Abstract:
- the bible was written at a point in time and the times have changed - can we not update our thinking a little? is the bible not malleable in any way? I think we touched on this in book club.
if you do start to modify and update the bible, does that become a slippery slope? our judicial system and our system of laws and norms come from the bible, so if you start to update it it really starts to get grey: what do you edit, improve or leave out?
if we were all to come to the realization that the bible - and all religious tomes - are simply works of fiction that were created to help guide us through our lives, and we were to try and re-develop our society without the bible's influence, what would come up with? for example, what if "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife" had been left out of the bible? would we then have a society where infidelity and polygamy were the norm?
what is the opposite of religion? if we hadn't immersed ourselves in religion, what would have brought the collective masses together, and what would they have discussed? would we have been more reasonable and philosophical individuals?
http://breakthehabitsofliving.blogspot.com/
My Response:
---Updating the Bible?---
It depends if you reside on the side of the fence that states the Bible is the word of the Devine for all time and is unchangeable and within it there is consistency without contradiction, and it is up to us to understand/perceive this consistent, non-contradictory lessons. Or, if you reside on the side of the fence that says you need not to listen to the exact wording of the Bible (although you cannot act contrary to it), but instead listen/follow the Spirit of it lessons.
However, if you are a non-believer what right can you cite in wanting to update the Bible? As if you are truly a non-believer than your actions would not be based on Biblical lessons or, if you are going from the historical affect approach on society, then if you recognize the Bible affects then you should be able to resist those Biblical affects and as such what does it matter to you: as you are free to live and choose how to live your life (assuming we are indeed--more than less--a free-society and you can agree to live by society’s laws). Also, it could come across (possible unintentionally) that there is between the lines of your argument that non-believers should be able to assert control over the beliefs of believers (i.e., what behaviors are acceptable, etc.). Do not get me wrong I find it distasteful when people try to shove religion down the throats of others, but I find it equally distasteful when people try preventing others from practicing their faith(s).
I do not think updating the Bible would have much affect on our systems of justice—because while they are based on Christian teaching the systems of justice have long become their own masters. The question becomes on what grounds does a believer become justified in updating the Bible and how do believers know it is the will of God (i.e., what is being written, etc.).
---Society’s Views on Believers---
From those I have spoken to they take serious thought whether or not there is a God. They often have doubts about the existences of God, and they are fully aware of the influence that culture has on religion (they also have trouble in reconciling that if people religion is based on people’s culture then how is it there is any true religion or purist of religion; as such, is it reasonable for them to think it is their religion or to practice any religion as none of them may have gotten it right enough give due respect to the Creator). They have difficulty of reconciling many faiths (if it is true that there is one God—especially if other religions are not willing to concede that those that believe in one God worship the same God just in a different way).
They have difficulty in reconciling the expectations of organized religion (or any group that requires a minimum amount of conformity) with their own personal internal beliefs (developed through how they were raised, their life experiences, etc.). Moreover, those belonging to organized religion often cannot freely comment on their doubts less risk being accused by others (both non-believers and believers) as being hypercritics and/or being non-devout. On top of this believers are thought by many non-believers as simpletons for their beliefs. If nothing else people should give believers respect for holding on to their convictions in the face of adversary.
4 comments:
It would seem to me that a rigid and inflexible religion (i.e. one that is taken literally) would not be worth following in that it requires its believers to subscribe to the ideal that it is categorically correct and can never be challenged. It is in our nature to question. Without questioning we would still believe that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth, therefore the concept of taking the bible literally is ridiculous. Taking it from a historical point is somewhat better, but the onus is on the word "historical". History is full of incredible injustices (slavery, barbarism, genocide, etc.) and as we (apparently) evolve, so should the ideals to which we aspire.
One of the thrusts of my posting was that many of our laws and societal norms are exacted from the bible. The bible was used to help shape western civilization and ultimately our justice system. Your position that “if you are truly a non-believer then your actions would not be based on biblical lessons” is impossible. I cannot flout “thou shall not kill” or “thou shall not steal” or I would go to jail: our justice system and religion are very fundamentally linked.
Ultimately your comment “I do not think updating the Bible would have much affect on our systems of justice—because while they are based on Christian teaching the systems of justice have long become their own masters” is apt. I just wonder where our justice system would be if we were to re-create it from scratch, without the influence of the bible: the ultimate separation of church and state - but that’s just one of my many random ponderences.
I agree with you that you do not like to have religion shoved down your throat. I agree also that we should give respect to people’s beliefs. As Ben Harper said, “I would rather take your punch then not give you a shot”. But I question why people are throwing punches in the first place. I have met many people who are incredibly smart and yet all rationale goes out the window when it comes to their religious belief system. To me, flawed and uneducated though I may be, there are too many important questions that cannot be answered, and too much evidence to suggest that Christianity is just a “modern” rip off of religions that existed prior to the invention of Jesus (Egyptian mythology, Mithraism).
I do not wish to impede people in their worship and subscription to whichever religion they choose, but I do object to people being uninformed, to believing blindly and to not questioning such important things which – I feel – require a constant dialogue given the impact on our day to day lives on both a personal and societal level whether we are believers or not.
Duder, thank you for your response.
Let me try to clarify (or demonstrate) that a non-believer action can be based on non-biblical lessons: that non-believers could decide to obey the same rules as believers for non-believers reasons (thus, making/learning them through non-biblical lessons).
For example, while a believer may decided/learn not to kill someone because it is against God’s will (presumably because its offensive to destroy something made in God’s image or because another person is a child of God); a non-believer may decided/learn not to kill or steal another person because it would likely to result in revenge killing(s) or things being stolen in return, respectively.
Thus, non-believers laws could be developed to ensure social stability. These non-believers laws could entail punishments for different acts enforced so that people will hopefully not feel like they must seek revenge themselves. These non-believer laws creation and enforcement in return causing social stability so that the business of the state, economy, and society can continue without too much interruption.
I meant to write "...not to kill or steal FROM another person..."
Thank you again for responding. I'm thinking we should collaborate on a talk show or something.
To hone my point somewhat further I'd like to quantify that currently I/we have to follow rules based on the bible and adhere to the norms of a Judeo Christian society. I agree with you that, indepedent of religion, non-believers may have come up with some of the same rules/laws that we can find in the ten commandments (I would guess: don't murder; steal; or bear false witness). But back to my very original post on religion's influence on our justice system (and maybe to a further extent our society), where would we be today if philosophy and the pursuit of reason had replaced religion?
The example I was drawn to was the concept of coveting thy neighbor's wife (which further ties into my previous post about Eliot Spitzer): adultery is still illegal in some countries. Would this have even made the philisophical top ten list if it had not have been dictated to us by religion?
And now I am going off on a bit of tangent to extend my argument to society as a whole. How much has religion made us feel guilty about pre-marital sex, masturbation, adultery, greed, coveting, being a single mother, homosexuality, marriage, etc? Where would society stand on all of these issues if we, as secular humans, had tried to come up with our own coda instead of endlessly interpreting and re-interpreting a book written a couple thousand years ago.
Though I guess I could take it one final step and say that's exactly what the bible was for its time: a philosophical attempt to lend guidance to people's lives, mixed in with the desire to believe in something greater than us all.
Post a Comment