(quick note: He also said that we were not a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation)
It has been long debated whether or not the Bible should be a factor in decisions made by our leaders.
I am sure that you have heard statements like the following:
"Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles"
"all men are created equal, by GOD"
"We've gotten to where we are because it was in God that we trusted"
You have probably also heard statements counter to the above.
Either way the question is ARE WE A CHRISTIAN NATION?
my answer: I DON'T CARE!
Jesus told His disciples in John 18 that His kingdom is not of this world. Their mission was not to build a country that stands in God, but to make an impact on lives that will stand with God.
The whole following Jesus thing isn't about winning or getting our way. When Jesus changes our life we aren't called to force others to live out our opinions, we are called to show them truth; and leave it up to God to change their opinions.
(quick note 2: My opinions are based on the Bible. When my opinion is asked, I give it. I view the opportunity to vote as giving my opinion.)
Whether we are or are not a Christian nation is in no way a factor on my desire to live out the love, hope, and peace that Jesus Christ has brought into my life.
As Christians, we are people who base our entire opinion on something that is eternal, why don't we live like it?
Maybe if we started focusing on living what we believe instead of being a nation that "believes" then more people would be willing to believe.
(quick note 3: go for it if this Jesus being alive thing really matters to you!)
19 comments:
i completely agree!
President Obama is a friend of freethinkers, humanists and atheists more than any other leader has been in modern history.
He understands that for there to be freedom of conscience and freedom to pursue personal traditions then a secular government must remain neutral in these matters.
Christianity, like Judaism and Islam is a totalitarian ideology that promotes the absolutes of "commandments" assigned by divine decree and enforced by dominant representative authority figures who "interpret" the desires and social policy a deity purportedly prefers (most often the assertions are just a reflection of their own biases, dislikes and cravings).
A prime example is found by observing our efforts in the middle east which is striving to promote secular governance so that oppressive and brutal theocratic governments and ideologies can be rejected in favor of similar freedoms.
With this understanding we all can agree that the United States is not and never was a Christian nation regarding our governing principles.
Even the simplest comparison of the First Amendment with the First Commandment confirms this fact.
I completely agree with President Obama because this secures liberty and justice for all (atheists and theists) in a secular nation free from theocracy.
James - Some would argue that in a free society such as ours, where people can give their opinion via voting, that whether or not our nation is a considered a Christian one is vital. By living out all of the things that you mentioned concerning love, hope, and peace, perhaps it is necessary that the nation we are a part of reflect those same values?
Steve - Your use of the word "totalitarian" is a bit misguided I think. Nonetheless, your assessment of of Christianity as promoting absolutes is true. Only, Christianity doesn't promote "commandments" as most people think of them. As a humanist, does the command to love our neighbors as ourselves sound out of line to you? Many Christians may be promoting some kind of laws; Christianity itself does not. I'm also a bit confused by your comparison of the 1st amendment and 1st "commandment." Prohibiting a groups' personal interpretation from dominating a government and a body of people, and not having any other gods before a Deity who brought His people out of slavery centuries ago don't seem to have a conflict.
Hey Sean,
I think that if we live out those values it will influence others - leading to a change of opinion and thus leading to the values that we live out being reflected in our laws.
I agree that Christianity (along with Jewish and Islamic dogmatic totalitarian ideologies) promote absolutes as “true”, even when they conflict with each other.
They do so based on “faith” with no real need to address conflicts with empirical evidence. Fortunately, moral standards can evolve using a technique called “interpreting” the will and directive of a purported deity.
In this manner it can be shown historically that human representative authority figures can shift away from misogyny and slavery (and eventually gender equality and homophobia) while still claiming an unchangeable word of a god remains absolute.
More to the topic, my view is that Christians understand the “commandments” as divine laws without any room for dissent so it is not synonymous with humanists understanding love, care, compassion and the practicalities of reciprocity as important in life (without decree from beings beyond space and time).
The problem arises when we take a closer look at these “commandments” and find that the first four have little to do with law or morality.
Rather they simply reflect a deep insecurity on the part of the purported deity who loves “unconditionally” but actually with quite a few conditions.
Have no other gods, make no graven images, don’t insult this god by taking its name in vain are simple statements that demand certain treatment of the invisible being and not really applicable to humanitarian concerns.
Next we have a divine directive to observe a Sabbath holy day which is neither purposeful nor productive unless the other days are somehow asserted to be profane. Regardless, it is another directive irrelevant to morality or the law and more an arbitrary imposed religious ritual.
Honor your parents is somewhat decent as a moral instruction, but not in absolute terms. What if the parents are abusive? What about the orphans of this world? Also, what about treating your children with honor and respect while loving them and teaching them how to lead wonderful lives caring for their fellow human beings?
Somewhat down in the list is a prohibition against murder which is rather hypocritical given the vast and assorted depictions where this deity provides divine instruction to murder whole tribes of folk down to the last infant while taking virgin females as spoils of war, murders firstborn male Egyptian infants in their beds, drowns the entire world of loving men, women and children except for a family of eight and finally decides to send himself to be murdered so that he could figure a way to forgive others for being flawed humans from birth because his first two creations disobeyed him.
It should be noted that there has never been a society where legislation did not frown on murder and theft and perjury in official courts for practical and observable reasons promoting the survival of order and their civilization.
No God(s)ess(es) or divine revelation required.
That said, I’m not sure that every single thought and statement that may be technically false and/or not expressed completely truthfully for the greater good is a bad thing. As a hostage negotiator, I have made false statements in order to obtain leverage and ultimately found reasonable and sincere avenues to gain trust and confidence in order to save human life. There are a number of even less dire personal and social situations where I can understand this divine decree would not be beneficial.
Again, it is the divine absolutism that is so problematic as to make secular laws more reasonable than commandments from an alleged deity.
Now, the prohibition against adultery where an honor bound promise is distinctly broken is a good one, but not legislatively enforced as it is a private matter between two human adults.
It is also not in my top ten, really, and I’m not certain why this made it so high on the list unless written within a patriarchal culture of totalitarian control.
I would have thought that a commandment against rape, genocide, abusing children and owning other humans as slaves might fit nicely, clearly and with more significance instead.
Those were different times I suppose which is to admit that these are ten human constructs and not truly emergent from any of the God(s)ess(es).
One of the worst of the commandments in my opinion is against “coveting” anything. I mean, just thinking about my neighbor’s cool new X-box really shouldn’t be so important as to make it into the first ten of most important universal codes ever, in my view. What harm does coveting actually do anyway?
In any event, coveting abounds in nearly every culture and in the homes and offices of every Christian I know. The bit about including the neighbor’s wife in with his cattle is explicit proof of the primitive patriarchal era and culture reflecting the mindset of those responsible for writing these “moral laws” as if speaking from the mind of a god.
In conclusion, the First Amendment allows for people to believe in other gods or none at all, while the First Commandment orders by divine and specifically jealous decree that this is not to happen.
I’m not sure how anyone can find any similarity in them at all and if this was a Christian nation via human governance (theocracy) then the commandments would be imposed through legislative decree. That they are prevented from doing so via the United States Constitution should not be lost on anyone.
Hey, how did the educational effort go last Sunday?
As far as absolutes are concerned, the point is really not human interpretation nor moral evolution. If a person were so inclined, they would find that early Church writers (Augustine of Hippo, etc.) actually wrote concerning the things that you pointed out. While the "church" majority may give off a certain image and claim it for God, this rarely has anything to do with an accurate reading of the Bible. As an Atheist, I'm sure you find the same sort of thing; people as a whole using certain words or phrases to promote a personal, human agenda not in accordance with what was actually intended. This isn't to say that any one person has got it all right, be they St. Paul, Augustine, Voltaire, or Stephen Hawking. But, the belief that "christian morals" have evolved is a superficial assessment. However, the Church should definitely make a better effort at setting such misconceptions right. Although I think that will mainly happen on an individual level, and will forever resemble what you have described.
As to the "10 Commandments" (which actually comprise a list of 600 some odd commandments given to the nation of Israel), first and foremost they really would not apply to anyone outside of that culture. Your own explanation of the first 4 commandments make that fairly evident. Christians may impose these things upon those of other beliefs, but I do not find anywhere in the Bible where these rules are enforced upon outsiders. I could be mistaken, since my studies are not likely to ever be exhaustive. So with that being said, I would like to say that I have never viewed America as a nation built on Christianity. A nation built upon responsibility, perhaps, but that is clearly not the same thing.
These commandments, however, are not without value to people outside the culture they were given to. To say they have no bearing on law or morality is a bit off. For instance, loyalty (which is heavily promoted in the first 4) is a concept that all cultures can accept and promote. While I don't think it is insecure to point out to someone that they should only love you, I do think that the specifics of these commandments do find deaf ears on someone who as no interest in believing in the Deity who commanded them. Not to mention that commands such as this protected the Israelite people from the more...harsh local religions that were common. Just as a parent would jealously guard their child's life by prohibiting certain things, they would allow room for their child to make mistakes, just as God did. This is where God's human form allowing His own murder comes into play. This of course supposes that some sort of sacrifice is necessary to make some things right. I think this could be argued empirically, but often find that both sides of this argument require a certain amount of faith that the other person is wrong and we are right.
A day of rest, which is what the Sabbath is, is both purposeful and productive. Perhaps you don't feel it should have made the "top 10," but to say that resting is without purpose is just silly. So maybe I don't understand your point on this one.
Obeying and honoring your parents are not only moral institutions (hence why so many parents struggle with why their children are disobedient regardless of culture and religion), but it is also important to note the distinction between obeying and honoring. I feel you've heard this before because you seem to know your stuff, so I won't belabor the point. Suffice it to say, a child does not honor anyone by allowing their parents to beat them. This commandment has a promise on the end of it because of the very point you raise about parents honoring and respecting their children. Think karma. You respect your children, and they will respect you, and so the cycle goes. Not a guaranteed thing, mind you, but a nice ideal. (Orphans have a special place in the Bible, as you'll find many times God tells His followers that true worship/service/religion is caring for the widows, the orphans, and the stranger in the land. So they are provided for despite the technicalities of this command.)
Your assessment of the murder rule doesn't assert any notions of justice. While I cannot defend what many people view as horrific slaughter, I will say that I have yet to encounter a person who does not desire justice. I believe that this command is inextricably tied up to the idea that man was created in God's image, and therefore should be treated with respect by other men. This allows for what some may see as hypocritical actions. But I doubt that my answer is sufficient. I am against the death penalty, yet I am not a pacifist. The two things of course appear contradictory. I see a difference in the two however. Many people equate war and murder, and to that I have no solid response. I simply know that an act of self-defense is looked upon differently than an act of rage. If there is wiggle room between the two, then perhaps the differences between war and murder are not as hard to see. For some people though, there will never be a difference. Even though, as you pointed out concerning murder laws, all cultures in the past have also distinguished between the two. Without Divine inspiration.
Adultery is another one that seems to be spread across the void of time and space. Individual? Social? Often depends on one's society and one's convictions. A president who commits adultery is a social issue because this denotes that the man cannot be trusted even to keep a promise of fidelity to an individual. But this will really vary. Its also important to note that the Hebrew idea of marriage was different than the current American notion of "quickie weddings." This is a command that is probably lost on a culture that thrives on instant gratification. But a good thing to recommend nonetheless.
And coveting, well that's the sort of thing that starts fights, wars, you name it. Of all the reasons and politics that go into something like war, how many times has it boiled down to simply wanting something that is not ours? That's a simplification, but true all the same. Coveting is very common, which is why it makes sense to include it near the front. Because who can avoid coveting? Many people never feel the urge to murder, nor to make an idol. Many people never commit adultery. But wanting something that's not ours? That's a whole other story. Plus, these commandments are designed to remind God's followers of how to interact with other people. Coveting is a real sign of jealousy and insecurity. Perhaps we have no need to make this a "moral law," but if that were completely true then we'd have no need to outlaw theft (or even have a concept of the word). Ultimately, not coveting becomes one of the most important commandments because it touches the shallowest parts of the human heart and affects all human relationships.
With all that being said, I return to my statement that I don't think these are "laws" for those outside of God's people. Good recommendations? Yes. Laws? No.
But you raise a good point about "omitted" commandments. Why weren't things like that included? Well, quite frankly, I think that they do fall under the previously stated commandments. However, since they are not clearly outlined, its a good point. Jesus had an excellent answer to this question:
One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"
And He said to him, "'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:35-40)
To love your neighbor as yourself addresses all the commandments you felt should have been included. And according to Jesus, the cornerstone of Christianity, everything hinged on these two commandments. In other words, all the details that bother so many people because of cultural and philosophical differences boil down to these two main ideas. While yes, many will still feel like God is a tyrant demanding humanity's love, no one with any sense of right could deny Jesus' second point. Really, it's all relational. That's what many Christians, and many non-Christians, simply do not understand. Its not about a moral code. It's not about a totalitarian regime dictating how to live. It's about simplicity. And it's intricately bound to the idea of loving God, yourself, and everyone else.
While I agree that there aren't any real similarities between the 1st commandment and 1st amendment, I still don't see the opposition. Again, since the 1st commandment is really only for those who believe in God to begin with, why would He raise a fuss over an individual who does not believe in Him for believing something else? This isn't to say that God wouldn't prefer everyone to believe in Him, but I don't think He holds those who don't believe to the same standard that He holds those who do believe. Because ultimately, belief is the difference. And I think the Bible backs that up.
And James' sermon was great. You should podcast it.
Sean I believe you are correct - it is my understanding that the old testament is the history of the Jewish people.
Hi Sean!
It seems that we are in wonderful agreement with President Obama when he asserts that the United States is not now, nor has ever been a "Christian" nation.
We also appear to agree on the nuance that human notions regarding morality and ethics are not monopolized by any religious decree or “faith“ (of any denomination and/or cultural tradition).
Pre-Jewish/Christian/Islamic cultures understood the simple value in reciprocity, care and compassion for others and so the notion that there is a first uncaused cause that is the absolute source of morals and ethics remains unproven or even necessary.
To me, the value of morality, effort and purpose resides in our personal accountability and culpability for our own actions, successes and failures.
If alien beings beyond space and time are the sole sources and arbiters of our human activity then we are reduced to being pawns on a limited galactic chessboard guided by the invisible hands of others.
That is far too hopeless and cynical a view given the awesome wonder and beauty of the natural universe we can observe through the senses and perceive with our minds, in my opinion.
Even as I type this in the early morning hours while my family sleeps, I take a moment or two and look out of our cabin window in the Smoky Mountains and become amazed again at the vastness and brilliance of the star filled night sky.
The hope and potential and sheer brevity of each of our conscious lives is a rare thermonuclear jewel, a natural treasure to behold as we fly through space and time on our own grand adventure!
We are not owned by God(s)ess(es) and nor are we slaves to their whims and unknowable plans.
The question then becomes why do some folks require all of the superfluous claims regarding divine favoritism and directives which so often lead to unnecessary conflict and fear of other cultures and world views?
This is a wonderful topic to explore and, if any are interested, there will be a panel discussion promoted by the Center For Inquiry on April 22, 2009 at the All Soul’s Unitarian Church in New York.
Here is a link to CFI along with audio and video multimedia:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/nyc
Sean, you appear to assert a grand vision for Christian religious adherents, assertions and behavior that, though noble and respectable, doesn't seem to reflect social and political realities "on the ground" in the real world today.
Religions (both here in the west and in the middle east) are ever more polarizing and xenophobic ideologies that promote bigotry. Each claiming that non-believers are destined to be tortured by the loving deity forever in a lake of fire or (in more stark and real terms) “devils” and infidels deserving of any and all forms of terrorism to rid us from the world because of our heathen behavior. The “suffer not a witch to live” admonishment is strong even today.
Islam, means submission, and that seems to be the foundation of Christianity as well.
Christianity is, unfortunately, still shackled to the wrathful and jealous blood letting deity who enjoyed burnt offerings, genocide, murdering infants in their cribs, taking virgins as spoils of war, the public stoning to death of adulterers, homosexuals and children who did not obey their parents, etc.
You are correct when you point out the 600 other purportedly divine laws that seem to have evolved from the morality of that time to being utterly irrelevant today.
We should all note that it was not so long ago that women were property on par with cattle as asserted by the Bible and that it took a long, difficult process to emerge from that patriarchal mindset thanks to non-believers like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Stanton among others.
Even today we see religious authority figures rejecting the notion that women can be leaders, teachers or even priests on equal ground with their male counterparts.
Just last century our culture finally fought and won the freedom for an entire race of human beings who had been kidnapped from their families and cultures to be sold and used as slaves during the foundation of our very own country.
Butterfly McQueen summed it best in my view when she said, “As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of religion."
Today we also have representative religious authority figures telling consenting adults who they can love, who they can marry and that they lack value in our society (most often within the context of violating traditional "Christian values")
These are not coincidences or reflections of a “false” Christianity or, in ever more current events, the “extreme elements” of Islam causing fear and conflict.
These are interpretations as valid as any other given what is written in the “holy” scriptures, though I do prefer the more liberal and peace loving ventures that come to their defense in the public arena, they are too few and far between.
I do appreciate every effort to liberalize and bring a better sense of harmony to any and all religions with the understanding that none of them should either control the purse strings or legislation that affects our human liberty.
That there is this intuitive recognition on the part of James and the Mosaic Church Community that common religious practices are becoming fake and ineffectual is evidence of what, as an atheist, I have observed for many years. Change can only come from within and that is why I support this effort and participate here.
I also appreciate your attempts, Sean, to soften the notion that the commandments are not absolutes and by your own subjective interpretation make my point very nicely.
Just as you try to find ways to justify the notion that a deity would worry about folks worshiping other gods, obeying him, not using his name in vain and not just “resting” but making a day sacred in honor of this deity and all of the assorted caveats you subjectively apply to the notion that we should not kill people, so too does Pastor Fred Phelps when he asserts that God hates fags.
The evidence of conflicting “readings of the chicken bones” by the representative divine human conduits deriving the intent and desires of an invisible deity was contrasted very well recently when Pat Robertson claimed that hurricane Katrina was God’s wrath upon the sinners of New Orleans, just as Muhammad Yousef Al-Mlaifi claimed that Katrina was "not an adherent of Al-Qaeda" but that Allah is upset with America for its unbelievers.
Additionally (not that I’m equating the serious nature of the results of these actions), but as a matter of practicality this is the same methodology that suicide bombers use to attribute divine justification for their activity.
The noted difference between these religious ideologies (and even those ideologies that were imposed by Pol Pot or Marx or Stalin) and secularism, humanism and/or ethical culture is that part of the religious directive in sacred books is specifically to dehumanize and alienate others who do not agree with the core ideology.
These ideologies either directly instruct the utter destruction of the infidel or propose that they are inferior beings who will suffer an eternity of punishment as designed by the loving deity.
In either form, it is especially wrong to tell children that they are not good and moral citizens simply because they are not believers.
That said, I am a big fan of Thomas Jefferson personally and find that his efforts to remove the supernatural elements from the Bible and refine them down to the basic humanism of the stories of the teacher Jesus was eloquent and much needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
“In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. “ Jefferson, 1814.
There is evidence for the practical morality of reciprocity without all of the baggage that supernaturalism brings to the global community.
Furthermore, there are many examples of moral teachers and leaders who have expressed this in non-religious formats throughout history even before the Judeo/Christian/Islamic traditions evolved over time.
Those ready to explore comparative cultures and other philosophical views outside of their comfort zones and confirmation groups are highly recommended to do so.
It is my hope that more young people who are filled with good intentions will seek out this information for the greater good of our human family.
“There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.” Sam Harris
Hey, thanks for the great conversation, it has been very informative!
I look forward to many more interactions with y’all and hopefully we can share in some community service efforts along the gulf coast soon.
Take care, be good.
Steve
Here's Is Obama's quote from Turkey:
“Although we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”
I like the disclaimer of being a christian nation in a sense. Let's be honest. Would Jesus really like to claim the U.S. as a 'Christian Nation'? As a shining example of a society of believers?
Sure, the U.S. has some good characteristics. A few I can think of are:
1. God has exalted our nation above all others at this point in time. We are the wealthiest, strongest and most influential nation in the world.
2. We give far more in foreign aid than any other country, and this is just in government aid. 79% of our total giving to other nations is done through the private sector.
a few reports I referenced:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs
http://gpr.hudson.org/files/publications/IndexGlobalPhilanthropy2007.pdf
I take great pride in this, as this is what would be expected from a truely 'Christian Nation': God blessing us and us blessing less fortunate nations.
But at the same time I would like to disown the morality portrayed by America with regards to the moral debauchery exported from Hollywood. Also shameful is the fact that abortions are legal by request here, while most all of South America, Africa, and the Middle East have the courage to ban it (with varying exceptions). Check out this map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AbortionLawsMap-NoLegend.png
If the Islamic world can get this right, why can't we?
It is correct to assert that the mythic hero Jesus, as depicted in the canonized version of scripture, would not want to be associated with *any* secular government. This is a strong Christian argument *for* the separation of church and state.
"Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ"
Interestingly enough, the Bible (like other purportedly divine messages to humanity) can be interpreted in many, often conflicting ways.
Take the issue of abortion for instance:
Exodus 21:22-25 ~
"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, *yet there is no further injury*, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.
But if there is *any further injury*, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
This is a very enlightening passage in that it states that if the fetus is aborted (miscarried at the hands of another), it does does not equate to murder punishable by lex talionis (eye for an eye).
The passage further states if the actual woman is killed, then it *is* considered murder and is punished by life for life.
As for the issue of popular media and "debauchery", I find it interesting that there is this longstanding multi-billion dollar a year industry that is purportedly "morally bad" in a nation comprised of a majority of Christian citizens.
What conclusion can we draw from this information?
It could very well be that this same God is exalting Hollywood and the pornography industry given the ease in which such a non-sequitur is used here in this thread.
I find it extremely illuminating that religious adherents (in this case Christians) attribute whatever they personally like as "good" emerging from the intervention of their deity and whatever they don't personally like as "bad" coming from the secular heathens, hypocrites and/or deviants.
The psychology of this practice would make for a wonderful study.
Steve
PS In my view, anytime a socio-political discussion promotes *as positive* the theocratic oppressive policy found within an Islamic country we should all take pause and have a bit of a rethink!
;0)
Steve,
On Exodus 21, what translation are you using? I don't know where they get the word 'miscarriage' from. The Hebrew word used is 'yatsa', meaning to 'exit' or to 'go out from', as in the child exiting the womb and being born. I cannot find the word ever being associated with death (or miscarriage) in its other uses, can you? The passage states that if there is harm to either the child or the mother, then compensation for the hurt must be paid. If there is lasting harm, then 'eye for eye, life for life', etc.. must be paid.
There is no 'contradiction' here as you state. In fact, the term used for the 'child' the mother is pregnant ('yeled' in Hebrew) is the same term used for 'child' elsewhere -- there is no distinction between the pre and post born!!
"anytime a socio-political discussion promotes *as positive* the theocratic oppressive policy found within an Islamic country we should all take pause and have a bit of a rethink!" -Steve
OK Steve let's rethink this. Are you saying it is 'theocratic oppression' to make abortion illegal? Is it not the ultimate form of oppression on the pre-born to legalize their murder?
Hi again Matthew!
You have proven my point for me, thanks.
The religious holy texts can be skewed to mean *anything* the individual desires given any resulting "interpretation" and "context" provided by the adherent.
It is a mirror you are looking into, Matthew, not the word of any deity.
The quote on abortion specifically annotates that there was a miscarriage and was not a born child.
Further, the statement is that if the actual human life of the mother was taken, then it is punishable by life for life, not the miscarriage.
As an aside, according to the Christian mythology as depicted in canonized scripture, who directed a bear to kill children for mocking a bald man?
Who directed soldiers to slaughter the children of an entire tribe while taking the virgin females as spoils of war?
Who killed the firstborn male infants of Egypt as they slept in their cribs?
No matter how anyone attempts to redefine or change what is very plain to justify their own view it only comes at the risk of lacking integrity.
This is the same methodology that was used to both support and deny women human rights and both supported and denied the abomination of slavery.
I find it so very interesting in how plainly observable throughout history that is, but not every Christian can see it.
The modern episode is abortion and homophobia using Old Testament scriptures while rejecting the 600 some odd other laws that are now rejected.
I posited the following scenario for James via email and will offer it here for you to address as well, Matthew:
You have saved several people from within a burning hospital and are running through the smoke and falling debris when you hear a child crying down the last hallway.
You enter a laboratory and find the child huddled in a corner sobbing in terror.
As you approach, your eyes meet hers and her face lights with hope. Before you pick her up you notice a battery-operated refrigerator containing 24 fertilized embryos completely identified with baby name labels.
You are very weary and can only carry the crying child or the container.
What do you do and explain why you chose to do it?
Thanks for any time you can spend in answering that question directly.
I look forward to your perspective!
Steve
"The religious holy texts can be skewed to mean *anything* the individual desires given any resulting "interpretation" and "context" provided by the adherent." -Steve
Steve, can you honestly defend your translation here?
"The quote on abortion specifically annotates that there was a miscarriage and was not a born child." -Steve
On what do you base this assertion (you read my post, right)?
As for your next question I will answer if you answer mine first! :-)
Hi Matthew,
The quote provided is plain to read and even given an "interpretive" translation doesn't change the stated notion that the woman's death was punishable by life for life, while the loss of the "pre-born" fetus was (at best) a civil matter between men (which is also of note).
You will also be interested to know that the interpretation I posted was provided by a Christian group that advocates from the pro-choice position and very easily and reasonably defended.
So, we appear in total agreement that the bible (along with any holy text) can be taken to mean anything the reader wants it to mean.
This is observable throughout history.
Hey, what is your perspective regarding the rest of my last post regarding the immorality of the deity depicted in the Bible.
It was quite specific and I'd be interested in your justifications for such behavior.
Killing live children and sleeping infants seems to be acceptable recourse of this deity given certain relative situations.
Thanks and I look forward to your answer to the scenario I provided!
Steve
"The quote provided is plain to read.." -Steve
..and is plainly an incorrect translation..
"and even given an "interpretive" translation doesn't change the stated notion that the woman's death was punishable by life for life, while the loss of the "pre-born" fetus was (at best) a civil matter between men (which is also of note)." -Steve
It does change the 'stated notion', because the actual Hebrew text in no way states that what you're claiming!!
We seem to be talking past each other on this somehow. This may seem like a silly question Steve, but do you believe the original Hebrew words used in the book of Exodus actually have an intended meaning?
"So, we appear in total agreement that the bible (along with any holy text) can be taken to mean anything the reader wants it to mean." -Steve
Absolutely not! Your statement reminds of an extreme form of postmodern thought where words do not have an actual meaning. I don't adhere to that! If you do, then we really can have no basis on which to debate.
"I'd be interested in your justifications for such behavior. " -Steve
God justifies me, not the other way around!
On your first question, I would probably save the crying baby.
Hi Matthew,
Here are a couple of rather well articulated and researched essays complete with scripture and authentic Jewish interpretations regarding abortion that you (and others!) might find interesting:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_biblh.htm
and
http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm
Hopefully that will keep us from falling into mere redundancy.
I do believe that original language is important and that the Christian Bible is rife with not only errors of fact (historical and scientific), but of errors of logic and errors of philosophy.
It is basically a rather poor plagiarism of Jewish writings (note that Jews are not believers of the Christian mythos either), just as is the Qu'ran of Islam.
Jewish writings are also a collection of pagan and Hellenistic oral traditions crafted into a patriarchal authoritarian dogma.
The fable of Noah, for instance, is a re-telling of the mythological Epic of Gilgamesh.
Go ahead, look it up.
Words are very important to me as is the actual meaning of language and concepts, Matthew, on this we can agree.
That said, it always seems rather self-righteous for anyone to claim that a purported invisible and all powerful super being beyond space and time just so happens to favor and "justifies" a particular individual and their desires.
My reading of your post is laden with that sort of nuance.
Thank you for your direct answer to the hospital scenario indicating you would probably save the actual human person (aka "crying baby") over twenty four embryos which represent potential future human persons which are not yet so.
Can you explain your reason(s) for choosing the crying baby over the embryos?
Steve
Steve,
I read through the first website. A lot of material, but honestly not much substance there to support a pro-choice position.
"It (the bible) is basically a rather poor plagiarism of Jewish writings" -Steve
Not sure what you're claiming here. If you're talking about the old testament, then it's a pretty good 'plagiarism' of Jewish writings, because it is exactly the same collection of books as the Hebrew Scriptures (or Tanakh)!
"The fable of Noah, for instance, is a re-telling of the mythological Epic of Gilgamesh." -Steve
About 300 cultures around the world have stories of a massive flood. I see it rather as corroboration of the Genesis account.
"That said, it always seems rather self-righteous for anyone to claim that (God) ... "justifies" a particular individual .." -Steve
I'm confused. First you said the idea of being born a sinner was dangerous because it's detrimental to one's self worth. Now your saying it is 'self-righteous' to admit you're a sinner that needs to be justified?
"Can you explain your reason(s) for choosing the crying baby over the embryos?" -Steve
Sure, I'm a human who can empathize more with a crying baby than a test tube. That's not to say my course of action would be correct in God's sight, though. Also, the scenario is a sort of twist from the real issue. Why not word the scenario as killing 20pre-born babies in their mother's wombs?
"Who killed the firstborn male infants of Egypt as they slept in their cribs?" -Steve
Who is defending the murder of the pre-born while they sleep in their mothers' womb?
Hi Matthew!
I think you’ll find that there are many Christians and non-Christians that disagree with you.
Just as there were those who disagreed via Bible verse and scripture that slavery should not be abolished and women should not obtain the right to teach and to vote.
That certainly makes my overall point regarding interpretation, context and the relative morality of adherents who contrastingly claim an absolute unchanging objective divine moral standard.
The Tanakh is Jewish tradition comprising some 600 laws that I don’t think even you follow anymore, Matthew.
Well, except perhaps Leviticus which nicely promotes bias against homosexuals in contrast with the usual claim that Jesus “fulfilled” (whatever that means) the laws of the earlier Jewish tradition.
I asked James in our earlier conversation regarding his view on the issue of same sex marriage and he seemed uncertain, so I wonder what your views are on that issue, Matthew.
The flood account is fable, plain and simple, and not a matter of historic or geological record.
I do find it interesting that you appear to accept each of these hundreds of stories as some sort of evidence for the overall claim when they are not from the Christian mythology.
You do realize that these other tales are alleged to have occurred to *other* characters, not Noah and his family as per “the plan”?
Now, that brings up another important conundrum.
Is it moral to have a "plan" from the beginning of all things to save humanity from their debauchery and sin by sending an innocent human sacrifice into the volcano (mixed metaphor intentional) to appease the Christian deity and still *purposefully* drown the entire world of loving men, women and children beforehand?
In my opinion, it is self-righteous to claim that some other innocent human sacrifice is required to absolve you of *your own* flaws and then purport that that is going to further bring you reward from an incomprehensible invisible deity beyond space and time if you accept and believe in such a claim.
You may disagree, this is my observation which is rather concisely stated.
Regarding the hospital scenario, you can re-word it as you have and not change the difficult moral quandary that women who are despairing have to make in similarly difficult personal situations while basing their actions upon the same rationale you articulated.
My view is that there are very real moral quandaries that are difficult where “actual” human persons have priority over pre-born “potential” human cells (even out of “test tubes”). Spermatozoa and ovum are actualized human cells with movement and evolutionary purpose, but they are *not* human persons and they are aborted billions of times a day.
The key utility in your own words, Matthew, is "pre" born as in "not yet a breathing, thinking human person”.
This is also the *very* important difference morally and ethically between *intentionally* murdering first born “actual” living, breathing and thinking human persons in their cribs and aborting “pre”-born potential human cells.
So, I ask you directly, is it moral to kill an entire population of first born actual human persons in their cribs?
I am here to tell you that I, as an ethical atheist, am certainly not advocating that behavior and proactively assert that would be an abhorrent moral standard.
Is it moral to direct soldiers to kill all of the men, women, born infants and children of an opposing tribe and take all of their young female virgins as spoils of war?
In my view there is no reconciling the Abrahamic Judeo-Christian-Islamic-Mormon deity *as depicted in their own scriptures* with decent morals and/or ethics.
Again, you may disagree, I’m just sharing my views.
Thoughtfully yours,
Steve
"I wonder what your views are on that issue (same-sex marriage)" -Steve
guess!
"Is it moral to..." -Steve
I can see that you like to focus on morals in your rejection of Christianity. I'm really not interested in travelling down that road for many reasons:
1. My answers will not be 'good enough' for you. We can debate God's character forever but this is not a science. Ethics can be a science in a way for a believer because we have a reference book to fall back on. And yes, some Christians disagree on certain issues. Some of those are valid and frankly others are not. One cannot, for example, honestly contend from a biblical perspective that adultery or fornication are OK.
2. I would submit that this is a terrible place to start if one is actually seeking the truth. Here's why:
Say, hypothetically, there is a God. Say He acts in such a way that you disagree with morally. Does that mean He doesn't exist? The answer is no. It could mean, for example, He exists but is not righteous. It could be that He is in fact righteous, and that either your concept of morality is skewed or that you just don't understand the big picture as He sees it, and therefore cannot grasp the morality behind it.
My point is Steve, whether or not God lives up to your moral standards has absolutely no bearing on the question of His existence. For this reason I would submit that if someone is really seeking to know if God exists, that they ought to start somewhere other than 'does God live up to my standards?'. And personally Steve, I prefer to focus on whether I'm living up to God's standards, not the other way around.
"here “actual” human persons have priority over pre-born “potential” human cells" -Steve
Did you see the ultrasounds for your three children? Did you think of them as 'potential human cells' at that point? If your wife was to miscarry at that point would you have thought "Oh well, it was just a potential human cell like a 'spermatoza' or 'ovum'". I'm sorry for even mentioning such a terrible statement, but that's what it sounds like your arguing for.
Post a Comment