Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Htom Sirveaux

(1,242 posts)
Thu Aug 28, 2014, 10:36 PM Aug 2014

What if we took the historicity of sacred scriptures off the table, and focused on their meanings?

Suppose we start with the assumption that none of it had ever factually happened as written. That if any of it happened to be historically accurate, that would be decided only by appeal to archaeology, philosophy, science, historical analysis and other secular disciplines, rather than on the basis of tradition or otherwise being necessary for maintaining tribal integrity.

Suppose further that we did not let the end of historicity end our interest, and that we did not officially privilege one scripture over another (though each of us might naturally end up more influenced by some than others). Rather, we learned from all of them as a common human inheritance, each speaking to us from a particular culture at a particular time, but each a gift from our ancestors, accepted to the extent that they reveal something about them and/or us.

Would that be a fruitful and responsible way to handle sacred texts? Would anything important be lost with that approach?

117 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
What if we took the historicity of sacred scriptures off the table, and focused on their meanings? (Original Post) Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 OP
Sure, and 'we' somehow agreed, all of a sudden, elleng Aug 2014 #1
Well they wouldn't be "sacred" then would they? phil89 Aug 2014 #2
Of course they could still be sacred. cbayer Aug 2014 #6
So there are "sacred" things that are untrue? Isn't that twisting the meaning a little? Brettongarcia Sep 2014 #93
Sacred merely means revered due to a connection with a god or religion. cbayer Sep 2014 #94
Look at the dictionary definition of sacred Brettongarcia Sep 2014 #95
Calling it sacred and not true in it's entirety is not a problem for me at all. cbayer Sep 2014 #96
So when you apparently supported "Religion," you aren't really supporting Religion so much? Brettongarcia Sep 2014 #97
I don't think I can be clearer and the idea that I oppose cbayer Sep 2014 #98
A very strict atheist would say, probably suggest there is no God, and no good in Religion Brettongarcia Sep 2014 #99
A very strict atheists might well suggest that there is no god. cbayer Sep 2014 #100
Early Christians would probably agree with you about the value Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #59
You are suggesting taking the atheist position in this regard. Promethean Aug 2014 #3
Pointing out the atrocities and evil actions is cherry picking cbayer Aug 2014 #7
Sure hope not, because it doesn't end well for people like me in that book. AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #10
Yes, there is horror. There is also beauty. cbayer Aug 2014 #12
I'm aware of the nice bits. The United States Military has a lovely collection of paintings AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #13
That's a GODwin. rug Aug 2014 #45
Still a relevant point. AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #46
"If there's one turd in the pool, I'm not gettin' in" as Bill Maher said. phil89 Aug 2014 #52
Well, Bill Maher has turds in his pool frequently, so cbayer Aug 2014 #81
Doesn't that depend on which cherries one picks? LiberalAndProud Sep 2014 #105
Of course it depends on what cherries one picks. cbayer Sep 2014 #106
Surely it is possible to arrive at entirely opposite conclusions from the same reading. LiberalAndProud Sep 2014 #107
I absolutely agree. It is possible to arrive at entirely opposite conclusions. cbayer Sep 2014 #108
Re: It does no good to wholly condemn religion. LiberalAndProud Sep 2014 #109
It does no good to paint religion with one negative brush. cbayer Sep 2014 #112
I'm curious. LiberalAndProud Sep 2014 #114
The objectification of women comes from many sources and many cbayer Sep 2014 #115
Are you familiar with the idea that LiberalAndProud Sep 2014 #116
Not familiar with it, but I don't agree with it at all. cbayer Sep 2014 #117
Well, no, I'm not suggesting that we ignore sacred scriptures if they Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #60
If we did all that, it would still be a collection of fever-minded scratchings of bronze age desert AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #4
What is fever-minded and what does it mean in this context? cbayer Aug 2014 #8
I use it interchangeably with 'Sun-Addled'. AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #9
So do you believe that the people who wrote the bible were sun-addled and brain-fevered? cbayer Aug 2014 #11
Garbage in-garbage out. AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #14
Good night AC. You are much more fun to talk to during your daytime. cbayer Aug 2014 #15
What? I just woke up. AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #16
Ok, I see you are back. I hope you got all your shit done. cbayer Aug 2014 #18
I did, and I'm glad I didn't sit there waiting for a response. AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #19
Oh, no. You should never, ever do that. cbayer Aug 2014 #20
This is your own myth. okasha Aug 2014 #51
Well, you are right. AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #55
None of it is that old. okasha Aug 2014 #56
So sure of that, are we? AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #58
Yep. okasha Aug 2014 #67
Remember, you said "none of it". AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #70
You know, it really shouldn't be necessary okasha Aug 2014 #75
One relevant religion holds that the book is the record of an oral tradition that links AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #76
If we're thinking of the same relevant religion-- okasha Aug 2014 #77
Goat-herding meant not being under the thumb of the Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #61
A challenger appears! AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #62
"Shepherd" was a common royal title okasha Aug 2014 #68
But then we wouldn't be able to hold believers to literalism cbayer Aug 2014 #5
What straw man are you attacking now, cbayer? trotsky Aug 2014 #17
No, it's not "the way most people approach their sacred texts" muriel_volestrangler Aug 2014 #41
What does prayer have to do with it. cbayer Aug 2014 #42
Prayer is what most religious people indulge in muriel_volestrangler Aug 2014 #43
I still have no idea what looking at the sacred texts in this way has to do cbayer Aug 2014 #44
Consider what the OP says muriel_volestrangler Aug 2014 #50
But remember, after I said that a presumption of historicism was out, I went on to say Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #63
Sure, there's meaning to be found in considering why people wrote about a resurrection muriel_volestrangler Aug 2014 #83
Two things about that: Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #88
Yes edhopper Aug 2014 #21
I agree that it should not be used literally as a tool to base the cbayer Aug 2014 #22
I wasn't thinking about how people comport themselves edhopper Aug 2014 #23
Well, once again you are making an assertion without any facts. cbayer Aug 2014 #25
The weekend thingie edhopper Aug 2014 #26
Gotcha. I missed that. cbayer Aug 2014 #27
Yeah edhopper Aug 2014 #30
While those communities exist, I think they are at the extreme. cbayer Aug 2014 #31
In this country true edhopper Aug 2014 #32
I'm not sure. cbayer Aug 2014 #34
I agree that there edhopper Aug 2014 #36
I don't know that we will ever know how the population feels about it. cbayer Aug 2014 #37
And the larger issue edhopper Aug 2014 #38
Seeing them as literal tends not to be a good thing. cbayer Aug 2014 #39
From the POV edhopper Aug 2014 #40
Maybe he saw the 'back in five minutes' sign. AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #49
Well, the Sumerians took Gilgamesh fairly literally, okasha Aug 2014 #53
It's your problem edhopper Aug 2014 #71
And I treat comments such as this okasha Aug 2014 #78
on the internets everyone is a nominal dude. Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #85
You may be thinking of 4chan and reddit. rug Aug 2014 #90
Socrates was executed for atheism (and other crimes) in the same era that the temple of athena was Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #84
What?!? Do you mean to say a ruling political group used religion for a political purpose? rug Aug 2014 #91
Then we compare it to other works of literature Goblinmonger Aug 2014 #24
Shakespeare edhopper Aug 2014 #29
Most of his stuff is better. Goblinmonger Aug 2014 #33
More evidence than that for Jesus :) edhopper Aug 2014 #35
At last, something we agree on! okasha Aug 2014 #69
By whom? okasha Aug 2014 #54
Just Google edhopper Aug 2014 #65
My thoughts exactly phil89 Aug 2014 #57
This is such weak soup. cbayer Aug 2014 #82
And other people would feel differently, and either way, that's ok. nt. Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #64
Sure. Lots of fictional stories are good literature with moral of the story endings on point Aug 2014 #28
Why would we want to do that? It's just catering to the ignorance of certain groups Leontius Aug 2014 #47
Yes to both of your questions carolinayellowdog Aug 2014 #48
I don't think we should wrench sacred texts out of historical context. Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #73
Ok, so what is the deep meaning of a deity that slaughters innocents? Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #66
I'm a cherry-picker, remember? Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #72
No I'm not a cherry picker. Having actually studied the bible as literature, which is sort of what Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #74
True about Moby Dick Dorian Gray Aug 2014 #86
That cherry picking was likely to avoid the naughty bits. Warren Stupidity Sep 2014 #103
i know Dorian Gray Sep 2014 #110
Of course you are. You just did it in 66. rug Aug 2014 #87
If I'm a cherry-picker when I read the rest of the Bible in light of its best parts, Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #89
Having never been religious, I couldn't discard the bible. Warren Stupidity Sep 2014 #104
Maybe that IS the meaning Prophet 451 Aug 2014 #80
If you take away the historicity, the meaning is whatever you want it to be. enki23 Sep 2014 #92
superficially the meaning is that it is perfectly ok to slaughter innocents Warren Stupidity Sep 2014 #101
Speaking of historicity, do you have evidence that inniocents were in fact slaughtered? rug Sep 2014 #102
Why, it's a metaphor for how terrible it is to slaughter innocents. enki23 Sep 2014 #111
yikes, suddenly I'm worshiping Yahweh. Warren Stupidity Sep 2014 #113
Interesting question Prophet 451 Aug 2014 #79
 

phil89

(1,043 posts)
2. Well they wouldn't be "sacred" then would they?
Thu Aug 28, 2014, 10:42 PM
Aug 2014

And what do I have to learn from how to treat/beat my slaves, stone unruly children, the nonsense in Revelations? Are you forgetting the entirety of the bible? Better to read actual philosophy and real thinkers like Marcus Aurelius, Plato, Epictetus, etc.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
6. Of course they could still be sacred.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 03:11 AM
Aug 2014

Sacred doesn't imply infallibility or literal reading. It only implies that there is a connection with a god or gods and that something is religious and not secular.

You have nothing to learn about these things because you do not value the book or think that it has anything to offer you. Please read the authors that make sense to you and let others read those that make sense to them.

Brettongarcia

(2,262 posts)
93. So there are "sacred" things that are untrue? Isn't that twisting the meaning a little?
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 08:34 AM
Sep 2014

Do you yourself worship sacred untruths?

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
94. Sacred merely means revered due to a connection with a god or religion.
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 09:02 AM
Sep 2014

And I do think there are things in sacred texts that are untrue.

I don't really worship anything, but I am in awe of many things.

Brettongarcia

(2,262 posts)
95. Look at the dictionary definition of sacred
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 09:20 AM
Sep 2014

"Worthy of religious veneration: HOLY" (Webster's 7th New Collegiate).

Following the dictionary, people are going to take "sacred" as synonymous with holy and good; and worthy of following.

So to call something "sacred" and also untrue therefore, is a problem.

Though to be sure, in obsolete usage, "sacred" once meant for that matter, "ACCURSED."

Probably this is the problem in fact: many people are following sacred things that are untrue. Even "accursed." But therefore, if sacred is a synonym for religion, and much of it is untrue, then to issue a blanket endorsement of religion, is to endorse some things that are untrue and even accursed.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
96. Calling it sacred and not true in it's entirety is not a problem for me at all.
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 09:33 AM
Sep 2014

It may be for you and it may be for literalists, but not for me or for the person that wrote this OP.

When it comes to that which is "sacred", truth becomes pretty meaningless. It's about belief, not truth.

I agree that a blanket endorsement of religion is not a good idea, but neither is a blanket rejection.

Brettongarcia

(2,262 posts)
97. So when you apparently supported "Religion," you aren't really supporting Religion so much?
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 09:47 AM
Sep 2014

Maybe something more like - what? Philosophy? Maternal-ism?

What EXACTLY are you defending? Why do you oppose strict atheists? What is there in religion that you think is good?

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
98. I don't think I can be clearer and the idea that I oppose
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 09:50 AM
Sep 2014

strict atheists (whatever that means) is a blatant falsehood.

Have you seen Half the Sky by any chance? If you have and I still have to tell you what there is in religion that is good, there is no hope.

Brettongarcia

(2,262 posts)
99. A very strict atheist would say, probably suggest there is no God, and no good in Religion
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 09:53 AM
Sep 2014

Haven't seen the movie. But I've seen a LOT of bad things in religion.

What is the good you see, specifically?

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
100. A very strict atheists might well suggest that there is no god.
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 09:56 AM
Sep 2014

Although the really strict atheists say that it doesn't include that at all, but is just an absence of belief.

A very strict atheist would not say that there is no good in religion. That has nothing to do with atheism at all. That would be what an anti-theist would say.

I've also seen many bad things in religion. Have you seen any good?

Have you visited the NALT website by any chance? That might be a good place for you to start.

Htom Sirveaux

(1,242 posts)
59. Early Christians would probably agree with you about the value
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 06:49 PM
Aug 2014

of Plato and the Stoics. They found much to admire in Plato's metaphysics and Stoic moral philosophy.

Promethean

(468 posts)
3. You are suggesting taking the atheist position in this regard.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 01:00 AM
Aug 2014

That is literally how atheists look at sacred scripture. It is why we point out the atrocities and clearly evil actions of the subjects of the stories. We are saying "why would we look to this for guidance? It is clearly horrific."

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
7. Pointing out the atrocities and evil actions is cherry picking
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 03:14 AM
Aug 2014

in just the same way as picking out the passages and stories about justice and love and peace.

This way of approaching sacred texts is not unique to atheists. It is only different from those that approach them literally and feel they are totally infallible. Since this is a pretty impossible position to support, it is not the position of most people.

You may see only the horrific in it, while other see only the beauty. There is no guidance there for you, but there is for others.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
10. Sure hope not, because it doesn't end well for people like me in that book.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 03:23 AM
Aug 2014

"You may see only the horrific in it, while other see only the beauty. There is no guidance there for you, but there is for others."



Also, by the by, it's not a matter of seeking out scraps of horror here or there, it IS horror.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
12. Yes, there is horror. There is also beauty.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 03:24 AM
Aug 2014

You choose to see only one part.

That's fine. Don't use it.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
13. I'm aware of the nice bits. The United States Military has a lovely collection of paintings
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 03:30 AM
Aug 2014

made by one Mr. Adolph (Adi) Hitler, circa the 1940's.

So fucking what. Like hitler, god stands accused of genocide by the Old Testament itself.

You won't catch me standing in line, hoping to enjoy hitler's non-genocidal contributions to humanity.

 

phil89

(1,043 posts)
52. "If there's one turd in the pool, I'm not gettin' in" as Bill Maher said.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 06:16 PM
Aug 2014

I feel the same way I guess. Of course if there is something wrong with cherry picking, it has to be wrong when people find what they consider justice, love and peace.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
81. Well, Bill Maher has turds in his pool frequently, so
Sat Aug 30, 2014, 02:17 AM
Aug 2014

I wouldn't put much stake in this comment of his.

It would be silly to throw out such an influential set of books because there is something you don't like. I've got tons of books that include things I don't like. There is absolutely nothing wrong with cherry picking.

LiberalAndProud

(12,799 posts)
105. Doesn't that depend on which cherries one picks?
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 01:49 PM
Sep 2014

I don't think our society can be separated from the misogynistic concepts that the Bible teaches, beginning with Eve's original sin and repeated without abatement throughout the books. How can a woman read the books while holding the compilation as sacred and divinely inspired, and not internalize the idea, at least to some degree, that subservience of women is not just the norm of our culture, but intended by god?

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
106. Of course it depends on what cherries one picks.
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 02:23 PM
Sep 2014

I think it is quite possible to take the good fruit from the bible and discard the bad, even if one is not a believer in god.

There are lots of books by feminists about the bible and many interpretations that lead to very pro-female positions. All it takes is to recognize the cultural overtones of these books and read them within that context.

Women are profoundly important throughout the bible.

It all depends on what you want to get. I'm going for the empowerment myself.

LiberalAndProud

(12,799 posts)
107. Surely it is possible to arrive at entirely opposite conclusions from the same reading.
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 03:10 PM
Sep 2014

Given that, my question then must be, by what measurement do we arrive at some judgment of the rightness or wrongness of a given conclusion?

If you have read the books about the bible by feminists, would it be possible to offer a synopsis of the arguments in this forum? It's a conversation I'd be very interested in having.

Even conceding that some women have been able to find affirmation of our gender in the bible, certainly it can be argued that there are some sects/denominations which absolutely rely on biblical authority to justify the subservient role of women in the home, in the church, and in society. For myself, I haven't found the affirmative bits, and rereading without faith is absolutely an exercise in revelation, and I don't mean that in a divinely revealed way.

Since I entered this conversation with a question regarding gender roles, I hesitate to mention other social injustices that can be defended biblically which we have rejected or are in the process of rejecting as our society changes. One can't deny that those exist. Our secular society has rejected many biblical notions because we have deemed them both harmful and immoral. Isn't it, almost by definition, more progressive to remove the "godness" aspect of the culturally frozen ideas that the bible or the torah or the qur'an promulgate?

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
108. I absolutely agree. It is possible to arrive at entirely opposite conclusions.
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 03:24 PM
Sep 2014

There is no judgement of rightness or wrongness except what comes from one's own ethic.

My judgement would be based upon things like civil rights and social judgement.

The discussion among religious feminists is complex and not something I could easily give you a synopsis of. My step-mother is one of those people and I have had a chance to look at some of the books she reads. From what little I understand, they see the women of the bible as very powerful but because of the culture of the time, there were restrictions on how this could be expressed.

There has been a lot written about Jesus's views towards women, and it appears that it was rather revolutionary at the time.

But I am far, far from an expert on any of this. I just know that among the religious, there are tremendous variations.

There are surely very powerful women within religion now, but there are still religions where the patriarchy seems impenetrable.

When we see a person or a group using the bible to restrict the rights of others, we should stand up together against it. It does no good to wholly condemn religion. To me, it is very important to identify the good and help it grow so we can more effectively beat down the bad.

I don't think any ideas are frozen.

LiberalAndProud

(12,799 posts)
109. Re: It does no good to wholly condemn religion.
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 03:56 PM
Sep 2014

By condemning, do you mean criticizing? Surely not. I am not condemning, but I am giving voice to those matters where I have genuine arguments with religious belief beyond a general decrying of fairytale believing.

I don't believe in a divine consciousness any more and never will again. My criticism of religious views can't be separated from that, any more than I can separate myself from the persuasions of my previous belief. Still, to state specifically those areas where I do find religion to be harmful shouldn't be dismissed simply because I am, necessarily, speaking from a state of disbelief.

By culturally frozen, of course, I mean that the writings will not be revised to better fit our modern understanding. The firmament is right there in Genesis, and Hagar was a sex slave. It takes tremendous effort to bring about a new understanding of these ancient texts, and still the old ideas persist. I wish we needn't spend so much energy and effort to keep updating those words to mean new things.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
112. It does no good to paint religion with one negative brush.
Wed Sep 3, 2014, 03:09 AM
Sep 2014

I don't mean criticize and certainly there are very valid criticisms of some aspect of or practices of religion.

Your not believing in a divine consciousness is absolutely fine. No one should condemn you for that position or say that you are somehow faulty. The same is true of those that believe in one.

I'm not asking you or anyone to dismiss your specific criticisms. I think everyone is on the same side where that is concerned.

But coming from one state does not prohibit you from working with people coming from a different state, does it?

The writings have been rather continuously revised, particularly in terms of their interpretation. It does take a lot of effort, and it's an effort which many people make.

If the bible means nothing to you, then you don't have to spend any energy or effort at all. Just dismiss it from your life and let those that value it have at it.

LiberalAndProud

(12,799 posts)
114. I'm curious.
Wed Sep 3, 2014, 11:42 AM
Sep 2014

Do you have the same live and let live philosophy when it comes to the depiction of women as cartoon characters? I wonder if you perceive how this might be similar. I wonder if you might have some idea that, possibly, religious views regarding women, just maybe, have a more insidious influence on our culture.

The best I can hope for is to point out those areas where religious texts fail women, hoping for the revision in thought that you speak of. Certainly I don't have the influence to eradicate those texts from our culture or our world. Even so, I'm not likely to sit down and shut up. I will gladly acknowledge that many Christians are able to compartmentalize these teachings into some kind of cultural envelope, but there are too many examples of maltreatment of women and children which is excused by and empowered from these texts. For all that, I'm not inclined to sit down and shut up.

I think it's important to acknowledge how our culture might be influenced negatively by these ancient, enshrined attitudes. Certainly, I think it's important for women to be aware of how their own self-understanding might be influenced.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
115. The objectification of women comes from many sources and many
Wed Sep 3, 2014, 11:50 AM
Sep 2014

of them are distinctly not religious.

There are very activist women out there that are challenging some of the most patriarchal religious institutions in the world.

It's not about compartmentalization, it's about challenging what is being interpreted in a destructive way.

Have you seen Half the Sky? You might enjoy seeing what religious groups are doing to address the atrocities being perpetrated on women and girls all over the world.

And frankly, these groups are doing more than any secular groups that I am aware of.

I think it's important to acknowledge how our culture might be influenced positively by these ancient, enshrined attitudes about taking care of others, particularly the least fortunate.

And one can acknowledge both the good and the bad.

LiberalAndProud

(12,799 posts)
116. Are you familiar with the idea that
Wed Sep 3, 2014, 12:07 PM
Sep 2014

religion introduces the disease and then offers the cure?

With that, I'll leave this conversation, because even taking into account your agnostic stance, you have a tendency to emphasize the good stuff while brushing off the not good stuff when it comes to religious thought. I'm not condemning, just noting.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
117. Not familiar with it, but I don't agree with it at all.
Wed Sep 3, 2014, 12:18 PM
Sep 2014

It's another broad brush statement that does not take into consideration the vast differences that can be found under the big umbrella that is religion.

Perhaps you see me as fairly one sided because there is so much religious hate and intolerance expressed in this group and on this site. I would find it hard to justify adding to that.

OTOH, I frequently post articles about the bad things that are happening in religion. So perhaps your perception is distorted by your own tendency to emphasize the bad stuff while brushing off the good stuff when it comes to religious thought.

Just noting.

It's been a pleasure to talk to you. You are civil and seem very open minded.

Htom Sirveaux

(1,242 posts)
60. Well, no, I'm not suggesting that we ignore sacred scriptures if they
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 06:52 PM
Aug 2014

have anything in them we find shocking or abhorrent. Just like we don't ignore the Founding Fathers because they were slave-holders.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
4. If we did all that, it would still be a collection of fever-minded scratchings of bronze age desert
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 03:05 AM
Aug 2014

goat herders...

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
11. So do you believe that the people who wrote the bible were sun-addled and brain-fevered?
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 03:23 AM
Aug 2014

What do you base that on?

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
15. Good night AC. You are much more fun to talk to during your daytime.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 03:36 AM
Aug 2014

Hope you have a very pleasant sleep, even if it is much too brief.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
16. What? I just woke up.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 03:40 AM
Aug 2014

Got shit to do.


Anyway, you asked a question, I gave you an honest answer. I judge the capacity of the authors of the bible's component texts by the quality of their output. That's all. So I used un-charitable adjectives. Again, we are talking about a book that purports to catalogue the genocide of practically all of humanity by a being so pure, so just, so righteous, that it is beyond question, beyond rational human moral judgment.

I'm not super-charitable toward man-made blood-dripping monsters.

okasha

(11,573 posts)
51. This is your own myth.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 06:13 PM
Aug 2014

It's as inaccurate and as unthinking as "God wrote it all, right down to the punctuation."

okasha

(11,573 posts)
67. Yep.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 08:09 PM
Aug 2014

The OT was written by sophisticated, literate men familiar with the epic literature of Western Asia and the Mediterranean basin. It espouses the Yahweh-alone theology of Hezekiah and the Josian reforms. All centuries after the end of the Bronze Age.

In its final form, it's a product of the even later Bsbylonian Exile.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
70. Remember, you said "none of it".
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 08:39 PM
Aug 2014

When did Moses (Allegedly) live? When was Moses (Allegedly) given the oral Torah? When did it become the written Torah? When did the Bronze Age end in the near east?

So, some of it, most certainly.


(Rommel you magnificent bastard... I READ YOUR BOOK)

okasha

(11,573 posts)
75. You know, it really shouldn't be necessary
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 10:16 PM
Aug 2014

for me to point out that the time in which a story is set, and the date of its composition, can be two radically different things. Example: Macbeth is set in the eleventh century. Shakespeare wrote his play in the seventeenth; Dorothy Dunnett wrote her novel, King Hereafter, in the twentieth.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
76. One relevant religion holds that the book is the record of an oral tradition that links
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 10:19 PM
Aug 2014

directly to Moses (the potential) actual man himself (regardless of divine inspiration or not).


That's not actually my position, but I'll allow it as a potential or hypothetical.

okasha

(11,573 posts)
77. If we're thinking of the same relevant religion--
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 10:52 PM
Aug 2014

and I'm using "religion" here to mean "followers thereof"--the original tradition held that Moses himself composed the written Torah. Unfortunately, the only date that can be securely attached to the Exodus narrative is "sometime after the proto-Hebrew population separated religiously and culturally from the Canaanite background. " It would have attained its present form much later even than that.

Ironically, there may in fact be a kernel of history at the heart of the Exodus narrative, in the expulsion--not liberation--of the Canaanite Hyksos rulers--not slaves--from Lower Egypt by the seventeenth-dynasty Pharaohs Kamose and Ahmose. This story would have been part of the Canaanite cultural background, almost unrecognizably transformed by a new nation in need of a foundation epic.

Htom Sirveaux

(1,242 posts)
61. Goat-herding meant not being under the thumb of the
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 06:55 PM
Aug 2014

various tyrannical governments in the area. For a nation like Israel to take the shepherd as their ideal actually speaks pretty well of them in comparison.

okasha

(11,573 posts)
68. "Shepherd" was a common royal title
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 08:24 PM
Aug 2014

throughout the Mediterranean basin during the Bronze and Iron Ages. Recall that Egyptian Pharaohs carried two scepters--one represeting the farmer's flail, the other the shepherd's crook.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
5. But then we wouldn't be able to hold believers to literalism
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 03:08 AM
Aug 2014

and would lose an enormous tool in our box of things to attack them with.


Of course what you propose makes sense and, I believe, is the way most people approach their sacred texts.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
17. What straw man are you attacking now, cbayer?
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 09:06 AM
Aug 2014

The fact is, Three in Four in U.S. Still See the Bible as Word of God.

28% are strict literalists - that's a greater percentage of the population than Catholics! And every Christian takes at least parts of the bible literally - even if there is no other source of information to confirm the accounts.

Literalists are also the most vocal and seem to be most organized. You should drop the sarcasm and snark and realize that literalism is a problem, and not one that we should just laugh at and dismiss as insignificant.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,144 posts)
41. No, it's not "the way most people approach their sacred texts"
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 12:56 PM
Aug 2014

If it were, then most people wouldn't bother praying. They wouldn't bother building huge buildings with specific decorations in, or employing people to recite formulaic scripts inside them.

We read Greek myth, Aesop's Fables, folk tales, the works of Shakespeare, Dickens, Twain etc. for their meaning, not as sacred scripts, and as a result, they are just books that get talked about or are the occasional subject of education. They don't get special treatment in constitutional amendments, or blasphemy laws, or special seats reserved in the House of Lords for their interpreters.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
42. What does prayer have to do with it.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 01:04 PM
Aug 2014

He is making the argument for not taking the texts literally and for stopping the debate about historical accuracy. If I am reading this correctly, he is then making the case for endorsing the deeper meaning.

How that has anything to do with prayer, I don't know.

It doesn't mean that people still wouldn't believe in god or that god has sent certain representatives to earth. The UU's have lots of big building and pretty formal services, but I don't think there is a literalist among them.

As I said before, doing what the OP suggests does not mean that the texts are no longer sacred. It does not make them equivalent to Shakespeare. They can still be very special books to those that impart that kind of meaning into them.

I think your approach is way to black and white. What I see here is an argument for something less rigid.

How's that head of state being the head of the church thing going, by the way?

muriel_volestrangler

(101,144 posts)
43. Prayer is what most religious people indulge in
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 01:15 PM
Aug 2014

If they just saw their 'sacred' texts as something to be read for for meaning rather than revelation from powerful supernatural gods, then they wouldn't bother praying, would they? They wouldn't have the concept of the entity to pray to.

"It doesn't mean that people still wouldn't believe in god or that god has sent certain representatives to earth"

Well, if you're not considering the historicity of them, then that's Christianity, Islam, most parts of Hinduism and Judaism out, for a start. The "god has sent certain representatives to earth" bits that are the centres of those religions come purely from their books. Together, they make up the religions followed by a majority of the people in the world.

"head of state being the head of the church thing" - good point, another bit of evidence that most people take sacred texts as more than just something to be read for meaning.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
44. I still have no idea what looking at the sacred texts in this way has to do
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 01:21 PM
Aug 2014

with prayer.

I don't think the OP makes the case that sacred texts should be relegated to the status of readers digest. I see it as more a move away from literalism and towards looking for the underlying meaning in these texts.

You have created some kind of bogey monster that is unique to you. Everyone's concept of god is different, including those that don't even believe in them. Yours is big and scary. I wouldn't want that one either.

Others are nothing like that at all.

Let people take what they want from what are considered sacred texts. Don't define it for them and don't insist that if they embrace them at all, they have to embrace them literally.


C'mon. Do you really think that head of state/head of the church thing is really about religion? I don't.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,144 posts)
50. Consider what the OP says
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 05:47 PM
Aug 2014

"Suppose we start with the assumption that none of it had ever factually happened as written. That if any of it happened to be historically accurate, that would be decided only by appeal to archaeology, philosophy, science, historical analysis and other secular disciplines, rather than on the basis of tradition or otherwise being necessary for maintaining tribal integrity. "

So, that means there was no resurrection in Christianity, no exodus from Egypt or conquering of Canaan in Judaism, no appearance of Gabriel to Mohammed in Islam. All these are out, because they are historical claims that can never be backed up by secular disciplines because they all involve miracles. The very existence of the gods the describe is out, too, because that is also something supernatural, for which secular disciplines will never have evidence for.

"we did not officially privilege one scripture over another (though each of us might naturally end up more influenced by some than others). Rather, we learned from all of them as a common human inheritance, each speaking to us from a particular culture at a particular time, but each a gift from our ancestors, accepted to the extent that they reveal something about them and/or us. "

"Reader's Digest" isn't a bad summary of that. If we read the texts for "the extent that they reveal something about them and/or us", and don't privilege one of them, then they are literature. And literature does not cause people to pray, build places of worship that privilege one of the scriptures, or pay people to tell them why paying attention to one set of texts is the proper things to do.

Now, you may decide that you still like this idea, or perhaps you're not so keen on it after all. But you really can't say that most people are already leaving gods and other supernatural claims out of their readings of scripture, and are looking for what they all tell us about us and our predecessors.

Htom Sirveaux

(1,242 posts)
63. But remember, after I said that a presumption of historicism was out, I went on to say
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 07:18 PM
Aug 2014

Last edited Fri Aug 29, 2014, 10:01 PM - Edit history (1)

that the meanings were still in, so everything you just said was out for lack of historicism is back in for meaning. And I don't see why literature can't cause people to pray, or why people can't have reasons for praying independent of scripture.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,144 posts)
83. Sure, there's meaning to be found in considering why people wrote about a resurrection
Sat Aug 30, 2014, 04:33 AM
Aug 2014

or why the Greeks wrote about generations of gods overthrowing previous ones, and so on. And there are moral messages in stories like the Good Samaritan.

But I just can't understand why anyone would pray to a god for which they are ignoring any claim of actual existence. I cannot see why literature could cause people to pray. Can you explain?

People will pray if they think gods exist. Yes, they may think that in some religions that are passed down purely orally, but whether it's on paper or in oral stories, these are still the same basic claims about the reality of the gods' existence and some form of influence on the real world, whether it's on the person doing the praying or on others (or on inanimate objects).

Htom Sirveaux

(1,242 posts)
88. Two things about that:
Sat Aug 30, 2014, 01:04 PM
Aug 2014

First, as I said, secular disciplines can restore historicity, and a person may find the philosophical arguments for a god compelling, even if you do not. Second, a person may be addressing the potential that lies within them, and personifying it because human beings are a social species comfortable interacting with other agents. In fact, a person could be doing both these things.

edhopper

(33,164 posts)
21. Yes
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 09:45 AM
Aug 2014

it should be looked at as the tales of Gilgamesh or the Greek Gods. The stories of Native Americans and Norse Sagas.
But definitely not the basis for all your ethics and morals. And without doubt not to be a prescription on ways to live your daily life.
It would also free up the weekend.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
22. I agree that it should not be used literally as a tool to base the
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 09:48 AM
Aug 2014

entirety of one's ethics and morals. The contradictions alone would make that impossible.

As a guide as to how one lives their daily life, I think there are both believers and non-believers that do that to one extent or another.

What do you do on weekends? Is it that much different than those that choose to spend times with their religious communities?

edhopper

(33,164 posts)
23. I wasn't thinking about how people comport themselves
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 10:02 AM
Aug 2014

I was thinking of more orthodox followers who jump through hoops in everything the do to obey God's every whim. Think Hasidim or fundamentalist Muslims.

The last question, well that depends on how you would characterize spending every weekend saying the same prayers to a God that isn't there.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
25. Well, once again you are making an assertion without any facts.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 10:05 AM
Aug 2014

A God that isn't there? How do you know?

People say prayers for lots of reasons. They mean different things to different people. You choose not to say them, but you can't assume that those that choose to say them are somehow giving their weekend up. They do it because they like to.

edhopper

(33,164 posts)
30. Yeah
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 10:10 AM
Aug 2014

it's hard without the delivery.

I was more serious about communities that are completely dominated by their adherence to every facet of biblical law (or at least their interpretation)

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
31. While those communities exist, I think they are at the extreme.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 10:13 AM
Aug 2014

I think more people take the bible the way that the OP describes it.

edhopper

(33,164 posts)
32. In this country true
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 10:16 AM
Aug 2014

unfortunately there are other countries whose laws and way of life is proscribed by religious text.
The entire population must live under the more extreme interpretation of religious text.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
34. I'm not sure.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 10:19 AM
Aug 2014

I think that we sometimes base our perceptions of other places on what the media feeds us, and that is the extremes.

There are some theocracies, of that there is no doubt. But it is hard to now how John and Jane Smith really feel about that, as they are under a strict cone of silence.

I find that people are much different than I imagined when I travel to places not known to me. The stereotypes are often completely blown out of the water.

edhopper

(33,164 posts)
36. I agree that there
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 10:23 AM
Aug 2014

is a difference between the theocracies and the people that live under them. Unfortunately it doesn't change how they have to live and I think you find a big percentage of the population agrees with it.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
37. I don't know that we will ever know how the population feels about it.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 10:27 AM
Aug 2014

They are silenced.

But there sure does seem to be a lot of celebrating when one of them is overthrown, even though it generally just leaves a vacuum that another theocratic group fills.

edhopper

(33,164 posts)
38. And the larger issue
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 10:41 AM
Aug 2014

re: this thread, is how people see these texts. Seeing them as the word of God or Gods isn't a good thing. IMHO Gods don't allow disagreement or debate.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
39. Seeing them as literal tends not to be a good thing.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 10:49 AM
Aug 2014

It leads to much confusion and contradiction.

But if people see them as inspired and can read them accordingly, then that is not necessarily a bad thing.

You are funny, though. How can someone who does not believe in gods make any kind of judgements as to what they do or don't allow?

This is just not logical.

okasha

(11,573 posts)
53. Well, the Sumerians took Gilgamesh fairly literally,
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 06:20 PM
Aug 2014

and the Greeks didn't build the beautiful temples to Athena and Apollo because they thought those deities didn't exist.

Not to mention that we Native Americans do in fact take our stories as moral and ethical admonitions.

You got cultural privilege on steriods, dude. Get over it.

edhopper

(33,164 posts)
71. It's your problem
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 09:03 PM
Aug 2014

I treat all them equally as myth, no matter the culture. All fanciful tales of nonexistent entities. No special treatment for Abrahamic religion.
You need to deal with it, dude.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
84. Socrates was executed for atheism (and other crimes) in the same era that the temple of athena was
Sat Aug 30, 2014, 07:37 AM
Aug 2014

built. So it appears that not all Greeks were unquestioning worshippers of their gods. The Athenians built the acropolis as a monument to their city-state's power and glory as much as an act of piety.

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
24. Then we compare it to other works of literature
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 10:04 AM
Aug 2014

and I can think of many thousands I would like to read for their beauty and insight before reading The Bible. Fitzgerald kicks the shit out of whatever person wrote whatever random book of the bible.

edhopper

(33,164 posts)
29. Shakespeare
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 10:09 AM
Aug 2014

is believed to have written some of the psalms in the KJ edition.

But he has other stuff that's better.

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
33. Most of his stuff is better.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 10:16 AM
Aug 2014

And I had only heard conspiracy theories that Shakespeare helped translate it (no support for that theory) and that he left a code in there (you need to ignore a word in word counting for that to work) to show he was there.

edhopper

(33,164 posts)
35. More evidence than that for Jesus :)
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 10:21 AM
Aug 2014

Psalm 46

1 (To the chief Musician for the sons of Korah, A Song upon Alamoth.) God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.

2 Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea;

3 Though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof. Selah.

4 There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High.

5 God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved: God shall help her, and that right early.

6 The heathen raged, the kingdoms were moved: he uttered his voice, the earth melted.

7 The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.

8 Come, behold the works of the LORD, what desolations he hath made in the earth.

9 He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth; he breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder; he burneth the chariot in the fire.

10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.

11 The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.

edhopper

(33,164 posts)
65. Just Google
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 07:33 PM
Aug 2014

King James and Shakespeare
lot of chatter about it.
This wasn't a serious conversation.

 

phil89

(1,043 posts)
57. My thoughts exactly
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 06:37 PM
Aug 2014

and it's always odd when people talk about the "wisdom" in the bible, which contains warmed over philosophy from hundreds of years before it was written. Why not read Plato's Cave or something truly brilliant and thought provoking? I guess the false promises of eternal life hold a lot of sway with some people.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
82. This is such weak soup.
Sat Aug 30, 2014, 02:26 AM
Aug 2014

One can read both sacred texts and Plato and get something from both. It has nothing to do with the promise of eternal life. The books mean something to some people. Not to you, but to others. They are no less intelligent than you, they just have a different POV and find different things meaningful.

 

Leontius

(2,270 posts)
47. Why would we want to do that? It's just catering to the ignorance of certain groups
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 04:39 PM
Aug 2014

for no real purpose. If they're not able to understand how ancient authors of history communicated to their audience of the time let them educate themselves before they try to debate on the texts.

carolinayellowdog

(3,247 posts)
48. Yes to both of your questions
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 04:41 PM
Aug 2014

The only world religion I can honestly say I embrace is extinct more or less, Hermeticism, although it survives as an undercurrent in Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and now New Age mystical/occult ideas. The notion that Hermes was a single historical individual is completely untenable and no one attributes the Corpus Hermeticum and related sacred texts to such a person. And yet, the "voice" of Hermes-- really multiple authors signing the work with that name-- speaks more directly to me than any of the Abrahamic or Indic spiritual traditions.

Because-- even though in terms of an individual spiritual path it is fruitful and responsible to use all sacred texts this way, something very important IS lost with that approach. HISTORICAL responsibility. Jesus, Gautama, and Muhammad, along with Nanak, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, etc. etc. were historical individuals. Thus the Bible, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, the Adi Granth, Science and Health, the Pali canon, all are filled with falsifiable historical assertions. And to wrench them out of historical context might profit our souls but it is at the expense of our minds.

I'd say Hindu sacred texts are as free-floating and metahistorical as the Hermetic literature, except people have gotten murdered quite recently and in large numbers over specific places where specific things were alleged to have happened historically. Nobody kills anyone on behalf of Hermes AFAIK.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/herm/

Htom Sirveaux

(1,242 posts)
73. I don't think we should wrench sacred texts out of historical context.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 09:59 PM
Aug 2014

Context contributes greatly to meaning, preserves authenticity, and serves as a check on the temptation to drain all the perspective out of scriptures.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
66. Ok, so what is the deep meaning of a deity that slaughters innocents?
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 07:46 PM
Aug 2014

Or a deity that makes horrendous demands?

Or a deity that plays games with people's lives?

You can take all the historicity out of it you wish, but you are still left with an O.T. god that can best be described as "psychotic", and a bunch of rules most of which are either ridiculous or horrific or both.

Better yet, what unique "meaning" comes from these ancient books of fairy tales?

Htom Sirveaux

(1,242 posts)
72. I'm a cherry-picker, remember?
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 09:30 PM
Aug 2014

I can easily de-emphasize those passages, and since I'm not claiming inerrancy, I see no particular reason to let those images dominate. Are you also a cherry-picker, and if so, why choose to cherry pick those texts when there are much better ones?

Also, why the requirement of "unique" meaning? Is there some kind of meaning quota, with no room for stories that can be read to share meaning with other stories?

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
74. No I'm not a cherry picker. Having actually studied the bible as literature, which is sort of what
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 10:12 PM
Aug 2014

you are saying, although all you really said was "drop the historicity claim", the bible is important in literature mostly because other actually good works of literature refer to it. It is important for understanding other actual works of art.

One doesn't, for example, cherry pick Moby Dick, and then claim that "well sure the entire book sort of sucks, but these passages here were ok so it is a great book of real importance". That would be a ridiculous claim. Either the work stands as a whole, or it doesn't. If it doesn't it isn't great literature, rather it is bad literature.

You seem to be saying, without of course actually getting around to saying it, that these cherry picked passages of non-awfulness are somehow important because of their "meaning". Ok, great, so we agree the book(s) as a whole are awful, but there are perhaps some meaningful passages. I'm asking if these allegedly meaningful passages are so deeply meaningful as to be unique. If not, given that the books as a whole are pretty much awful literature, why bother?

Dorian Gray

(13,469 posts)
86. True about Moby Dick
Sat Aug 30, 2014, 07:59 AM
Aug 2014

but our high school English teacher totally cherry picked The Canterbury Tales (we only read two of them).

I guess you can do that when a book holds multiple "short stories."

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
103. That cherry picking was likely to avoid the naughty bits.
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 12:25 PM
Sep 2014

And it isn't as if your teacher was claiming that one could disregard the remainder and just evaluate the work on select excerpts.

Dorian Gray

(13,469 posts)
110. i know
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 04:35 PM
Sep 2014

I was just fondly remembering that I didn't have to read the entire thing when I was 17 and didn't understand a word.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
87. Of course you are. You just did it in 66.
Sat Aug 30, 2014, 11:03 AM
Aug 2014

And Moby Dick is a great book, down to the minutiae of 19th century whaling.

Htom Sirveaux

(1,242 posts)
89. If I'm a cherry-picker when I read the rest of the Bible in light of its best parts,
Sat Aug 30, 2014, 01:09 PM
Aug 2014

consistency would require that you also be engaged in cherry-picking when you discard the Bible because you read it in light of its worst parts.

What did your study of "the Bible as literature" consist of, exactly? How did you go about it?

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
104. Having never been religious, I couldn't discard the bible.
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 01:27 PM
Sep 2014

I read parts of the bible as literature in school. Out of curiosity I read the rest of it on my own. It is a pile of crap. There really isn't anything of much value as either literature or philosophy. As noted it has importance for understanding other literature, and it certainly has importance for historical reasons. But as literature it is awful. All of it. Front to back. The entire thing. You're the one who wants it evaluated outside of its historical context and "historicity" - and as such there are countless other works of literature and philosophy that one would be better advised to spend one's time reading.

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)
80. Maybe that IS the meaning
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 11:11 PM
Aug 2014

Perhaps the deep meaning of the OT is that god is a monstrous tyrant whom you should be afraid of.

Now, it should be borne in mind that my own faith (Luciferian Satanism) reads the Bible in exactly that way; we see god as a complete monster who must be opposed and worship Lucifer/Satan as the first being to do so.

enki23

(7,786 posts)
92. If you take away the historicity, the meaning is whatever you want it to be.
Mon Sep 1, 2014, 08:12 PM
Sep 2014

If you keep the historicity, this is also the case.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
101. superficially the meaning is that it is perfectly ok to slaughter innocents
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 11:59 AM
Sep 2014

as long as you are convinced that a mythical supernatural being has deemed it appropriate. The "its a metaphor" apology just evades what exactly Yahweh's penchant for slaughtering innocents is a metaphor *for*.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
102. Speaking of historicity, do you have evidence that inniocents were in fact slaughtered?
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 12:05 PM
Sep 2014

It's one thing to cherry pick scripture; it's another to cherry pick historic fact.

enki23

(7,786 posts)
111. Why, it's a metaphor for how terrible it is to slaughter innocents.
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 08:56 PM
Sep 2014

God was all like, "See? This is what a evil piece of shit would do. I'm going to have my people write down a story about me being that evil piece of shit, and have me praising myself and demanding that my favored tribe praise me for being an evil piece of shit, so that one day in the distant future some other people from completely different tribes will understand this story to be a metaphor for how evil it is to be an evil piece of shit."

So, it's a metaphor about love, really.

Or... maybe it's just a metaphor for how angry you get when you get the wrong toppings on your pizza, and how that makes you look like a raging asshole when you throw a tantrum, but how it's all okay in the end because you're a good guy inside, really.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
113. yikes, suddenly I'm worshiping Yahweh.
Wed Sep 3, 2014, 07:17 AM
Sep 2014

When a deity is that much of an evil psycho bastard, what choice does one have?

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)
79. Interesting question
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 11:01 PM
Aug 2014

I'm taking a break right now from writing a university assignment on the concept of "situated knowledge". The concept comes from feminist critique (and has somehow ended up in psychology) and says that, to fully understand anything, any piece of knowledge, one must consider the time and place it was created in and also who it was speaking to. For example, when considering the New Testament, one must consider that they were mostly a product of a particular time (1-roughly 75ce), a particular culture (the Roman Empire) and directed at a specific set of people (Romans) with their ingrained preconceptions, knowledges and norms. One must also consider the power relations inherent in them, that they were written by a group of people who were, mostly, powerless and addressed to the citizens of what was then the most powerful culture on earth.

Now, whether you consider that context to be important is up to you but I would suggest that any sacred writing loses some of it's colour and meaning without it.

I also have to note that I come from a position of being a believer in an experiential faith. That is, each adherent to my faith (Luciferian Satanism) actively constructs their own version of the faith through personal gnosis and meditation and we don't have any sacred writings in the normal sense. Thus, I come from the position that, while any sacred writing represents a voice added to the debate, no writing has the stamp of "GOD APPROVED" on it.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»What if we took the histo...