
I think you may be equating the historical content of the Bible as being the accepted biblical standard of morality. As I’m sure you know, throughout the Bible we can see instances of what is considered immoral behavior - multiple wives, slaves, genocide, etc.
What we see in the O.T. portion of the Bible is a list of rules to help guide man’s actions, a moral code if you will. But the point God was making, as revealed in the N.T., is that no man can live up to the rules as set forth. And if your guilty of breaking one then you are guilting of them all.
Jesus said that the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law was this - to love your God and to love your neighbour as yourself.
Unfortunately, as a secular society (Canada) and as a “Xian” society (U.S.A.) we’ve both failed in that regard.
Comment by: Ir
32KSG, if genocide is immoral, then was it immoral of God to give this order to the Israelites?
“Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles.” ((Exodus 34:11-14), New International Version)
Comment by: Mark
33KSG,
The last reference is from the Hebrew texts.
However, I submit that you can’t find one word in the bible where Jesus condemned homosexuality.
If we are to use the bible as a guide on behavior I suggest we evaluate the following passages, Exodus 21:17 where a cursing child is to be killed, Exodus 31:14 where a person is to be killed for working on the Sabbath. Now, Jesus did have something to say about being a disciple, Luke 14:26, If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Yes, we are better off now imo.
Comment by: KSG
34Ir,
Good question.
I too had thought of God’s commands to Israel to commit genocide.
I don’t have an answer for you however beyond God knowing that if Israel didn’t destroy the pagan society (not just the people but their culture), then that culture would slowly destroy Israel’s standard of morality and culture.
We see it all the time. What starts as an extreme issue slowly moves toward the center as more people accept it. Then eventually what was once extreme is now a part of the “norm” and the cycle begins again with some other issue.
Comment by: KSG
35Mark, I just read your post. I want to apologize if my tone is harsh. I hope to keep this a dialogue and not an argument. I’ll get a chance a little later to reply.
Comment by: Stephan
36Interesting dialogue. I would sit between KSG and Mark in interpretation of Biblical rules. I believe the Bible is to be taken seriously, but I also believe you have to take culture in account when interpreting it. The Jews in the Old Testement were told not to eat pork. They were not told why. We now know that pork, when not cooked correctly, can make you very sick or kill you. Do we still need to follow this rule? Of course not. There are Biblical rules against promiscuous sex. I’m sure they knew about unwanted pregnancies back then, but did they know about STD’s and the emotional damage a broken relationship can cause? Probably not. We understand more about this rule now, which I believe makes it even more important in our culture than it was then. Much of the law given to Israel in the Old Testement was to show that they were a special group of people, different from the rest of the world. We don’t feel that we are bound by all of the rules today.
To give my answer to the question that started this discussion (does anyone remember that?), there is no easy answer. There are obviously times where it is a good idea to break one rules to keep something worse from happening. It would be wrong to walk up to an innocent person on the street and push them over, but if that person had just stolen a purse and was running from police, it would be the right thing to do. The nazis felt is was ok to torture someone to obtain medical information. The things they learned could save a life. Does that make it ok? I don’t think too many people would agree. As bad a rap “situational ethics” gets, I think it needs to be used in some cases.
Comment by: Mark
37Stephan,
You do know that Muslims and Jews still don’t eat pork, right? The pig is a filthy animal to them. Hindus think cows are sacred to this day.
Stephan said:Much of the law given to Israel in the Old Testement was to show that they were a special group of people, different from the rest of the world. We don’t feel that we are bound by all of the rules today.
Mark: Let’s just start off basic…please. Which of the 10 C’s can we choose as we please and which can’t we? I’m saying that if you take some of the bible to your interpretation and not others is basically just leaving it up to you and denying the biblical god rules as I see it. That’s what I do as an atheist. It’s just a book to me. Do you Stephan personally decide which parts of the bible to take as literal and others interpretation?
Comment by: KSG
38In response to Mark’s comments and before I get painted as fundamentalist I should say a few things to clarify my position…
Without getting into a major theology discussion… according to the N.T., through faith in Jesus, Xians no longer have to obey the law of the O.T. We are required to obey the spirit of it, but the requirements of the law (a contract) have been fulfilled.
The letter of the law demands precise actions in response to specific requirements: The spirit of the law asks for actions that reflect the intent of the law giver.
Of course, if you don’t accept the Bible as being given by God, then it’s that same as saying that I was taken aboard the mothership, anally probed, and now I’m waiting for my ride on a rocketship to the comet.
I have to say that as an atheist, you have the distinct advantage of being able to dismiss my comments as religious garbage.
Comment by: Mark
39KSG,
Where in the Greek scriptures does it say christians are no longer bound to the Hebrew texts? If you want to use Greek then what is the “spirit” of Luke 14:26, If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Honestly I don’t get how that happens. Pick and choose bible ideas..please elaborate.
Comment by: KSG
40Mark,
Are you being purposefully argumentative or are you genuinely seeking to understand?
In regard to Luke 14 why didn’t you add vs.27 “and whoever does not bear his cross and come after me cannot be my disciple”.
By quoting one verse you are hiding the context of the scripture (vs.25-35) which clearly give the context of vs.26 as Jesus telling a multutude that they must being willing to sacrifice their own desires and comforts if they want to follow in His way.
As for Xians no longer being subject to the O.T., read Romans. Or to make it short, read Romans 6:14 or Romans 8 (1-2). Or read Hebrews 8:1-10:23. Or Gal 2:16-21.
Comment by: Mark
41I’m asking because I don’t understand how that works. When I was a christian I never said these things so I don’t get it. Back then I believed Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies but never said he did away with the mosaic law. I’m asking for your opinion, not to intepret the bible as I’ve already done that. If you read luke v27 that simply compounds what jesus demands to be his disciple but doesn’t exclude the command to hate mom and dad. I’m asking for your opinion and if you use the bible to clarify that’s fine.
Comment by: skikid
42Hey Y’all
Its a little intense around here… it seems to me that there may not always be one clear intrepretation of Scripture, I mean people study it all their lives and still dont have all the answers. I think that Scripture poses a lot of questions as well as answers.
Comment by: Siamang
43I notice that you didn’t address my point about slavery, KSG.
The Old Testament’s got a bunch of rules about how to treat your slaves in it. Jesus is not ONCE recorded as saying so much as “boo” against the practice of slavery.
You come at me with an argument like “well, I’m not so sure we are more moral now than in biblical times” and then you throw up a laundry list of modern sins.
Sins that were not invented in the 20th century. You really think that homosexuality is a new invention? War for personal enrichment? Racism? Political persecution?
None of these are new. Many of these weren’t even noted as being sins until very recently. As I said before, where in the bible does it say that genocide is a sin?
It is not the bible, but modern human morality that has identified as a heinous crime the crime of genocide. In old testament times, it was merely business as usual.
As was slavery.
So you ask me, are we more moral now than 2000 years ago? To that I answer fervently and vociferously, “Yes, we certainly are.”
Humanity isn’t perfect. We never were.
But in the absense of perfection, if you ask me if I’d rather be poor, or black, or sick, or a woman, or a weak member of an outclass in any other respect, and live either today or 2000 years ago, I’ll pick today.
Hell yes, I’ll pick today.
Comment by: Mark
44skikid,
I’m hoping it’s not being read as intense but I hear people say the good old days and jokingly ask if they mean with or without slavery they usually recognize that things weren’t so great right her in the USA just 50 years ago.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
45A couple comments.
First comment: I wonder if part of the problem with the Biblical commandments is that they were handed down — at least the initial ones — carved in stone. Do they make better sense if you consider them as being in the same class as this: Suppose a new car buyer is told that you have to get the rules of operation from the summit of Mt. Ford. So you dutifully trudge up the mountain where Bill Ford hands you a stone tablet that says, “Ford’s Laws. Thou shalt not place within they fuel tank anything other than gasoline.” Are you going to consider that unreasonable? legalistic? narrow? Probably not.
You see, even in this day we understand that our car was built by Ford. And we understand that, having designed and built the car, they know what it will require to make it operate efficiently. And they also know that putting anything other than gas into the tank will cause problems as surely as night follows day.
I think it is the same way with God’s “laws.” He did not say, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” because He wanted to rain on our parade. He said it because He loves us and He designed us and He knows how we work. He knows what will make us run smoothly and he knows what will make our motor burn out.
Siamang is very close to the mark in #21. It is because God also knew those relational consequences, and He loves us and doesn’t want us to have to bear them, that He said, stay away from this stuff.
Second comment: In a recent course on comparative religion a point was made that I think is very critical to any discussion like this one. Several different speakers all agreed that Christianity has a far more complex moral and ethical structure than any other relgious system. So comparisons must be made carefully. In all of the other systems we studied a person’s standing in the faith was determined by their practice. If you perform the appropriate mandated acts, and eschew the things you are to avoid, then you are an observant Jew or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu.
But in Christianity it is not so. Rather than giving us lists of specific things to do, Jesus and the apostles later, gave principles that sometimes compete and so priorities must be deteermined.
For example, Romans 13 talks about obeying authorities, and Jesus said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. But we are also told that our first allegiance is to God. So there are times when I must obey the government and there may be other times when I must resist the government. (I once had a fascinating discussion with a Christian, Russian immigrant about this. He wanted an American Christian perspective on allegiance to government…before he took his citizenship test. Government meant something to him that it didn’t mean to me.)
I think this perspective on the function of rules vs. principles is an important one.
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: KSG
46I’m just thinking that I wish I hadn’t sold my hockey equipment. ;)
Comment by: Mark
47KSG,
Is that your final answer? Hockey equipment:)
Comment by: KSG
48Mark,
No, I was just jokingly agreeing with skikid about intensity.
Here’s my answer: My belief, based upon the scriptures I gave (Rmns,Gal,Heb) is that as a Xian I am not obligated to obey the letter of the Mosiac Law as laid out in the O.T. As an Xian, I have been freed from the bondage of strict adherance to rules. Instead, again based upon those scriptures, I have been given freedom and along with that freedom I was given the responsibility to use that in a morally upright manner. This is the concept of grace.
In regard to Luke 14, Jesus wasn’t issuing a command, he was making a point about self sacrifice and the cost of following him.
Saimang,
Your right, I never specifically addressed slavery. Just because the Bible doesn’t outright reject slavery doen’t mean it condones slavery. As you said, the Bible only gives us a response to it. In the O.T. is says to treat slaves fairly, etc. And in the N.T. it says to take care and treat a slave as respectfully and to serve them etc.
My view is that the Bible teaches respect for the individual and as we grow in our respect we will continually strive to increase in respect and thereby honor one another in loving each other with humility. In honoring one another we will afford every man with human dignity.
Man, Tom’s comments in #44 were good.
Comment by: Ir
49KSG, if you gave someone a Bible and lots of time, but no notes or teaching, do you think they’d figure out what applies to believers today and what doesn’t?
I’m asking because it seems to me that it’s somewhat complicated and that’s why many [Bible-believing] Christians spend a lot of time being taught how to understand the Bible.
Comment by: Siamang
50My point is that the bible doesn’t reject slavery because conventional morality at the time didn’t reject slavery.
I mean, heck, nothing even from Jesus Himself to address what we in modern times would consider one of the greatest evils in human history.
Not to put too fine a point on it maybe Jesus was too busy with other stuff like cursing fig trees to get around to it.
I try not to use sarcasm lightly, but maybe to shock folks and wake them up. Jesus was running around cursing fig trees instead of addressing slavery.
And that’s why I don’t think that morality should be set in stone. Neither should it drift. It should be tied to human dignity and love, and the ever-present golden rule.
And that extends to all races, both sexes, all ages, and an entire world of free people.
But if you asked Christians 1000 years ago if that was Christ’s central teaching, they’d look at you like you were a nut. Our modern shifting morality produces Christians who read scripture differently. Christians today emphasise different parts of the Bible than Christians in other periods of history.
Modern morality changes Christianity. I would argue that it does it for the better.
Comment by: Mark
51KSG,
We will have to agree to disagree then. In Luke 14 all the way up to verse 30 Jesus demands people go and find followers. He mentions inviting them to dinner and taking a humble spot at the table, inviting the sick, lame and blind and when the followers can’t gather enough the alleged Jesus states that to do his work he must have enough followers and makes an example of building a tower requires enough money. After that he tells them to find more people that will follow JC that are so dedicated to him that they must hate their mom and dad and leave them to follow JC. I understand it.
Comment by: Mark
52Ir,
That is very interesting question. I’ve heard it before but if we asked someone to read the bible that was completely unaware of American/civilized society what do you think would happen if they were introduced to some place in Los Angelos or Atlanta or even a very tiny town in Iowa? How would they read the examples I gave?
Comment by: KSG
53IR,
Ask that to Martin Luther when you get the chance.
My answer is with time, prayer and humility yes. But revelation/understanding is always progressive. So while you wouldn’t figure it all out, you would understand more over time and at the right time. However you would also fall on your face a lot.
Saimang, A part of what I said above applies to your comments. My argument would be that due to Christianity’s overwhelming influence on Western culture through the past 2000 yrs. we have progressed to the place we are today. Western cultures are the far more respectful of women, minorities, and human life than many other cultures.
I also think many of your reactions are to American Christian culture, and not to authentic believers following the teachings of Christ.
And Jesus addressed slavery when he instructed us to love our neighbours as ourselves (no one would enslave himself).
Comment by: KSG
54Mark,
We will agree to disagree. Have a great weekend!
Comment by: Siamang
55Western history is intertwined with christianity to be sure. Hard to pull those threads apart to determine cause, effect and multiple causes.
Good weekend to you too, KSG.
Comment by: Ir
56KSG, I had a feeling you might bring up Martin Luther :)
Comment by: Lucas
57‘KSG, if you gave someone a Bible and lots of time, but no notes or teaching, do you think they’d figure out what applies to believers today and what doesn’t?’
I think so. The reason lots of Christians buy Bible guides and go to Bible studies is because they don’t have the time to sit down, dig into the text, look at different translations, etc. Jesus says a lot of pretty plain stuff that doesn’t take much interpretation, including what is now called the ‘golden rule’.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
58I think this is a very relevant question and needs to be thoughtfully considered by Christians
KSG, if you gave someone a Bible and lots of time, but no notes or teaching, do you think they’d figure out what applies to believers today and what doesn’t?
I’m asking because it seems to me that it’s somewhat complicated and that’s why many [Bible-believing] Christians spend a lot of time being taught how to understand the Bible
Comment by: KSG
59I have to think that it’s our culture that makes it complicated.
During The Cultural Revolution in 1960/70’s China, Chinese Christians numbered as few as 10-40 thousand. Their current number is around 80 million with an annual growth of approx 6-8%. All of this while facing severe persecution, and a lack of good organization. It wasn’t until the early to mid 90’s that demoninations started smuggling in materials with the Bibles being smuggled in that China’s church started having issues with divisions among them.
Seems to me that with a Bible & the Holy Spirit, a Christian could get along just fine.
People being taught to understand the Bible by using some other resource (a filter) has caused as much damage as good.
Comment by: smt
60“Often people are so focused on the literal words of the bible, they fail to see what it is saying.”
Welcome to the Post-modern Church where the absolute Word of God is open to interpretation by the individual. While fundamentalists hang on to every word, progressive mega-churches water the Bible down to where it is almost meaningless. More feel-good, and less guilt is what sells today.
If anything, I think this exemplifies the memetic evolution of religion. As science pokes holes in the Bible, the meaning of words change to something socially/culturally acceptable. “Good” and “Bad” are relative to the current interpretation of what God has “revealed”. The recent fuss over ID is a perfect example of the evolution of religion, but oddly enough, I think it is religion that was Intelligently Designed by man. And, if that is the case, then religion itself could be said to be the natural result of the evolution of sentient beings.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
61Jim asked, “KSG, if you gave someone a Bible and lots of time, but no notes or teaching, do you think they’d figure out what applies to believers today and what doesn’t?”
I would simply observe that that is precisely what God gave us. Seems to be working. ;-)
Study notes, commentaries, etc. are handy; they can bring a library between two covers. But in the final analysis Jesus told us the Holy Spirit would lead us into the truth of His word…not the study notes or commentaries.
Doesn’t mean it is quick or easy, but those are American values, not Biblical values.
Tom in Sacramento