Secular folks should worry.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by dastardly stem »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Sun Mar 19, 2023 10:04 pm
dastardly stem wrote:
Sat Mar 18, 2023 9:11 pm


Morley is correctly citing the passage I had in mind when I offered an example of mixed messaging (sorry I figured we were on the same page when you too referenced Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament). But I may be confused on the point you’re raising. We can pick another example, like Jesus never knew many believers or He came not to bring peace but a sword…referencing examples in the gospels is natural since it appears each gospel was written with the previous gospels in mind, at least after mark’s gospel. It’s as if these subsequent authors intended to change it for their own reasons. But that suggests no consistent or wise God endorses those works, unless of course he endorses mixed messaging—love your enemy according to Matt’s gospel and hate your close relatives according to Luke’s. Expand beyond the gospels and the Bible is full of mixed messaging as I see it.
Thanks, Stem and Morley. I was reading the account in Matthew of the same event, which uses priorities of love in contrast to the binary love/hate. I know nothing of what a God would do in any given circumstance. But, in context, including Jesus's use of metaphor and hyperbole (did he literally mean that faith could move a mountain?), I don't think that it's reasonable to conclude that Jesus was telling his followers to literally hate their families.
It’s very unlikely Jesus was telling his followers any of the words the later writers attributed to him, if he ever really was. The point made by this reference was demonstrate there are mixed messages given in the Bible. Whether one chooses to read Luke as if Jesus literally said hate your father or mother, isn’t really at issue. The Bible has sent many mixed messages. I called this out because it’s a rather obvious example. Why you disagree, I guess, will continue to escape me. I think there are tons of examples of mixed messages sent to humanity in the Bible. That people take it as some ultimate code for life or morality or words from god is a problem and always has been.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by Res Ipsa »

dastardly stem wrote:
Tue Mar 21, 2023 5:02 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sun Mar 19, 2023 10:04 pm


Thanks, Stem and Morley. I was reading the account in Matthew of the same event, which uses priorities of love in contrast to the binary love/hate. I know nothing of what a God would do in any given circumstance. But, in context, including Jesus's use of metaphor and hyperbole (did he literally mean that faith could move a mountain?), I don't think that it's reasonable to conclude that Jesus was telling his followers to literally hate their families.
It’s very unlikely Jesus was telling his followers any of the words the later writers attributed to him, if he ever really was. The point made by this reference was demonstrate there are mixed messages given in the Bible. Whether one chooses to read Luke as if Jesus literally said hate your father or mother, isn’t really at issue. The Bible has sent many mixed messages. I called this out because it’s a rather obvious example. Why you disagree, I guess, will continue to escape me. I think there are tons of examples of mixed messages sent to humanity in the Bible. That people take it as some ultimate code for life or morality or words from god is a problem and always has been.
I think the difference is a normative expectation that you are placing on the text that I am not. I am approaching the text based on what I know about it. The four gospels are four stories written by four authors about a person named Jesus. The stories present Jesus as a real person. We have no reason to believe that any of the authors witnesses the events they wrote about. Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the authors wrote in Greek. In the stories, Jesus uses of parables, metaphor, and hyperbole to teach his followers and instruct them in how to act.

Given these facts, it would be entirely unreasonable to expect consistency across the four stories if we consider only a literal reading of the words. We don’t expect that kind of consistency from statements by eyewitness taken shortly after an event.

So, if I’m interested in the question “did Jesus teach his followers that they should hate their families,” I can’t just stop at the literal meaning of the words I see on the page. I have to rely heavily on context, including different authors account of the same words authored by Jesus. And I have to be careful that any mixed messages are reasonable interpretations of the text and not due solely to my own choices.

You appear to me to be making a normative assumption that, as the purported word of God, the reader should be able to rely on the literal meaning of the words and that there should be no contradictory or mixed messages when taking the words at face value. I’m not making that assumption because the question of whether the Bible is God’s word has no bearing on the question “Did Jesus teach his followers to hate their families?”

I think that our different assumptions about the text explains the differences in our views.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by dastardly stem »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Tue Mar 21, 2023 6:49 pm
dastardly stem wrote:
Tue Mar 21, 2023 5:02 pm


It’s very unlikely Jesus was telling his followers any of the words the later writers attributed to him, if he ever really was. The point made by this reference was demonstrate there are mixed messages given in the Bible. Whether one chooses to read Luke as if Jesus literally said hate your father or mother, isn’t really at issue. The Bible has sent many mixed messages. I called this out because it’s a rather obvious example. Why you disagree, I guess, will continue to escape me. I think there are tons of examples of mixed messages sent to humanity in the Bible. That people take it as some ultimate code for life or morality or words from god is a problem and always has been.
I think the difference is a normative expectation that you are placing on the text that I am not. I am approaching the text based on what I know about it. The four gospels are four stories written by four authors about a person named Jesus. The stories present Jesus as a real person. We have no reason to believe that any of the authors witnesses the events they wrote about. Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the authors wrote in Greek. In the stories, Jesus uses of parables, metaphor, and hyperbole to teach his followers and instruct them in how to act.

Given these facts, it would be entirely unreasonable to expect consistency across the four stories if we consider only a literal reading of the words. We don’t expect that kind of consistency from statements by eyewitness taken shortly after an event.

So, if I’m interested in the question “did Jesus teach his followers that they should hate their families,” I can’t just stop at the literal meaning of the words I see on the page. I have to rely heavily on context, including different authors account of the same words authored by Jesus. And I have to be careful that any mixed messages are reasonable interpretations of the text and not due solely to my own choices.

You appear to me to be making a normative assumption that, as the purported word of God, the reader should be able to rely on the literal meaning of the words and that there should be no contradictory or mixed messages when taking the words at face value. I’m not making that assumption because the question of whether the Bible is God’s word has no bearing on the question “Did Jesus teach his followers to hate their families?”

I think that our different assumptions about the text explains the differences in our views.
Yeah well that was the point when I brought it up. In one place he says to love an enemy. In another, under a different author, he says to hate close relatives. I’m glad many take his hate your family comment in a different light. If context justifies something like, “well, he really means love you family”, so be it.

Whether the character Jesus meant literally to hate father and mother when he taught to hate father and mother as a requirement to be his disciple is up to individual interpretation, I guess. But again that’d be beside the point I raised.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
User avatar
malkie
God
Posts: 1478
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:41 pm

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by malkie »

dastardly stem wrote:
Tue Mar 21, 2023 7:59 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Tue Mar 21, 2023 6:49 pm


I think the difference is a normative expectation that you are placing on the text that I am not. I am approaching the text based on what I know about it. The four gospels are four stories written by four authors about a person named Jesus. The stories present Jesus as a real person. We have no reason to believe that any of the authors witnesses the events they wrote about. Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the authors wrote in Greek. In the stories, Jesus uses of parables, metaphor, and hyperbole to teach his followers and instruct them in how to act.

Given these facts, it would be entirely unreasonable to expect consistency across the four stories if we consider only a literal reading of the words. We don’t expect that kind of consistency from statements by eyewitness taken shortly after an event.

So, if I’m interested in the question “did Jesus teach his followers that they should hate their families,” I can’t just stop at the literal meaning of the words I see on the page. I have to rely heavily on context, including different authors account of the same words authored by Jesus. And I have to be careful that any mixed messages are reasonable interpretations of the text and not due solely to my own choices.

You appear to me to be making a normative assumption that, as the purported word of God, the reader should be able to rely on the literal meaning of the words and that there should be no contradictory or mixed messages when taking the words at face value. I’m not making that assumption because the question of whether the Bible is God’s word has no bearing on the question “Did Jesus teach his followers to hate their families?”

I think that our different assumptions about the text explains the differences in our views.
Yeah well that was the point when I brought it up. In one place he says to love an enemy. In another, under a different author, he says to hate close relatives. I’m glad many take his hate your family comment in a different light. If context justifies something like, “well, he really means love you family”, so be it.

Whether the character Jesus meant literally to hate father and mother when he taught to hate father and mother as a requirement to be his disciple is up to individual interpretation, I guess. But again that’d be beside the point I raised.
To me, especially in light of what Res Ipsa is saying, what is really interesting is the way in which [c]hristianity uses specific verses of the Bible, including "quotes" from Jesus, to determine how people - believers or not - should live.

This is sometimes complicated by the many different translations available now, and the dependence of derived points of doctrine on specific translations.

The practice of baptism for the dead, justified by 1 Corinthians 15:29, might be said to be one such. As far as I know, no modern branch of Christianity other than LDS takes that verse to mean that vicarious baptism for the dead is valid. In ancient time it appears that, apart from the Corinthians of Paul's time, there were sects, such as he 2ndC Marcionites, who were 'dead-dunkers'. If I remember correctly, Mormons see baptism for the dead as one of the 'plain and precious things' that became lost over the years due to apostacy of Christendom in general, the evil deeds of priests who were responsible for deliberately introducing errors during copying of texts, and translation errors that occur naturally in a process that was not effectively overseen by god.

The overall effect, in any case, is that only one major organization today practises baptism for the dead, and the rest justify their rejection at least in part on lack of corroboration from the rest of the Bible, and on the specific pronouns in the verse.

Sorry - a bit more of a ramble than I intended.

If I, in turn, have introduced errors, ... :)
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details.
Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by Res Ipsa »

malkie wrote:
Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:55 pm
dastardly stem wrote:
Tue Mar 21, 2023 7:59 pm


Yeah well that was the point when I brought it up. In one place he says to love an enemy. In another, under a different author, he says to hate close relatives. I’m glad many take his hate your family comment in a different light. If context justifies something like, “well, he really means love you family”, so be it.

Whether the character Jesus meant literally to hate father and mother when he taught to hate father and mother as a requirement to be his disciple is up to individual interpretation, I guess. But again that’d be beside the point I raised.
To me, especially in light of what Res Ipsa is saying, what is really interesting is the way in which [c]hristianity uses specific verses of the Bible, including "quotes" from Jesus, to determine how people - believers or not - should live.

This is sometimes complicated by the many different translations available now, and the dependence of derived points of doctrine on specific translations.

The practice of baptism for the dead, justified by 1 Corinthians 15:29, might be said to be one such. As far as I know, no modern branch of Christianity other than LDS takes that verse to mean that vicarious baptism for the dead is valid. In ancient time it appears that, apart from the Corinthians of Paul's time, there were sects, such as he 2ndC Marcionites, who were 'dead-dunkers'. If I remember correctly, Mormons see baptism for the dead as one of the 'plain and precious things' that became lost over the years due to apostacy of Christendom in general, the evil deeds of priests who were responsible for deliberately introducing errors during copying of texts, and translation errors that occur naturally in a process that was not effectively overseen by god.

The overall effect, in any case, is that only one major organization today practises baptism for the dead, and the rest justify their rejection at least in part on lack of corroboration from the rest of the Bible, and on the specific pronouns in the verse.

Sorry - a bit more of a ramble than I intended.

If I, in turn, have introduced errors, ... :)
I think we all have introduced errors, Malkie, so welcome to the club. :)

After I was no longer LDS and had some exposure to how Christians generally approached the Bible, it seemed to me that the LDS Church approach to the Bible was to cherry pick verses from it to support Joseph Smith’s religion. Other Christian sects seemed to approach it more as the scaffolding for their religious beliefs. Christian theology seemed to me to its foundation in the Bible, especially the New Testament, while LDS theology was based more on the D&C and other words from Smith. The difference seemed striking to me.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by Philo Sofee »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:07 pm
malkie wrote:
Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:55 pm

To me, especially in light of what Res Ipsa is saying, what is really interesting is the way in which [c]hristianity uses specific verses of the Bible, including "quotes" from Jesus, to determine how people - believers or not - should live.

This is sometimes complicated by the many different translations available now, and the dependence of derived points of doctrine on specific translations.

The practice of baptism for the dead, justified by 1 Corinthians 15:29, might be said to be one such. As far as I know, no modern branch of Christianity other than LDS takes that verse to mean that vicarious baptism for the dead is valid. In ancient time it appears that, apart from the Corinthians of Paul's time, there were sects, such as he 2ndC Marcionites, who were 'dead-dunkers'. If I remember correctly, Mormons see baptism for the dead as one of the 'plain and precious things' that became lost over the years due to apostacy of Christendom in general, the evil deeds of priests who were responsible for deliberately introducing errors during copying of texts, and translation errors that occur naturally in a process that was not effectively overseen by god.

The overall effect, in any case, is that only one major organization today practises baptism for the dead, and the rest justify their rejection at least in part on lack of corroboration from the rest of the Bible, and on the specific pronouns in the verse.

Sorry - a bit more of a ramble than I intended.

If I, in turn, have introduced errors, ... :)
I think we all have introduced errors, Malkie, so welcome to the club. :)

After I was no longer LDS and had some exposure to how Christians generally approached the Bible, it seemed to me that the LDS Church approach to the Bible was to cherry pick verses from it to support Joseph Smith’s religion. Other Christian sects seemed to approach it more as the scaffolding for their religious beliefs. Christian theology seemed to me to its foundation in the Bible, especially the New Testament, while LDS theology was based more on the D&C and other words from Smith. The difference seemed striking to me.
Now that appears to me to be a very sage observation...
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Another member of MG’s “civil society” getting rolled up for kid stuff:

https://www.redmond.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=1366

Discernment is so hit n’ miss, no? Too bad conservatives can’t seem to find a way to keep their people from fuckin’ kids.

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by Philo Sofee »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:39 am
Another member of MG’s “civil society” getting rolled up for kid stuff:

https://www.redmond.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=1366

Discernment is so hit n’ miss, no? Too bad conservatives can’t seem to find a way to keep their people from fuckin’ kids.

- Doc
Well now that sheds new light on the title of this post, "Secular Folks Should Worry" now doesn't it......WE SHOULD WORRY, but not for the idiotic reasons MG imagines we should. And, we should take action, and need to help protect our children from these kinds of people.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by Kishkumen »

After I was no longer LDS and had some exposure to how Christians generally approached the Bible, it seemed to me that the LDS Church approach to the Bible was to cherry pick verses from it to support Joseph Smith’s religion. Other Christian sects seemed to approach it more as the scaffolding for their religious beliefs. Christian theology seemed to me to its foundation in the Bible, especially the New Testament, while LDS theology was based more on the D&C and other words from Smith. The difference seemed striking to me.
Maybe this should be in its own thread, but I would like to draw attention to the fact that it is more of a Protestant thing to point to the Bible as *the* foundation for Christian belief and practice. In Catholicism and Orthodoxy, in other words, in the largest Christian organizations in the world, the church is founded upon the Bible, the Ecumenical Councils, Tradition, and the Holy Spirit. Mormonism is a break off from Protestantism, but, even in Protestantism, there were different approaches to revelation. The majority position became one of hewing closely to the Bible. The other was much more open to inspiration or revelation as a reliable guide. Mormonism falls in the latter tradition.

That is my recollection of the situation, in any case. Anyone who knows the history of Christianity better than I do is free to correct my imperfect memory of the situation. I think it is important to point out that Mormonism is certainly heterodox, but it is historically contingent upon the Christian tradition, and its choices are found within that tradition. They are not alien to it. I kind of bristle when I see Mormonism separated from Christianity in this oppositional or starkly contrasting way. Mormonism is a form of Christianity. It diverges from the majority in many ways, but it is not alone in doing so.

In other words, I don’t think it is necessary to adopt the Bible as the sole foundation of the faith, and Mormonism is not alone in that. In fact, it is in the majority position on that. Where it is in the minority position is in its rejection of the Ecumenical Councils and, more importantly, the major creeds regarding the Trinity. Even the Catholic Church accepts as scripture books that the Protestants never accepted as canonical, i.e. what they call the Apocrypha.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by Res Ipsa »

Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 2:02 am
After I was no longer LDS and had some exposure to how Christians generally approached the Bible, it seemed to me that the LDS Church approach to the Bible was to cherry pick verses from it to support Joseph Smith’s religion. Other Christian sects seemed to approach it more as the scaffolding for their religious beliefs. Christian theology seemed to me to its foundation in the Bible, especially the New Testament, while LDS theology was based more on the D&C and other words from Smith. The difference seemed striking to me.
Maybe this should be in its own thread, but I would like to draw attention to the fact that it is more of a Protestant thing to point to the Bible as *the* foundation for Christian belief and practice. In Catholicism and Orthodoxy, in other words, in the largest Christian organizations in the world, the church is founded upon the Bible, the Ecumenical Councils, Tradition, and the Holy Spirit. Mormonism is a break off from Protestantism, but, even in Protestantism, there were different approaches to revelation. The majority position became one of hewing closely to the Bible. The other was much more open to inspiration or revelation as a reliable guide. Mormonism falls in the latter tradition.

That is my recollection of the situation, in any case. Anyone who knows the history of Christianity better than I do is free to correct my imperfect memory of the situation. I think it is important to point out that Mormonism is certainly heterodox, but it is historically contingent upon the Christian tradition, and its choices are found within that tradition. They are not alien to it. I kind of bristle when I see Mormonism separated from Christianity in this oppositional or starkly contrasting way. Mormonism is a form of Christianity. It diverges from the majority in many ways, but it is not alone in doing so.

In other words, I don’t think it is necessary to adopt the Bible as the sole foundation of the faith, and Mormonism is not alone in that. In fact, it is in the majority position on that. Where it is in the minority position is in its rejection of the Ecumenical Councils and, more importantly, the major creeds regarding the Trinity. Even the Catholic Church accepts as scripture books that the Protestants never accepted as canonical, i.e. what they call the Apocrypha.
Thanks Reverend. What is interesting to me is that, in the LDS Church I grew up in, it never would have occurred to members to bristle over what you describe. Our religious identity was based on the differences between our religion and that of other churches. We were one and only true church of God on earth, and we were proud of the differences between Mormonism and all other churches.

We were a peculiar people and were damn proud of it. We didn’t want to be seen as being like other sects. It was common knowledge that the Catholic Church was the Great and Abominable Church, and was referred to as the GAC. The “Christian” churches were in apostasy. The Christian Churches with their paid ministers were corrupt and were doctrines of men (and even the devil).

We learned and memorized the verses in the Bible that showed we were “right” and other churches were “wrong” through scripture chase competitions. Missionaries would Bible Bash against missionaries from other sects.

As the only and only true church on the face of the earth, we didn’t want to share labels with all those false churches in apostasy. We were Mormons, and we were damn proud of it.

I’m not a religious historian or scholar. What I’m describing is a difference I personally observed between how the Bible was used in Mormonism and how it was used by other Christian churches. I think that the way Mormonism approaches the Bible is heavily influenced by the qualifier “as far as it is translated correctly.” It allows for what I described as a cherry picking approach to the Bible. Any part of the Bible that appears inconsistent with Mormon doctrine can be simply ignored.

Other Christian sects don’t have that qualification. I think that’s part of the reason I noticed non-Mormon Christians grappling with the text as a whole in a way that I had never experienced in Mormonism.

From my atheistic perspective, I think of Mormonism as a Christian religion. But I also think it has unique characteristics that differ from other Christian sects, and see nothing disrespectful in discussing them.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Post Reply