I arrived at what may seem like an obvious conclusion to you, but made me stop and go “Whoa!” (a la Keanu/Neo):
My problem, and I think one of the majot problems with the Christian religions today is that they are forced to base their whole belief system on a flawed foundation.
Namely, the Bible.
I’m not saying the Bible, which includes slavery, sexism, misogyny, violence, mysticism, repressive sexual mores, and homophobic content, is a bad thing to base a religion on. Really, I’m not 😉
Science has made a lot of the Bible look foolish, and the ideals in a lot of the Bible are extremely out-of-touch with modern life. Some bemoan that fact, but I don’t think we need to re-embrace slavery anytime soon, nor death by stoning. There are parts of the Bible which are extremely apropos to modern life, especially my favorite part, “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”
Now, all the usual caveats apply, not all Christian religions are the same, not everyone who practices Christianity takes the Bible at face value, etc, etc. By my point is this:
Wouldn’t Christianity be wise to review the 2000 year old document and come up with something that makes a lot more sense for today? No meat on Friday? Sexist roles? And the values about sex drive me crazy, because all that does is use one of the strongest drives and desires we have against us in order to control us.
I would be much more likely to consider a religion which wasn’t 2000 years out of date, but that’s just me.
My $.02 Weed
Bible, the New Edition!
I would go out on a limb and say that your dissatisfaction with the Bible is evidence of a larger issue — a dissatisfaction with dogma.
[All the standard disclaimers apply. Justin is awesome.]
One of the major problems I perceive with the branch of Christianity that considers the Bible to be the inviolate literal Word of God, is that such a religion has no room to adapt to changing circumstances, to reevaluate its goals and methods, to be a living, breathing spirituality.
If all of a religion’s precepts are written down and unchangeable, you can get stuck in a dogmatic rut from which it is easy to lose significance.
Now, I applaud those forms of religion that have embraced adaptation. I have to hand it to Pope John XXIII – Vatican 2 was a great idea, and it’s a shame that the current guy wants to turn the train of progress around the other way. I applaud Christians who have interpreted the Bible as symbolism and metaphor, gleaning the the good ideas while disregarding what is outdated.
But it’s one of the reasons why I embrace a religion without any holy texts. If religion (or at least spirituality) is meant to be a communication between yourself and the Divine, it helps to keep those lines of communication open and flowing.
— Ben
Bible = Latin
Agreed. One of the things I meant to mention above but forgot to was a analogy between Latin and the Bible, in that one is a dead language and the other is a dead text.
If God saw fit to inspire so many people over the course of the Old Testament and the disciples, why doesn’t he do it now for us? Some may say it’s because we’re jaded and out of touch with his word, but my belief is that it’s mainly a work of men and those men who wrote it have ti where they want it and don’t see a need for change.
Of course, I differ.
My $.02 Weed
Ack..
Thanks for the awesomeness..
Umm.. if only I had the time to rebut so many ideas. Quick version.. one must first realize that (from a believer’s point of view) there is a stark difference between Old testament and New Testament philosophy. It makes sense.. God had one kind of relationship with us, then he deliberately changed that relationship.. In the same way, I have one relationship with my son, who is allowed to do some things, and commanded (by me) to not do others.
This is in line with the new testament philosophy. At one point, man lived longer, could be destroyed by flood, and was commanded to behave in a certain way. God through Noah and Moses and David, etc, changed the rules, as mankind needed to develop. This is as I will do with my son. Right now, he isn’t allowed to go on the stairs because he will fall. Later, he will be able to go on the stairs, and I will hold his hand. Eventually, he will walk on his own, and where he goes will be up to him.
My point here is this.. While I do completely believe tha the Old Testament is the word of God, I believe that at a certain point, God added a clause:
“All of the laws and punishments I have outlined are what you deserve.. but I love you enough to suspend the sentence.. do as you will, and I iwll offer you total forgiveness, yours to accept or not”.
At this point, the New Testament begins.. and it outlines how one should live, but the theology of Christians says that, theoretically, if it were possible to completely accept Christ’s sacrifice and fogiveness, one could do whatever one wanted and still avoid all the judgments. Of course, it goes on to say that that acceptance is life-changing, and that you will be changed from the outside-in, and that “sins” (a word that makes me sound all religious, so I’m not a fan) will become less tolerable to you and to your life. “Faith without works is dead” type of thing.
So, understand, that much of your slavery, sexism, misogyny, violence, mysticism, repressive sexual mores, and homophobic content – is caught up in the law, under which we are no longer bound.
That being said, you will no doubt bring up Philemon and say “the Bible approves of slavery” – which is not the case. The bible tells the slave (which is a different thing than African-American slaves) to do his work well. Well, that doesn’t say to me “Slaves are good”. Jesus was tortured, and torture isn’t really addressed as immoral, outside of “love your neighbor”. Now, I don’t see this as an endorsement of torture, and I don’t see the Bible endorsing slavery after the New Testament begins. So, I think “Love your neighbor” covers it.
Sexism? Misogyny? Well, outside of saying women shouldn’t talk in church (which may have been addressing a specific group of women in that church), and saying women should obey their husbands (after which Paul lays the greater service on Men saying that Men should love their wives as Christ loved the church – and Christ often referred to himself as a servant) – I don’t see much sexism. To be honest, Christ was very progressive, chastising his disciples for correcting a woman, keeping the company of women, honoring Mary’s story much more than Joseph’s, same with Elizabeth – Christianity, for the time, was very progressive, and in its application today, I don’t see much restriction of the rights of women.
Violence? Not too much after forgiveness entered the mix. The Law of the old testament required violence, all of humanity was under the law, and as such, violence ensued (the wages of sin being death and all) – but Christ’s forgiveness changed that.
Homophobic content? Look, I’ll be honest, I believe that Homosexual Sex is a sin, and that a Christian that engages in that behavior needs to be corrected. BUT, that does not make me homophobic. The Christian Church today has gone astray in its persecution of Gays. God may hate the sin, but he hates all sin, and not this one any more than the others. He also will forgive all sin. So, basically, if you’re not a Christian, I don’t care what you do as long as it doesn’t hurt me. Homosexuality is there. The guidelines for behavior, as outlined by the New testament is specifically a guide to the Christian on how to act. So, if it says “Homosexuality is bad”, then a Christian shouldn’t do it. Should a non-christian do it? Probably not, but my interest is in showing them the love of Christ, and letting him touch their hearts. If they choose to reject Christ, why should I focus on that sin. I should just love them and pray for them.
That also pretty much covers repressive sexual mores. Look, I will come out and say that it is a really good idea to have sex with only your spouse in your lifetime. Those who’ve made it there (not me) have reported it as kinda cool that it is the case. Someone once told me that laws like this were given by God for Man’s sake – and as someone who once struggled to deal with girlfriends’ sexual pasts, I understand the idea. Do people do that today? no. Did they ever? no. Is it a good idea to not screw someone else’s spouse or spouse-to-be? probably. So I don’t find the rules particularly repressive – in that grace covers it for me. When I’ve done wrong in this area (and I have) I knew it then, and eventually I was sorry for it. Forgiven, life goes on.
I’d like, really quickly to cover the issue of “control”. Now, the “meat on fridays” thing, and a lot of the Catholic doctrine is why I left that church. I eat meat whenever. And the Bible’s teachings on sex and on everything – is NOT an effort for the church to control you. The Catholic and Mormon churches have used the teachings to control its congregations – but my sin issues are struggles between me, God, whoever I sin against, and if I choose to take it to someone privately, that is MY choice. It is about SELF-control, not crowd control. If I insist my sin is not a sin, and others try to convince me, there is a process outlined by the bible by which one, then many can reprimand me – but this whole “The church is watching you”, or “you MUST Confess to a priest” idea – it IS man made, and is a method of control.. but it is not Biblically sound. The Church should bring you into a community by which you can see your own progress in faith, and feel safe. It should provide people to sharpen your faith.. but it should NOT control you.
Finally, to address the big 2 questions… is the Bible metaphor and symbolism.. and is it out of date?
Is it metaphor and symbolism? Some of it. Some of it is clearly. God’s revelation is hard to understand.. I mean, what if God showed John a nuclear explosion, after a bomb fell out of a plane, as ordered on a radio, from America. He would have no context or Language to explain that, and would resort to symbolism. Theres a lot of that in the Bible.. and by looking at the contxt in which things are written (is it flowery, is it surrounded by metaphor.. etc) you can spot a lot of it easily. BUT, some of the Bible is clearly not meant as metaphor. Paul’s letters, while sometimes addressing specific needs of certain churches.. not Metaphor at all. The Gospels, for the most part, are not really metaphor either.. they claim historical events took place and that people said things. Some of those things are allegorical (parables) and some are questionable – by this I mean that if you are quoting someone, and that person is using metaphor (like my son earlier in this post) is it literal (does this prove that I have a son, stairs, and that I have given him rules?)? Ver little of the bible is in question as to what is literal and what is not. Much of that has very little to do with history and theology. It comes down to “do you believe it”, on the history, but the authors seem to absolutely intend to be taken literally, most of the time.
Is it outdated? yes and No. It was outdated at its time. Or ahead of its time. It was, either way, not in step with modern society. It has really never been. Rome was in conflict with it. The middle ages, serfdoms, kingdoms, empires, democracies, we have NEVER been in line with the Christian message. So, while it is out of step, it always hasbeen. It was unpopular when it was written and flew in the face of the belief systems then. It continues to be now. I see it as fact, as perfect, and as such.. unattainable. It is the story of Man trying to reach God, failing, and God reaching out to help man out. I think it sets standards we can never keep, but can aspire to keep, and we can use those standards to reel ourselves in when we go to far. The gospels are the story for the non-christians, and the rest of the new testament sets out how God expects you to live.. and you can disobey because you are forgiven.. but the Bible is there to pull you back. It offers a guidepost to say “woah” (Keanu style) I’m engaging in a behavior that might be destructive – I should stop. Is it more than that? Absolutely. Much more, and you’ve probably stopped reading already. In case youre still there, I’ll stop here.
Thanks for taking the time. Fire away.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Well Written
Justin,
If all Christians were like you the world would be a better place.
In talking about the way the Bible adapted from Old Testament to New, you kinda made my point for me or agreed with me indirectly. The Old Testament doesn’t apply. If you were to tell me that the OT was included for historical purposes (which you are, actually) and the NT is what we should pay closer attention to, I’d be more inclined to believe you. However, there are a lot of people out there who say the Bible should be taken literally as law and the Word Of God. Those people are the ones who worry me.
So if you move the Bible from the only truth in the world to a historical textbook in the beginning to reinforce its self-help epilogue (and sci-fi, mushroom-tripping epilogue), then I could agree to that.
And about control, remember that man chose which ancient texts went into the Bible and which didn’t. Those choices were made for a reason, and I’m a little jaded with any authority organization that makes such choices. For every one of your friends who were monogamous and waited until marriage is someone else who swings with their spouse’s permission. Both are happy, neither is hurting anyone, so who’s to say which is best. What should God care about that? The only time anyone should care what goes on between two consenting adults is when they’re cheating on a third party or they bring a child into the world. Any other time, society should keep its nose out of their business. I believe God doesn’t care about your sex life, as long as you’re not hurting anybody with it.
My $.02 Weed
Thank you..
I appreciate your compliment, and I enjoy the civil discourse on this topic.
Let me clarify. I do believe that the Old testament is a historical text, burning bush and all. I believe it all happened, most of it very literally. I also believe that the New testament is Historically true, including the miracles and resurrection.
That being said, I think that the Old Testament shows us the law in all its perfection and harshness. I think that it holds examples of wrath of God that is very real, but from which we’re spared.. and I think that the wisdom of the OT is complete. Even the darker psalms.. who hasn’t felt like that? Who hasn’t felt surrounded saying “God destroy my enemies” (“Please kill Peter Parker”) – And the Proverbs still carry weight with me.
BUT… for the most part, I think that History up to the Resurrection was to provide context for Christ. I think the Passover was always meant as a Christ metaphor, and that Isaiah spoke specifically about Christ. I think that Christ didn’t destroy the OT, but fulfilled it, and said “Ok, we did that, and you;ve learned what is to be learned – now here are the messages from here until the end of the age”, and followed it up by offering salvation.
So, while I don’t think the Bible is the ONLY truth, I do think its truth supercedes other truths (a la, I can dig on philosophy and even other religious traditions up until the point where it contradicts the Bible – but when it says Christ isn’t Christ, then I grow cold). I do think the Bible is “True”, and as such is a prime source of authority (and I know this is where we part company). I don’t mean to worry you, But I think the whole thing IS literally the Law and Word of God, but I think that 2000 years ago, god rendered the current testament or promise as “old”, and created a “new” promise, which superceded the old one.
I also think that an accurate interpretation of the word of God in the NT says that you should “Love everyone”, “Try to show people why Christ’s way is best, through discourse and example (without forcing them – jesus let people walk away without chasing them)”, and finally “if you are gonna call yourself a Christian, there are some ways you should be living (which is why I get so angry at the church for trying to force those rules on non-christians, that was NEVER the point)”. Oh, and “hey John, wanna see the end of the world?”
Finally, regarding Sex. Good for them, if they’re happy swinging. Not my bag, and I am wired like a hermit crab (and was so before I was Christian) – come near my woman and I flip out. I’ve learned to temper that – but Matt will tell you, I could go nutbar. If someone does that, and is not a Christian, have a ball – I don’t care (again, why I get mad at the modern evangelical church.. its just not a very evangelical move to attack folks). If you are a Christian, you kinda signed up to have a life that involves a little bit of tempering by self control (as does any faith, even Jedi) and I may point out that you should search yourself.. but I’ll only do it once, and I will never judge you about it. Its between You and God. We all have our struggles.
BUT, if you don’t like Star Wars, you will be cast into fiery pits.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Something I’ve Always Been Curious About
Excellent response. Even though I disagree with many of the sentiments, I respect your beliefs and the thought with which you inform them.
Now, this is something I’ve always been curious about. I’ve often heard the argument (which I think is sort of what you’re saying) that the New Covenant (God & Jesus) basically “negated” the Old Covenant (God & Moses). This has been used to support the rejection of everything from slavery to animal sacrifice to the kosher laws. You allude to this idea when you say that the relationship between God and humanity changed.
What I’d like to know is, what is the justification for this? The most obvious answer appears to be that God made a mistake – trusted the wrong people, expected that humanity would behave better than it did, etc. – and had to change the rules in order to try again. I recognize, of course, that this explanation would be anathema to most Christians – what with infallibility and omniscience and all that.
The more “Christian” explanation, then, would be that “God has a plan” – that the change in direction was worked out from the very beginning as part of some mysterious process God has worked out that we mere humans are too dense to comprehend. While that explanation holds a certain amount of water, it’s still distasteful in the way that it seems to negate free will (why would God preconceive a need to change course if he didn’t expect us to rebel?), and also begs the question “why bother?” After all, if God knew from the start that the initial relationship wouldn’t get the desired result, why not just start with the New Covenant and go from there?
I’m interested to hear your take on this. — Ben
Correct!
The second assertion is closer to the way I see it. Jesus once said, “Dude, I’m ot here to get rid of the law, I’m here to fulfill it.
I always got the impression that the OT covenant was a precursor to the NT covenant. Essentially, God was setting up the world, setting up mankind, and the OT law and things that were once allowed were part of the egg breaking needed for this cosmic omelette.
So I dont get the sense that God said “whoops, okay, lets try this”, so much as the OT stuff was absolutely necessary for the NT stuff to happen.
God is a big free will fan. I love the way Bruce Almighty spells it out. If you made people love you, they wouldn’t really love you. I refer back to the child-parent relationship, which changes constantly until the Child is an adult. After that, the Child is on their own to decide what path to take. The NT is the eighteenth birthday of mankind, and it was time for the relationship to change.
BTW: Pure Justinism here.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Interesting
That’s the most sensible explanation of this I’ve ever heard. Thanks. 🙂
— Ben
High praise!
Youre welcome.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Beware!
Justinism is just a step on the road to apostasy 😉
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Ironic..
Because it was in fact Matthew that introduced the term “Matthewism” to me in 1991 while driving me to my really far away house.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Experience…
See, I speak with the voice of experience, youngling 😉
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Cool
Cool
Understated advert… I’ll let it stand 🙂
This is the most understated advert for someone’s blog that I’ve ever seen. A post of only four letters.
Cool.
—
Matthew P. Barnson