Posted by Jim Henderson on: 03.05.2006 /
We hired Hemant to provide the observations of a person who does not believe in Jesus (or in his case even God) and to tell us how they feel and what they notice when they walk into our churches.
This week Hemant visited one of the leading black churches in America, Salem Baptist Church a.k.a. “The Greatest Church in the World” (seriously-see their website)
He wants to know…
1) Why do white and black churches worship separately?
2) Why did he hear more about suffering and injustice in a black church than he had in white churches?
3) Are the kids really “feeling the spirit” when they dance and jump or are they imitating the adults?
4) Why was a local politician provided air time on Sunday morning? Isn’t that illegal?
5) Why didn’t they care about how his white girlfriend might have been feeling hearing all the “how white people screwed us” talk from the pastor?
Comment by: Ir
1Jim, you’ve done a great job here of pulling out Hemant’s questions!
1) Why do white and black churches worship separately?
One reason is probably demographic; Chicago neighborhoods are mostly not very mixed — they tend to be either ‘black’ or ‘white’ (or some other ethnicity). If people go to a church in their neighborhood with their neighbors and friends it probably will have the neighborhood demographic.
I expect some people would be nervous about going to church in a neighborhood they didn’t know, because there are parts of Chicago — so I’m told - where it’s unsafe to go if you’re a different color from the residents.
Another reason is probably cultural; as Hemant observed, the service at Salem was somewhat different from the ‘white’ churches he has been to. People generally like what they’re familiar with and many who grew up with African-American style worship services will choose that over ‘white’ styles of worship.
Hemant, how long was the service? From what I’ve heard, the length of service at some African-American churches would be enough to put white people off ;) And African-Americans used to long services would probably feel that a white church service had barely started and it was over already! Admittedly, these are generalizations of some cultural differences between African-American and white church services.
From what Hemant said, the way Rev Meeks preached was targeted at African-Americans; so it’s not surprising to me that that’s who his church draws.
2) Why did he hear more about suffering and injustice in a black church than he had in white churches?
Awesome question!
There could be a number of reasons. People who aren’t suffering an injustice themselves naturally have it less on their minds than people who are. At most/all of the white churches Hemant went to, I doubt that the white attenders or leaders face the prejudice, financial and community problems that the attenders of Salem deal with every day. Lincoln Park and Barrington are very well-off communities whereas the inner-city black communities are the poorest in the Chicago area.
My sense with some white churches with relatively wealthy attenders, in relatively wealthy neighborhoods, is that they think they are community-minded. They generally have some things going on which are intended to help other people in practical ways. But they probably aren’t doing nearly as much as churches like Salem.
Another issue with most of the white churches Hemant has been to so far is that they are evangelical; and some evangelical churches are so obsessed with getting people ’saved’ that everything else takes a back seat. (Ok, I admit it - that was a rant)
One other point: James Meeks is a senator who probably got into office by promising to help black communities. I’m sure he sought office because he cares about doing that and so it’s not surprising to me that he would encourage his church attenders to get involved helping black communities, since it’s what he wants to see happen. There are so many of them that if a proportion get involved, they really can make a difference, which I think is wonderful.
3) Are the kids really “feeling the spirit” when they dance and jump or are they imitating the adults?
Well…my experience is that many kids love to dance and jump; and most kids look around a lot too, being naturally curious. So they may have just been joining in the fun.
Granted, kids do seek adult approval, so if they get it for dancing and jumping then I expect that motivates them to keep doing it.
Hemant, were there more 4 and 5 year olds in the service than you saw in other churches? I’m wondering, because I know that at least some of the churches you visited have extensive children’s classes and many parents send their children to them rather than taking them in the main service.
I think that if you were in a ‘white’ church where parents were dancing and jumping (there are some) and where the same age children were in with them as you saw yesterday, you’d see very similar behavior from the white children.
4) Why was a local politician provided air time on Sunday morning? Isn’t that illegal?
This actually has bothered me for years. The failure of churches to stay completely away from partisan politics seems wrong to me. If many churches aren’t actually violating the terms of their tax-exemption they surely are right on the edge of it. I would have liked to see my own church’s tax exemption taken away some years ago when they handed out those ’scorecards’ produced by some or other Christian organization which showed how candidates had voted on issues such as abortion. How is that not endorsing candidates in a church in which no regular attender can be unaware of their prolife stance???
Ironically, it seems from what Hemant said, that yesterday’s presentation of a candidate was an anti-endorsement rather than an endorsement — which I’ve not encountered before:
Hemant wrote: “Reverend Meeks introduced a visitor to the church— a person who is in the race for Illinois State Treasurer— Alexi Giannoulias”. [...] When talking about Giannoulias [Meeks said]: “I like Alexi… but why let Greek people who own banks get our votes when we can’t borrow money or own banks? Why do they come to us? Why aren’t we voting for people of our own color, from our own community?”
It seems conceivable to me that encouraging a congregation to vote for any African-American candidate might not count as partisan politics. Maybe it should if there’s only one such candidate running; I’m not sure. All I know is, I’d like to see the IRS getting after all the churches who fail to stay completely away from partisan politics.
5) Why didn’t they care about how his white girlfriend might have been feeling hearing all the “how white people screwed us” talk from the pastor?
Indeed :(
It seems unfortunate to me that Rev Meeks was not able to affirm and encourage African Americans without also running down white people. Comments such as his may well perpetuate racism and wrong stereotypes of white people. And they certainly help explain why Salem in particular is not a mixed church.
Comment by: Ir
2[oops - sorry - trying to turn off the italics that I didn't turn off in my post]
Comment by: fran
3I don’t know how many of you are sports fans or concert goers but I am and a thrilling finish to a good home game and your team is winning can certainly work up a spirit as can ” rock and roll” and “sex” :) You flail your hands and attest to your prowling greatness .What a trip!!! You loose your mind in the moment and that is the intent
Comment by: fran
4Costs are inflated (housing) at this particular time and that shuts a number of people out . I know ,because where I live 100 year old middle class homes are going for $200,000 or more. It’s discrimination in reverse. Most minorities only hold service jobs and that’s hardly enough to afford to raise a family in the inflated district. Religiousity has a cognitive dissonance that buffers their perception of truth. It is a sad reality……..
Comment by: Stephan
5Too… many… questions…
I can only speak from my experience, and the times I have been to an African American church have been a little uncomfortable. The culture is so different that I feel like an outsider. Probably a little like Hemant at a white evangelical church.
We have a few African Americans at my mostly white suburban church, but most of them are actually “African” Americans, refugees who have escaped war and torture to get to a better life. They don’t relate to the slavery metaphors because that is not their experience, and they were most likely converted to Christianity by white missionaries.
I read a great quote last week from Tony Campollo (one of my favorite Christian liberals). “Mixing religion and politics is like mixing manure and ice cream. It doesn’t hurt the manure, but it ruins the ice cream.” If Meeks had told them who to vote for he would have risked their tax-exempt status, but inviting a guest in is technically legal, if not a little unethical.
Comment by: Ir
6fran wrote: I don’t know how many of you are sports fans or concert goers but I am and a thrilling finish to a good home game and your team is winning can certainly work up a spirit as can ” rock and roll” and “sex” You flail your hands and attest to your prowling greatness .What a trip!!! You loose your mind in the moment and that is the intent
I agree that the group dynamics in large gatherings of Christians can have similarities to those in large gatherings of people at sports events or rock concerts.
I wonder whether some of the emotional manifestations witnessed at some large gatherings of Christians, which are attributed to the Holy Spirit, may be no more than a person would expect who understands what group dynamics can lead to.
Comment by: Justin
7(just posting to close that Italics tag).
Comment by: Cully
8One of the many religions that I sampled on my journey through Christianity was the Pentecostal Church. I was a member of a Pentecostal Church for about two years, in my middle teens.
Pentecostals fall firmly into the “singing and dancing” range of churches. Lots of hand raising, lots of shouting, lots of “falling out” (a peculiar event where a person is so overwhelmed by the Holy Ghost that they fall to the floor) and (my personal favorite) speaking in tongues. I was always especially happy when someone spoke in tongues and then someone else in the room translated it. The air of mysticism and ritual and exposure to… power… really drew me into this community. I *WANTED* to feel these things. I wanted something to move me so much that I fell down. I wanted the Holy Ghost to touch me and to allow me to speak in tongues. I wanted that rapturous look that I saw on the adult’s faces.
So (and here’s the secret that I think Hemant is looking for)- I faked it. After about a year of praying and earnestly trying, throwing myself wholeheartedly into the spirit of the service, singing, dancing, raising my hands… I never felt it. I felt happy. I felt loved. I felt accepted by a community. But I never felt that higher power that I just knew the adults had to be feeling. There was never a transcendent moment of being touched by something outside myself. I even went as far as “falling out” once. I remember struggling to look convincing, and laying there on the church floor trying to decide if I had been down for long enough. I also don’t think I was the only one. Many of the children within the church used to “practice” speaking in tongues. Including the preachers daughter, who quite often spoke in tongues during the services. Somehow it took me a while to connect those two events.
So do the children in the church Hemant attended really feel the spirit or are they mimicking the adults or seeking approval from the adults? I know what I think.
Comment by: TXatheist
91)generally because whites and blacks live in different neighborhoods. We don’t have any “black” churches but there quite a few in the predominantly black areas.
2)Because oppression is real and politics keep it alive with affirmative action and a judicial system that has been shown to be less lenient to blacks than whites.
3). I get euphoric when I jam out to music. It makes you feel good. I’m sure endorphines are being released and that chemical reaction makes kids/adults feel better and chime in like everyone else. If someone did that at a church that usually doesn’t have that kind of service during the sermon I doubt people would join in, just stare.
4)Yes, stating your views on political topics is fine but endorsing candidates is illegal and their 501c3 tax free status should be yanked.
5) Cause it’s true and we can’t change what my ancestors did but I can make today and tomorrow better so let’s work together for better human relations.
Comment by: Brent
10Children worshiping:
Young children are naturally drawn to worship. They feel and respond to an atmosphere of joy and peace, just as they can feel and respond to an atmosphere of tension. Kids love music, they love to dance, and they love physical activity - all that comes to them naturally. Worship is the one part of church that children can readily understand and participate in.
There is a difference however between feeling and reacting to a spiritual atmosphere and “reaching out to God” or “opening up to God” in worship and creating one. Perhaps that difference is the real focus of your question.
Comment by: fran
11Without adequate compunction there would never be a spirit in church. The idea is to make you feel as though you are a worthless human being by filling you with guilt for seeking pleasurable things . That is considered the workings of the ” holy ghost or spirit “. Everything being equal he is created . The lights are lowered , the music becomes somber, you’re saddened and would do anything to make that saddness go away. You are unable to see the dynamics at work . You then realize you need to save yourself from yourself so that blood god , the omniescient, omnipotent and omniambenevolent one will love you even more He himself raised himself from the dead or had himself sacrificed .Before dying , he himself asked himself why he had foresaken himself . Just when I thought I had all of the answers I to saved myself from myself . Ain’t it neat :)
Comment by: Pam
12Years ago I worked in a large hotel in Las Vegas, which is my hometown. The employee cafeteria was huge, as big as a restaurant. Right away I learned two things in that cafeteria: there were territories of tables according to your department (self-governed); races sat separately, also by department.
I was a new Christian and soon discovered other Christians working at the hotel, black Christians from other departments. It was breaking rank for me, a young white girl from the gaming department to sit with black barbacks and chefs and maids. We were a bit of our own spectacle in that cafeteria. It was the most diverse group of believers I have ever hung out with.
I don’t think the race thing is really a big deal. We are like tribes, like is attracted to like, and then we have our sub-cultures withhin those tribes. Go to a hispanic catholic service, or a Russian orthodox service, or a Hmong church, I don’t think it’s a negative on church or Christianity in America. We naturally like to hang with who we identify with, who we share a common history, language, customs, etc… together with.
The political thing was most disturbing to me about Hemant’s report.
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
13I’m going to start posting with my last name as I noticed there is another Pam on board (HI!). The above post was mine…
By the way, I am curious, Jim and Hemant, why visit a variety of churches rather than get on the inside of just one, get into the thick of it with one church and truly observe the communtiy of a church rather than a 90 drive-thru experience from Sun to Sun?
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
14(sorry, that was meant to say 90 minute drive-thru experience…)
Comment by: Winn
15Pam,
Could it be that a lot of churches are just a “90 minute drive-thru experience” with a disconnect between Sunday morning and Monday morning?
What ever happened to Paul’s exhortation to the Galatian church about no difference in the church between races? Church services are still the most segregated hour plus meeting in USAmerica, a far cry from the “new humanity” that the writers of the New Testament envisioned. Maybe it should be a “big deal!”
BTW: if you “broke rank” at work, why not “break rank” at church and have a multi-national, multi-generational gathering?
Comment by: skikid
16Fran
I don’t disagree that there are churches out there that do may appear that way. Guilt is powerful motivation, one glance from my mother (who btw is agnostic) and she can get me to do just about anything, I can only imagine that if used in a Church setting it could be multiplied. I would also submit that there are churches that empower people and build them up, teach them to think and question as well.
Comment by: seeker
171) Why do white and black churches worship separately?
Cultural, geographic, xenophobic/racist reasons, in that order I think.
2) Why did he hear more about suffering and injustice in a black church than he had in white churches?
Firstly, because blacks make up a larger percentage of the poor, and so experience it more - they are more in touch with this part of the human experience, and so are more vocal about it, whether it be their own suffering or those in outher places.
Most churches start by reacing out to their own community’s felt needs, and richer, often whiter communities don’t have the same needs, or even have less needs, so they can be blind to suffering.
Secondly, becuase, as many black authors have recently written, there is a pervasive victim mentality in the black community, and so, rather than taking responsibility for their destiny, they spend their time finding fault with the current power structure. Surely, the power structure could use amending, but what we really need is a “both and” approach - let’s not just point the finger, let’s raise a finger and so some real work. However, in defense of black churches, I’d say most actually DO make a difference, and are not just sitting on the sidelines and complaining like their secular black counterparts. But I suspect that this victim mentality may linger in black churches.
3) Are the kids really “feeling the spirit” when they dance and jump or are they imitating the adults?
It’s hard to tell the difference between an emtotional response to an actual spiritual experience, and pure “emotionalism.” Many charismatic and pentecostal churches often stir up the emotions to a frenzy in a desire to please God or experience God, and are probably just experiencing physical delirim or group fanaticism. However, except in really obvious cases of emotionalism, it is pretty much impossible to tell if people are experiencing God or creating an experience that is totally physiologic and emotional.
4) Why was a local politician provided air time on Sunday morning? Isn’t that illegal?
Christianity has a long and checkered history of involvement w/ politics. When Constantine made xianity the religion of the land, all sorts of bad stuff happened because political and religious power structures were entwined - someting callled Simony (buying religious office) was pervasive. However, esp. in the American experience, preachers have long held sway in the public debates, and have often led the charge against injustice, like the abolitionist movement (almost entirely led by the quakers and baptists, I believe). Christianity does not practice theocracy like Islam does, but neither does it advocate the secularist idea of separation of church and state. Xians advocate separation of church and state POWER, but not of ideas.
5) Why didn’t they care about how his white girlfriend might have been feeling hearing all the “how white people screwed us” talk from the pastor?
Immaturity. Unbiblical thinking. Victim mentality, as mentioned before.
Comment by: Rick L in TX
18TXatheist wrote: we can’t change what my ancestors did but I can make today and tomorrow better so let’s work together for better human relations.
Excellently stated. I couldn’t agree more. I knew we had more in common than TX!
Comment by: Siamang
19Here’s a link from Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State.
http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_pastorsguide
According to them, it’s not illegal if the pastor didn’t say who to vote for. As long as all the legally qualified candidates for the same office have been invited to appear at the church, it’s perfectly legal, and the church does not endanger its tax exempt status.
To be clear about this, it’s always LEGAL to say anything you want at church, politically. But when a church starts operating on behalf of a candidate, it risks losing its tax-break.
Comment by: Siamang
20I should add “or explicitly endorses a candidate” to that last sentence.
Comment by: TXatheist
21Seeker, some Christians don’t honor the Constitution/ Establishment Clause but I know reverend Barry Lynn does and he is xian leader I respect. I don’t agree Christianity was a prime reason that injustice has been beaten down. Care to ask the gay community about gay marriage and who the biggest opposition is? As far as churches helping minorities like blacks versus secular institutions(public colleges) I’d have to disagree with you which one is actually valuable and does something positive to help their situation.
Comment by: seeker
22some Christians don’t honor the Constitution/ Establishment Clause
Agreed. But I think modern christian/evangelical doctrine does.
I don’t agree Christianity was a prime reason that injustice has been beaten down.
When it comes to abolition, it pretty much singlehandedly led the movement in the west, despite some christians who defended slavery using bible verses.
Care to ask the gay community about gay marriage and who the biggest opposition is?
You assume that homosexuality is a civil rights issue. Many don’t. If you ask polygamists, adulterers, or the promiscuous, they are probably not fans of xianity either. That doesn’t make it oppressive.
Comment by: seeker
23Regarding homosexuality and the law, you can find my thoughts on it at the links below.
Legislating in the Moral Gray Zone
Is Gay Marriage Destructive to Sociey?
What is Hate?
Science Supports Hetero Parenting
Comment by: Julie
242) Why did he hear more about suffering and injustice in a black church than he had in white churches?
perhaps because many evangelicals believe that Jesus’ only act was to die on the cross for our sins and ignore everything that jesus talked about during his ministry (which involved a lot about injustice).
4) Why was a local politician provided air time on Sunday morning? Isn’t that illegal?
this is just wrong, but it happens all the time in churches.
Comment by: skikid
25Seeker~
“You assume that homosexuality is a civil rights issue. Many don’t. If you ask polygamists, adulterers, or the promiscuous, they are probably not fans of xianity either. That doesn’t make it oppressive”
Have you ever met a Gay couple raising a child? Or spoken to a gay person who was ostracized from their faith community? Given the limited scope of my experience I have a very hard time not seeing it as a civil rights issue.
Comment by: Cully
26I wasn’t planning on actually outing myself in this forum, but I can’t NOT respond to this.
Homosexuality IS a civil rights issue.
In certain communities in this country I could lose my job or my housing simply because I’m gay, and I would have very little in the way of legal recourse.
If I was in a relationship and my partner were to die or fall ill it wouldn’t matter how long that relationship had lasted I would not have the rights of inheritance that a female spouse would. I would not have the right to determine how my partners last wishes were carried out. In some extreme cases I would not even have a guaranteed right to visit my partner in the hospital.
Regardless of whether my relationship had lasted 5 years or 50 years I would not have the same tax breaks offered to a straight couple who had been married only a matter of days or weeks.
I cannot hold my partner’s hand in public without risking my safety. (And before anyone dredges up the word phrase “flaunting sexuality” in reference to that, let me remind you that straight people publish their intentions to have sex in the newspaper. It’s called a marriage announcement. Sure seems like flaunting to me.)
How do these NOT sound like civil rights issues?
The comparison to adultery, promiscuity, and polygamy is not a sound comparison. Adultery and promiscuity, while detrimental to the practitioner will at most apply a cultural stigma. Be honest with yourself… in the vast majority of American communities the worst that would ever happen to the practitioner is some gossip, and perhaps a rough divorce. It is a VERY rare circumstance where either adultery or promiscuity would lead to any of the issues I mention above.
Polygamy is a whole other argument. Polygamy is a legal restriction placed on the actions of a singular individual. Anti-gay legislation is against an entire class of people. Think about this distinction: if I stop having sex with men… am I still gay? Yes. (The Catholic Church has recently made a big deal about practicing and non-practicing gays, so I have religious precedences to site.) On the other hand, being married to 5 women makes me a polygamist, but if I then divorce 4 of them, leaving me with only one wife, and I still a polygamist? No. Because it is a legal distinction. Polygamy is not directly equateable to homosexuality. Neither is bestiality, or pederasty. These are arguments used by extremists to muddy the waters of debate.
Do I blame the church for the current state of gay rights? Yes and no. But I do not resent Christianity in general. I know how to make the distinction between the acts of individuals and the acts of a community. Individuals have taken advantage of questionably translated biblical passages, as has happened many times before, and established a fallacious reasoning behind denying civil rights to homosexuals. I know that not all Christians agree with it, or support it.
This IS one area where I seriously question biblical interpretation. The vast majority of Christians, when asked for a biblical reason for their disdain of homosexuals site either Leviticus 18:22, or Romans 1:26-27. Both of these books are filled with rules for Christians that are considered morally reprehensible by today’s standards: slavery, oppression of women, summary and public executions for crime… yet Christians seem to have no trouble dismissing THOSE verses as antiquated or misguided. The verses pertaining to homosexuality (if indeed they do… translation is another debate) are pulled out and held up as acceptable and desirable to follow. Why is that?
Comment by: Ir
27The vast majority of Christians, when asked for a biblical reason for their disdain of homosexuals site either Leviticus 18:22, or Romans 1:26-27. Both of these books are filled with rules for Christians that are considered morally reprehensible by today’s standards: slavery, oppression of women, summary and public executions for crime… yet Christians seem to have no trouble dismissing THOSE verses as antiquated or misguided. The verses pertaining to homosexuality (if indeed they do… translation is another debate) are pulled out and held up as acceptable and desirable to follow. Why is that?
Cully, I think that’s an excellent question!
(By the way, many Christians today do still believe women should not hold positions of leadership and should be under their husband’s authority, because of what the Bible says - so they don’t reject everything in the Bible which gives women inferior status to men. Many Christian women believe this as well as Christian men)
Comment by: Jim Henderson
28Ir - once again - thanks for keeping it real
Comment by: TXatheist
29Seeker, let’s examine your boasts on xianity. As far as modern christianity appreciating the separation of church and state, that’s a huge issue. Would it be xians or secularists pushing for ID in school? Would it be xians or secularists pushing for prayer in school? under god BACK out of the pledge? We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Seeker said:
When it comes to abolition, it pretty much singlehandedly led the movement in the west, despite some christians who defended slavery using bible verses.
No, Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and later Abe Lincoln who were all freethinkers, not christians, led the way as far as white people. The true people who stood up were Frederick Douglass and the underground railroad participants. The bible condoned slavery and that was the prime concept slavery was condoned. Your god allowed it.
http://www.answers.com/abolition%20movement
Seeker said:You assume that homosexuality is a civil rights issue. Many don’t. If you ask polygamists, adulterers, or the promiscuous, they are probably not fans of xianity either. That doesn’t make it oppressive.
TX:No, I assume two level headed adults are human, you find their love uncivil based on what? Your book. Many people against them use that same book just like they did for slavery. That last statement is nothing more than a boast to make it appear as if xians are not polygamists, adulterers or promiscuous. The bible is where polygamy is authorized and the reason the mormons perpetuated it until our civil gov’t denied Utah statehood. Then the Mormon prophet coincidentally determined polygamy was bad. Divorce rates for xians is higher, yes higher than for secularists/atheist. And promiscuous, 88% of the silver ring christians break the promised of chastity until marriage. Sorry, but your bias of xianity is not true.
Comment by: TXatheist
30Cully, glad you’re out. Be yourself from this day forward.
Comment by: fran
31Leviticus said that I could own a slave so long as I recruited them from another country. I called Canada to inquire about available slaves and when I hung up the phone they were still laughing out loud. Funny people those Canadians!:)
Comment by: Stephan
32Fran, you must live in the wrong place. I called Canada about some slaves, and they sent over a couple right away. Too bad they only speak French…
Comment by: fran
33It has only been in recent history that the churches dropped the need for slaves and declared all men free. Slave freedom for the most part was a secular move . While researching my family tree of southern baptists ( christians ) My sister and I came across many documents that listed ownership of slaves and valued them as assets like land and farm equipment etc. They were very fanatical and strict about the bible and lived every word as they interpreted it.That interpretation has changed dramatically as well. They were the God that they created in their mind . Progressively that creation ( their god interpretation ) has taken on a softer gentler side but it’s still their creation to this day. The dynamics are the same . There can be no god but for the mind of the creator of the thought that creates that god. There have been so many………..
Comment by: Mike Clawson
34It’s illegal for any church, white or black, to tell their people how to vote. (Actually not technically “illegal”… just required if a church wants to keep their tax exempt status. Churches can say whatever they want as long as they’re willing to pay Federal income taxes - which raises all kinds of questions about why we should be required to pay for our right of free speech).
But as Doug rightly noted, black churches have been ignoring this rule for decades, ever since Dr. King and the Civil Rights movement of 1960’s. How do they get away with it? Well, what politician in their right mind would want to be accused of letting a black church be punished for speaking out on issues of racial justice? It’d be careers suicide. So the government usually tends to look the other way when it comes to black churches.
While I understand some people’s concerns about the separation of church and state, personally I feel that churches ought to be free to speak out on any issue that they choose to without penalty. For the government to restrict what churches can or can’t talk about violates basic principles of free speech IMO.
I think it also severely restricts churches from speaking out on issues of justice and compassion that are essential to Christ’s gospel message. For instance, if pastors and churches hadn’t been willing to speak out about political issues of racial justice forty years ago the Civil Rights movement would have never gotten off the ground.
So as much as I dislike the politics of the Religious Right, I think they, along with any other religious group, ought to have the right to speak out on whatever issues they feel are important to their beliefs - regardless of race or political leaning. After all, there’s no law that says anyone has to actually listen to them.
Peace,
-Mike
Comment by: Jim Henderson
35Fran
Sorry to burst your bubble but it was a Christian named William Wilberforce who lived in the 18th Century in England that led the abolitionist movement that eventually came to America - where some better minded Christians also helped promote and lead the anti slavery movement - There were a lot of stupid and self centered Christians and Atheists (I suppose) who did nothing - Sorry about your Southern Baptist roots - it obviously has got you pretty frustrated. You might like reading my friend Christine Wicker ( also an ex fundamentalist) who writes books about trying to figure god out when the baptists made him look so bad earlier in your life
Comment by: TXatheist
36Jim,
We’ll just have to agree to see history differently. It was a timely issue as Abe Lincoln faced tremendous opposition in his day for “telling” the South they must free the slaves and nearly cost him the Presidency.
Comment by: Ellen
37I’ve just started looking at all of this because of the WSJ article. Great stuff in here. Felt the need to comment on question #3 (about kids) from personal experience. So I’m breaking away from the current topic.
When I was first exposed to Christianity and a wide variety of worship services and events, I found the different ways people worshipped to be at times inspirational, other times off-putting. When I was at an event or service with my friends, I felt peer pressure look the same and do as they did - which often meant raising my arms up over my head.
However, through the maturing process of my faith journey I now have a very different experience during worship. At times I really do feel as though the experience of connecting with God, and/or the Holy Spirit is so meaningful that I wind up raising my hands, even if I’m the only person doing it, standing alone.
So my take? Well, I believe that people (kids) start out doing it to fit in and be like everyone else. And I think that for some, that’s as far as it ever goes. And for others, I do believe that they wind up expressing themselves from experiencing the connection with God and/or the Holy Spirit. (depending on what people like to think they connect to) And for them, as long as they were in a church setting where others in the congregation express themselves in similar ways (hand raising, dancing, whatever) they will feel free to express themselves from being moved by the spirit. (I am the first to admit that in a worship setting if no one is raising their hands and I’m not near the back of the church I am less likely to express myself fully, and instead adapt it so that it makes me stick out less - like keeping my arms at my sides but turning my palms up rather than raising my arms completely.)
So most kids are likely just fitting in. (as with anything at that age) But it may turn into a very meaningful part of their worship experience as their faith matures, and for that reason I don’t think that it can be discounted.
Comment by: Nutrideath
38On the topic of Homosexuality, Hemant posted his question about how other scriptures in the same Bible books promote “morally reprehensible” themes, but these are discarded while the prohibition on homosexuality is thrown in the face of gays. I agree with that sentiment to a degree, although I do disagree with his statement about those issues the Bible promotes there being “morally reprehensible.”
First - homosexuality. The Bible does condemn the practice. But it also condemns heterosexual relations outside of marriage (pre-marital sex or adultery). Rather than saying that “both requirements are ridiculous in this day & age,” we should strive to live by both prohibitions.
Is that impossible? No sex before marriage? Someone out there is thinking “Oh, how ridiculous!” But, it is possible; leading a sexually clean life is absolutely possible. God created humans, & their sex drive. He knows what is possible for us, & never asks us to do what is impossible for us. For example, he doesn’t condemn people for having blue eyes. That’s not something within our control. He does however ask us to control our sex drive. So, if He asks it of us, it is possible for us to comply.
God holds a person accountable for their actions. So, it may not be easy for a heterosexual to resist the temptation of adultery or pre-marital sex. As a matter of fact, its evidently no easier for the heterosexual than the homosexual. But homosexuals feel like they are a special case somehow. They are not. All of the sexual sins I’ve described here (plus a few others) fall under the same category of sin — fornication. Hetero- or homo-, if it is sex outside of marriage between a man & a woman, it falls under the category of fornication.
As to the other themes in Romans or Leviticus, they are not “morally reprehensible.” For instance, the “slavery” described in the Bible — yes it was actual slavery. But not quite like the African slaves in the US. If you do a little more research, you’ll find that the arrangement of master-slave described in Leviticus & Romans & elsewhere in the Bible was more like our modern-day arrangement of employer-employee. It was a relationship that encompassed both financial & labor aspects.
As for the “oppression of women,” there is a headship issue covered in the Bible that states that in a marriage the man is “head” of the woman — but that hardly constitutes “oppression.” If you look closer at that headship principle, you’ll find requirements laid upon the man that preclude his abusing his wife.
The point is, a little research will clear up most questions about the Bible. Also, apply a little common sense (as in the case of the homosexuality vs. heterosexuality) — it goes a long way too.
Nutrideath
Comment by: Ir
39Nutrideath, my common sense must be defective, because when I consult it it starts asking questions like:
Women can preach as well as men so why aren’t they allowed to?
Why are women allowed to teach male children but not male adults?
etc.
Comment by: fran
40You mean in leviticuses time there was outsourcing going on. Were those slaves paid or was it just room and board . Wonder what the fan man got ? Talk about a boring job. Sounds like another ” A little bit pregnant ” deal to me… Boy They’re good :)
Comment by: fran
41Jim , I have in my possession copies of documents of ownership of slaves by christian clergy themselves in the 1830s and they declare them as assets along with cattle and land holdings .
Comment by: Ir
42fran, are you the only atheist in your family?
Comment by: fran
43If adulterers were kicked out of church like the homosexuals there’d be no need to conduct services . :)
Comment by: Cully
44Nutrideath, first that quote is from me, not Hemant. Just to keep it clear.
You ask me to apply research and common sense to the bible… Okay. I have. Just as you say that the references to slavery in the bible do not reflect the modern understanding of it, I can say that the references to homosexuality do not reflect modern practice and I can produce many references to scholarly papers that would side with me on that. But here’s a fundamental question for you… if I go into a church tomorrow, and pull the average Christian off the pew and ask her to define slavery as it is defined Leviticus will she tell me that it equates to the modern employee/employer relationship? Or will she define it as something similar to the American slavery of africans?
I’m willing to bet it’s the latter.
To her the bible doesn’t give her permission to let her kids have jobs. It gives her permission to sell her children into slavery and even outlines how to set the price. Thankfully she chooses to ignore that permission.
As I have asserted many times on this diablog I am not asking why homosexuality is a sin. I accept that most Christians will tell me that it is. I am asking why it is okay for Christians to ignore inconvenient passages of the bible. If you accept that my lifestyle is sinful, and it sounds like you do, and I have publicly admitted that I am homosexual why hasn’t some Christian stoned me to death yet? Cause that penalty is right there in the verse along with the definition of the sin.
Comment by: fran
45Ir,I like to consider myself a secular humanist and my wife is a secular humanist as well . In the past few years we’ve been to humanist conventions across the globe and plan to do the same this summer ending it with a cruise to Alaska in Sept. We’re both close to retirement , I’ve cut back considerably and we have a daughter who heads The International Language Institute and holds two graduate degrees. My wife still teaches full time at Pitt. I know a lot of christians and am fond of many, but rarely do I get to speak out to them as openly because I have to exist in the community in order to accomplish my fundamental reading and science goals that we have established for underserved kids in the city. I’m certain they are aware of my godless bluntness, because of my association with them over the years . They never bring it up around me and our dealings are much smoother without those distractions . When I get a chance like this to explode I love taking it . I don’t want to hurt any feelings but that’s the way it is. “God is what you create in you own mind” Otherwise there is nothing.
Comment by: Ir
46Fran, thanks for the answer. If I refer to your non-belief again I will write ’secular humanist’, not ‘atheist’, now I know you prefer that.
I’ve always heard that Alaskan cruises are fun. I hope you and your wife enjoy it.
Comment by: fran
47It’s not that I resent being called an atheist,( cause I yam what I yam :) its just that the term has been denigrated so because of it’s association to the cold war and the fact that our country has used it as a propaganda tool . Rightly or wrongly I remember , as a child , how the u.s. ostracized atheism and discredited its practice . The catholic church jumped the bandwagon even though they sanctioned Hitler for a short time . There are many pictures of Hitler and the pope shaking hands
Comment by: Texan
48To refer to Helen in #46 about kids worshiping, I agree with your take.
I’ve always seen children who mimic adults or each other in many different situations as just learning. They may not know what it is they are doing but at some point, it clicks in their head.
It may be a stretch, but makes sense to me, when a calf is born, or a baby monkey (or just about any animal that is raised by its parents), they copy their parent in many things. A calf not yet ready to eat grass will watch his mother grazing and put his nose down in the lawn, maybe take a nibble, maybe just nose around. He’s not ready yet for the real thing and he’s not doing anything, but he’s learning the movement for eating which will be very neccessary later on. Primates would be the same in this. Babies mimic adults and therefore learn. We are not so much different than them in this regard I think. That’s not to say children are cows, but there is much to learn from our fuzzy friends with four legs or just two.
Comment by: Texan
49Sorry, #36, not #46.
whew.
Comment by: Morleigh
50I have not read through the entire list of responses but I only wanted to say I thought of this this weekend as I went to church (it has been quite some time) because I am dealing with a lot of difficulties in my life and as it seems church is often the place that I turn to. It offers safety, comfort, and familiarity within its walls, and when all else fails I know that there is one place left to always turn to. Maybe it can be construed as selfish reasons, as I would not be considered religious by any stretch of the imagination, but I believe that we are way too judgemental in life, and half the time we involve ourselves in situations that are none of our business instead of paying attention to the negatives in our own lives. The truth is we often don’t know what is best for the other person until we have walked in their shoes, this is what ticks me off about higher-than-thou religious activists.
Comment by: Nutrideath
51Ir, I guess I miswrote.
“Common sense” was the wrong term. What I meant to say was to think a bit more on Bible principles, use a little logic, rather than just read a single scripture & make assumptions as to its meaning based solely on that single scripture.
As a matter of fact, “common sense” many times leads us astray when it comes to moral decisions. The old adage “Follow your heart!” is really bad advice. If everyone did that, with no constraint, we’d have no morals left — and probably anarchy to boot.
So, just because something seems right in our own eyes, that doesn’t make it right. Each person has views potentially conflicting with others. For instance: one person might think that its ok to steal in order to feed their family. Another might think its just fine to steal just because he wants whatever he’s stealing. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Who makes that call? Why is any one man or woman’s opinion any better than anyone else’s?
The answer is that we have to look to a higher source. This is the exact same issue raised in the Garden. Remember, the tree Adam & Eve ate from had a name, a title. It was a symbol. The tree was named the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Bad.” It was off limits to humankind. It symbolized God’s right to determine for humans what is right or wrong (the “Knowledge of Good & Bad”). By taking that fruit Adam & Eve were saying, in essence, that they no longer wanted God’s view on right vs. wrong — they wanted to determine right from wrong for themselves.
And so we — even now — are each individually faced with the same question Adam & Eve faced: “Will I submit to the rule of God, or make my own rules?” That question can logically be extended to:
- If the Bible shows that a woman should not teach in the congregation, will I abide by that?
- If the Bible shows that a wife should be in submission to her husband, will I live my life that way? (Whether male or female — some men don’t want the responsibility of headship.)
Besides all of that, the whole “wifely submission” issue has been given a bad name. If a wife is submissive to her husband, is that necessarily demeaning to her? No, absolutely not — not in the truly Biblical sense. (Some men have promoted the “demeaning” nature of this submission, but that is not the arrangement the Bible describes.) The same scripture that lays out this principle (1 Cor. 11:3) also points out in the same breath that the head of the man is the Christ. Is it demeaning for a man to be in submission to Christ? No! Then neither is it demeaning for a woman to be submissive to her husband.
Both headship relationships are simply what God says is right.
Comment by: TXatheist
52Nutrideath,
I’m setting you up here. Are you saying we should use the entire bible to understand behavior? The book of Leviticus is my source and please don’t say jc alleviated us from those ideas, that’s also where the 10C are.
Comment by: Nutrideath
53Cully,
You have a good point about the average Christian not understanding the slavery described in Leviticus. And, correct me if I’m wrong, but that seems to be a chief concern of many homosexuals — “How will I be perceived by other people? Will they hate me? Will they understand me?”
But, we all should be much more concerned about how God feels about our lifestyle, and about our moral choices & practices. Really, who cares if you have the blessing & love of the “average Christian” if God condemns you? If all of the world’s society changed overnight to embrace & love homosexuality, and there was zero stigma associated with it from any human anymore — would that change God’s view on the matter? Would that change his view of a homosexual? (By the way, what did you mean whey you said that the Bible’s references to homosexuality do not reflect modern practice? I’m not so interested in quotes from scholars, but just want to understand what you meant a little better.)
As for the average Christian ignoring “inconvenient scriptures” — there again you have a good point. I agree wholeheartedly. Part of my last post was pointing out that heterosexual adultery or premarital sex is the same sin in God’s eyes as homosexuality. But here again is where a little research can clear up questions.
The book of Leviticus is part of the Mosaic Law. This was a law code given to the nation of Israel by God thru Moses (notice, Israel - not all mankind). It governed every aspect of their lives, including slavery as well as sexual matters. This Law was meant to govern the Israelites, but more than that it was meant to show them what sin was. (As an example: if a person grows up being taught that the strongest can have whatever they can take, then they see no sin in the act of theft.) The logical conclusion, after many years of living under this law, was that they were sinful (just like all humans), and so needed Christ. For this reason this Law was referred to as “our tutor leading to Christ.” (Gal. 3:19-24)
But, once Christ came & died the Law was abolished. (Notice the next verse, Gal. 3:25) We no longer have to live by the same Law in order to please God, because now we have a whole new arrangement provided by Him — Christianity. The New Testament continues many of the principles outlined by the Law, and so we still live a Godly life based upon what we learn in the scriptures. But when people get upset about the Sabbath (part of the Mosaic Law) you can ask them about their animal sacrifices (also part of the Law). Neither is required anymore.
But the point is that many of the scriptures that point out that homosexuality is a sin are in the New Testament, and so were not abolished with the Law. Remember though that the reason the Law (with all of its sin-atoning animal sacrifices) was abolished is because of Christ’s sacrifice (atones for sins once for all-time). That sacrifice covers our sins if we put faith in it, repent, & change our ways.
Many homosexuals feel this is impossible for them. “I was born this way!” is the usual lament. Well, heterosexuals were born heterosexual too. Their desire for immoral sex is no less powerful. We are all born sinful, in ways too numerous to number. Just as a heterosexual can avail themselves of Christ’s sacrifice, so can a homosexual. 1 Cor. 6:9, 10 lists people that are condemned by God (by their type of sin), & included are homosexuals. But notice verse 11: “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
So, no one can say they cannot change. It has been done before, and it is being done every day. It just comes down to “Will I live the way God wants me to, or the way I want to?” It’s a simple question, but it shouldn’t be turned into a social issue (”Does the average Christian accept my lifestyle?”). It is an issue of pleasing God or pleasing oneself. It is an issue of your personal relationship with God, & the rest of society is at most just an influence in that.
(TXatheist - I was getting this together offline, & didn’t see your post until just now when pasting in, but the above sortof applies to your question. To add just a little more: Yes the law (including the 10C) was abolished. But the whole point of the law was its underlying principles. Jesus himself pointed out that all of the more than 600 specific laws can be summed up in just two (Matt.32:34-40). We are no longer bound by the “letter of the law”, but we are bound by the principles.)
Comment by: TXatheist
54So which parts of the bible are we not to follow cause the creation story is in the Hebrew scriptures? I just have a real problem with people saying Jesus did away with the old law and are not bound by it yet want the 10C on public property because they are god’s laws and he gave them as a supposed moral guide. Which is it and I won’t settle for both out of convienence.
Comment by: Nutrideath
55TXatheist,
First, what does the creation account have to do with this?
Second, we are supposed to follow the whole Bible. You just have to remember its context.
For instance, the Law’s context was that it was a nation’s set of laws. We don’t have to follow those laws anymore (i.e. - we don’t have to sacrifice animals, we don’t have to keep the Sabbath, etc.).
But since those laws were written by God, and they covered many different aspects of daily life, the underlying principles give us insight into how he feels on many different subjects:
-Is is ok to slaughter & eat animals? (Ask a vegan, then check Leviticus to see God’s view)
-Is premarital sex really that big a deal?
-Do I have any responsibility to take care of my aging parents?
-Should I give money to the poor? Should they expect handouts for nothing?
-What are acceptable grounds for divorce?
-Is it ok to cheat on my taxes, as long as I don’t get caught?
etc., etc. Once you understand the underlying principles, you have a good understandinf of God’s view of pretty much anything that comes up in your life.
Comment by: TXatheist
56Nutrideath,
What does contradictory mean to you? I mean these basic statements are exactly the opposite of what to do.
Nutrideath said:
Comment by: Ir
57Thanks for your reply, Nutrideath.
When I read the following Bible passage -
- I find myself thinking, what a male chauvinist the guy who wrote was.
If God wrote it, well, to me, that means God is a male chauvinist. Unfortunately.
Comment by: Cully
58Nutrideath> First biblical homosexuality vs. modern assumptions. In the biblical era the normative homosexual relationship was between older men and young boys, a form of pederasty. This was common among the Greeks and Romans specifically. The boys were kept as “body slaves” of sorts, and released from those “duties” when they reached a certain age, and it was no longer acceptable to find them attractive. This is not to say that grown men didn’t sleep with each other, I’m sure they did. It has just been argued by many scholars that the Mosaic law is referring to the adult/child homosexual relationship. It has also been argued that Mosaic law refers to temple sex, another pagan practice.
I know before I say this that it won’t matter to you, but do find it odd that EVERY SINGLE mention of homosexuality in the New Testament is from Paul? I know that you accept the bible as the inspired word of God, but Paul’s epistles seem to me to be so much opinion, and not that much different than modern writings from say… Pat Robertson or James Dobson. Paul was just writing a lot closer to biblical time frame.
As for whether I should be caring about God or the average Christian… I understand your point as it pertains to my “immortal soul” but God is NOT the one voting in the next referendum to keep me from adopting a child, or having my relationship recognized by law, or to protect me from being fired. The average Christian is the one that I need to worry about in this life. Average Christians are the ones who are putting their morality into this countries laws, with nothing more than the bible at their backs. Average Christians are the reason that this country has sided with our enemies when it comes to international gay rights. Our Average Christian President has chosen to side with IRAN a country that just months before he had labeled as part of the “Axis of Evil” in order to keep a gay rights group from being formed in the UN.
Since I don’t believe I have a soul to be worried about, it’s the Average Christian that i have to focus my attentions on.
Comment by: Nutrideath
59I’m sorry Cully, I was laboring under the assumption that you believe in God and care what He thinks. If it’s just 100% political for you then why do you worry? Things for gays (at least in the US) are going your way lately. The issue is always in the news, always in politics. From a purely political standpoint, think of the progress gays have made! Along with politics, movies & music are more & more drawing people into sympathizing and siding with gays. Sure there are political setbacks, but by & by gays are making progress (would Brokeback have even been a concept that any movie producer would have seriously considered producing 50 yrs ago?).
But if you go deeper than politics, into the spiritual & religious side of the issue then you have to recognize God’s viewpoint on the matter. After all, the world and its political & entertainment views do not reflect God’s views. The two views are completely at odds.
So from that standpoint, it’s a little harder for you to garner the gay vote from the “average Christian.” It is getting easier though. Your argument about “Biblical homosexuality vs. modern-day practice” seems like it is just a carefully couched argument to win over the average Christian politically. You try to make a distinction between homosexuality as it is practiced today and the way it was practiced back when the Bible was written, especially insofar as you can cast the “Biblical” version more as pedophilia instead of homosexuality. (”Oh sure, THAT homosexuality was horrible!! It was really just pedophilia. Now, that’s not the same thing as today’s homosexuality at ALL now IS it??!!?) That’s just a diversion, and maybe the average Christian wont see the difference, and will fall for it, and the political vote will swing just a bit more to the side of gays.
The average Christian is more influenced by politics, and especially by the entertainment industry than they are by the Bible. But true Christians (and I make a distinction here between “true” and “average” Christians) wont fall for it. They understand that issues like this - of morality, of right vs. wrong - are not decided by the majority vote. To put it in political terms: It is not a democracy, but a theocracy.
If you — personally, for your own individual spirituality’s sake (not any political motive) - take a cold, hard, sober look at the scriptures in question you’ll notice no mention of man-boy love specifically, but a really good description of homosexuality in general, even as practiced today.
You said “God is not the one voting in the next referendum…” You’re absolutely correct — God is way above human politics. His say carries much more weight than any human’s one little vote. Yet, you erase him out of the overall equation. You don’t see past the next 5 or 10 years of life in this one little country. You ignore the consequences of living as if God does not exist, and instead concentrate on getting the majority vote.
So, enjoy your life as a homosexual. No doubt the politics will eventually be on your side. But just because you may eventually get the majority of humankind to vote your way doesn’t mean you could ever sway God to that side. Evidently though, you don’t really believe He exists so you don’t see that as any big deal. You take the same stand as many others — that Religion is just a way to control people. (”If I can just get thru to all those Christians & get them to be ok with homosexuality, then we’d really be able to make some changes around here!”)
Who’s next on the political agenda — Muslims? Hindus?
Comment by: Nutrideath
60Ir,
(I’m not sure if the term “female chauvinist” is really correct, but…)
Is God a female chauvinist because he created men without the ability to bear children?
Is God a bird chauvinist because he created both men & women without wings?
A fish chauvinist because humans cannot breath underwater?
God created man & woman, each with their particular makeup. The scripture you quoted doesn’t refer to “equality,” but applies in a spiritual sense. Men teach in the congregation, women do not. He didn’t say that women don’t have the ability, this is just His arrangement. Could God make it so a man could bear a child? Or breathe underwater? Of course, He has the power to do anything. But the arrangements He has made are what they are.
As a result of the society we live in we tend to look at 1 Tim. 2:12-15 thru feminist’s eyes. But the scripture is not describing societal equality, or the lack thereof. Just because it says that a woman should not teach or have authority in the congregation, that doesn’t mean she’s any less in God’s eyes. Nor should she be any less in any man’s eye either.
Comment by: Cully
61Nutrideath> How is me questioning the differences in biblical homosexuality and modern practice any different than what YOU did by trying to redefine SLAVERY as an employee/employer relationship? When I do it it’s “carefully couching” a political argument. When you do it it’s what? Helping me understand a subtle distinction? When I take a cold hard sober look at Paul’s stance on slavery I don’t see your interpretation, the one that you bend over backwards to apologize for.
Comment by: Ir
62I can go with it :)
But God did not create women unable to teach. That’s the difference. They can, but they aren’t allowed to.
Which includes - both men and women being able to teach. Churches that don’t let women in the pulpit know women are able to teach because they’re usually happy to let them teach children or a group which is women only.
Exactly - it’s a chauvinistic one, as revealed by the reasoning given that ‘the woman was deceived, not the man’. What is that if not a slur on women?
You say God made them; but in reality, the author of 1 Timothy wrote them and many churches enforce them to this day.
It doesn’t just say that; it gives the reason that the woman ‘was deceived’ and Adam wasn’t.
If you had a babysitter and someone evil came to the door and deceived your babysitter into letting them in, you wouldn’t let that babysitter babysit alone again because ’she was deceived’; you’d choose someone who hadn’t been deceived.
And it simply wouldn’t be true to claim that you think the same of both babysitters, when you clearly are not giving both the opportunity to babysit your children any more.
How can you claim that it is not saying anything derogatory about women to say “women may not teach or have authority over men because the woman was deceived”?
I guess we will probably have to agree to disagree on whether 1 Timothy 2:12-15 equally honors men and women. Evidently you think it does, but I disagree.
Comment by: Nutrideath
63Cully,
Well, because the arrangement of slavery is described in great detail (in both Leviticus and Deuteronomy):
-It specifically describes how if a man gets too far into debt, he can “sell himself” into slavery. Basically, he works off his debt for a specific amount of time, agreed upon by both the master & the slave at the start of the slave’s service. In many cases, the master would much rather have his money - but this was his last resort way of being repaid.
-It specifically describes how long this service can last (max 7 years)
-It specifically describes what happens at certain festivals (for instance, during a Jubilee year, all slaves were set free, no matter how far they were thru their original “contract.” Jubilee years of course had a great effect on negotiations)
-It specifically describes how a slave could “attach” himself to his master’s household permanently if he so desired, giving up his right to be freed at the end of his contract
-It specifically describes what a master had to provide for the slave during the time of his servitude: food, shelter, clothing, etc.
-It specifically describes how a slave’s family figure into his own slavery (Was his wife’s labor part of the deal? His children? What if he marries while in his master’s service? What if the slave fathers children during his servitude?)
Does that sound like the slavery of Africans in the American colonies? The extreme detail laid out in the books of Leviticus & Deuteronomy support my point.
Now on the other hand, there is not the same level of detail regarding homosexuality to provide the distinction you claim. When the Bible condemns “men who lie with men,” that includes men of all ages, not just pedophila.
Comment by: TXatheist
64Nutrideath,
You said “we(xians) are supposed to follow the whole bible” and “We(xians) don’t have to follow those laws anymore”
How is that contradictory?
Comment by: TXatheist
65Sorry, not contradictory is what I meant.
Comment by: Nutrideath
66TXatheist,
I was just making a distinction with the Law - we don’t follow it the same way as the Israelite nation did (to the “letter of the law”). For instance: We don’t perform animal sacrifices, we don’t pay taxes the way the Law proscribes, we don’t conscript people for war the way the Law states, etc. etc.
But, we don’t just throw that part of the Bible out either. We learn the underlying principles, and live by those. For instance, the principle of “love thy neighbor.”
It was a command in the Law. Very specific. Just because the Law was abolished, that doesn’t release us from that obligation. The Jews tried to be extremely specific. One Jew even asked Jesus specifically about this particular law, asking “Really, who is my neighbor?” The Jew wanted to nail down exactly who he was supposed to love, he wanted a solid “limit.” Jesus’ famous answer is the parable about the Good Samaritan.
If you read that account, you’ll notice that at the end Jesus asked the Jew a question in return. He did not ask “Who of these three men seems to you was the injured man’s neighbor?” Instead, Jesus asked “Who of these three men seems to you to have MADE HIMSELF neighbor to the injured man?”
Jesus was teaching that there is an underlying principle to “Love thy neighbor.” We follow the whole Bible by discerning the principles — even in the part of the Bible that is that old Law code.
Comment by: TXatheist
67So, do we work on the Sabbath as the bible directs?
Comment by: Nutrideath
68Well, do you know the underlying reason the Jews were not supposed to work on the Sabbath?
Comment by: Cully
69Nutrideath> In the end it is fruitless for me to debate this point. Yes, the bible, despite some questionable translations, is probably pretty clear about homosexuality.
Fine.
I stated before though that my main question here was rather more about Christians “cherry-picking” verses that support their claims, and ignoring verses or parts of verses that are inconvenient. Here again you’ve done just that. To bolster yourself in your slavery argument you point to Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which earlier in this very post you tell is no longer relevant since Jesus’ coming. If Paul reasserts the importance of Leviticus 18:22 in Corinthians why is it okay to ignore the second half of the verse, where the penalty for homosexual acts is laid out?
Comment by: Ron
70TX,
Sad to say, I do think that Nutrideath is in a loosing argument here but come on, you can do better than that…Mark 2:27
Comment by: Mark Evans
71The Greatest Church in the World? Herein lays the problem. Holiness and humility are inseparably married. God does not coexist with pride - period. Why do Christians look down on homosexuals, divorced, the struggling, and accuse those suffering of having some sin? Anthro-centic Christianity. In truth, today’s church is no different that the “church” of the Scribes and Pharisees that Jesus to vehemently criticized. My heart breaks for the churched and the un-churched. James talks about the self-deceived. Unfortunately, we are they. .
Comment by: TXatheist
72Keep in holy. Now, do we do as the bible instructs and work on the sabbath or not?
Ron,
You’re right, I can do better:)
Comment by: Ginny
73I’m seeing a lot of talk about america’s version of “church” on this website and in the comments but very little about the spirituality of christianity…perhaps this is why our ebay soul won’t find what he’s looking for in this experience…shouldn’t someone get to the heart of the matter….
Comment by: Nutrideath
74Ron, thanks for the vote of confidence. :/ Also, thanks for the scripture.
TX, the entire Law was supposed to bring the Jews to a mental state where they could accept the Messiah, Christ. It was meant to create an attitude, a way of life, to instill in them a sense of right & wrong — not just “do this” or “don’t do that,” but it was to train them to have the correct MOTIVES for what they did or didn’t do.
How did the law concerning the Sabbath do that? What “motive” was it meant to instill into them? Specifically, what was the underlying, deeper meaning of the Sabbath? (THAT’s the part that would continue on after the abolition of the law…)
It was meant to teach them that there is more to life than work. That man does not live by bread alone, he needs spiritual things from God. That this isn’t optional, but instead is very important.
The Sabbath wasn’t only about not working, it was also about what to do with that day instead of working. The Sabbath was set aside for spiritual & religious activities. So, what do we learn from this? Well, that religion is important. How important?
Breaking the Sabbath bore the death penalty. So, how important are spiritual activities in our lives today?
(Are you starting to get my drift about the underlying principles of the Law?)
Comment by: Mark Evans
75Ginny - Actually, that is what I was attempting to do. Jesus loved others to Himself - with abject humility. If we put the same effort into knowing God, loving Him, and letting Him transform us into an image of himself, the emphasis we see on performance, obedience, etc. would evaporate. I love the spirit of this web site - Christians get real. How many Christians do we see befriending prostitutes, druggies, etc? The well don’t need a physician, the sick need love - not love as man defines it. Jesus said go, and as you go, make disciples. We’re more worried about our “walk” with the Lord, His blessings on our life (as we perceive them anyway), and the ordering of our private world than the sacrificial sprit of Jesus - which as rooted in perfect humility. It’s not about observing the Sabbath. Jesus spoke well of us - He will turn to many of us who practiced “great works” and day “depart from me because I never knew you.” We’re in love with religion and too often ourselves, not God and therefore, not others. The said part is we don’t mean to be that way, we’re self deceived - largely because we have not suffered.
One of the best places to get a perspective on the church is from those who have suffered the most. In there my just lay God’s greatest blessings - losing everything else but the ability to be real.
Comment by: TXatheist
76Nutrideath,
Yes, you want to be vague about it. The bible says if you work on the Sabbath or curse your parents you must be put to death. It’s in there and this is why I have trouble with the bible. It’s taken literally and it’s not taken literally when convenient. I also hope you understand the messiah is not christ to the jews based on him failing to uphold the messianic requirements.
Comment by: Ron
77Nutrideath,
I am sorry if I disappointed you. It is not that I disagree with you, I just don’t see this going anywhere but an argument. Why do we argue? The fact of the matter is, people critisize others often when they are affraid that someone else will succeed where they are affraid they couldn’t. With that in mind, does it make any sense to critisize someone who believs differently than you? I have learned through this process of blogging that I can’t prove God right any more than I can prove that Bubble gum is better than pop-corn, or love is better than hate. There is enough information out there for people to support any beliefs they want. You and I believe in God for reasons that we could discuss all day. Atheists plainly disagree. That doesn’t make them less that we so why argue? A new friend told me that what we really need to be foccussing on here is not proving and disproving points but building relationships.
Comment by: TXatheist
78My point is biblically when the Caananites(i think) were worshipping wrong Jehovah brought on the flood and killed them all except Noah according to the bible. There are justified reasons based on not following the 10C literally that gets people killed according to god/the bible.
Comment by: TXatheist
79Thanks Ron, very well said.
Comment by: Nutrideath
80Ok TX, look at it this way:
We can find archaeological records that show us the law codes of many ancient peoples. Most of those law codes are not in practice today by any nation.
The Law code in the Bible is the same. True, it was given by God. But only to the nation of Israel.
In addition, that Law code was abolished by Christ, whether the Jews recognize him as the Messiah or not. Even the Jews don’t live by it anymore! Oh, they practice a ritualized version nowadays, but it’s not the Law found in the Bible.
TX, you seem to want to pick a scripture, point to it and say “Look how ridiculous! See! The Bible’s a bunch of junk!” There are some parts of the Law that are convenient for that. But only until you learn its history.
If you want to hate the Bible, you’re going to hate it no matter what people show you in it, or how much they explain passages in it. The question is, why do you want to hate it so badly?
Comment by: Ir
81Nutrideath,
You seem very sure of how to interpret the Bible. I’m curious: how long have you been studying the Bible? How long did it take for you to learn how to interpret it? I assume you didn’t pick up the Bible on day 1 of your Christian life and think “Obviously this Law given to Moses isn’t for Christians today”? (etc)
Comment by: TXatheist
82Nutrideath,
You want to insist that you know how to interpret it and that I don’t know how. I don’t hate the bible but it’s just a book and no more important that any other book. As you claim I want to dismantle it and I want you to realize I have and that it’s not the word of god but the work of man just like every other book. The Hammurabi code is prior to the bible and just as applicable as the bible today. The Law code was not abolished by jc. You might believe it but I don’t. I will have to be brash. You aren’t going to be the one to teach me about the bible. I ain’t saying I can’t learn but you will learn too if you want.
Comment by: Nutrideath
83TX & Ir,
I didn’t mean to come off sounding high&mighty. And you’re right Ir, I have been studying the Bible for a long time now. None of this was obvious without lots of study.
TX, you say the Law was not abolished by Jesus, but the Bible itself claims so. Of course, from a Jewish standpoint they claim that it continues to this day, but thier claim bears no weight against God’s statements in the New Testament to the contrary.
What I’m saying TX is that the Bible has an internal harmony. It may not be obvious with a casual look, but with study it does become more plain. You have not dismantled it, at least not in my opinion. And I’m always trying to learn.
So, teach me: what do you base your statement that Jesus did not abolish the Law code on?
(bear with me, I just learned how to use the italics… !! How do you do the quote thing?)
Comment by: fran
84Nutrideath, Your statements are absurd . How many groups of people ( mostly peasants and kings)participated in the creation of the bible . All of the stories were communicated orally and most of the participants were illiterate except for the royalty . Christ ,if you notice , chose mostly the iliterate to work with . They were much easier to manipulate though Christ laid low for thirty years and had little to add till three years before his death. Some say he spent a lot of time with the essenes a religious cult that studied mostly middle eastern spirituality. That could be true to because he used teaching similar to the hindus ( the trinity ) and buddhism in the new testament ,because of the nature and similarity of his teachings I think that his new testament teachings are at least suspect and call into question whether or not he is the son of a god as he claims to be
Comment by: Ron
85Nutrideath,
You never responded to my e-mail, are you upset with me?
Comment by: Nutrideath
86Ron,
um… I’m not too familiar with this blog, but I didn’t see an email. I didn’t even know you could email participants.
But no, I’m not upset with anyone. Just too much to type! I gotta get some work done! :)
Comment by: Ir
87That’s what I figured :)
I’ve studied the Bible a lot too; but lately I’ve lost my assurance that it all holds together as neatly as I was taught. As you’ve already seen, there are passages whose content bothers me, like 1 Tim 2:12-15. And then there are passage that I have trouble reconciling with each other - if I set aside what I’ve been taught and just read what they say.
I’ve already mentioned one of these here - there’s a blog entry about the Matt 25 sheep and goats passage which is based on a comment of mine.
Anyway, I respect your convictions about the unity of the Bible even though I find myself unable to share them at present.
Comment by: Ir
88Nutrideath, maybe Ron is referring to his comment #76 to you on this page. I don’t think this blog allows us to e-mail each other.
Comment by: TXatheist
89I am not attempting to dismantle the bible. You want me to use the bible to explain why JC isn’t the messiah? Uh, the torah/OT/Hebrew scriptures are just as unreal to me. Circular reason as we call it. The bible claims there was a world wide flood and Noah built an ark. There are many unsubstantiated claims in that book.
Jesus never existed. He is but a myth. You can disagree all you wish. That’s what we are here for. I can’t prove to you that isn’t true. I can’t prove a negative.
Comment by: Kirk
90Fran,
Your comment about the Bible being written by peasants and royalty has a bit of a leak. The newer translations. I.E. NIV , RSV, NAS and etc have been translated by scholors from multiple denominations and they even edited and removed material that was originally in the King James. An easy example is the intentional omission ” For thine is the kingdom power and glory” from the Lord’s prayer in Matthew because it was not contained in the more reliable manuscripts.
To say that Jesus manipulated people is just simply mean spirited. Healing, compassion, calling people to live in an others oriented lifestyle and unconditional love are not the tools of a manipulator.They are called mercy. (Something which we all could use more of.) Besides what would his motive be? He was among the poorest of the poor. He had no home. He had no possesions. Rejected by his home town. Scorned by the powerful. Hated by his own faith community. Betrayed by one of his best friends. Deserted by his followers,(Shall I go on?) and he died the gruesome death of a crimminal. Not exactly the desires or the desired ends of a master manipulator!
It seems that a lot of the conversations in this blog want to prove or disprove some semantical issue of Levitcal law or rule. The exact issue that my Lord was the most displeased with during His ministry. He wanted people to LOVE ONE ANOTHER!!! Let’s give it a try and see what happens!
Blessings on ya!
Comment by: TXatheist
91Kirk,
The original bible was aramaic and hebrew not King James English. How do you label someone that tells people he can heal them? Benny Hinn and Peter Popoff are……. I’m not saying Jesus is bad or good as I don’t believe he ever existed but telling a leper they are healed by your touch is not possible. I am not attempting to disprove Levitical Law. I’m 100% confident that the book of Leviticus has bad moral advice. If I love someone I tell them the truth as I see it. I don’t allow a lie to be spread or go unchallenged. You are certainly entitled to an opinion but I definitely am too.
Comment by: Ir
92I thought the New Testament was written in Greek (with the possible exception of the beginning of Luke’s gospel).
Comment by: Bruce Lofland
93I know that I sayed away from Christianity for a long time because the people seems to be too focused on using the Bible as a legal document. It is too old and has been editted and translated too much to be used that way.
When I learned to look at the symbolism and artistic expression that it contained I understood it much better. I found some surprising things as a result. For example, the healings described in the New Testament were describing emotional, social, and spritual healing. Lepers represented those that felt ostracized by the community. Homosexuals today might relate to this. Jesus cured them not of a viral disease or sexual orientation, but of the shame they felt. He wanted them (and thus his followers) to know that God accepted them.
I realize that this does not mean much to non-believers, but I wish that other Christians would see this and not worry so much about rules.
Some Christians may consider this to be a liberal viewpoint, but I could not accept more traditional viewpoints.
Comment by: TXatheist
94NT yes greek but I’m talking about the bible. Oh, you mean the other bible, the christian one:) Sorry, but when I hear bible I have to decipher between the bible and the christian bible. I don’t get over excited to hear OT as there is no NT to the Jews.
Bruce,
I am glad you take the view you do. I think we can find that as middle ground.
Comment by: Nutrideath
95Ron wrote (in #77):
Ron, I agree with you to some extent. But when discussing God everyone cannot be correct. People come up with all sorts of crazy ideas - some would say mine are top of that list. But when it comes right down to it, there is only one “truth,” right? Either God created all, or he didn’t; either God approves of certain behaviour or he doesn’t; etc. etc. In light of that, notice 2 Tim. 3:16, 17:
“All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”
The Bible was given by God to “set things straight.” It is a guide for us. Without it, how would we know how God wants us to live?
Many people here on this diablog either have never had faith in the Bible as the word of God, or have lost it somehow. But consider the questions “Is the Bible really inspired by God? If it once was, hasn’t it changed down thru the years?” - from a logical standpoint:
Either God exists, or he does not.
If he exists, either he created mankind or he did not.
If he created mankind, then either he cares about them or he doesn’t.
If he cares about mankind, would he give them some sort of guidance? It would seem so.
If he cared about mankind enough to give them some sort of guidance, and he had the power to create all things, surely he has the power to use men to record that guidance. (2 Peter 1:21 - For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.”)
If
-God cared enough about mankind to provide guidance, and
-had the power to create the universe, and mankind too, and
-had the power to use men to record the Bible so that mankind would have his guidance,
then doesn’t it stand to reason that he also had the power to make sure that that same guidance was preserved, down thru the ages, and even thru translation?
Comment by: TXatheist
96Nutrideath,
As an ex-xian I understand your points but do you see this point from the atheist perspective? Those are mighty big “if” statements concerning a belief in your god and his capabilities.
Comment by: Ron
97Nutrideath,
you said:
I read your response but where do we disagree? I believe in the authourity of scripture. As I reread my quote I don’t see myself challenging that. Maybe I misunderstand your challenge to me.
I know that I have quoted him before but I will do it again because I like what he says. Frederick Buechner says, “Almost nothing that makes any real difference can be proved. I can prove the law of gravity by dropping a shoe out of the window. I can prove that the world is round-that the radio works, that light travels faster than sound. I cannot prove that life is better than death or love better than hate. I cannot prove the greatness of the great or the beauty of the beautiful. I cannot even prove my own free will; maybe my most heroic act, my truest love, my deepest thought, are all just subtler versions of what happens when the doctor taps my knee with his little rubber hammer and my foot jumps.”
I recognize that you spent a lot of time into your thought, I’m just not sure that I understand where we differ. If you could clarify then perhaps I will see something that I haven’t before.
Comment by: Ir
98I’m familiar with that logic; I agree with your logic, given all the ‘ifs’. I used to believe all the ifs and also your logical consequences following from the ‘ifs’.
But…when I stopped to think about it, the way God communicates with the world (if Christians are right) is - very odd. For example, consider sharing the gospel and providing Bible verses as support, Wouldn’t it have been much more convenient if God had put all those verses on one page?
Imagine if someone tried to prove evolution to you with a great huge book by Dawkins (or any evolutionist) and he/she did it by flipping back and forth, reading one sentence out of a whole paragraph on page 594, then flipping back to page 301 and reading another sentence, etc.
Wouldn’t you wonder why the evolutionist hadn’t put a summary page somewhere? Why isn’t there an introduction or a conclusion with all the key points neatly in one place?
Comment by: Nutrideath
99Ir,
I do think that the Bible contains “summary pages” in effect, but there are just so many questions the Bible answers that there necessarily has to be lots of content.
For instance, even though other parts of the Bible comment on creation, the first few chapters of Genesis are a pretty good “summary.” The book of Galations is relatively short, but it is also a pretty good summary of the topic we discussed the other day - did the death of Jesus do away with the Jewish religious system & its Law. Many times when we quote specific scriptures, the surrounding context of that scripture goes into more depth on a particular subject, but the one quoted is the culminating point.
I once had someone ask me “Why didn’t God just cut his message in huge flaming letters on the side of a mountain somewhere? Then there’d be no doubt!” Well, when examined closely the Bible is more miraculous than “huge flaming letters,” and so should carry even more weight. (Although, I’m sure it would be just as much unbelief if there was such a mountain… “How do we know it was GOD who made the letters? Why that mountain and not one closer to my home? What language is that in anyway?” etc. etc.)
You also mentioned that it would be “much more convenient” if he just summed it all up. But think about it from the standpoint of other knowledge that we hold in high regard:
Would you choose to go to a medical doctor - maybe a surgeon, for instance - who, instead of having to go thru all that schooling & hands-on training, he just had to read the summary page to get his medical license? Obviously its more convenient for that doctor to just read the summary. But his knowledge isn’t well grounded. He might know the basics, but if he is treating you & during your surgery gets to a point he’s a little shaky on, he’s not going to have the depth to see things thru.
Its the same with the Bible. We could get the “basic summary,” but when push comes to shove & our faith is tested, we need a good, solid basis for our beliefs. If knowledge is worth having, its worth taking time to study it.
There is no knowledge that can possibly benefit us more than the knowledge we learn from the Bible: (John 17:3) “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.”
“Taking in knowledge” carries the connotation of continual learning, not just one intense period of learning. And you’re right - that is definitely not convenient. But it definitely is worth every minute.
Comment by: TXatheist
100Nutrideath said “
How is this supposed to unite us in our differences? I couldn’t disagree more with that statement and that is putting it nicely as Ir might be curious to that counterpoint stated like that and not a different way.
Comment by: Ir
101Way to go expressing your strong disagreement civilly, TXatheist ;)
Nutrideath, I’d choose the surgeon with practical experience over the one who has memorized the entire textbook, including the footnotes.
What about the knowledge a person gains from trying to follow Jesus through all the ups and downs of daily life and human relationships?
Comment by: Nutrideath
102Ron,
I wasn’t really trying to challenge you. What I was trying to say is that part of the reason God provided us with the Bible is to have some basis - other than all of our individual opinions - for “setting things straight.” Your respect for the authority of scripture gives us common ground.
From that perspecive, I’d have to disagree with Buechner. I understand his point, but I believe that the scriptures intervene and clarify the “things that make a real difference.” As I reread your quotation of him, I see that all the things he mentioned - is life better than death, is love better than hate, greatness of the great, beauty, free will — all those subjects are covered in the pages of the Bible. Some of those, like beauty, are covered from a spiritual & religious standpoint rather than the way we usually might think of them (physically), but in the end the spiritual version of beauty is the more long-lasting.
If two people agree on the authority of the Bible, its statements on just about any subject will serve to “set things straight.”
Comment by: Nutrideath
103Exactly. To get practical experience, you have to practice. The knowledge of a surgeon is useless if he never operates. But he needs the knowledge in order to do so.
To practice something you have to know how to do it first - you have to study it.
Practical experience in life can be gotten two ways. When faced with a problem:
1) Come up with an idea; try it, see how it worked; if it didn’t work out well try something else, see how it worked; if it didn’t work out well, try something else, etc. etc. (this is how the vast majority of people live - thru trial & error)
or
2) Find the Bible’s viewpoint & advice on the problem, do it.
Its like investing in the stock market with next week’s Wall Street Journal in hand.
Comment by: Nutrideath
104(Sorry Ir, I meant to reply to this too in my last quote… got ahead of myself.)
Striving to follow Jesus is most admirable. He’s the best example. But we have to know his example. We find that in the Bible.
Comment by: TXatheist
105Again, with these blanket statements of “superior” christian mindsets.
Nutrideath said”
How is saying that beneficial to people on this forum who think Jesus and his ideas are not worthy of following but can be taken into consideration at best?
Comment by: TXatheist
106Ir,
Allow me to “talk around” you. Ignore you and your question completely, the request to meet in the middle if you will. When you asked me to find the middle ground I said I’d try but when you realize the book is completely illogical, faulted and irrational for daily use, it’s very challenging. When you realize the advice you might get from your financial broker is coming from his faulty book on economics and stock advice you get rid of him. If you can’t understand that, you keep getting robbed, taken and fed bad information even when you think you know what you and your broker are doing. You may never realize your broker is flawed because it’s only dollars you don’t actually see. It’s just happening in your mind when you trade stocks and on financial records you’ve never actually seen. By the time you catch on the grevience is so bad you’re intellectually and financially broke. I hope you can read between the lines.
Comment by: Ir
107TXatheist, please do say whatever you want to. I hope Nutrideath will try to understand where you’re coming from even though he/she isn’t going to agree.
Well…yeah. I didn’t go broke but I’m fairly sure I did lose money, as it were.
I hope you don’t mind if I continue posting to Nutrideath also.
Nutrideath you make it all sound so easy.
Has anything really terrible ever happened to you or anyone you love? Is doing what you believe the Bible says always like investing in the stock market when you know which stocks are going to go up? That just doesn’t sound like real life to me.
Comment by: Stephan
108Back into the fray.
TX and Ir, I think it’s all about filters. We filter all of our experiences through our beliefs about reality. My filter is the Bible. I believe there is a loving God that cares for us and has created the world for our benefit. His plan for me is to spread His message to the people I contact and to live it out in my community. It’s obviously more complex than that, but that’s a big part of it.
Everything I experience goes through that filter. My experiences have an effect on my beliefs, but my beliefs also have an effect on my experiences. You and I may experience the same thing, but perceive it differently due to our respective filters.
When we listen to someone else’s viewpoint, we subconciously make assumptions about their filter, and if we think their filter is invalid we don’t listen to their input. TX, I suspect you don’t think the Bible is a valid filter, so you are disinclined to listen to the perspective of someone who uses that filter.
I would be curious how you would define your own filter?
Comment by: Ir
109Stephan, I’m glad you mentioned filters. I know I intentionally took off my ‘Christian’ filter because I wasnted to see how the world was without it.
I found I liked it better (which I’ve already mentioned).
Do I still have a filter on, a different one? Maybe; probably; that’s something I try to be open to in case it’s a filter I should be taking off.
I try to listen to people even if they have a different filter. In my experience, people with different filters often say things it’s worth me hearing.
Comment by: Stephan
110Ir said,
I’m glad to hear you say that. I think that’s part of Jim’s point in this venture, is to help us understand and appreciate each other’s filters. I think many Christians have developed very thick filters, and have been told by Christian leaders that other people’s filters are invalid. I try see my filter for what it is - my filter. I think the frans of this world are guilty on the other side of disregarding Christian filters out of hand, and I don’t think TX is very far from that. Let’s all, on all sides of the issue, try to keep an open mind.
Comment by: Lynn I.
111What a great analogy the filter is Stephan! Ir and TX, good to see you both still sharing here. I honestly had to take a couple days off - I’m usually pretty calm and level-headed, but fran and his rants just got to be too much for me to stomach. I needed a break. (plus I celebrated a birthday! woo-hoo!) I did catch Hemant and Jim on Fox News - I wonder if either one of them ever dreamt that the venture between the two of them would take on a life of it’s own? I think God puts us in people’s paths and they in ours for a reason. Whats your take on that one?
Comment by: Texan
112Stephen, it’s good to have you back. Thanks for the insight and discernment.
It’s an interesting mental game, removing a filter, but I think most definitely worth the effort.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
113I’d like to elaborate on filters because I think it is a useful concept. I think in terms of a set of “nested” filters. Imagine a series of screens of varying mesh size and you’re on the track. In some settings we put up the finest mesh because we’re wary of the high probability of questionable ideas. In other settings, where we’re more comfortable, we use a looser mesh. We probably never get to the point of unfiltered input.
ISTM that the ideal ascribed to by Jim and OTM is to create a place where we can set aside the defensive screens we need for self-protection. Then we are freed to really examine the ideas that get caught in our other screens so that we can see if they are unnecessarily restrictive — filtering out stuff that we ought to let in for examination.
Just a thought.
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: Texan
114but a good thought. I like that analogy.
Comment by: TXatheist
115I guess I’m not on board with the filter thing. If I have a filter it’s the “prove it” or skeptical filter. I don’t just discount the bible, the Koran, the Gita, the Torah, the works of Confucius, book of mormon or any other religious book. They all get stuck on the top tier filter:)
Comment by: skikid
116I wonder if filter is a little oversimplified? I guess the word I would use is standpoint. In that I view the world through my standpoint which is comprised of many things like my gender, race, culture, upbringing, soceoeconomic status, education, age, faith etc. I dont think that I can remove this but rather become aware of it, and attempt to understand the standpoint of others as well. What do you all think?
Comment by: Eliza
117Nutrideath said:
I wish someone (Christian) could explain to me how to reconcile the creation story, days 1 through 7, in Genesis 1:1-2:3 with the creation story in Genesis 2:4-23. They sure seem to me to be distinct stories, different in important details. The first telling starts with a dark watery void; vegetation is created, then animals, then man (”male and female”). Then God rests, on the seventh day. The second telling starts immediately after the day of rest, in a dry land; Adam is created (from dust), then God plants vegetation then forms animals before finally, in Genesis 2:22, making a woman from Adam’s rib. When I read this as a kid, I felt sure that Adam was not the first human, because men and women had clearly already been made by God before he made Adam. When I read these chapters as an adult, I see 2 distinct stories with a few similar features written by people or groups of people with different creation myths. Like TXatheist, this gets firmly stuck on my top filter and jams it up (along with other discrepancies I just can’t “buy”). I’m really interested in knowing how other people can read the same thing and have what must be a very different “take” on it…
Comment by: Ir
118skikid, what you said makes sense to me. Like you said, we can’t remove our standpoint. I think that by doing what you said - becoming aware of it and attempting to understand the standpoint of others - we maximize the chance of us seeing our own prejudices and being able to overcome them.
Comment by: Stephan
119Eliza, I’ll give you my opinion, for what it’s worth. Because there were no witnesses to the creation story and it was written much later after being passed by word of mouth, I take it more as poetry than history. The goal is not so much to say, “This is how God did it,” but to say, “God created the world out of nothing and created man to live in it.” I don’t believe it was seven days in 24 hour increments, or that the order in which things were created is important. The key is to see that God created all of this out of nothing, and put us here to run it.
Comment by: Nutrideath
120Eliza, here’s my take on the creation account in Genesis.
Both sections you cited describe parts of the same history. If you notice, the first section is the one that divides the creative process into “days.” The first section covers it all, and at a high level. But the second section goes back & gives more detail about the creation of Adam & Eve. (Adam’s creation, where he lived, what he did, Eve’s creation, etc.)
The second section is also not chronological like the first one. The description mentions several points without specific reference to their order in time.
Also, with respect to the creative “days,” nothing in the Genesis account says they are days of 24 hours each. Just as the Bible refers later to “Noah’s day,” or the way we say “back in my grandfather’s day,” the word “day” in many cases just means a period of time. Each of the creative days could’ve been eons long.
Also, in the beginning of chapter 2 is the description of the rest day, day 7. Notice, all the other days are described as having a “morning” & an “evening” - that they were completed. The seventh day is only described as beginning. It continues even now.
Comment by: Rick L in TX
121My take on the 2 accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 are similar to Stephan’s and Nutrideath’s.
-No necessary understanding of “day” as 24 hours
-No necessary teaching about the “how” of creation”, only an affirmation that creation had a benevolent designing mind behind it
-Chapter 2 is a zoom lens placed on the camera to go back and focus more specifically on human origins within the chapter 1 account, as if in response to a listener saying “Wait a minute…go back and tell me more about that part”…like my kids used to ask for when I was telling stories to them of how their mother and I met.
-In an ancient world environment in which the world was seen as dangerous, alarming and threatening with seemingly no order, the account says “calm down. there is order in what appears so chaotic.”
Rick L in TX
Comment by: Ir
122Nutrideath, I’d be interested in your thoughts on my comment #76 on the page An Atheist Pastor. It’s about something I noticed in the Bible text once that seems to be somewhat of a translation anomaly.
Comment by: Nutrideath
123Hi again Ir,
Interesting point. I haven’t had time to do any research on that specific word, but it does seem that the difference between “blameless” and “an ordinary, quiet sort of person” is quite a bit. But I think saying its because the translators “slotted” him is going a little far.
I seem to remember something about a correlation between a person being “complete” or “perfect” (the two being essentially the same thing) vs. sinful - but I’m a little shaky on it.
I do remember however that in his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus did say that the “meek shall inherit the earth.” So… “meek” and “quiet, ordinary” - a connection?
Comment by: Ir
124Thanks for your response, Nutrideath. I appreciate you taking time to think about my question.