“Christian” marriage is outlawed by the Bible. I’m not exaggerating. You’ll find all of the stunning details, along with citations to the Bible, at Dwindling in Unbelief. How does the Bible outlaw traditional “Christian” marriages? Here are some of the Bible rules listed:
- The Bible says that Christians should not marry.
- But if a Christian man decides to get married (which he shouldn’t), he can have more than one wife.
- And if he doesn’t like one of his wives (like if she’s unclean or ugly or something), he can divorce her.
- If a Christian man gets married and then discovers on his wedding night that his new wife is not a virgin, then he and the other Christian men must stone her to death.
- Christians shouldn’t have sex (even if they are married, which they shouldn’t be).
- Christian parents must beat their children (which they shouldn’t have, since they shouldn’t get married or have sex).
- Good Christians must hate their families.
(If they abandon them for Jesus, he’ll give them a big reward.)
This list list only includes the first seven rules. Go to Dwindling in Unbelief for the details and the pinpoint citations. Don’t just trust me on these rules. Go read the Bible. These rules are all there, clearly stated.
Conclusion: We need to march to America’s heartland and start picketing traditional Christian marriage because it is clear that traditional Christian marriage contravenes the clear teachings of the Bible.
So only non-Christians should get married? Or have sex?
Now that would put an end to Christianity in one generation. Drastic……
The Shakers have practiced total abstinence for 250 years. They are became endangered only in the last generation or so.
Actually, most of the list provided comes from the Old Testament, which is the Jewish Scriptures. But who cares? Its still "Christian" right?
That said, its this sort of stupid post that makes me think the whole Debate is pointless. People who post this sort of gibberish have an agenda, and don't really care about the truth of the matter.
That truth being that the Bible doesn't really say what its presented to say here. It takes only a few minuets to read the passages in context to see that the actual meaning is quiet different form the impression given here. Worse, since this is given in list format people somehow assume this is a checklist for "Christian Marriage" (even though a good deal of it is Old Testament Mosaic Law.)
But who cares? The poitn is, we have to make Christians look bad and show the Bible as silly and ridiculous whilst saying Christians don't really live by it. somehow this proves we are morally and intellectually superior.
But, is this really a fair list?
Lets take a look at it, shall we?
starting at 1 Corinthians Chapter 7, the Chapter opens thus…
1 Corinthians 7
1. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Verse one shoudl be noted here, the people of Corinth wrote ot Paul and asked him if it was good for a man not to touch a woman.
THis quesiton sets the stage for the rest of the passage, which gives Pauls advise, which summed up is that Marriage is not wrong, but neither is remainign single, and you shoudln't go ut just to get married, neither shoudl you stay single if you do not want to.
Thats the meaning of 7:7-9 and 7:27. Basically he is tellign peopel they can be content in the lot they have, and there shoudl be no pressure to marry. He does say that beign single does give you more time to dedicate to the service of God, but by no means is he actulaly saying Marirage is wrong or that Christians shoudln't engage in it.
In fact, he praises Marriage in CHapter Seven, and says that men and women shoudl submit to each other and lov eone another, sacrificing for each other.
Incidentlaly, the list only partioanlly quotes Verse 2… and misses its point.
# Christians shouldn't have sex (even if they are married, which they shouldn't be).
But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none. 1 Corinthians 7:29
It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 1 Corinthians 7:1-2
Verse 7:1-2 is actually just verse 7:1, and even then its not all of verse 7:1. It omits the whole of the opening.
Reposting verse one, I want you to see what this list cut out.I bolded the omitted text.
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
Is it honest to cut out key pieces of the text? By this logic I can prove the Bible is a book about Athiesm, because Psalm 14:1 says "There is no God. "
By removing the rest of the verse, the quote renders the meaning lost.
The chapter is about the benefits of marriage, but how people shouldn't be compelled either way to marry or remain single.
Verse 7:29 is actually a Prophecy about the Destruction of Jerusalem, and the Roman Persecution which will see many of the Christians slaughtered, and isn't about people not having sex if their married.
Exodus 21:10, which is not Christian but predates Christianity, is a provision for the correct treatment of a First wife whilst a man marries a second wife. However, the treatment is fair, especially by the standards of the day this was written in.
Read Verse Ten.
10. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
Basically, if a man takes another wife, he has to still maintain his first wife. He can't just leave her out in the cold, but must provide for her as well.
As to Polygamy, it existed in the Ancient World. All Cultures at this time where Polygamous. Unless your just going to point and laugh at it, I see no real reason to take this as anything to discuss further.
Deuteronomy 24:1 isn't so much about "Christian Marriage" as divorce under the Mosaic Law. (some how it being in the Bible is enough to make it Christian…)
But, Jesus said in Mathew chapter 5 that Divorce is wrong. What your actually contrasting ( And before someone brings up the idiocy of this being a Bible contradiction) is the Mosaic Law which governed the Nation-State of Israel. Since Modern America also allows divorcement, I don't see how this is an indictment against "Christian Marriage". (Especially since its Pre-Christian Mosaic Law.)
Ditto Deuteronomy chapter 22… Try reading John Chapter 8 sometime. It has a rather famous story of a woman Taken in Adultery. See how Jesus reacts when asked what should be done with her.
In fact, Anything in Deuteronomy is Old Testament Mosaic Law, which was established in Tribal Canaan, in which these rules would have made sense given the sociological development of the culture and need for strict conformity for communal survival.
But they still predate Christianity and don't reflect the Christian Ethos.
Of course, Proverbs is also Old Testament, but at least its not Mosaic Law and is instead Wisdom Literature from centuries later.
Still, you misread them.
6.# Christian parents must beat their children (which they shouldn't have, since they shouldn't get married or have sex).
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. Proverbs 13:24
Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying. Proverbs 19:18
Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him. Proverbs 22:15
Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. Proverbs 23:13-14
The verses above don't describe CHild Abuse. THey describe corporal punishment. spanking would fit this description.
And the underlying point is, correction and punishment of a Child who is disobedient will in the long run teach them Character, which I think Parents will attest is accurate, as will many (Albeit not all) counselor's.
Now,m you can mention they speak of a rod, but this doest necessarily mean a metal pole, neither is the beating described here necessarily a pulverizing, bone shattering event. In fact, not all Translatiosn use the term "Beating" (Its surprising what changes have occured in the English Language int h alst 400 years.)
You can interpret this to mean abuse, but that was not the autheiral intention.
THis brings me to this…
7.Good Christians must hate their families.
(If you abandon them for Jesus, he'll give you a big reward.)
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26
And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. Mattthew 19:29
Oblivious as you are to Middle Eastern Hyperbole (See the Proverbs above) you may not realise that a good many things said in Middle Eastern Literature, such as the New Testament Gospels (What? They weren't written in New JErsey?) is exaggerated for effect.
This is not a cheap apologetics excuse, its just a statement of how people spoke in the good old days, or even today in the Middle East.
The meaning of the passages is that you have to be willing to give up everything for the Lord Jesus Christ, not that you literally have to hate your family. In fact, Jesus tells us in other passages to love them and even our enemies.
Not that this matters, since what I've just said her will be ignored or ridiculed. Who cares about th meaningful of the text? The point here is to mock Christian beliefs.
Hell, you even bring up Genesis 22, as if the Sacrifice of Issac is routine Christian teaching, or at least presented in the Bible as intended as such. Its actually an Isolated Incident that occurred long before Christianity came about.
You also ignore the fact that Issac wasn't actually Sacrificed.
Lets get down to the real business here. You ant to shame and humiliate Christians, and use this list as a means to achieve that. However, the list is flagrantly dishonest, and shows only a willingness to accept negative claims against Christianity to meet your agenda.
Its a distorted picture of what Christianity teaches, and what the Bible says, and clearly isn't a fair or balanced view of things.
The only reason to present it is to present a negative picture, but hat won't work if the underlying premise is incorrect.
Christian Marriage is illeggal accordign to the Bible? Not relaly. Lets look at the real quotes shall we?
Zarove,
May I say, excellent post! You make several very good points.
However…
It is not the authors at DI who misunderstand these things nor are our posts concerning such matters directed at people such as yourself, but to precisely those Christians who manage to make fools of themselves and their religion by taking all these passages at face value rather than putting them in context as you have done.
Yes, the Old Testament is Mosaic Law and we don't live that way anymore. Christians should not have clung to it, nor did they in most instances, but when you get blowhards like televangelists and Senators who bloviate about homosexuals and creationism who utilize exactly those parts of Mosaic Law that support their arguments, you have a de facto "Christian" culture that embraces exactly what you have argued should be taken with enormous grains of salt. And many people, who call themselves Christian, listen to them.
The fine point that Jesus' sacrifice was supposed to have freed humankind from mindless obeisance to Mosaic Law is lost on these people, who call themselves Christian.
I went to a Lutheran school. The story of Abraham and Isaac was a standard lecture to instill the idea of Obedience into us. It was never put in context culturally.
I applaud your scholasticism in this, but it largely misses the point. Yes, we are aware of the penchant for hyperbole in Middle Eastern literature, of the past and present, but a very many modern "Christians" take that stuff literally. (Anyone claiming Biblical inerrancy—most if not all of them are Christians—will reject your analysis because it would suggest contextual drift and allow for INTERPRETATION, which of course can lead to all manner of sin and destruction.)
You said:—"Not that this matters, since what I’ve just said her will be ignored or ridiculed. Who cares about th meaningful of the text? The point here is to mock Christian beliefs."
If you will read back through the many posts on DI you will find a tremendous concern for context, because the people and trends we are trying to counter aren't interested in context.
The Ten Commandments are the foundation of Mosaic Law. Yet prominent Christians—and how else shall we define them if not by what they call themselves and what those who follow them call them?—lay claim to these as Christian tenets. These same folks use prophecy out of Isaiah and others to make arguments about the modern world, as if those prophecies are Christian prophecies. Others will cherry pick Leviticus and Deuteronomy in order to condemn whatever current thing they don't like, and claim it as Christian law that is being violated.
The passages cited above are often taken out of context, not by atheists and agnostics, but by Christians who want to run roughshod over their communities. I wouldn't be surprised to find that more devout Christians of a fundamentalist streak beat their children—as in abusive beating, not spanking— than agnostics or atheists. They would feel by virtue of those passages that it's what god wants 'em to do.
But just for the record, Paul, icon that he is and was, was very much a man of his time and didn't think much of women in general. Jesus seemed, from what we have, to be an egalitarian, but Paul worked to exclude women from any kind of authority, much less leadership roles. Because Paul is so prominent in Christian theology, his attitude soaked two millennia of Christian thought with a pervasive misogyny that we are finally beginning to get free of—and which many prominent Christian leaders are fighting against. If not for Jerry Falwell and his ilk, the Equal Rights Amendment may very well have passed back in the Seventies or early Eighties, but because of his stress that women's rights were contrary to god's will, it was enough to sabotage it—that and his voter agitation.
But really, when you get right down to it, Paul's assertions amounted to this: Anything that distracts you from all-consuming worship of god and Jesus is to be avoided.
That pretty much excludes life.
The majority of Christians worldwide don't buy that at all. But there are a vocal many who manage to get legislation written according to the distortions they embrace of what the Bible means. It is disingenuous to try to argue with them that the Old Testament is by and large only context for the word of the New Testament. That's too much reading and thinking just to understand why all of that is to be seen as obsolete. No, the book is taken by these folks in one gulp, and by a process of retroactive validation all of it is made Christian.
We point these passages and errors out because this is what these folks do to justify their assertions that we need a Christian revolution or that this is a Christian nation or that the Apocalypse is right around the corner or that the world is only 6000 years old and we shouldn't study geology or paleontology or biology or…
But thank you for a well-researched, reasonable post. I think you're more in tune with us than you might believe.
You applaud me for my scholarship whilst berating those Christan who make fools of themselves for taking these verses at Face Value. The problem is, I took them at Face Value to explain their meaning.
I didn't make them allegory, or metaphor, I took them precisely as written.
This is my problem with the list, since the author of the list did not take the texts at face value. Instead, he cherry picked verses, and in soem cases fragments of Verses, to string together and applied an interpretation to them that was wholly unjustified by what was actually written. In most cases, even stand alone the verses didn't support his conclusion, and on those instances it did, such as when he cited 1 Corinthians chapter 7 Verse 1, he was guilty of omitting the bulk of the verse, which completely overlooked what Paul was actually saying.
I know of no Christian who "Takes those verses at Face Value" if by Face Value you mean they would agree with the Author of the list in regards to what those verses are saying.
In reading 1 Corinthians chapters 7 , for example, one is stricken by the discrepancy between what Paul actually wrote, and the meaning assigned him by the list originator.
This isn't an example of how dangerous it is to take the Bible at Face Value, its an example of how peopel can twist the meaning of Verses they isolate from the text and distort in meaning.
Even taking the whole of the Bible as completely literally as is possible without any nuance would lead one to disagree with the list in what it says.
If the list is designed to show that fundamentalists Christians ignore the Bible and what it says in their own teachings, which of course it is, then it fails because Fundamentalist Christians don't actually ignore those passages, its just that the passages aren't as cruel or Anti-Marriage or Anti-Sex as the Author stated them to be if taken at Face Value.
As to the rest, I know your one of those Militant Atheist types, Heck you even spell god in lower case, which always annoyed me since you use it as a Proper Noun. ( I don't care if you believe in God or not, when its used as a first person identifier, it is a proper noun, so it snot god and Jesus, its God and Jesus. Even fictional Characters names are Capitolised, so why do you feel the need to leave god in lower case when using it as a name?) but you obviously haven't really bothered to read even what fundamentalists actually believe and why. It may be easier for you to say they don't really believe the Bible and to show these sorts of lists as proof, but what your actually showing is your own intolerance and ignorance.
Paul never said we shouldn't enjoy our lives, and if you read Pauline teachings you soon realise that Paul saw in Marriage itself the possibility of glorifying God. The reality is, Paul thought we should infuse all of our lives with the focus on doing Gods will, but did not actually exclude any practice as barring us from focusing on God.
Paul, in fact, even allowed people to eat meat that had been Sacrificed to pagan gods, a practice that many saw as restricted.
In Paul's eyes, the meat was just meat, and the pagan gods didn't actually exist, so there was no real harm in eating said meat. If Paul was so Anti-Life and wanted us to exclude ourselves from enjoying anything in life, why would he take such an issue, which in its day was highly contentious, and say it was trivial?
No, I'm afraid Paul didn't want us to exclude life, rather he wanted us to use our lives for the greater glory of God, and taught us to live according to the moral dictates of the risen Christ.
Paul was not the Buddha, who taught us to form no attachments.
Your also wrong about Pauls alleged Anti-Woman Attitude. It may be popular to banty this about in some circles, especially on the Internet, and I've seen all the proof texts, but Paul wasn't really Anti-woman. In fact, Paul praised some women, like Phoebe, by name. Pauls actual treatment of women is far better than his surrounding culture, and he did treat them as fully Human, unlike the pagan cultures he encountered in Greece or even the Hebraic culture that formed his own background. For example, he allowed women to attend worship services, which was unheard of at the time, and to receive teaching, which was just not allowed in Judaism in the First Century.
In fact, in the very Chapter that the list you quote presents, which is asserted as Anti-Marriage, Paul proves his own great respect for women, by telling men they must love their wives even as Christ loves his Church, and telling both men and women to submit to one another in Marriage.Keep in mind that the standard culture of the day saw women only as submissive to the men, who could treat them any way they desired. Paul forbade abusing women and told the men to be equally submissive.
The claim that Paul was Anti-Woman is just not true.
Of course, there is the claim that he sough tot exclude them form leadership, but this isn't exaclty true either, but ti get invovled in that woudl make this post longer than it is, and its already goign to be long. suffice to say, there is a Sacramental role played by those administering services, particularity in the Apostolic Churches, and the reason Paul said women could not preach or lead services ties directly into this. Its not "Anti-Woman" as much as a recognition that Jesus was himself a man, and men tend to take the lead role in any relationship given. There is also the point that the Church is the Bride of Christ and the Minister (Priest, Pastor, Reverend, whoever) would represent Christ.
suffice to say, there are reasons for "Excluding women form leadership" if by leadership you mean clergy. However, Paul said nothing of women in Civil roles, such as Queens or Judges.
The concepts Paul presented are far more complex than you present, and aren't simply a matter of Misogyny, of which there is no evidence for.
As to the Old Testament, I've also noted that even taking them at face value and as Christian the meaning is radically different form what you actually say it is. IE- Proverbs didn't endorse Child Abuse, but rather discipline. Also, the Mosaic Law allowed for Divorcement, but so does Modern American law, and Modern American Law in most States even allow for no fault divorce.
So what your actually citing are not even complaints about marriage from the Bible. ( in fact, those in Proverbs are about childrearing, which whole related is not the same thing as Marriage proper.)
You also misunderstand Christians, including Fundamentalists an Evangelicals, if you think that by citing the Old Testament they lay claim to them as Christian. This isn't so, but rather they recognise the validity of those things based on seeing in them Gods own hand. Christians do not think of those items as specifically Christian, and acknowledge the Hebrew (and later Judaic)roots of their own Faith.
When a Christian cites an Old Testament Prophet, for example, he is only recognising that God spoke truth to said Prophet, but he is not claiming that this Prophet was himself a Christian, and there is no such thing as "Christian Prophecy", in that Prophecy is given by God to the world. Christians merely recognise it.
As to the Ten Commandments, they are not, in fact, the Mosaic Law. They may form the foundation of Mosaic Law, but predate it, and Christians see the Ten Commandments as Universal Moral Admonitions for all time.
Considering that Christianity emerged from First Century Judaism, this actually makes sense. Its more accurate to think of these things as being Inherited by Christianity, rather than being Strictly Christian, and this is how Christians themselves see these things.
Also, I know of no one, including the most stanch Creationist, who says we shouldn't study Geology or Biology or any other Science. It may be a popular concept, but Fundamentalist Christians aren't really Anti-Science, and I know of none that actually say we shouldn't study those things.
disagreeing with Evolutionary theory is not the same thing as saying we shouldn't study Biology, after all, and there are Fundamentalist Christians in the medical field who are Creationists.
So I'll close where I started, you really have misrepresented Christian Beliefs and distorted what the bile has said, and this leads to inaccurate conclusions.
When I say "Face Value" I mean that they take this as a prescription of how people should be living today, under highly altered circumstances, and with no critical application concerning authorial intent, cultural shift, or even the possibility that what the original text meant is simply inapplicable to post-Levitical people. Don't disappoint now by taking a position that you don't know what I meant. You took pains to point out that much of the text discussed is Mosaic Law, most of which is utterly inappropriate today—we don't stone children for smarting off to their parents—and now take umbrage that I disaparage those so-called Christians who think we should?
you write:—"As to the rest, I know your one of those Militant Atheist types, Heck you even spell god in lower case, which always annoyed me since you use it as a Proper Noun. ( I don’t care if you believe in God or not, when its used as a first person identifier, it is a proper noun, so it snot god and Jesus, its God and Jesus. Even fictional Characters names are Capitolised, so why do you feel the need to leave god in lower case when using it as a name?)"
I explained that once, I'll do so again. I use the lower case because god is a type, not a proper name. His proper name was Yahweh, which I spell with a capital, but god or gods designated a concept not an individual and as such I can use the lower case. I choose not to privilege the Christian god over any other, but since the others do have proper names and are part of that species known as gods, then even in their case I'll capitalize their name but not their type.
Militant atheist? I am a militant rationalist. Make of that what you will.
Also:—"The claim that Paul was Anti-Woman is just not true.
Of course, there is the claim that he sough tot exclude them form leadership, but this isn’t exaclty true either,"
He wished them excluded from speaking in temple, they should keep in the back, and cover their hair. Therefore they should be voiceless, unseen, and treated socially differently than men—Paul was not a modern man, true, but this is a prescription for desriminatory practice, one like or not most Christian sects have used to keep women "in their place."
The argument I thought was over what the text meant and how it has been used? I won't argue with you that the text is misread, but while atheists have no use for it all Christianity has used it as social template for two millennia, with mixed results, many of them negative, whether due to misreadings or not.
again:—"You also misunderstand Christians, including Fundamentalists an Evangelicals, if you think that by citing the Old Testament they lay claim to them as Christian. This isn’t so, but rather they recognise the validity of those things based on seeing in them Gods own hand. Christians do not think of those items as specifically Christian, and acknowledge the Hebrew (and later Judaic)roots of their own Faith."
Now you're making apologies for people who think god wants them to hate gays and deny modern science, who very much take the whole Bible as part and parcel of how they see themselves as Christians. Frankly, this is disingenuous. From you first post it is clear that you are smart enough to know better.
and:—"Considering that Christianity emerged from First Century Judaism, this actually makes sense. Its more accurate to think of these things as being Inherited by Christianity, rather than being Strictly Christian, and this is how Christians themselves see these things."
In practice, this would seem to be a distinction without a difference. There are many fundamentalists who still have difficulty with the idea that Jesus was a Jew.
BTW, I did not disagree with your criticism about the passages on marriage. But it doesn't end there. The proscriptions in the Pentateuch on what women may or may not do in regards to sex and marriage is horribly one-sided and often fatal. As to the Ten Commandments being Universal Moral Law, they fail because slavery is explicitly condoned and women are recognized as a man's belongings—property. If you want to argue that the Ten Commandments must be seen as emerging from the culture of their time, then fine, but that does not make them universal nor, in many instances, moral.
Sorry if I offended your sensibilities.
Lastly, though:—"suffice to say, there are reasons for “Excluding women form leadership” if by leadership you mean clergy."
Really. Well, from an anthropological standpoint, yes. But from the standpoint of relying on these lessons in the present era? You used the word "are". No, sir, there are NO reasons for such exclusions. There may have been then, but we recognize them now as unsupportable.
As to science—given the attempts to undermine the very definition of what constitutes science (one of the main points in the attempt to crowbar creationism into science classrooms) it is but a hair's breadth difference between what fundamentalists want and how they are going about doing it.
Modern biology, especially in relation to genetics, doesn't work without evolution. By supplanting evolution, which is the goal of some rather well-moneyed groups, they threaten to undermine and invalidate biological science. The rest I threw in because every time a scientist comes up with geological or paleontological proof of the actual age of the Earth or whatever, some fundie somewhere insists it can't be correct and that these scientists should be censured.
Do I take them and their ravings seriously? Only on election day.
Zarove, I find your comment interesting – and as for this blog as a whole, we have some firm athiests, yes, but not all of us are. We are a cadre of authors, and while I do not identify with organized religion, I do not consider myself an atheist. I have a very definite set of spiritual beliefs, but they are mine alone, and I do not feel compelled to convince anyone else to live by them.
I am not a Biblical scholar and therefore will not participate in this particular discussion. I think the overall point was that Bible verses CAN be picked and chosen and one can be found to say just about whatever one wants said. Mark taking them out of context is no different than what many evangelical preachers do. Different sects of Christianity have different "rules," all supposedly directly from the Bible – no dancing here, no drinking here, no meat-eating on Friday there – but they all claim to be good Christians who take their directives for life straight from the Bible. I realize that other religions have the very same issues – which, I suppose, is what turns me from organized religion altogether. Any organization with rules and hierarchy will, by definition, have power struggles and all the temptations and issues that go along with power and money. Which, to me, is not very Christ-like. Or whomever your deity of choice.
While I am not a Biblical scholar, I am educated just enough to be really bugged by bad grammar, punctuation and spelling. Typos are typos, I know, but when you are trying to make an eloquent, and perhaps quite valid, point, some of it gets lost when it is written in haste and not proofread. So I have a request – please-oh-please spellcheck your comments. You admonish Mark for using "god" in the lower case, but you typed Bible as 'bile.' And you randomly capitalized throughout. I know, I know, nitpicky. But honestly, we seldom see much eloquence in arguments FOR the Bible on this list, and I hate to see one devalued by spelling.
I'm also not a scholar, but the point raised over at Dwindling in Unbelief (and now here) is one that's raised all the time by critics of Christianity (and of religion in general): depending on your motivation, you can make the Bible (or whatever holy text) appear to say whatever you want, be it for or against a particular point of view. You can use combinations of OT law and NT philosophy as some evangelical fundamentalists do to support whatever they hate the most this week; you can add books to the NT like the Mormons did; you can start a church that marries gay people or ordains women rather than discriminates against them. Basically, whatever you seek to achieve with your church can be justified depending on how you accept certain parts of the Bible. Some use it to justify violence and discrimination and hatred; others use it to support their inclusiveness & tolerance.
The fact is that many people & churches just seem to use the Bible as a smorgasbord and select and reject at will; either being literalist when something appears to support their point or stepping back and playing the "metaphor" card when a certain verse is inconvenient. Whether a believer or not, the fact that we have so many different (and opposing, and often contradictory) Christian sects isn't a great advertisement for either the literalist view or metaphorical view or even a combination approach as favoured by more liberal, modern churches. With such numerous and starkly different forms of Christianity available, how can anyone be expected to sort the wheat from the chaff?
Exactly, Hank. I have to add that I found it laughable to insinuate that any man in biblical times was NOT anti-women – the common beliefs of the time kept women "in their place," protected for childbearing and rearing but respected for little else.
Aside from that, the Bible as a historical text is utterly fascinating, but hardly something people should wrap themselves in against all rational thought.
Westboro Baptists, anyone?
Whenever I see commentary from Christians railing about anyone not Christian 'misrepresent' their bible through 'cherry-picking, I refer them to the Westboro Baptists.
My favorite brand of wingnut treats the entire bible as literal truth – no cherry-picking whatsoever. They espouse the good with the bad (and there is a lot of bad!)
I suggest that Christians need first to get their house in order, and confirm their particular 'truths' – separating fact from fiction, actual from allegory – so that we can all recognize the grandeur that is Christianity.
Sorry — I don't actually mean that last phrase. If the bible were to be trimmed and tucked and made coherent – it would look something like this:
OT: I'm God. I made everything so do as I say. If you don't I'll smite you. And if you're not one of my chosen people you are less than dust under their chariot wheels. Nyah!
NT: I'm the Son of God. Honest. I'm good. All that smiting and stuff was fine in the olden days, but you just need to learn to live with each other. Love is cool. be nice. But remember, My dad is still there and he's still ready to come and smite you if you're not one of the chosen. So play nice. I'll be back soon y'all.
Zarove: I do rest my case that non-believers can cherry pick the Bible at least as well as Believers.
This Nietzsche quote comes to mind when I read your long protests about how crystal clear the Bible is:
–The Dawn #232
Un-oh, raging atheists win again. But Zarove, I give you kudos AND brownie points for trying.
Here's my problem with atheism. What do you guys sing about?
Most popular songs enjoyed by atheists:
1. Songs about falling in love.
2. Songs about breaking up.
It's the same with believers too. except on Sunday morning.
Mindy,
More relevant, who do we talk to during orgasm?
Something occurred to me, though, going through Zorave's posts again. Don't they sound a bit familiar? "I have studied these texts and know them better than you do so I can tell you exactly how wrong you are about them."
Just wondering.
Mark: Good point. It wouldn't take much to get a new portable email account so that one could pick a new facade. But it's a lot harder to disguise one's writing and arrogance. Not that I'm certain of who this is . . .
Mark asked "who do we talk to during orgasm?"
I talk to my wife!
(grunting is talking, right?)
Tony: Why you animal!
Who the hell TALKS during an orgasm? Oh, wait, the grunting. Right.
I'd opine on this but that would just be TMI. At least for ME to share. 🙂
Good evening folks!
Tony said: "My favorite brand of wingnut treats the entire bible as literal truth – no cherry-picking whatsoever. They espouse the good with the bad (and there is a lot of bad!)"
Well, it's unanimous that we are all opposed to cherry picking ideas. Of course, this happens in all spheres of life, especially politics and media. However, it happens with the Bible quite often and it does the text an enormous disservice.
However, the answer to all this is… don't cherry pick and interpret it responsibly, as Zarove aimed to do. There are many teachers and scholars out there who interpret the text responsibly, and when done so it really brings out the life and application.
So what happens after you and I expose and deflate all the cherry-pickers and textual abusers??? We are left with the same 'ol text, which is capable of being interpreted reasonably, so why not discuss and debate those reasonable interpretations? Wouldn't that be more prudent (albeit less fun)?
I know in other posts I've quoted from Lewis, but there is yet another one that is applicable here: "Nothing which is at all times and in every way agreeable to us can have objective reality. It is of the very nature of the real that it should have sharp corners and rough edges, that it should be resistant, should be itself. Dream-furniture is the only kind on which you never stub your toes or bang your knee."
I know there are difficult passages and teachings in the Bible, but this often seems to lend to it's credibility rather than hurt it. If it was one great work of fiction, I find it difficult to conceive that the OT God is the one that ancient authors should have thought up. Would not a man-made god be a bit more self-serving? (I've read the arguments for and against this, so feel free to bring those up)
Also, some people don't understand the difference between descriptive and prescriptive. As a historical narrative, the Bible often documents an event without giving a value judgment of right/wrong. However, in these cases irresponsible readers/teachers will draw their own morals which are not really there (which is the crux of this discussion). Unless the author (for the sake of argument is inspired by God) explicitly or implicitly makes a value judgment, we should tread cautiously about making our own value judgments.
Now, I await your verbal bludgeoning!
Danny: You seem to be saying that the Bible is more likely the world of a Divine Creator because is is a self-contradictory hodge-podge. I disagree. These qualities are human fingerprints.
Danny: You seem to be saying that the Bible is more likely the world of a Divine Creator because is is a self-contradictory hodge-podge. I disagree. These qualities are human fingerprints. There is a long documented human history to the book. See, for example, here. As a general rule, I find work more impressive when it is better written, with a clear and consistent message. My general rule doesn't change just because the book(s) under consideration is the bible. No need to posit a supernatural author. It's human through and through.
Erich, thanks for the reply. I read the post you linked to, as well as the arguments for and against.
Point taken, I'm glad you could post resources after making a loaded statement like "self-contradictory hodge-podge" (though it sounds quite nice).
BTW, I at least wanted to be on the same page regarding the nature of reality (that it is usually not what we would have guessed and has "sharp corners"). However, it's reasonable to disagree that the Bible meets the necessary and sufficient conditions of divine inspiration.
The point of this little demonstration was to show how biblical quotes, taken out of context and often only fragments at that, can be manipulated in ways that any point of view can seem to be supported.
The real problem is that way too many church goers have never read the bible as literature, and only look up and read the passages their minister tells them to read, and he/she interprets the late medieval English of King James contemporaries into modern English.
So the preacher says "read this verse and that verse for yourselves" and even though most don't take the time to do so, the ones that do often don't read for comprehension, but to see if the quote is accurate.
Often, a single sentence will span several verses, and quoting the entire passage is far more accurate that a single verse.
Danny writes:—"I know there are difficult passages and teachings in the Bible, but this often seems to lend to it’s credibility rather than hurt it. If it was one great work of fiction, I find it difficult to conceive that the OT God is the one that ancient authors should have thought up. Would not a man-made god be a bit more self-serving?)"
I dunno…thou shalt have no other gods before me? Sounds self-serving to me, especially if you happen to be one of the priests serving such a god.
One of the most underappreciated aspects of Yahweh is his massive similarity to most of the rest of the gods of that era. Mean, arbitrary, utterly pre-adolescent, and hungry for adoration. Which is why I tend to see Yahweh as one more manifestation of a human need to have a god. The innovation was the monotheistic nature of this one, which from a strictly utilitarian point of view would be a great advance. Keeping track of a dozen or a hundred different deities required an expensive and often oppressive priesthood (Egypt, Assyria, etc). The tendency of priesthoods to get that way even with just one god is self-evident, but it would still have been a simpler burden for the average joe's religious life.
Doing what you—and Zorave seemed at first to be doing—which is to contextualize the Bible is rational and useful. To say that the rules and lessons of the Bible served an important purpose in their day but, because THINGS HAVE CHANGED they are not useful in the same way anymore is also rational.
The cherry-pickers who create the most friction are those who look at the way things are now and declare things would be better if we went back to Moses and then quote verses to support that agenda. Other people, feeling that perhaps because the verses quoted come from a book they also revere, err on the side of their afterlife, and support these little zealots.
Along comes the opposite point of view who, likewise, cherrypicks to make the point that the Bible can be used to make almost any argument, and the best way to go about living is to think for yourself. This of course steals thunder from the zealots and losses them credibility.
Making the Bible a book among many would sap the venom from what really is a hugely unnecessary argument. But people will have their causes.
I think Eric wants to give the perspective that the Bible can mean a lot of confusing things to people who read it at face value. Like self-control is basically a joke. Do what ever you like, whenever you like, that's the corrollary.
The Bible does say.
Don't assume that everyone ought to get married (i.e. have societal witness and blessings upon their intended monagamous sexual relations with the intent of raising a children, if at all possible).
Some people are better off being encouraged to control their sexual inclinations and not look for a marriage partner if they know they can not first see it as a commitment to a relationship.
The Bible does state that the Body (or the flesh) is often at odds with the Spirit. Sexuality is one of these areas where the Body is more often than not at odds with the Spirit. This is especially the case when one person seeks to dominate another in regards to their will over/against another.
The Bible speaks first and foremost of commitments to others in agreed upon relationships.
The first commitment of the greatest importance is an individual's relationship with God.
And yes, even the best of marriages can cause individuals to look to each other to meet their expectations regarding any number of matters, instead of being content with the relationships they are or are not currently in.
Karl,
Can't disagree with much in that post. Of course, the bit about commitment to god doesn't fly with me…
Unless you can conceive of the idea that there is a bit of the divine in each of us and that being committed to someone through is functionally equivalent to being committed to a notion of the divine.
The thing is, that the criticisms I (I'll speak here only for myself) level against the Bible is not so much what the Bible has to say (which in this instance is not all bad and contains much good) but against the way some people use it as justification to rail against the personal. If I, for instance, make a "lifestyle choice" that does not conform to what is prescribed by Paul, even if I manage my life in such a way that is does no harm, there are those who will use the Bible to call me a terrible person. "My way or the highway" with no room for the personal, for variation, for the taking on of responsibility in ways that may not conform exactly to Biblical decree.
That's the problem. And the only way sometimes to draw the venom from these folks is to undermine their support by pointing out that the Bible is but a book, with a lot of good things in it, but also a lot of questionable advice, and much that simply doesn't apply any longer.
Just so we're clear about what I mean: with the advent of effective (emphasis on "effective") birth control, women simply do not have to be "protected" by marriage. They can live their own lives, have their own ambitions, pursue careers, in short be the social equals to men because they can live the way they want and not worry about having babies if they don't want them.
And yes, this means having sex for pleasure.
This was simply not possible in the days of Paul. Not unless they lived utterly celibate lives, but even then they would not have the opportunity to pursue lives that did not include a husband. At which point, personal fulfillment just has to go away.
This has nothing to so with religion or god or anything like this—it is simply the way of things.
To suggest that the freedoms women have won in the last century should be foresworn because some 2000 year dead scholar made some pronouncements "in the name of" a god is absurd. I sure as hell wouldn't accept it.
But that is often what the debate comes down to. "You shouldn't do that because the Bible says you shouldn't." Well, screw the Bible in that case.
At which point there is no longer dialogue, only sides chosen, and any good that might have come out of the interaction is lost because literalists insist.
For the record, I do not believe in "doing what you like, whenever you like." I've seen too many people mess their and others lives up horribly by acting thoughtlessly. But you know what? I've seen more people with professed religious beliefs do that than not. Because they think they'll be forgiven no matter what and that somehow god will provide no matter what. Yes, they learned the wrong lesson, but that lesson was certainly there for them to learn.
Karl – I agree with Mark's take on your post with a couple of caveats.
Regarding
I'd like to ask, why?
I understand not entering into a contractual monogamous relationship if you are unable to maintain monogamy, but that's not what you said. You said people should be encouraged to 'control their sexual inclinations'.
I know a number of people who live 'unconventional' lives. Some are in long term relationships. Others not. What they have in common is a core of honesty about their relationships. They don't skulk. They don't hide. They do occasionally like to experiment (with other partners, with 'time off', with other sexual behaviors fantasy, homo-sex, hetero-sex, etc.).
The key factor is that those in a relationship have a relationship that works for them. Those not in a relationship, have a lifestyle that works for them (many friends are more important than a single 'partner' for now). In no cases would I suggest that they should 'control' their inclinations.
The only 'control' I would suggest would be where the sexual inclination is towards non-consensual behavior (rape, pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality). And even here – I would only really suggest control of the first two is possible or desired – since 'partner consensus' is impossible (or at least debatable) in the other two.
I doubt your perspective on 'control' was so narrowly limited.
And Mark's parting comment on “doing what you like, whenever you like.” is simply the golden rule restated. So I both agree and disagree.
the rule is
1) do no harm.
2) see (1)
If an act takes place in private, it harms no-one outside that private space (but the acts may still be harmful to one or more of the participants – the golden rule demands that participation needs must be consensual)
The axiom "do no harm" may work from your perspective, but then one runs into the quandry of defining/describing what "do no harm means from your perspective."
If we lived in a personal space of one or even just two this might be possible because other relationships with others would not be relevant.
Just because two or three or four or any number of people have agreed that what they are involved in is not harming anyone else, their vantage point is not free and clear from causing harm/destruction to the perspectives/beliefs of others.
You do diservice to your own perspective by qualifying when sexual inclinations should or shouldn't be kept in check. There are ample number of other people who would disagree with any or your moral stances as well. Some would see you as sticking your nose where it shouldn't be as well.
We currently have a majority in Congress that in my opinion have the mind set that says putting our posterity into a position of unbearable debt is going to "do no harm."
If you can better define what "do no harm" really means to you, maybe both you and I will know more about what personally drives your values.
Karl: Your response is nebulous to me. Let's consider a real-life example: masturbation. Based on your interpretation of the Bible, is it OK to masturbate? Tell me your interpretation of the bible, specifying the harm, if any. Then maybe we can move on to two-people sex.