Let ME Tell You What YOU Think (Trust Me, I Know Best...): The Pharisee's Whitemansplaining

 I had said:

"For people like me, do you realize that I/we are not saying that Scripture is unreliable? We're saying that we disagree with your human understanding of Scripture?"

No, Dan, that's not what you are saying. First, if "people like me" includes feodor, he absolutely denies the reliability of Scripture. He gets direct input from the Holy Spirit which overrides all that falsehood. But even you say that Genesis was myth, not real. You can't take it as written. You say that the Pentateuch was wrong about such things as sacrifices and sin. That would be too barbaric. You say that God didn't command Israel to wipe out that Amalekite clan. Your God wouldn't do that. You have a long list of things, Old Testament and New, that are ... wrong. Further, you adamantly argue that Scripture is not without error. Scripture is indeed wrong in places. And you don't believe it is a reliable source for morality. You don't need biblical morality when you know better. It's only partially reliable for telling us about Jesus. No, Dan, that is not any kind of a reliable Scripture, my interpretation or not.

Look at that. Dan: "I didn't say that, I don't think that."

Stan: "Yes, Dan, you DID say that and it IS what you believe."

For the record, I have never said that "Scripture is unreliable." I do not think that Scripture is unreliable.

I do not think that the pages of the Bible are "unreliable," nor do I think that God's Will is unreliable. It's literally not what I believe. I don't know that I think any group of stories are unreliable. I don't think Harry Potter is unreliable. I don't think that Carl Sagan's book, Cosmos, is unreliable. I don't think that Gilgamesh or other ancient texts are unreliable.

They're literally texts, told in a style or in a series of style. In the case of ancient stories, we do not know authoritatively what the authors' intents were. We just don't. To call such texts "unreliable," is not rational. It's text.

But, HOW we humans interpret such texts may or may not be reliable or valid or rational. You see, it's all about interpretation.

Did Jesus literally say that the reason he'd come was to preach good news to the poor and marginalized? Did he literally mean what the text says? We can't prove it one way or another, can we? But, we can look at the whole of Jesus' teachings as found in biblical text and say, GIVEN the complete text and context, it is reasonable that Jesus was speaking of literally poor and marginalized people.

Did the storytellers passing on the Genesis creation story intend it to be a literal history or something like that? Or was it simply told in the mythic style common to the day with no intention (or understanding of) modern history-telling methods? Well, we can't prove what their intentions were, but we can say the latter is a reasonable conclusion.

To consider a given biblical text to be told in a mythic, legendary, parabolic, historic or other style is NOT to say that the texts are unreliable. It's just using our God-given reasoning to try to understand the genre a story is being told in.

Disagreeing with other humans' opinions on the genre is not saying that "scripture is unreliable." It's literally just not.

Stan:

even you say that Genesis was myth, not real.

The definition of Myth is not "Unreal." The opposite of myth is not "Real." Myth is a figurative storytelling device/genre to pass on explanations for origins of Things. Myth is NOT intended to be literal history. Literal, linear history-telling in the manner we're familiar with today just wasn't employed in any ancient texts (at least that anyone has point out to me or that I've seen). Genesis 1 and 2 are written in what appears to be a mythic style (as are other parts of Genesis). We have no reason to guess, "But MAYBE the authors/storytellers INTENDED it to be taken as a literal history, demonstrating that the universe and earth came into being in SIX literal earth days about 6,000 years ago."

That I don't presume to guess that ancient stories were written in a literal, linear historic method (or something like it) is literally NOT the same as saying Genesis was not real. Any more than saying the story of the World Turtle is not "real." It's a myth. It's a storytelling manner common to the time period. The Bible never says otherwise. God has never told us otherwise.

WHY is disagreeing with modern conservative Christians the same as dismissing the Bible or not believing the Bible? Is this not the folly of the Pharisee? "If you disagree with what WE humans are telling you what God wants, you're disagreeing with God!!!"

Just like the Pharisees, there is a need to humble ourselves. Overt arrogance and  bullying is never a rational starting point.

Dan truly does know best what Dan thinks.

No Sacred Cows, Here (subtitle: Slavery and rape are just wrong, d'uh!)

Craig, on his blog, recently wrote, speaking of me (and not understanding my position correctly):

"He claims that "slavery is evil", which presumes that objective "evil" exists and that slavery meets that objective standards for being objectively "evil". Yet his only evidence to back up his objective claim, is that there is some sort of consensus among some group of people that agree with his opinion on the matter. Clearly there are millions of people who believe that slavery is not "evil" and that slavery is good."

Just to clarify what he's not understanding...

1. I've been quite clear that none of us can objectively prove our opinions about moral questions.  So, of course,  given that clear starting point, saying slavery is evil does NOT presume that we can objectively prove evil. Your premise is rationally flawed and not based in reality.

2. Claiming that "slavery is evil", then, does not presume that objective "evil" exists and can be objectively proven.

3. Rather,  it presumes that we can find rational moral ground based on fairly universal notions of a golden rule and human rights. That, IF a society - or, a group of societies - can agree that humans have basic human rights and generally an obligation to do no harm to others, THEN, we can generate some basic levels of rules and rights that we can agree upon.

4. Furthermore,  it presumes that some actions - slavery, rape, murder... are SO overtly bad and harmful, that it is important for rational, moral people strive to prevent them... EVEN IF Craig (or anyone else) is impotent to objectively prove they are wrong.

I asked Craig if he could agree that HE couldn't objectively prove slavery and rape are wrong? If he agreed that it is important to fight against them even if he can't prove they're wrong, objectively? (Craig doesn't entertain these sorts of questions, strangely. Refuses to answer them directly. Weird. He refuses to stake out a position on opposing rape and slavery as always grotesquely wrong/evil/bad. At best, he'll offer a meek, "Well, I personally find them offensive..." WTH?)

5.He has not proven that millions of people think, as he does, that slavery is sometimes acceptable. (And that is correct,  isn't it...? - I asked Craig. "You do think, for instance,  if "god" commands you to enslave someone or kill babies, then it is not an immoral action in that case?" No direct answer. Marshal has been clear that if he thinks "God" directs someone to kill babies with a sword or enslave others, that it isn't evil... that it's moral, even! Craig, instead, obfuscates.)

6. Even if there are "millions " of people who think slavery is sometimes acceptable, in a world of eight billion people, millions is just a fraction (ie, even if eight million supported slavery - a premise not proven - eight million is just .1% of eight billion).

So, even if .1% disagree, the rest of humanity - the far and away vast majority of humanity - can come to rational, moral conclusions against slavery, in spite of the outliers, and indeed, it is vital that we do so. Agreed?

No answer.

Strange how the "moral majority" can't denounce in harsh terms the single most narcissistic, sexist, greedy, un-Christ-like president in our lifetimes and they can't clearly denounce rape/slavery as always a great evil... AND that they don't even blink an eye... they don't wonder why the (no doubt) majority of rational moral adults find that appalling and actually vulgar and evil in the extreme.

Religion/Human Traditions Eclipsing God

I've requested that frequent commenter, Marshal, only comment and make claim facts IF he provides objective proof of his claims. I'm holding him to that requirement because he so frequently offers his opinions as if they were THE Word of God. As if they were objective, proven facts. I am relatively sure that he doesn't even understand that his opinions are not objectively proven, but I can't say that without sounding presumptuous. Nonetheless, that's how it seems.

I also suspect that, at some level, Marshal recognizes that he can't prove his opinions, that they are indeed, subjective human opinions based upon his traditions, but he can't bring himself to admit it.

Nonetheless, I am interested in commenting on a comment he made a couple of posts back (where his non-answers went on for 200 comments and I'm making that a hard deadline).

I had said:

"Also and likewise, I'm much less concerned about the details of Jesus' resurrection and more interested in his actual teachings."

And Marshal responded:

To what "details" are you referring? That He actually rose from the dead, or something like what He wore that day? Regardless, His teachings are worthless and not at all binding without the resurrection. Without the resurrection, He wasn't Who He said He was.

Marshal states that HE personally believes that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, Jesus' teachings are worthless. We should not gloss past that. Listen again:

Marshal personally holds the opinion that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, Jesus' teachings are worthless... NOT AT ALL BINDING.

Wow.

Marshal doesn't care about Jesus' words, apart from a resurrection. In Marshal's own words, he said:

His teachings are worthless and
not at all binding
without the resurrection.

Without the resurrection,
Jesus wasn't Who He said He was.

That's an astounding claim to make for someone who claims to love Jesus and his teachings and to love God and God's way. IF Jesus did not rise from the dead, he was not God.

Put another way, IF Marshal finds out that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, Marshal would not believe in Jesus as God or Christianity, I suppose. That seems like a reasonable thing to take away from Marshal's words. (Marshal, you may clarify if you'd like SO LONG AS you don't make a fact claim that is actually a subjective opinion and treat it as a given.)

Now, Marshal has not supported his claim that Jesus could only be God IF he rose from the dead. That is Marshal's subjective opinion, not a proven fact. As if God were limited to being God with a resurrection. And he's welcome to his opinion. But he should not treat it as a proven fact or anything but a subjective opinion.

For what it's worth, I happen to believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead. I think there is sufficient proof for that, although it certainly can't be objectively proven. My point is only that I follow Jesus because I follow his Way, his Teachings, what he considered important. NOT because he rose from the dead. Jesus' teachings are sound, impressive, life-giving and life-affirming. His teachings ARE a resurrection, regardless of whether he physically rose from the dead.

I think that I, in the past, was missing the point when I focused on the resurrection and not the teachings, not the Way of Grace.  I hope not to make that mistake in the future. In the past when I held that position, I was limiting God, and that's not a good look.

Harm and Human Rights as a Measure for Morality

Stan, at his blog, recently addressed a post citing my concern about harm done to innocent people. The gist of his post is that "harm" as a measure for morality, is an imperfect measure. We, as people, won't be able to agree on what is and isn't harmful and HOW harmful something is. This, is, of course, not mistaken. Harm - and the extended notion of human rights - is not an objectively definable measure for morality.

Stan's conclusion, then, of course, was, "But we have the Bible and what GOD tells us, and that's a better measure." (My words, not his, but I do not think it's an unfair representation of the gist of his post. My response to Stan (not one that he posts or will post, but he's probably read - I know this because he routinely responds to my questions, even if he doesn't actually answer them).

Given your premises in this post - that harm is an imperfect measure of morality, that maybe your religious opinions and interpretations of the Bible are more reliable, I think a good-faith point to raise would be to consider the benefits of the notions of "harm" and human rights are to considering moral questions and policies and the PROBLEMS of religious opinion and holy texts. Namely...

1. While it is a given that notions of "harm" and human rights are an inexact measure, they ARE at least a measure.  Further, they are a measure that people could look to regardless if they are conservative or liberal, evangelical Christian, Catholic Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or non-religious. It is a fairly universal measure, and that's not nothing.

2. Broadly speaking, we can see that most religions and secular groups can affirm the notion of human rights and can affirm the notion of the various golden rules, common to all religions - do unto others. In general, that is a widely accepted truth.

3. Further, it's not THAT complex, in broad terms: We should not be able to deprive others of their lives, of their livelihoods, people should not be beaten or raped or have their homes burned down. It's relatively understandable and reasonable and agreeable for most people. Thus, "harm," while an imperfect measure, IS a helpful measure and a fairly universal measure, at least in broad terms.

4. On the other hand, if we're going to appeal to "My Religious Text" or "My religion," we immediately fall into the very difficult problem of WHOSE religious text, WHOSE religion, WHOSE version of that religion, WHOSE interpretation of those texts? What of those who don't SHARE that religion's premises and policies and opinions?

Do you see? There is no universal or objective source or decider to has the authority to make that call/those calls.

5. For my part, as a person of faith and what might be called a religious person, I would want no part of setting up policies based upon my religious beliefs or my views of particular texts wholly to me. To try to force policy based on any one person/set of person/subset of some religion is problematic on the face of it. EVEN for the religious ones who might at some level delight in the notion of a Religious Realm. That would be a great threat to a society, wouldn't you think? The fights and oppression and chaos that would potentially bring?

6. No, on a local, state of national level, I want policies that are rational and can be appealed to on the basis of harm and human rights, because in a multicultural, poly-religious world, that makes the most sense.

I would argue for support human rights and self-determination for LGBTQ folks NOT because I believe it's what God would approve (which I do) but because it's also rational. Of course, free humans should be able to make their own decisions about marriage, who they love, their children, etc... So long as they're not causing harm to others.

I would argue for support of parents raising their children as they deem best not because I think God approves (although I do think that), but because of human rights and self-determination... so long as they're not causing harm to that child.

I would argue for rights of people to move from one place to another - especially if they're escaping danger or starvation/deprivation - NOT because I think the Bible tells us so (although, of course, it does) but because of human rights and harm prevention... So long as they immigrants in question do no harm.

Can you acknowledge the benefit of "harm" and human rights as a policy measure in a multicultural setting, especially as opposed to one group's personal religious opinions?