|
Is religion beneficial? (pg. 16)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| RickyM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I'm not certain that I believe God sending angels to experience Sodom first hand is unreasonable. I would interpret this more as a test then an investigation.
I think you misunderstand the the story of Abrahams pleas. The story isn't about God being schooled in justice by a human; rather, it is revealing God's forgiveness... Abraham asks him if he will destroy all or spare the righteous. God's answer is that he will spare all if there are 10 righteous people in the city. This reveals God's justice... he is willing to let the "wicked" survive in order to spare the righteous... which is more then Abraham asks of him. Why 10? beats the hell out of me. |
I did not misunderstand the story of Abraham's pleas. How can it be about god's forgiveness if in the very next chapter he rains burning sulphur on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, destroying them and all the people who lived there? Where is the forgiveness there? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by RickyM
I did not misunderstand the story of Abraham's pleas. How can it be about god's forgiveness if in the very next chapter he rains burning sulphur on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, destroying them and all the people who lived there? Where is the forgiveness there? |
The righeous were spared... this is a common theme throughout the bible. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by RickyM
I'd be interested to know if there are any biblical scholars / theologians who hold the same view as you. |
Theology is actually a quite diverse branch of thought. It seems to me that MH subscribes to some sort or Biblical Maximalism, although I reserve myself the right to be wrong (I just happen to know a tad bit more about the The Copenhagen School of Biblical Studies (aka The Minimalist School), but I ain't no specialist).
Take some time to read about modern (European) theology. It's fun, even for atheists ;) |
|
|
| RickyM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
The righeous were spared... this is a common theme throughout the bible. |
That is not forgiveness though...why would the righteous need forgiven?
If god didn't destroy sodom and gomorrah then I would understand your point. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Theology is actually a quite diverse branch of thought. It seems to me that MH subscribes to some sort or [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_maximalism]Biblical Maximalism[/url |
I don't think my thoughts on the Bible can be broken down quite so neatly. While I do agree with the maximalist idea that it is a book of history recalled through the scope of religious belief I don't think that applies to all of the books of the OT. Given the number of books and authors I don't believe anyone can make any great sweeping statement on the purpose of the bible or intent of the writers... even to say that all the books were divinely inspired or intended to further human understanding of the divine is a foley born of trying to over-simplify something inheirently complex. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by RickyM
That is not forgiveness though...why would the righteous need forgiven?
If god didn't destroy sodom and gomorrah then I would understand your point. |
Perhaps justice would have been a better choice of words... my bad. The forgiveness is related to the pleas... "for the sake of 10 I will spare them." God would forgive all if he found 10 righeous people (again why 10 is the critical mass I have no idea - probably something that just got included in the verbal tradition as people felt they needed to give it a number). In the end God decides that the people are so wicked that only Lot and his family deserve to be spared. |
|
|
| RickyM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I don't think that my position is mental gymnastics at all. Much of what is in Leviticus is simply inconsistant with the overriding themes of the Bible. If the Abrihamic God exists then it seems unlikely that this book is the direct word of God as it is inconsistant with both earlier and later books and contains a multitude of rules/laws that are only discussed therein. To be honest, I cannot cite any biblical scholars that share my view on Lev in particular; however, this is likely due to a gap in knowlege on my part as opposed to my position being unique. I can confirm that many Biblical scholars share my understanding of the books of the bible being of three primary purposes; revelation, history, and law.
I'd imagine that the whole brisk thing was to prevent infection of the foreskin... either that or to deminish sexual pleasure as is the case with female circumcision. |
In my opinon, the behaviour of god in leviticus is entirely consistent with his behaviour in other books of the old testament:
1. Killing every living thing on the planet except Noah's family and 2 of every animal - Genesis.
2. Hardening the heart of the king of Egypt so that he could continue with the administration of the 10 plagues, the final plague being the death of every firstborn child - Exodus.
3. The cruel 'bet' with satan that Job would worship god no matter what happenned to him - Job.
4. God commanding that Joshua put everyone to death and spare no one, as he captures Amorite territory - Joshua.
There are many more examples of god's jealous, petty and vindictive nature, and they aren't contained to the book of Leviticus.
Oh...and why would Moses want to diminish sexual pleasure? |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I don't think my thoughts on the Bible can be broken down quite so neatly. While I do agree with the maximalist idea that it is a book of history recalled through the scope of religious belief I don't think that applies to all of the books of the OT. Given the number of books and authors I don't believe anyone can make any great sweeping statement on the purpose of the bible or intent of the writers... even to say that all the books were divinely inspired or intended to further human understanding of the divine is a foley born of trying to over-simplify something inheirently complex. |
I reckon I exaggerated a bit (sorry about that :p), but I just meant to show Ricky that there are several different schools of biblical exegesis, and he would probably be interested in that one :) |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by RickyM
Oh...and why would Moses want to diminish sexual pleasure? |
If sex were less pleasurable, then people would have an easier time resisting the temptation to do it before marriage. |
|
|
| whereinutep |
| Let's not get too technical. The question was, Is religion beneficial? It's beneficial to a certain extent. It teaches good morals and kind of leads kids on a pretty hefty path. But when you think about it, you have too many organizations and groups out there that take it a step further. I was raised a catholic and my parents weren't hard core fanatics but would casually visit the church and thats it. My parents woulnd't induce it to the point where she would rub the bible up my ass every day. Other organizations on the other hand, tend to use religion for their sexual addictions or to make a profit off it. Christians, Mormons, Jehova witnesses are some that use religion as a means to make money off weak minded individuals that cough up 20-30% of their pay check every pay period. There's an organization here in el paso where the "Minister" and his family drive top notch vehicles and live in a mansion in a gated community. None of these douche bags work, they live off "the church" and its members. Whats so sad about this organization is that its growing rapidly, people buy into this . All it is, its a membership to a club when a fee is required. I approached a couple of mormons last year, and i pointed out that in order for me to go to their wonderous church...i had to pay a fee. They were good at avoiding the question and shaping it into a different concept about their church and the people...blah blah blah. I know that catholics priests(some) are pedophiles and have tendencies but hey, thats everywhere. Ministers have dicks and they tend to have tendencies to screw their members. What it comes down too is...it just depends on how weak minded you are and if you have any common sense. Use religion to a certain extent, just dont become into a fantical maniac and go around like hipocryte pointing out everyone elses flaws and sending them to hell. I also forgot to mention, religions have the tendency of claiming that they can convert gay individuals into straight, go figure. common sense people.... |
|
|
| RickyM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I reckon I exaggerated a bit (sorry about that :p), but I just meant to show Ricky that there are several different schools of biblical exegesis, and he would probably be interested in that one :) |
Thanks, I'll take a look at the link and see what I make of it :) |
|
|
| RickyM |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
If sex were less pleasurable, then people would have an easier time resisting the temptation to do it before marriage. |
Then I think god should maybe do a redesign...perhaps a foreskin that forms once you are married...that way you won't get married Hebrew couples complaining about having ty sexy lives. |
|
|
|
|
