Religion without God

Right, so you're admitting that some verses are clear and explicit and don't need context?

It depends on the verse and how deeply you want to unjderstad it? So if I wrong ten verses that say don't judge others, I still need to read the whole Bible to truly understand them?

Well, as I recall (without reading back over the thread) the challenge to me was that "do not judge others" was a misreading. Have I misread it?

What special context and understanding do I need for "love thy neighbour" (Romans 13:9) for instance? Romans is all about salvation. So love thy neighbour's obvious message is not changed by the wider content of the Epistle. So what am I missing?

Well, God knows I don't believe in him so I don't know how well he would think of me! I approach these words on the basis they are written by man, which even if you believe in God, they still were.

Sorry, but this paragraph makes little sense to me. So now it's about instinct and no scripture? So basically you're saying behaviour trumps following anything scripture says anyway?

Yes, I know what it means, hence my case that it's meaning is obvious and why I used such quotes to illustrate how Non-Christian several of the self proclaimed Christians here are. So you've just basically made my case for me while telling me I didn't understand any of it and needed context.

Nope. I was smart enough to know what the "innocuous phrase" meant from the start. It's meaning is damned obvious and it was that meaning I was applying to self proclaimed Christians.

So one cannot explore, from an academic perspective, what the writings are meant to tell us? If anything, approaching it as an academic without the belief that it is divine and magical is the most honest way you can do so. Furthermore, one does not need to belief in God to understand the meaning of, say, love thy neighbour. Again, the meaning is clear.

And by this you concede that there is no "correct" interpretation, so at the end of the day if you disagree with me on a verse and claim context it is ultimately down to your subjective interpretation.

So what of those who claim to be Christian, like Dayton, and do not respond with lobve and concern for others, but rather are selfish towards and loathing of their neighbour?

So one minute you're talking about context. The next you're saying it mostly doesn't matter as it all changes over time anyway? That sounds very confused.

Critical thinking is not a phrase that readily sits alongside alongside the study of an improbable myth. If, like you say, the scripture evolves over time and if it's analysis is subjective what stops this "deep study" still being little more than interpretative thought?

Historians do not declare things divine fact if they are speculating. They do not create religious movements out of the speculation either. The comparison is faulty.

But you do practice religion. You worship the Abrahamic God through a Protestant Christian prism, no? So you aren't just about finding God, you're being led by others. Namely your co-religionists and the others of the Old and New Testaments. Why don't you also explore and deeply study Jewish and Muslim scripture for instance if you are trying to find God? Who says God is within the scope of The Bible?

Isn't it funny you spent all that time banging on about needing context and what do you do? You approach a debate dishonestly by editing someone comment to take it out of context. The irony.

This was the original comment...

God gives free will. But he also judges if you do not do things as he has stated in scripture. Do you need see the inherent issue in that? Why would a loving God give us the capacity to kill each other? Why would a loving God want to create hell and judge people? Why would God just not create us without free will and have us all act righteously and lovingly? After all, he is all powerful. There is no benefit to him having us kill each other and sending us to hell. There is no benefit to him having us "learn" how to behave well when he has the power to make sure we do anyway. Why would a loving God give us a guide book that we squabble over instead of appearing to us and clarifying it all (hence my last sentence)? As usual, religion has bullshit excuses for all of this, but it all seems rather illogical to me.

Well, since we're created in God's image that doesn't say much for God does it?

Meh. I still say man created God in his own image. That Which Moves the Universe can't be bothered with this piddly shit.

It's kind of funny if you think about it: Creator of all things in the universe, gets himself in a fit when women menstruate.

Well, it is a bloody nuisance...

This works on several levels, and it's deep!

Well, I'd say man created God in the image of a really great racket for unlimited money and pussy, but I guess that falls under "his own image", if you look at it the right way.

I had to look that up, as I'd never heard of Marvel's Celestials. Nah, nothing so complex. Granted, she was considered one of the Titans, but I just see her as a traveling companion, and quiet confidant.

Sure. But often context will deepen the understanding.

That's probably going overboard

Without reading back over the thread, I think that challenge was from Dayton.

I personally think there's room for identifying and learning from others' mistakes without feeling condemnatory toward them, but I can't say what shades of meaning he assigns to that phrase.

Well, then, you're missing nothing. But we're humans. Sometimes we need things hammered in repeatedly, or restated in different words.

You seemed to be casting doubt on the value of deep scriptural reading. I would agree that some people benefit from it less than others do. Just as some people pick up, say, multiplication instinctually, while others have to go through remedial classes. Some people naturally have a loving and selfless disposition, while the rest of us need to work harder at it. And by careful reading of scripture we are guided toward better following Christ.

1. I didn't say you "didn't understand any of it"
2. Independent of the depths of your individual understanding, this is a good passage to use as an example of the benefits of taking time with the material, because it's simple and, as you say, easily understood

Good for you?

A lot of us haven't been very good at it, I'll agree. But I can say I've been getting better at it (granted, I'd almost have to) in large part because I want my religion to include the one true God. As opposed to some human version of God I or others invent.

Dude.

I was agreeing with you that you had one less reason to be biased in your reading because you aren't tied down to a denomination.

Rereading, I guess I might have come across as sarcastic? Sorry.

Look. Maybe this is because you're a lawyer, and you're used to precisely worded, objectively prescriptive statements, made up of words with precisely one meaning, that are otherwise devoid of literary devices. People do not live objectively. We live subjectively, and as such we each interpret a thing a little differently. And the Bible speaks to each person a little differently.

The parable of the prodigal son. You're going to take away a different understanding of the parable depending on which of the characters of the prodigal son, the father, or the second son speak more strongly to you. Each character presents a different lesson about life, tied together by their interaction.

The availability of unmerited redemption of someone who has foolishly wrecked his life. The unbounded love of the father. The attitude of the slighted son and its relation to the reality of the situation.

The degree to which each character's lesson matters, and the fine shades of meaning they hold, will differ from one person to the other. A broken outsider looking for hope will take it differently than will someone who's been working in the church all his life and feels unappreciated lately. God might even move the listener to receive a completely different message from the passage, or one that's tied to a specific event in the listener's life. And that's what I'm saying is okay. It has to be okay, because the Bible is not completely immutable. Individuals find individual interpretations, because there is some subjectivity to the reading, because the Bible has applications to living life, and life is lived subjectively. And because new individuals from new, individual contexts are always reading the Bible, there will always be new interpretations. Even if most of them are 99.99% alike. Some are bad, some are good, some are wrong readings but lead the person along the path they need to travel (sort of like when you do a math problem wrong but get the answer right anyway).

Obvious question: How do you tell which are good and which are bad? Obvious answer: The same way you tell whether any other understanding about life is good or bad. You draw on your own life experience. You reason it out. You consult the authorities (effectively drawing on others' life experiences). Additionally, you can also consult the rest of the Bible. The UMC refers to this categorization as the Wesleyan quadrilateral. (Although the link says "traditions", I prefer the term "authorities" because "traditions" has a, uh, double-edged connotation for the modern church , and because people who don't necessarily agree with traditional interpretations can have insight, and so also deserve consideration as authorities.)

It becomes more than interpretative thought through application (life experience in the quadrilateral) and discussion with other people (authorities). And application is another part of understanding the principles. "I hear, and I forget; I see, and I remember; I do, and I understand." Book learning becomes practical knowledge and is thereby deepened or corrected, as one sees one's ideas played out in the real world.

No, you're moving goalposts away from what I bolded. One can arrive at a "correct interpretation" without creating movements of any sort. One can also arrive at a "correct interpretation" by speculating (which I mentioned nowhere) and seeing where it goes. The Monte Carlo method and reductio ad absurdum both rely on this concept.

If one speculates, does not arrive at a definitive conclusion, and presents one's conclusion as a fact, then that's bad regardless of whether it's declared to be "divine" or not. And the Church has certainly caused problems because wrong (or culturally dependent) conclusions were presented as eternal divine facts, and people took them as unquestionable because of how they were presented. This is why you always show your work, whether in Religion or in Science, because you are fallible and other people need to be able to check your reasoning.

Yes. I can also draw on other people's insights for understanding. Just like, you know, in the rest of life. But if I find that their words contradict my understanding of God, then I have to exercise my judgment: either reject their words, accept them and change my understanding, or wait to see if further data comes to light to explain the discrepancy.

Knowledge of God is within but not constrained to the scope of the Bible. See the quadrilateral business above.

But sure, we can look at the Islamic model, as poorly as I understand it. I'm sure you'll correct me where I go wrong.

- The Five Pillars. Faith, Prayer, Fasting, Charity. Okay, those are all good things in abstract. But the prescriptivist rules stating this-is-precisely-how-thou-shalt-do-this-or-else are not good. Example: Setting a goal of praying at least five times a day shows commitment and can be good, but requiring five prayers a day is sketchy; that should be an optional discipline. God isn't going to categorically condemn me for praying only three times a day any more than he'll condemn me for only attending church forty-nine times a year. The number is arbitrary because the content and attitude of prayer are more important. The direction chosen is arbitrary because God will hear me wherever I point my body. The fifth pillar, a journey to Mecca . . . I've never been to Jerusalem. I don't feel that my spiritual journey is incomplete because I've never been to a particular earthly location.

These rules are all things I would expect from a sect, like a monastery or something. People should sign up because they believe the disciplines involved are a good way forward for them, not because they think the disciplines are mandatory for eternal life.

- Jesus was just a mortal prophet. Deal-breaker. Fundamentally, infinitely wrong. Mohammed is no true prophet if he denies Jesus's ultimate mission. I'd do as well to use geocentricism to model the physical universe. Useful if I want to know what constellations are in the sky tonight, but that's about it.

Is the Jewish model worth studying? Sure. Judaism is what God used to tide people over until the time was ripe for Jesus to come. It laid the foundation upon which Jesus worked. I read the OT at least as often as the NT and, regardless of Dayton's opinion of it, there's great wisdom to be found from studying it. But again, it's incomplete without the actual Messiah himself. So sure, I can find insights (and do) among Judaism, Islam, Gandhi, Buddha, and secular sources. And you know, if one of those other traditions manages to state a concept exceptionally well, good! But at the end of the day, I need to return to Jesus for the complete answer. Other people may round out their understanding with those other sources and, as long as it helps their journey of self-improvement and their relationship with God, who am I to find fault? But I don't feel the need for me, personally, to dwell upon spiritual authorities that aren't either the OT or Jesus-centered. There's plenty in those two categories to keep me busy.

I care what my son does, but I don't sweat the finer details . . . well until he disobeys me, gets drunk and runs someone over, and comes home to me for punishment.

Your entire "confusion", as you just quoted, was covered by my comparison. Which you also just quoted. I just cut your bit off to emphasize the point at which it went wrong.

How can we have freedom to save without freedom to kill? If we can choose to save a life, then we can choose to do nothing and let the person perish.

But okay. Here's a copy of the universe. Rewrite it so that people can't kill each other. How do you implement that?

Because God is also a God of truth and justice. Do you like it when evil people do terrible things and then go scot-free? What tends to happen to children of permissive parents who coddle them and let them do, say, and eat whatever they want?

This is a deep question indeed, and as I said not one that I have a firm answer to. But: is that a life you would like, where you trade all of your freedom of thought and action for complete security? Why or why not?

We don't have to squabble over it. Debate and discuss, sure, but Jesus came to unite us (though he also foresaw he would divide us; only in this thread have I finally realized he didn't just mean between Christian and non-Christian). When we hate each other over disagreements in interpretation, that's not following Christ's lead.

God also gave us the poor neglected third wheel, the Holy Spirit, to comfort and guide us. I can't say that it's some unmistakably alien presence in my mind, like someone else talking to me with words. But there have been times I met with a situation and was, ah, going to proceed in a certain way, but was drawn back to reconsider the situation and eventually acted with more concern for others involved. Not drawn back out of any thought process or out of specific principles I hold, just maybe a sense welling up of "I can be better than this" or "Maybe I can be a force for just a little good". And I think that was the Spirit nudging me to exceed myself.

But let's engage in a thought experiment (or "speculation") and say God shows his hand through some unmistakable series of miracles. Or some other incontrovertible proof is found.

1. What happens then?
2. What else happens?
3. No? Okay, what happens instead?
4. Does any of this sound good to you?
Bonus question: Posit my current tentative hypothesis that Hell is reserved for those who truly know better and yet rebel against God. What further consequences occur?

Are you referring to the part of the Torah where menstruating women are given the day off so they can suffer their cramps without being expected to do the householdwork?