h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

Religion is politics conducted by other means. And vice versa.

Noggin

Here's the link for you, kea:

F19585?thread=478094


az

<>

You still haven't answered the question, Della, which is - *who* decides this and by what criteria or authority? Is it simply personal preference?


az

This starts to look, azahar, like one of Hoo/Member/Number's questions that he doesn't really want an answer to!
I have answered this on this thread or another, in the last few days - reason, authority and experience.
The real question is - why are you and he not satisfied? Why do you both find the idea that not all Christians take all scripture literally, so threatening? Is it simply that if it's *not* necessary to take it all literally, it can't be ridiculed so easily?
Contrary to general belief, the idea of multiple layers of meaning is not a new one, and goes back to at least the 3rd century AD, or CE if you prefer... Check out Origen for one.
I googled this site, which is you really *do* want to know, might help answer some questions...
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/8-rules.html
An extract:
"Obviously, an incorrect genre judgment will lead one far astray in interpreting Scripture. A parable should not be treated as history, nor should poetry or prophesy (both of which contain many symbols) be treated as straightforward narrative. The wise interpreter allows his knowledge of genres to control how (he) approaches each individual biblical text. In this way, he can accurately determine what the biblical author was intending to communicate to the reader."
Try this one as well...
http://www.bethel.edu/~letnie/AfricanChristianity/EgyptTheologiansOrigen.html
Extract - "Origen’s theology was rigidly Biblical, and the bulk of his writing consisted of direct Biblical exegesis. However, he was a strong proponent of the allegorical intrepretation of the Bible, and always valued spiritual interpretations over physical ones. He was one of the first theologians to argue that the petition in the Lord’s Prayer ought to read, not "Give us this day our daily bread" but "give us this day our spiritual bread." In general his treated each passage of scripture as possessing three layers of meaning -- the literal (bodily), , the moral (application) and the allegorical, or figurative (spiritual). "
That'll do to be going on with, as I say, if you really *want* to know..

As a general principle the idea that *all* texts have to be interpreted by the reader is fine. And that this is done in the light of the reader's other beliefs, whether derived from reason, experience, authority, or some other source, is inevitable.

However one must be wary of claims like this(first link):-

"Instead of superimposing a meaning on the biblical text, the objective interpreter seeks to discover the author's intended meaning (the only true meaning). One must recognize that what a passage means is fixed by the author and is not subject to alteration by readers. "Meaning" is determined by the author; it is discovered by readers."

The objective interpreter does indeed *try* to do this, but the best he can actually hope for is his own interpretation of the meaning intended by the author. Added to which, in this particular case, is the underlying asumption that, whether literally or by means of allegory, the author is alluding to something that is in some way "true".

To distil one's reasons for choosing a particular interpretation is not easy, but ultimately, it is one that has to be undertaken if one is to debate with people who have drawn different conclusions.

Noggin

Adelaide, an alternative to spiteful might be that these people feel rejected by the church, but still believe in and want to follow Jesus. Just a possibility.

>>"Why do you both find the idea that not all Christians take all scripture literally, so threatening?"

I think it's more a case of finding that a significant number around the world *do* take it all literally that people find threatening.
In some ways, it's only indirectly a problem with Christianity providing ambiguous scripture, the main problem (as with other religions and non-falsifiable secular beleief systems) is that there are a significant number of people throughout the world thick, ignorant, or gullible enough to believe practically everything they're told by their leader, and a smaller number of people quite happy to *be* that leader.
I recognise that the kinds of people who end up as fundamentalists in religion X would likely have been just as bad in religion Y if they'd ben brought up that way. Unfortunately, i suspect that *they* don't.

One reason for the apparent concentration on the unthinking end of Christianity on h2g2 is that given the home countries of most researchers, Christianity is the main source of religious interference in domestic politics.
On a more personal level, I don't get parish magazines from the local mosque, synagogue or temple through my door telling me that homosexuality is wrong. The biased beliefs may still be there, but they don't push them in my face.

"Why do you both find the idea that not all Christians take all scripture literally, so threatening?"

What is irritating (not "threatening") is the bugeoning population of Christian (and Muslims and Jews, to be perfectly fair) who don't just take the Bible literally, but use the Bible to okay their racism (anti-Muslim and, ironically, anti-Jewish racism -- which I must point out is not, no matter how many people tell me it is, believing that Palestinians have rights, too), their sexism, their holier-than-thou-ism, and to fall back on whenever their arguments fail.

What irritates me is people who accuse others of "Christian-bashing" whenever they feel an argument isn't going their way.

Many of those who read the Bible any way they please because they claim they are Christians, when their words and actions prove otherwise, choose to fall back on the "you hate me because I am Chistian" when in actual fact one doesn't like them because they are making every effort to be unlikable.

The fact is that Big C Christians like to think they have the monopoly on being "Christian". I would argue that there are a hell of a lot more people on this planet that Jesus would have been happy to call "friend" who are Jews, Buddhists, Jains, Muslims, Christian, Pagans, Zoroastrians, and a myriad of other religions. For some reason, every time one says that Jesus would have felt differently about something, Christians either say it wouldn't matter what Jeses would have though or quote something else in the Bible that they think supercedes what Jesus said.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways, either Jesus is the final word of something or her isn't. Which is it?

I am reminded of something that happened to my father.

Many years ago, during one of the annual charity drives, then known as the Red Feather Appeal, my father raised the most money in the city of any individual. At a party afterwards, a woman came up and remarked on how wonderful it was for him to have done so well.... "How Christian."

He said "Thank you, but I'm not Christian. I'm Zoroastrian."

The woman turned on her heel and never spoke to him again.

It was easy for this woman to think that my father would have done a good deed out of Christian goodness. What she couldn't accept was that my father might have done this "despite" the fact he wasn't Christian.

Considering that much of what is in the Bible, the Jewish religion, and Christianity comes from Zoroastrian belief and practice, including the "Golden Rule", it is ironic that this woman chose to take insult because she could not accept that a Zoroastrian, a non-Christian, could do something "so Christian".

"Do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you"

I think ascribing beliefs to all Christians is as unhelpful as ascribing beliefs to all gays. There are many different kinds of Christians and it's either prejudicial or intellectually sloppy to talk about Christianity as one homogenous group.

I'd like to see people in this thread (and h2 in general for that matter) take the time to be more definitive about who they mean. Most Christians I know are no more homophobic than the general population, but then I don't know that many fundamentalist Christians.

I suspect that alot of people who are Christian and homophobic are homophobic whether they were Christian or not i.e. it's not the Christianity that makes them homophobic (or racist, sexist etc) it's who they are as a person. Or maybe I'm being naive

I also have a different sense of Christianity personally than most people here because I've been around thinking, compassionate Christians (who don't take the Bible literally). Because of this I'm going to find it much easier to believe that people here aren't anti-Christian on principle if they start to differentiate between different kinds or Christians, or different Christian view points.


>>>
As a general principle the idea that *all* texts have to be interpreted by the reader is fine. And that this is done in the light of the reader's other beliefs, whether derived from reason, experience, authority, or some other source, is inevitable.

However one must be wary of claims like this(first link):-
"Instead of superimposing a meaning on the biblical text, the objective interpreter seeks to discover the author's intended meaning (the only true meaning). One must recognize that what a passage means is fixed by the author and is not subject to alteration by readers. "Meaning" is determined by the author; it is discovered by readers."

The objective interpreter does indeed *try* to do this, but the best he can actually hope for is his own interpretation of the meaning intended by the author. Added to which, in this particular case, is the underlying asumption that, whether literally or by means of allegory, the author is alluding to something that is in some way "true".

To distil one's reasons for choosing a particular interpretation is not easy, but ultimately, it is one that has to be undertaken if one is to debate with people who have drawn different conclusions.
<<< (Noggin)

I think it's also important to take the context of the book into account when looking at interpretation. The Bible has been translated, revised and censored a number of times, and those changes were inherently political. Also the original authors were often relaying secondhand accounts, and had their own cultural biases. So when one is trying to understand what the author may have meant, one also has to take into account the perceptual bias of the author that 'he' may not have been aware of.

In the words of Bill Hicks, regarding biblical interpretation

"Well, what God *meant* to say was..."

>>"I suspect that alot of people who are Christian and homophobic are homophobic whether they were Christian or not i.e. it's not the Christianity that makes them homophobic (or racist, sexist etc) it's who they are as a person. Or maybe I'm being naive."

Quite possibly, but isn't it the point of Christanity to make people *better*, not just let them carry on. If it can't manage it on homophobia, can it manage it anywhere else.

Whatever the wider views in society may be, the only people other than the local church I could imagine pushing something through my letter box telling me that homosexuality was wrong are the BNP or maybe a few other more mainstream far-right-wingers.

Possibly a notable point was that when called to account, the best the local vicar could come up with to justify his homophobia was that he found the idea of men having sex with each other disturbing.
Well, I dare say that many people wouldn't exactly find the idea of their parents or grandparents having sex a fantastic turn-on, and I can think of numerous straight couples that I *really* wouldn't want to begin to imagine between the sheets on anything but a very empty stomach, but all that means is that we tend to be programmed to find imagining sex with people of a certain group a positive experience, but many other kinds of sex unattractive or downright offputting.
If someone else's group isn't the same as mine, it's really none of my business if they're of sound mind and legal age.

<>



As other have pointed out, Della, your links show that at best what one comes up with is simply another interpretation, *not* a definitive one.


az

I hope I live long enough to see all Religion destroyed utterly. All religion is devisive becuase everyone seems to think "My Religion is bigger than your religion". When are the people of the world who use this crap as a crutch going to wake up and smell the coffee?

In my ever so humble opinion, the world would be a happier, healthier and infinatly more safe place if all the religious factions just shut the hell up and left everyone to lead their own lives, rather than looking to some work of twaddle to justify their actions.

If this offends any religious people then I really dont care, because the continual spouting of "Religious" people doubly offends me.

>>>
>>"I suspect that alot of people who are Christian and homophobic are homophobic whether they were Christian or not i.e. it's not the Christianity that makes them homophobic (or racist, sexist etc) it's who they are as a person. Or maybe I'm being naive." (kea)

Quite possibly, but isn't it the point of Christanity to make people *better*, not just let them carry on. If it can't manage it on homophobia, can it manage it anywhere else. (Potholer)
>>>>

Yes, I agree partially with that. The point I was making though was to not lump all Christians together. I just did a very quick websearch to see what the Anglicans are up to on the issue of homosexuality. My impression was that at least in New Zealand there was some progressive thought on this, as well as the expected homophobia. What I came across in the websearch was that the Anglican Church is deeply divided, which says pretty clearly that there are Anglicans who are not homophobic (or at least are willing to address homophobia where it exists).

>>
A new study of gay and lesbian issues from an Aotearoa, NZ and Polynesia perspective is to be undertaken by this Church. 

General Synod / te Hinota Whanui agreed overwhelmingly to ask Standing Committee to set up a process that would also enable the Church to listen actively to the opinions of gay and lesbian persons, and to bring a report and recommendations to the next General Synod in two years' time.

Moving the motion, the Rev Edward Prebble pointed to increasing frustration over the Anglican Communion's inability to reach a common mind on issues relating to homosexuality. "There is deep disagreement among us, and it's a disagreement we can't ignore," he said. 

After a courteous and honest debate in which opposing views were aired, Synod agreed that gay and lesbian Anglicans' contribution to the life and ministry of this Church should be acknowledged and honoured. 

Synod also asked Standing Committee to set up a process for Episcopal units here to carefully study the forthcoming report of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Commission on the Communion. Moving the motion, the Rev Dr Peter Carrell said foundational theological principles were at stake in decisions to authorise same-sex blessings and to ordain a bishop who is openly living in a same-sex relationship. 

"Differences in the Communion are also evident in this Church," he said. "A number of clergy are uneasy about developments in America. There is also concern that our bishops have been unable to critique these developments." Synod agreed unanimously that responses here to the Commission's report should be collated and a report brought to the next meeting of the Synod.

A motion relating to the 1998 Lambeth resolution on human sexuality was withdrawn by leave of Synod.
<<
http://www.anglican.org.nz/news/Gay%20and%20Lesbian%20Study.htm (no date on this unfortunately but I think it is from the last few years).

I don't really know enough about the Anglican Church's position on this to make any definitive statements, and I tend to read and watch liberal media who are going to be more focussed on reporting tolerance anyway. And I'm sure the there are people better informed than me who will say that the Anglicans still have a long way to go.

But I do think that it is actually wrong to use the term Christian in a collective sense when discussing beliefs because there is obviously a big difference between Christians who are willing to sit down with gays and lesbians within the church and listen to them, and those Christians who think all homosexuals will burn in hell (we have those in NZ too, but they unlike in the US they tend to be viewed as weird).

>>>
Quite possibly, but isn't it the point of Christanity to make people *better*, not just let them carry on. If it can't manage it on homophobia, can it manage it anywhere else.
>>>>

Well it remains to be seen on homosexuality, but some Christian Churches have made progress on other issues. I remember back to when the Anglican Church was debating whether or not women should be ordained.


>>>
Possibly a notable point was that when called to account, the best the local vicar could come up with to justify his homophobia was that he found the idea of men having sex with each other disturbing. (Potholer)
>>>

I think this is what I am meaning - that people have their own personal feelings of homophobia and then they go looking for rationales for it (like scripture).

I hope I live long enough to see all Heterosexuality destroyed utterly. All Heterosexuality is devisive becuase everyone seems to think "My Heterosexuality is bigger than your Homosexuality". When are the people of the world who use this crap as a crutch going to wake up and smell the coffee?

In my ever so humble opinion, the world would be a happier, healthier and infinatly more safe place if all the Heterosexual factions just shut the hell up and left everyone to lead their own lives, rather than looking to some work of twaddle to justify their actions.

If this offends any Heterosexual people then I really dont care, because the continual spouting of "Heterosexual" people doubly offends me.

Ohhh, can I charge a fee for copying?

Ah, once again I find I am being talked about in my absence.

"This starts to look, azahar, like one of Hoo/Member/Number's questions that he doesn't really want an answer to!"

Actually, it sounds like one of my questions that I do want an answer to, but am p*ssing in the wind expecting one from you. hey ho.

"I have answered this on this thread or another"

Saying it's so don't make it so.

" in the last few days - reason, authority and experience."

And in response to that I explained, in painfully simple terms, why reason cannot be applied to interpretation, authority is a fallacious argument, and experience is worthless. You failed to respond to those substantive points. Why are you afraid to?

"The real question is - why are you and he not satisfied?"

Well, possibly because you do not answer the question asked. If you asked me how tall I am, and I said "Blue", would you be satisfied? Hardly, unless you were mentally subnormal. So, when we ask you questions, and your responses are non-sequiturs, logical fallacies, lies or nonsense, then we tend to ask you again. If you were honest enough to respond with "I am not prepared to answer that question.", we might leave you alone. Equally, we might ask why...

"Why do you both find the idea that not all Christians take all scripture literally, so threatening?"

I for one don't find it threatening. As someone else pointed out, it's Christians who DO take all scripture literally who I find threatening. Christians who don't take it all literally I merely consider confused, deluded or hypocritical - or "religious", as I prefer to summarise it.

"Is it simply that if it's *not* necessary to take it all literally, it can't be ridiculed so easily?"

Quite the contrary. It makes it MORE easy to ridicule Christians who pick and choose what they believe. Say what you like about Biblical literalists (and I do), you cannot fault their integrity. They believe the Bible is God-breathed literal truth, and behave accordingly. They hate homosexuals, believe the earth is six thousand years old, tigers were once vegetarian, bats are birds, hares chew the cud, pi is three, and that it is possible to fit a pair from every living land animal on a boat three hundred yards long and keep them there, healthy, for over a month.

However ridiculous you may consider WHAT they are required to believe, you can't fault their dedication.

It's the NON-literalist Christians who are the ridiculous ones - partly because there are damn many of them and no two of them seem to agree on what a Christian even IS, let alone which bits of the word of their god they should believe are literally true.

I mean, a decade or so ago there was an Anglican Bishop who was on public record as saying he didn't believe in the literal truth of the virgin birth or the resurrection. David Jenkins, Bishop of Durham. Now if you can advance to the position of Bishop while not actually believing two of the central myths of Christianity, surely that suggests that Christians as a whole and Anglicans in particular are a deeply confused and ridiculous bunch?

I'm sure he was a very "Christian" person, but as someone else pointed out, a lot of people use that word to mean "nice bloke", ignorant of the fact that they may be applying it to a Zoroastrian or a Buddhist or whatever.

In summary - there is NOTHING threatening about non-literalist Christian inability to point out WHY they believe what they believe. It is merely sad and confused, as you have demonstrated by your continued inability to answer the simple question of how you differentiate the facts from the fairy stories in your Bible.

Far more threatening is literalism, because it is firm and absolute and cannot be argued with using logic or reason. Are you *sure* you're not a literalist?

H.

"I hope I live long enough to see all Heterosexuality destroyed utterly. "

Nice spoof, but it doesn't work, does it?

Because religion, unlike sexuality, is a CHOICE you make, every day.

There's a law being mooted in the UK right now to make it a specific offence to incite religious hatred. This law would limit the right to free speech to prevent people from using religion as a basis for criticism or discrimination. Racial discrimination is already illegal, and this covers Jews and Sikhs. Muslims, however, not being one identifiable racial group, are not protected.

I have mixed views on this: on the one hand, as I say, religion is a choice. If you don't like being criticised for being a Muslim, it is a choice open to you to stop being one. That indeed may be the point of the criticism in the first place.

On the other hand, the law is pretty specifically against "inciting hatred", and who can honestly say they think it should be OK to incite hatred against anyone?

The problem arises in interpretation. If I write a letter to a national newspaper, lambasting a school for allowing the teaching of Creationism in science classes, am I inciting hatred? Well, yes, I suppose I am, sort of. I certainly want the headteacher and the science teacher sacked and prevented from ever again being involved in the education of children. So yes, I'm inciting prejudicial behaviour based on religion. Should that be illegal? Are we seriously suggesting that superstitious people have a right not to have their superstitions ridiculed? Where does it stop?

I eventually come down against this law, but sadly, given the climate in this country and the US at the moment, I fear it will be law soon.

H.

But what about the evidence that religiosity may be a heritable trait? And even if it weren't, how often do we really consiously choose what we believe?

We can choose our information sources at least I guess.

I have chosen what I believe.

Just a clarification. It isn't "religion" that they believe we have a natural predisposition for, but spirituality. A different kettle of fish, altogether. Religion is a group "invention", if you will, while spirituality is a personal identification with something beyond the individual or a feeling of transcendence.

To quote Dean Hamer, the author of "The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired Into Our Genes. "We think that all human beings have an innate capacity for spirituality and that that desire to reach out beyond oneself, which is at the heart of spirituality, is part of the human makeup..... The research suggests some people have a bit more of that capacity than others, but it's present to some degree in everybody..... Our genes can predispose us to believe. But they don't tell us what to believe in."

On the other hand, detractors believe it is a crock: "The field of behavioral genetics is littered with failed links between particular genes and personality traits," said Carl Zimmer, a science author who reviewed the book in last month's Scientific American.

http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/197786-9352-047.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/14/ngod14.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/14/ixnewstop.html
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/154/story_15451_1.html

Interestingly enough, one of his biggest detractors (surprise, surprise) is the aformentioned NARTH. While some Christians welcomed the concept, others pohh-pooh it because they cannot accept the concept of spirituality being anything but God-given to "the chosen". I won't burden ypu with the links. They are tiresomely idiotic.

While I don't necessarily believe or not believe in this genetic link, I do beleive that the need to identify with something beyond ourselves is innate.