Only problem is monotheism hasn't always bred violence, and has often opposed it. Cultural hijackings of religion have happened often - as is the case with neoconservatism.
Spanish abuse of native Americans was heroically opposed by Fr. Bartolomeo de las Casas, even debated before the King of Spain. The British East India Company found the Church of England opposing their rape of India at every turn. Ghandi, though appalled by Christian hijackers, modeled his actions partly upon Jesus. Archbishop Desmond Tutu won the Nobel Peace Prize for his fearless work against apartheid. Muslim Spain was among the most tolerant multi-cultural epochs on earth. The examples are endless and wor...

Only problem is monotheism hasn't always bred violence, and has often opposed it. Cultural hijackings of religion have happened often - as is the case with neoconservatism.
Spanish abuse of native Americans was heroically opposed by Fr. Bartolomeo de las Casas, even debated before the King of Spain. The British East India Company found the Church of England opposing their rape of India at every turn. Ghandi, though appalled by Christian hijackers, modeled his actions partly upon Jesus. Archbishop Desmond Tutu won the Nobel Peace Prize for his fearless work against apartheid. Muslim Spain was among the most tolerant multi-cultural epochs on earth. The examples are endless and worldwide.
That monotheism has ALWAYS bred violence isn't true, is it? That every human culture has bred violence is closer to the truth. Sometimes monotheists have been philosophically distant enough from their own zeitgeist to put the brakes on; often, they have not.

Only problem is monotheism hasn't always bred violence, and has often opposed it.

Your examples support your position well. You are essentially saying that various cultural authorities, (kings and governments, for example), throughout history have been opposed by religious authorities against the use of violence and abuse. (And thus hasn't ALWAYS bred violence.)

Though religion has been used for a worthy purpose, even to oppose violence, doesn't erase its long history of breeding it.

I do not deny your examples. In fact I might agree that these events may be accurate historically.

Perhaps I should rephrase my allegation to say that violence is an [i]"in[b]...

Only problem is monotheism hasn't always bred violence, and has often opposed it.

Your examples support your position well. You are essentially saying that various cultural authorities, (kings and governments, for example), throughout history have been opposed by religious authorities against the use of violence and abuse. (And thus hasn't ALWAYS bred violence.)

Though religion has been used for a worthy purpose, even to oppose violence, doesn't erase its long history of breeding it.

I do not deny your examples. In fact I might agree that these events may be accurate historically.

Perhaps I should rephrase my allegation to say that violence is an "inevitable" result of monotheistic religion.

Revisionist conservatives who say this country was founded as a Christian nation, for example, say nothing about the murder of the Native Indians to gain the very country of which they say god gave them!

Yet, those SAME people would appeal to the highest court to ban abortion. The attempt at virtue on the one hand doesn't erase the "inevitable" murder on the other.

The Jews say that land, god gave them! The Americans say this land, god gave us.

"Is it not right that whatever your god Chemosh expropriates for you [yorisheka], you should possess; and that everything that Yahweh our God expropriates for us, we should possess?"

[Anchor Bible 6A, Boling; Doubleday 1975, pp 201, 203-4] "referring to the right of each god to give land taken by conquest to the respective worshiper"; (Fighting Words, Hector Avalos).

I don't think Fr. Bartolomeo de las Casas, the Church of England, Desmond Tutu, or Ghandi, ever sought to expunge god sanctioned violence from scripture on the grounds of spiritual fraud.

Scarce resources taken by violence proves the god of the victor. The support for peace comes after.

The argument to associate monotheism as a cause of violence is very weak.

Perhaps an even further clarification is needed (my apologies for not being meticulous the first time.)

I'm not saying that monotheism is the cause of ALL violence. What I originally said was "Monotheistic religion will ALWAYS breed violence."

I had to revise that to accommodate the times it wasn't violent; but still maintain that it will "inevitably" breed violence due to its competing nature with "other" monotheistic religions.

If just ONE monotheistic, no problem. The problem is that there are competing monotheistic religions, and therein lies the inevitability for violence.

Monoth...

The argument to associate monotheism as a cause of violence is very weak.

Perhaps an even further clarification is needed (my apologies for not being meticulous the first time.)

I'm not saying that monotheism is the cause of ALL violence. What I originally said was "Monotheistic religion will ALWAYS breed violence."

I had to revise that to accommodate the times it wasn't violent; but still maintain that it will "inevitably" breed violence due to its competing nature with "other" monotheistic religions.

If just ONE monotheistic, no problem. The problem is that there are competing monotheistic religions, and therein lies the inevitability for violence.

Monotheism claims there can be only one god, and is therefore intolerant of other gods. The adherents of each monotheistic religion are often admonished to kill the opposing believer of the "other" god!

And when resources are scarce or valued, minimizing the "other" believer is sanctioned by the god, as the passage and examples above ["referring to the right of each god to give land taken by conquest to the respective worshiper"] demonstrated.

Competing monotheistic religions have the same goals; to eliminate the others! The essence of monotheism means they are inherently enemies.

Fundamentalists merely carry out the dictates of those religions.
---
Koran says:

IX. 5-6: Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.

Bible says:

If anyone around you, family members, children, whatever, try to convince you that you should worship another god, you must KILL THEM with your hand; you must stone them to death! (Deuteronomy 13:7-11)

And if you're not up to the task, you too must be slain! (Deuteronomy 17:12-13)

---

Does this clarify the inherent inevitability of monotheistic violence better?

there can be only one god, and is therefore intolerant of other gods.

You are probably right with the ground realities but we're on the verge of revolution where the true monotheist (I like to call that monorealist) would not be competing for any God because in true monoreality, there is only a God who is pure love....everything else (including the evil) is the cause of man's free will. It will be just a matter of realization and understanding.

I can't seem to recall who but in one of the lectures at ted.com, the author presented a researched theory suggesting that the violence - throughout the known history - has gone down. He was of the opinion that we have lived through m...

there can be only one god, and is therefore intolerant of other gods.

You are probably right with the ground realities but we're on the verge of revolution where the true monotheist (I like to call that monorealist) would not be competing for any God because in true monoreality, there is only a God who is pure love....everything else (including the evil) is the cause of man's free will. It will be just a matter of realization and understanding.

I can't seem to recall who but in one of the lectures at ted.com, the author presented a researched theory suggesting that the violence - throughout the known history - has gone down. He was of the opinion that we have lived through much violent times and ours is nothing compared to earlier times.

When we talk about violence, we have to keep the appropriate context. All modern violent conflicts have mostly caused by religio-political issues. As masbury said above, cultural hijacking of religion have happened often. I do not think you are right on the money when you squarely put violent tendencies of man on God or competing Gods.

I do not think you are right on the money when you squarely put violent tendencies of man on God or competing Gods.

Right. Thus my clarification:

"I'm not saying that monotheism is the cause of ALL violence. What I originally said was "Monotheistic religion will ALWAYS breed violence.""

"As masbury said above, cultural hijacking of religion have happened often."

I definitely agree. That's why I didn't bother an attempt to refute his assessment. It may very well be true. But it doesn't deny the inevitability of religious violence from monotheistic religions.

They are separate things.

In fact I'd be so bold as to say that it is BECAUSE ...

I do not think you are right on the money when you squarely put violent tendencies of man on God or competing Gods.

Right. Thus my clarification:

"I'm not saying that monotheism is the cause of ALL violence. What I originally said was "Monotheistic religion will ALWAYS breed violence.""

"As masbury said above, cultural hijacking of religion have happened often."

I definitely agree. That's why I didn't bother an attempt to refute his assessment. It may very well be true. But it doesn't deny the inevitability of religious violence from monotheistic religions.

They are separate things.

In fact I'd be so bold as to say that it is BECAUSE masbury is right... that religious violence can be so easily hijacked by the political authorities!

If monotheistic religion was inherently genteel and peaceful, its value to political violence would be antithetical. It'd be like attacking one's enemy with pillows instead of guns.

But that the scriptures sanction violence as direct from god's own commands, it absolves the human guilt of injustice. Even torture and the killing of women and children can be justified.

Justifiable violence is the political tool de jure. It has the sanction of the religious commandment of jealous gods.

Aces, it seems to me that violence results from cultural pre-conceptions about language that are read into faith, not faith itself. At moments of militant zeitgeist, cultures assume irrational attitudes toward Scripture, and use it to justify violence.

There is no Christian justification for anti-religious violence in Scripture, unless one assumes that something or someone other than Jesus is Christian faith's final authority. That error is certainly common! But it is he alone Christians are instructed to imitate.

There is much about the Hebrew Scriptures that is baffling to me. It is clear that Jesus simply disagrees with much found there, and sets an example quite contrary to ...

Aces, it seems to me that violence results from cultural pre-conceptions about language that are read into faith, not faith itself. At moments of militant zeitgeist, cultures assume irrational attitudes toward Scripture, and use it to justify violence.

There is no Christian justification for anti-religious violence in Scripture, unless one assumes that something or someone other than Jesus is Christian faith's final authority. That error is certainly common! But it is he alone Christians are instructed to imitate.

There is much about the Hebrew Scriptures that is baffling to me. It is clear that Jesus simply disagrees with much found there, and sets an example quite contrary to it.

But I am finding, in my own experience, that my theological and cultural understandings of what the Bible says are quite a bit different from what the Bible actually says! In looking at the example of Jesus, I find opposition to victimization on nearly every page. He is the constant champion of those who are different, and one of the themes of the New Testament is that he is opposed by those who would push religion onto others, regardless who gets hurt. How ironic it is that those regarded as "fundamental" miss the forest for the trees!

Problem with this religion called Christianity is that it doesn't have much use for Christ!

Ask me more if you like, but I can't think of a time when Jesus advocates violence or intolerance against people of different culture or faith; indeed, he is moved toward death by hatred from religious fundamentalists enraged by his kindness to outsiders.

"..it seems to me that violence results from cultural pre-conceptions about language that are read into faith, not faith itself."

Violence results from cultural pre-conceptions about language? ...that are read into faith?

"..cultures assume irrational attitudes toward Scripture, and use it to justify violence."

If by irrational you mean belief in their scripture, and act out what the scripture commands, then "yes", I agree. They use it to justify violence.

"There is no Christian justification for anti-religious violence in Scripture, unless.."

...'Unless [u]the scripture specifically says to act out such violence against other re...

"..it seems to me that violence results from cultural pre-conceptions about language that are read into faith, not faith itself."

Violence results from cultural pre-conceptions about language? ...that are read into faith?

"..cultures assume irrational attitudes toward Scripture, and use it to justify violence."

If by irrational you mean belief in their scripture, and act out what the scripture commands, then "yes", I agree. They use it to justify violence.

"There is no Christian justification for anti-religious violence in Scripture, unless.."

...'Unless the scripture specifically says to act out such violence against other religions. Deuteronomy 13:7-11 specifically says to act out such violence, and Deuteronomy 17:12-13 says violence shall be acted out on he that does not have the stomach for acting out the violence against another.

This is not a cultural misinterpretation of scripture; for it is first a correct interpretation, and second, it has been carried out throughout hundreds of years from culture to culture.

"How ironic it is that those regarded as "fundamental" miss the forest for the trees!"

Jesus is depicted as the gentle lamb, while the 1st century god of the old testament is an immoral tyrant. To reconcile the two would be to unwittingly admit what the bible really is.

If the bible were presented to you as a thesis or a scholarly work for your critical preview, you'd be far less reverent about it. For example...

"I can't think of a time when Jesus advocates violence or intolerance against people of different culture or faith"

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
Luke 19:27 (KJV) [Jesus]

...'Unless the scripture specifically says to act out such violence against other religions. Deuteronomy 13:7-11 specifically says to act out such violence,

Yes, Aces, such views are largely culturally conditioned. Your comment demonstrates my point: the assumption is made here that I, being a Christian, will have some obligation to the verse you mention. Why? I am not Jewish; Jesus renounces the above approach, insisting on love for enemies. Millions of Jesus' admirers - both Christian and otherwise (I think of Martin Luther King and Ghandi) - would agree. And while the institutions of religion have often neglected Jesus' teaching, many individuals have heroically clung...

...'Unless the scripture specifically says to act out such violence against other religions. Deuteronomy 13:7-11 specifically says to act out such violence,

Yes, Aces, such views are largely culturally conditioned. Your comment demonstrates my point: the assumption is made here that I, being a Christian, will have some obligation to the verse you mention. Why? I am not Jewish; Jesus renounces the above approach, insisting on love for enemies. Millions of Jesus' admirers - both Christian and otherwise (I think of Martin Luther King and Ghandi) - would agree. And while the institutions of religion have often neglected Jesus' teaching, many individuals have heroically clung to it, King and Ghandi-style, bringing enormous and beneficial change.

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27 (KJV) [Jesus]

I don't know what to make of your view that Jesus recommends violence with this statement. Jesus is concocting a story using culturally familiar images to illustrate a point. In the story, one of the characters says the above line. It's quite a stretch to imagine that represents behavior Jesus is advocating. I've never known a scholar who would support such a view.

As with all of us, your reading was influenced not only by reason, but also personal bias. The best scholarship - of religion and of atheism - struggles to reveal bias for what it is, and then deals humbly with what seems to remain, knowing the ease with which it gets itself off the track.

Deuteronomy 13:7-11 specifically says to act out such violence,

Yes, Aces, such views are largely culturally conditioned.

What view? It says what it says. It says kill the person that doesn't believe in your god! That's not a cultural condition. That's an imperative!


You say:

"..the assumption is made here that I, being a Christian, will have some obligation to the verse you mention."

Yes, if you take scripture as true and at its word! It is only to the extent that you DIVERGE from taking it at its word, that is the extent to which you lean secular and DON'T believe it to be a true command from god!

If you say it's because of ...

Deuteronomy 13:7-11 specifically says to act out such violence,

Yes, Aces, such views are largely culturally conditioned.

What view? It says what it says. It says kill the person that doesn't believe in your god! That's not a cultural condition. That's an imperative!


You say:

"..the assumption is made here that I, being a Christian, will have some obligation to the verse you mention."

Yes, if you take scripture as true and at its word! It is only to the extent that you DIVERGE from taking it at its word, that is the extent to which you lean secular and DON'T believe it to be a true command from god!

If you say it's because of your culture, fine. But you are now cherry picking which passages you deem worthy of acting upon, and which are inconsistent with what you WANT scripture to mean.

In fact, you are DIVERGING from what it actually says!
---

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27 (KJV) [Jesus]

"I don't know what to make of your view that Jesus recommends violence with this statement."

Good point. In retrospect, the Lord in the parable may not necessarily represent himself. I recant that example, with apologies.

I guess the bottom line on whether Jesus condones violence would be the existence of hell. And...

Surely, then, Jesus is in no way a trinity of any super being called "god of the bible". And he in every way contradicts the god of the Old Testament.

He and his father could hardly be "one". That he doesn't condone violence doesn't exonerate the bible for doing so. Might the contradictions indicate fraud? Or is the obvious being overlooked or minimized due to confirmation bias?

Willhelm, your put-down isn't helpful or Christlike.

AL, "truth" is a culturally defined concept, and varies greatly from one era to another. You correctly argue against a fundamentalist view of Scripture; I agree. But my problem with fundamentalism isn't that it's too Scriptural; it is that it isn't Scriptural enough. And this verse you mention is exactly the kind of issue that its outlook fails to comes to grips with, while attempting to force a 19th-century view of truth upon an ancient text. You are wise to fault it.
The Bible claims that Jesus is what God looks like in human form, of course, and that he is God's example for Christian behavior. Yes, that is very different from some ...

Willhelm, your put-down isn't helpful or Christlike.

AL, "truth" is a culturally defined concept, and varies greatly from one era to another. You correctly argue against a fundamentalist view of Scripture; I agree. But my problem with fundamentalism isn't that it's too Scriptural; it is that it isn't Scriptural enough. And this verse you mention is exactly the kind of issue that its outlook fails to comes to grips with, while attempting to force a 19th-century view of truth upon an ancient text. You are wise to fault it.
The Bible claims that Jesus is what God looks like in human form, of course, and that he is God's example for Christian behavior. Yes, that is very different from some aspects of God as represented in the Hebrew Bible. Christians have been slow to admit that, and much evil has resulted from it.
To acknowledge a difference is not to reject Christianity, for the New Testament plainly insists that Christians are not to be followers of "the law" - and certainly the Deuteronomy verse you mention was part of "the law", the Pentateuch.
So, while Fundamentalism may insist that I should treat all verses equally, the New Testament itself (consistent with the example of Jesus) insists that I must not, and offers the example of Jesus on earth as its guideline.

So, while Fundamentalism may insist that I should treat all verses equally, the New Testament itself (consistent with the example of Jesus) insists that I must not, and offers the example of Jesus on earth as its guideline.

That makes so much more sense than I've ever heard, as to why the old and new testament diverge so widely, and how to handle it.

In a sense, it solves two problems (for me).

First, it makes belief in a mythical Jesus palatable, in that we've created in our own minds a universal role model for the overall good when it comes to morality.

It exemplifies that we, as humans, really do know the difference between morally good and morally wrong. From t...

So, while Fundamentalism may insist that I should treat all verses equally, the New Testament itself (consistent with the example of Jesus) insists that I must not, and offers the example of Jesus on earth as its guideline.

That makes so much more sense than I've ever heard, as to why the old and new testament diverge so widely, and how to handle it.

In a sense, it solves two problems (for me).

First, it makes belief in a mythical Jesus palatable, in that we've created in our own minds a universal role model for the overall good when it comes to morality.

It exemplifies that we, as humans, really do know the difference between morally good and morally wrong. From that context, WE do this, not a menacing god via eternal punishment, but in a way that comes from the human experience.

Second, presuming an actual historical Jesus, it gives license to NOT accept god's word when it fails Jesus' test of morality; ("progressively reinforcing some views of God and renouncing others").

Jesus thus made it possible for god to say "I change my mind." God as human (Jesus) not only contradicts himself as spirit (God), but undermines it.

It gives the good cop authority over the bad cop, even though they're the same being.

If Christians historically practiced the example of Jesus, much would be well. But what they practice is scripture. Thus the hate and the violence. (Same indictment for Muslims and Jews.)

They get their morals from scripture, not from the example of Jesus.

This is the problem you yourself have expressed. The two should be congruent, if inspired by the same being.

But to say this incongruence "suggest a revelation that somehow clarifies as experience and time pass" fails 2000 years of history. After all that time, where's the revelation?

Are you sure it's not just an attempt to confirm a bias?

I do enjoy your thoughts, AL.
Last first: Am I sure I'm not attempting to confirm a bias? No, I'm not sure. We humans, not being digital, think from a thousand influences, rather than all one and none of another. I can only do my best to challenge them in myself when I see them. And as you know, challenging one's own arguments is far harder than challenging another's.
By the clarification of revelation, I meant the clarification that takes place within the centuries during which the Bible's books were written. It seems inevitable to me that much of the early texts were influenced by the world-view of the writers, and yet inspired (again, whatever that really means.) Abraham, for instanc...

I do enjoy your thoughts, AL.
Last first: Am I sure I'm not attempting to confirm a bias? No, I'm not sure. We humans, not being digital, think from a thousand influences, rather than all one and none of another. I can only do my best to challenge them in myself when I see them. And as you know, challenging one's own arguments is far harder than challenging another's.
By the clarification of revelation, I meant the clarification that takes place within the centuries during which the Bible's books were written. It seems inevitable to me that much of the early texts were influenced by the world-view of the writers, and yet inspired (again, whatever that really means.) Abraham, for instance, appears as a pagan emerging from a very different culture, gradually deciding that Yahweh represents something very different that he has known. He is often representative of both pagan and monotheistic views. How much of the "God did ..." of the Bible is simply a culturally theistic way of talking? We do not know. But that may be one partial reason why the early view of God is so very different from that of Jesus.
Third, yes, contrary to fundamentalism's extra-Biblical assertion, Scripture does maintain that God changes his mind, even using the word "repented."
Finally, again, I would only partially agree about fundamentalism getting its ideas from Scripture. The "God changed his mind" Scripture, for instance, is simply over-ruled by fundamentalist theology. Rather than grappling with a rational way to find why Scripture says different things, verses are cherry-picked (to use your term) to reinforce theological or conservative cultural views already in place. Jesus, by contrast, is regarded by the Bible itself as the epitome of Scripture; fundamentalism has it just backwards.

How much of the "God did ..." of the Bible is simply a culturally theistic way of talking? We do not know. But that may be one partial reason why the early view of God is so very different from that of Jesus.

That makes perfect sense, in a historical context. It's development (the bible) would be influenced by the time period, the zeitgeist, as you mentioned before. Not just the "spirit" of the times but the knowledge and culture as well.

Of course, that fact (assuming its true) dominates any semblance of a "common spirit" or a "common inspiration" that would suggest an outside influence...like an eternal holy spirit.

The fact of "moral" influences over time, from b...

How much of the "God did ..." of the Bible is simply a culturally theistic way of talking? We do not know. But that may be one partial reason why the early view of God is so very different from that of Jesus.

That makes perfect sense, in a historical context. It's development (the bible) would be influenced by the time period, the zeitgeist, as you mentioned before. Not just the "spirit" of the times but the knowledge and culture as well.

Of course, that fact (assuming its true) dominates any semblance of a "common spirit" or a "common inspiration" that would suggest an outside influence...like an eternal holy spirit.

The fact of "moral" influences over time, from barbaric to empathetic, suggests a lack of an eternal thread of inspiration (i.e., a holy spirit guiding the whole thing).

It's almost like god himself is doing the developing; from being sorry for the flood, to sacrificing himself instead of animals. There is definitely a growth pattern.

--

Rather than grappling with a rational way to find why Scripture says different things, verses are cherry-picked ... to reinforce theological or conservative cultural views already in place.

I would definitely agree! But doesn't this fact (if it's true) beg the question...?

When god says to brutally massacre in one text, while saying "love thy neighbor" in another...

What if the "grappling with a rational way to find why Scripture says different things" has a clear and logical answer? (alluding to the assumption of divine inspiration)

What if it concludes, and rightly so, that it has no common inspiration? That, morality has developed with the culture and times of its writers rather than maintaining a common Spirit.

It seems inevitable to me that much of the early texts were influenced by the world-view of the writers, and yet inspired

If you are right on the first part, you cannot be right on the second.

AL, seems to me that your point could be true if one accepts the all-or-nothing epistemology that fundamentalism uses to prove the opposite: either it's inspired, and thus perfect, or imperfect, and thus un-inspired.
While fundamentalism's case is obviously deficient, I think it unwise to let them dictate the assumptions, which create a false syllogism.
What is inspiration? Some strains of Christianity have long held that the God-human interaction was imperfect, yet capable of accomplishing all God intended. Fundamentalism, though, sprang from Calvinism, which was passionate about its idea that God operates completely on his own, humans being utterly powerless and evil. So Scripture [i]ha...

AL, seems to me that your point could be true if one accepts the all-or-nothing epistemology that fundamentalism uses to prove the opposite: either it's inspired, and thus perfect, or imperfect, and thus un-inspired.
While fundamentalism's case is obviously deficient, I think it unwise to let them dictate the assumptions, which create a false syllogism.
What is inspiration? Some strains of Christianity have long held that the God-human interaction was imperfect, yet capable of accomplishing all God intended. Fundamentalism, though, sprang from Calvinism, which was passionate about its idea that God operates completely on his own, humans being utterly powerless and evil. So Scripture had to be flawless in every detail.
But others have held that the essence of the God-human interaction was that God so treasured humanity that he created humans that also create in freedom. Scripture becomes, then, a reflection of the interaction, not a wooden dictation process.
Further, the idea of God growing is not as far out as many have taught - Jesus certainly "grows in wisdom and stature and favor with God and men." Jesus by the time of the cross is very different than Jesus early in his ministry, ever learning. God himself is said to change his mind after the flood, resolving not to go that way again. And, of course, Christianity springs from what is said to be God's decision to create a new way of interacting with humans.
While fundamentalism would find this so heretical as to over-rule the obvious, it really is much more complex than simply declaring yea or nay. Not knowing exactly what inspiration is, we can end up assuming it can't be, only to discover that all we're saying is that inspiration as simplistically defined by fundamentalists doesn't add up.
Which is a bit like saying I won't ever fly because I know a guy who crashed a home-built.

either it's inspired, and thus perfect, or imperfect, and thus un-inspired.

True. How else can one claim inspiration is from a god?

While fundamentalism's case is obviously deficient, I think it unwise to let them dictate the assumptions, which create a false syllogism.

It wouldn't be, because we BOTH hold the presupposition that if scripture is false, it cannot be from a god.

Fundamentalism's case is deficient not because they assume scripture is inspired from a god and therefore not false, but because as certain scripture is shown to be factually false, it serves as its own demonstration that it cannot be from a god.

--

others have he...

read more»

either it's inspired, and thus perfect, or imperfect, and thus un-inspired.

True. How else can one claim inspiration is from a god?

While fundamentalism's case is obviously deficient, I think it unwise to let them dictate the assumptions, which create a false syllogism.

It wouldn't be, because we BOTH hold the presupposition that if scripture is false, it cannot be from a god.

Fundamentalism's case is deficient not because they assume scripture is inspired from a god and therefore not false, but because as certain scripture is shown to be factually false, it serves as its own demonstration that it cannot be from a god.

--

others have held that the essence of the God-human interaction was that God so treasured humanity that he created humans that also create in freedom. Scripture becomes, then, a reflection of the interaction, not a wooden dictation process.

That's an elaborate cop-out. It stakes no claim to accuracy while maintaining it's divinity. On what grounds is it divine or inspired, if it's false (or not accurate)?

It essentially says, "that God so treasured humanity" that he allowed false scripture to be his word.

I think that excuse is demeaning to god and human; either it's god's word or somebody made it up.

--

Christianity springs from what is said to be God's decision to create a new way of interacting with humans.

Would it be too simple to just come down from the clouds and say "hello" like he did in the old testament?

Let's face it. These are all excuses why god doesn't just "show up" and tell us all what's up.

The same reason god doesn't show up is the same reason he doesn't do anything resembling an omniscient being. From errant texts to changing morals, the simplest explanation answers all this with ease.

The Hebrew concept of perfection means something like "perfectly suited to accomplish its intended purpose." A green apple, for example, could be a "perfect" apple, though not yet suitable for eating. It isn't perfect in the way we use the term in Western culture.

Similarly, those many denominations of Wesleyan theology tend toward a definition of Biblical inspiration that holds the Bible to be perfectly suited for its purpose: the spiritual development of its readers. That it may not reflect current thought on geology or history or astronomy - that's not it's purpose.

That it must be accurate in all regards in order to be inspired neglects the human side of the equation. God does not ...

The Hebrew concept of perfection means something like "perfectly suited to accomplish its intended purpose." A green apple, for example, could be a "perfect" apple, though not yet suitable for eating. It isn't perfect in the way we use the term in Western culture.

Similarly, those many denominations of Wesleyan theology tend toward a definition of Biblical inspiration that holds the Bible to be perfectly suited for its purpose: the spiritual development of its readers. That it may not reflect current thought on geology or history or astronomy - that's not it's purpose.

That it must be accurate in all regards in order to be inspired neglects the human side of the equation. God does not take possession of human minds and squeeze each syllable from their pens. But the spiritual instruction within it, reaching their clearest in Jesus, those are the elements to be regarded as inspired by God.

Early Mormons believed in a dictation theory, like the one your views would require, and there are probably others - but none I know personally, though fundamentalists sometimes border on it. At any rate, it's a straw man - you argue for a fundamentalist dichotomy, and there's no reason to assume it exists.

I am saying (in agreement with the fundamentalists) that: "we BOTH hold the presupposition that if scripture is false, it cannot be from a god."

You are saying: "At any rate, it's a straw man - you argue for a fundamentalist dichotomy, and there's no reason to assume it exists."
--
A fundamentalist dichotomy -- that the bible must be true if it's from god; not true, not from god. And you're saying, there's no reason to assume that.
--

Do I understand that correctly?

Because if that's the case, "It stakes no claim to accuracy while maintaining it's divinity."

Therein lies the spiritual fraud! It admits no respect for truth (according to your argument, it need not be ...

I am saying (in agreement with the fundamentalists) that: "we BOTH hold the presupposition that if scripture is false, it cannot be from a god."

You are saying: "At any rate, it's a straw man - you argue for a fundamentalist dichotomy, and there's no reason to assume it exists."
--
A fundamentalist dichotomy -- that the bible must be true if it's from god; not true, not from god. And you're saying, there's no reason to assume that.
--

Do I understand that correctly?

Because if that's the case, "It stakes no claim to accuracy while maintaining it's divinity."

Therein lies the spiritual fraud! It admits no respect for truth (according to your argument, it need not be bound by it), while billing itself as such.

Masbury. If divinity isn't bound by truth, it is not bound by honesty, it thus cannot be a moral guide, and it cannot be spiritual. It makes god a liar, and the false his word.

Is lying morally wrong?

--

God does not take possession of human minds and squeeze each syllable from their pens.

You have no way of knowing that. You're speaking from faith. But faith is epistemologically invalid. In short, you just made that up to account for error. Again, is dishonesty spiritual?

But the spiritual instruction within it, reaching their clearest in Jesus, those are the elements to be regarded as inspired by God.

What spiritual instruction? If it can't be depended on to be true, which part is spiritual?


If truth has no bearing on anything divine, then ANY text can make the claim to be god's word, and be equally valid.

Is there anything else in life that you defend as ardently for being false?

There's a difference, AL, between truth and absolute inerrancy. Your position is deeply rooted in modernism's black-or-white view of everything, and that is a view that is rapidly fading from western culture. Ironically, its last bastion is conservative Christianity.

That something must be perfect in every way in order to be true is no more than the bias of modernism. It appears objective, but it is not - it's a blindly ethnocentric view, linked to a particular culture and moment in time.
I wonder if this isn't a bit like the way the Pope opposed Galileo's round earth - defending not what is, but what fading traditionalism says must be. For if a 2,000-year-old Asian faith must pass a ...

There's a difference, AL, between truth and absolute inerrancy. Your position is deeply rooted in modernism's black-or-white view of everything, and that is a view that is rapidly fading from western culture. Ironically, its last bastion is conservative Christianity.

That something must be perfect in every way in order to be true is no more than the bias of modernism. It appears objective, but it is not - it's a blindly ethnocentric view, linked to a particular culture and moment in time.
I wonder if this isn't a bit like the way the Pope opposed Galileo's round earth - defending not what is, but what fading traditionalism says must be. For if a 2,000-year-old Asian faith must pass a 19th-century western-European litmus test in order to be other than fraudulent, then we are in agreement and I concede; that is a test it will not pass.

There's a difference, AL, between truth and absolute inerrancy.

That something must be perfect in every way in order to be true is no more than the bias of modernism.

You are substituting one for the other, and then attacking the other. You are right that they are not the same. But I'm not talking about absolute inerrancy. I AM talking about truth.

A passage can say, 2+2 is 4; or it can say 2 and 2 equals four; or it can say two plus two make 4.

These can be stated literally, metaphorically, in parable, verse, prose or sign.

And they can ALL lay claim to being god's word fine.

But they may NOT conclude 2+2 to be 7 while claiming to be true, truth, or the w...

There's a difference, AL, between truth and absolute inerrancy.

That something must be perfect in every way in order to be true is no more than the bias of modernism.

You are substituting one for the other, and then attacking the other. You are right that they are not the same. But I'm not talking about absolute inerrancy. I AM talking about truth.

A passage can say, 2+2 is 4; or it can say 2 and 2 equals four; or it can say two plus two make 4.

These can be stated literally, metaphorically, in parable, verse, prose or sign.

And they can ALL lay claim to being god's word fine.

But they may NOT conclude 2+2 to be 7 while claiming to be true, truth, or the word of an innerant god because the STATEMENT is false!

How can it be the word of an all knowing god when the STATEMENT is false? Is god's word false? If so, it is worthless.

If Galileo spoke the truth, why did the Pope think it was wrong? From where did the Pope derive his knowledge? How could the Pope's knowledge be wrong if he got it from the bible? Isn't the bible god's word, the truth?

Where is the spiritual value of the earth being made on Day 1 while the stars were made on Day 4, when the STATEMENT is false?

Does that represent the knowledge of an all-knowing god?

Surely by now you can suspect that you're not defending truth; you are defending dogma (just like the Pope)!

But in your case, you are trying to give what you know to be false...a spiritual value. The Pope can claim ignorance because he really was. You, however, are not! (Which makes it even more egregious.)

I just think it's strange that in no other endeavor of knowledge that a fact is held with such contempt as in theology.

I just find it dishonest "for ME" to buy in to factual error as being from a god. There's just something wrong with that. Never mind the immorality of the god. God's aren't supposed to be stupid.

Please forgive my tone.

No problem with tone, thanks for your concern, tho.
No, the Pope didn't get his info from the Bible. Apparently, the Pope was under pressure from academics who were largely united behind the Aristotelian model.
It's a good example of what I'm suggesting. When the Bible says "the sun rises in the east and sets in the west" it isn't speaking with scientific intent or authority, and is technically incorrect. That's just the way people spoke in the culture of the writer. If that's an example the Pope used to refute Galileo (though it appears refutation wasn't something the church thought necessary, typically), then he used Scripture in error to justify a cultural view, much as fundamentali...

No problem with tone, thanks for your concern, tho.
No, the Pope didn't get his info from the Bible. Apparently, the Pope was under pressure from academics who were largely united behind the Aristotelian model.
It's a good example of what I'm suggesting. When the Bible says "the sun rises in the east and sets in the west" it isn't speaking with scientific intent or authority, and is technically incorrect. That's just the way people spoke in the culture of the writer. If that's an example the Pope used to refute Galileo (though it appears refutation wasn't something the church thought necessary, typically), then he used Scripture in error to justify a cultural view, much as fundamentalism does with many verses that echo the sympathies of moral conservatives today.
My point is simply that that in itself doesn't tell us much about the Bible either way.

"In that day" we commonly say, meaning another time or period of history, eg., in that day, people were shorter than today.

Certainly the Creation account can't reasonably be held to be literal. "God spoke" obviously means something other than we mean when you or I speak. Use of metaphor doesn't mean 2 + 2 = 7.

Ahh, you make my point. PEOPLE are subject to culture, to metaphor and the like. The words subject to these interpretations are at best limited by the writers and readers, that is to say, other people.

The word of a god, however, would transcend these limitations as god's word is not subject to the culture in which they are written. Lest how could god's ...

"In that day" we commonly say, meaning another time or period of history, eg., in that day, people were shorter than today.

Certainly the Creation account can't reasonably be held to be literal. "God spoke" obviously means something other than we mean when you or I speak. Use of metaphor doesn't mean 2 + 2 = 7.

Ahh, you make my point. PEOPLE are subject to culture, to metaphor and the like. The words subject to these interpretations are at best limited by the writers and readers, that is to say, other people.

The word of a god, however, would transcend these limitations as god's word is not subject to the culture in which they are written. Lest how could god's word be distinguished from that of a man?

Oh, but in fact, we cannot distinguish them from the words of a man, can we? The fact of error, the fact of cultural influence, the fact of interpretation even today, all establish the limitations of communication between and by man.

What kind of god is this that cannot communicate clearly to his own subjects? Surely not the creator of all creation; from the elemental atom to the immensity of the cosmos.

Yet this same omniscience can't communicate his own word except in a patchwork of contradictions and factual error?

Remember, this is the same god that had Moses slay an entire city of men, women and children who preferred to keep their own freedom than to submit. (But the young virgin girls they could keep for themselves!)

He was pretty explicit back then! But I digress.

Come on, Masbury, is this really coming from a god?

Does it SOUND like the word of a god? Truly, if you hadn't accepted the meme that the bible was "god's word" when you read it, would you have concluded it?

Are you aware that all along you've been defending the simple question: "Why isn't it true?"

1. Last question first: What creed is it that you believe I defend? I find creeds intriguing, but not especially authoritative.
2. I began to seriously read the Bible as a young agnostic university professor 30 years ago. I did not believe it to be the word of God when I began. And I don't think I believe it to be the word of God today in the way you describe.
3. Language is a product of culture. If God is going to say something in language, it will be said and heard culturally. There is no language available that does otherwise, and no person on earth who hears language without imputing cultural meaning to it. Perhaps God could choose to speak in a way that transcends culture, b...

1. Last question first: What creed is it that you believe I defend? I find creeds intriguing, but not especially authoritative.
2. I began to seriously read the Bible as a young agnostic university professor 30 years ago. I did not believe it to be the word of God when I began. And I don't think I believe it to be the word of God today in the way you describe.
3. Language is a product of culture. If God is going to say something in language, it will be said and heard culturally. There is no language available that does otherwise, and no person on earth who hears language without imputing cultural meaning to it. Perhaps God could choose to speak in a way that transcends culture, but it'd be kind of silly: since human brains don't process language extra-culturally, no one would get it!
4. I've been a pastor for 21 years, all in one place. I've watched as abusers have become exceptional spouses. I've watched my own behavior change into that of a person I could more readily respect. I've seen divorced people slowly fall in love with one another again and create non-toxic relationships. Week after week, I've watched as people take one more tiny step away from destructivity toward wholeness.
There certainly have been notorious exceptions. But an awful lot of that happened as people discovered something in the Bible that came alive to them, igniting a bit of light in places they hadn't wanted to look at in themselves, and giving them hope for something better.
How that fits your definitions of literality, etc., beats me. But there has been some kind of a reality there, year after year, that has made me and others better, kinder, stronger people than we were the year before.
Maybe truth isn't even the right word for it, who knows? I doubt that I can explain it in a way that adds up on the grid you're describing - I'm sorry, I'd like to. But when all is said and done, I have to look at my own life and the lives of many friends over two or three decades and s

What kind of god is this that cannot communicate clearly to his own subjects?

PS: What would happen if you shifted from defending the creed, to defending the truth, literally?

There is no language available that does otherwise, and no person on
earth who hears language without imputing cultural meaning to it.
Perhaps God could choose to speak in a way that transcends culture, but
it'd be kind of silly: since human brains don't process language
extra-culturally, no one would get it!

Gee ... 60 comments ... i have to put my fingers in this ...
I have spended the all evening today talking about deep matters with a friend of mine, in english, witch is ...

What kind of god is this that cannot communicate clearly to his own subjects?

PS: What would happen if you shifted from defending the creed, to defending the truth, literally?

There is no language available that does otherwise, and no person on
earth who hears language without imputing cultural meaning to it.
Perhaps God could choose to speak in a way that transcends culture, but
it'd be kind of silly: since human brains don't process language
extra-culturally, no one would get it!

Gee ... 60 comments ... i have to put my fingers in this ...
I have spended the all evening today talking about deep matters with a friend of mine, in english, witch is not my natural language, and i had to struggle a bit to be understandable. But in some way, i didn't have to struggle that much. Because we were somewhat "tuned" together. And the meaning of what we have to say was - kind of - preceding the words.

Maybe it will be usefull to remember that semitic languages (in witch the Bible and the Quran were written) have a deeper level of meaning than english or french, as each letter in the aleph-beith have his own inner meaning. To understand a word, u have to understand the letters in it. So, where is "the litteral truth" ? What kind of intimacy one have to develop with the semitic sacred text to - really - understand it ?

Creed -- 1. A formal statement of religious belief; a confession of faith.

Perhaps God could choose to speak in a way that transcends culture, but it'd be kind of silly: since human brains don't process language extra-culturally, no one would get it!

See? You're defending a creed, here, not a truth. I'm quite certain (as are you, if you think about it) that god can perfectly well say 2+2 = 4 in any language he so chooses, with perfect understanding.

You needed to assume we would not understand, because to do so would discount the errors and contradictions that are (supposedly) his word.

Was Moses dumbfounded whenever god uttered a word, citing cultural differences...

Creed -- 1. A formal statement of religious belief; a confession of faith.

Perhaps God could choose to speak in a way that transcends culture, but it'd be kind of silly: since human brains don't process language extra-culturally, no one would get it!

See? You're defending a creed, here, not a truth. I'm quite certain (as are you, if you think about it) that god can perfectly well say 2+2 = 4 in any language he so chooses, with perfect understanding.

You needed to assume we would not understand, because to do so would discount the errors and contradictions that are (supposedly) his word.

Was Moses dumbfounded whenever god uttered a word, citing cultural differences? Is the earth being created on Day 1 (whatever time a day means) and the stars being created on Day 4, a CULTURAL problem?

No Masbury, there is no cultural problem with the "meaning" of which came first and which came after.

To claim "cultural differences" in statements of apparent fact, is to attempt to "hide" the literal (actual) meaning to cover the factual error. This is a defense of the creed at the expense of the truth.

To claim that people have been helped by the bible is certainly true. Belief is a powerful, life-changing thing. Same for the Koran, the Gita, the Upanishads, and so forth.

To discount the centuries of torture and pillage because of that same bible or belief in Jesus, is no less true. To say the good came from a god, the bad did not, is defending the creed, not the truth.

Did Jesus, knowing the future, ever say "Do not kill or torture in my name ever?" thus saving thousands from the brutality of "god's word?"

Somehow the parable of "turn the other cheek" didn't void "heaven based on grace" when deed would have done the trick. Another cultural error on god's part?

Faith can either be true, or it can be “not true”.
On which side would be god?

Masbury - u got my point. The probability that two peoples understand each other depends much more on their desire to understand & to be understood than any linguistical matter. If the desire is real, even if their languages are different, they will eventually understand each other. Here i don't define the truth as some "inner quality of a proposition" but as a propriety of the exchange between two people, based on reciprocity. I think that "paradigm" is the linguistical term to indicate that "state of reciprocal understanding".

The history of human culture is more based on oral transmission, than on writing (5,000 years of written culture vs ~100,000 years of oral culture). In case...

Masbury - u got my point. The probability that two peoples understand each other depends much more on their desire to understand & to be understood than any linguistical matter. If the desire is real, even if their languages are different, they will eventually understand each other. Here i don't define the truth as some "inner quality of a proposition" but as a propriety of the exchange between two people, based on reciprocity. I think that "paradigm" is the linguistical term to indicate that "state of reciprocal understanding".

The history of human culture is more based on oral transmission, than on writing (5,000 years of written culture vs ~100,000 years of oral culture). In case of oral transmission, the speaker is directly dealing with the relationship between his formulation and the understanding of the listener. If you read the Bible, the Quran or the Gita, how can you be sure of the "truth" of your interpretation if you are not accompanied by some scholar who has dedicated his entire life to understand these texts ? Is the "truth", in that case, a propriety of the text, or a propriety of your relasionship with this scholar ?

AcesLucky - how can u be sure that the non-ambiguous distinction you make between creed and truth is valid (is not the consequence of your personal belief) ?

Teosoma - brilliant! I have never thought of this, but it explains many things. It suggests, for instance, that perhaps alarmists don't understand Ahmadinejad or Chavez because they don't want to. The desire to understand and be understood also suggests respect and careful examination of what the other's motives might be - and that takes me way out of my "comfort zone," and sacrifices a degree of control of the dialogue. Manipulation of what the other said would be completely undesireable.
And there are huge implications for religious understanding here, too. I have observed often that those who want to know discover much; those who want [i]not[i/] to know seem to spin in circles....

Teosoma - brilliant! I have never thought of this, but it explains many things. It suggests, for instance, that perhaps alarmists don't understand Ahmadinejad or Chavez because they don't want to. The desire to understand and be understood also suggests respect and careful examination of what the other's motives might be - and that takes me way out of my "comfort zone," and sacrifices a degree of control of the dialogue. Manipulation of what the other said would be completely undesireable.
And there are huge implications for religious understanding here, too. I have observed often that those who want to know discover much; those who want [i]not[i/] to know seem to spin in circles. One could assume the former to be self-deceived by their own desire. Or, it could follow that, as in all relationships, the desire to interact, even with God, was a prerequisite to understanding. That seems to have often been the case - both ways - in my life.
You have given me much to think about. Thank you!
Where did you learn it?
Monte

AcesLucky:

Was Moses dumbfounded whenever god uttered a word, citing cultural differences?

Of course not! The essence of God's interaction with humans, typified, I believe, most clearly in the incarnation, is that God leaves behind his ways and enters the culture of the person to whom he speaks. The greater problem is in human to human interaction cross-culturally. When I prepare for preaching, one of the important questions is "What did the original hearers of these words probably understand them to mean when they first heard them?"

Creed -- 1. A formal statement of religious belief; a confession of faith. ... See? You're defending a creed, here ...

I'm no...

AcesLucky:

Was Moses dumbfounded whenever god uttered a word, citing cultural differences?

Of course not! The essence of God's interaction with humans, typified, I believe, most clearly in the incarnation, is that God leaves behind his ways and enters the culture of the person to whom he speaks. The greater problem is in human to human interaction cross-culturally. When I prepare for preaching, one of the important questions is "What did the original hearers of these words probably understand them to mean when they first heard them?"

Creed -- 1. A formal statement of religious belief; a confession of faith. ... See? You're defending a creed, here ...

I'm not following you here. What is the "formal statement of religious belief" that I follow?

To discount the centuries of torture and pillage because of that same bible or belief in Jesus, is no less true.

Think the Crusaders carried pocket New Testaments? Hardly! Reading of the Bible in Europe was prohibited by the clergy. Happening before the printing press, the only Bible in each village was chained up in the church. And happening before widespread literacy, the Gideons wouldn't have done much good anyway. The only Bible known by most Crusaders was that little taught them by the very people who were drumming up the troops!. And you can bet "love your enemies" wasn't a common sermon title.

Belief in Jesus as represented by the Bible would never lead one to "torture and pillage." I can't imagine any serious scholar - Christian or not - would disagree. Power and ignorance have conspired often