David_Boaz

The “law” of which you write prescribes the death penalty for disobedient children, sharia-style mutilations for certain crimes, detailed instructions on the behaviour of menstruating women and men who have wet dreams, and extensive dietary prohibitions. Happily, none of these are taken as binding by modern Christians.

Jesus fulfilled the law by doing what Israel was supposed to do and thereby opening the door for the salvation of humanity. The crux of his message was not conforming to rules (in fact, he and his disciples often broke them), but recovering that to which the law was intended to point – the law of love, epitomised in as “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself.” (Luke 10.26).

I cannot reconcile the idea of loving my neighbour as myself with disapproval of their sexual orientation.

Hi Rhian

You are a different to some of the religious types that post around here - i.e. very sensible. It is nice to see someone who is not beholden to the dogma that has grown around the religion that you follow. You are also not beholden to some of the excesses of the text that your religion is based on.

That last bit is where it gets interesting, for an irreligious person like me. Because you are sensible and use your rationality to determine what a loving god would and would not expect of his people (eg, that gays live a life of denial and repression) then I wonder what exactly the text does offer you?

Sam Harris writes about this very eloquently in his book "End of Faith." If you are interested in what the irreligious might have to offer in terms of philosophy, but are turned off by the zeal of a Dawkins or a Hitchens, he might be interesting for you to read. He writes specifically of the problem of "religious moderates."

Religious moderates are after all, people who do not take the texts literally. If the texts are meant to be the absolute word of God, then once they are not taken as such, there is an enormous room for subjective interpretation to creep in. And what is perceived today as a reasonable interpretation may not be seen as such tomorrow. Which of course is why fundamentalists exist - because it is far easier to think in black and white than to acknowledge the complexity of our world and its human relationships.

So what he (and I would agree) would argue is that what religious moderates really are, is secular humanists who have arrived at a position to determine their ethics through rational analysis of what works and does not work in human societies, based on evidence, rather than their religion. As Harris says, most people are better than than religion (as per their sacred texts) would have them be

Stickman

You raise some interesting points. I believe the scriptures are the product of more than a thousand years of human reflection on the encounter with God. They therefore reflect the ideas, priorities and cultures of their authors and editors. I see them as divinely inspired, but not the “absolute word of God” in the way that most Muslims, for example, may believe the Koran was dictated word for word to the Prophet.

Scriptures are also incredibly diverse in form and content, containing polemic, poetry, song, myth, letters, and narrative history. We need to understand these differences. For example, to read the Eden story as an historic account of human origins is a category error – it was never intended to be read that way, and if it is, it seems crude and ridiculous. But as a story about what it means to be human – our moral consciousness, self-awareness, alienation, angst at our mortality and sense that the world falls short of what it should be – it is profound and insightful.

You don’t have to take the bible literally to take it seriously.

Many fundamentalists argue that only those who take the whole bible literally are authentic Christians. But this is actually a quite modern perspective based on post-enlightenment views equating truth with demonstrable or historical fact, and developed in reaction to more liberal views on scripture that emerged in the past 250 years.

You are right that there is a danger of subjective and selective interpretation in my approach to scripture. But to insist on the acceptance of each story as an historical account and each law as binding on 21st century Christians doesn’t really get around the problem, it only seeks to bury it by asserting that only one possible interpretation of scriptures is correct. It also requires a form of selective blindness, as people are forced to ignore or rationalise away the bible’s evident internal contradictions and those laws and stories which are repugnant to modern sensibilities.

Dear Lev

I'm a bit concerned with what you said above.. the 'I incite others to hate' also.. mate..I joke not, that that is very dangerous legally.

I would not say that.. and I say some pretty red hot stuff about certain things. I don't incite hate deliberately, I try to incite scrutiny and common sense and awareness of evil things. To me.. doctrinal domestic abuse and child sexual abuse are 'evil'... even so, our duty is to call on the law of the land, or to invite people to change that law to make it tighter about such things.. not to specifically incite hate against individuals under existing laws which might permit such things.

The focus of my 'rants' is to change/tighten immigration policy, to consider banning certain religious documents from public availablity, and public declarations that certain religious practices are in fact abominable to our law and culture. Domestic violence and child sexual abuse are 2 very high on the list.

The other target of my rants is the RRTA itself. I want it ammended such that 'motive' and 'truth' are both VERY relevant to any case.

If a religion is 'vile' then to point out that vile-ness cannot by any reason be 'vilification'... it is 'exposure'.

Exposure can only lead to 'hate' in the mind of an immature irresponsible person. Society has such people.. sadly. Exposing insider trading would only cause an agrieved share holder to kill his stockbroker if he was immature and irresponsible.

Now..you used the example of regarding homosexual acts as a crime equal to eating prawns... ur a bit out of historical/theological context there mate. HS behavior is condemned in the OT AND the NT, eating of prawns is not :)

David,

The danger is less of a concern to me that the idea that such an prohibition should exist. Incitement to hate (to loathe, despise, to dislike intensely), after all, is not an incitement to violence ("fighting words"). The practise of involuntary genital mutilation upon women is revolting, loathesome and detestable. People who express the opinion that it is acceptable for 'cultural reasons' are deserving of such harsh language. Likewise people who promote ridiculous ideas are deserving of, well, ridicule.

"If a religion is 'vile' then to point out that vile-ness cannot by any reason be 'vilification'... it is 'exposure'."

Indeed. Hence my advocacy of an expansion of defamation law. It is wrong and damaging to say false things about individuals or groups. But likewise it wrong to prohibit what you call exposure.

"HS behavior is condemned in the OT AND the NT, eating of prawns is not"

But not in the Gospels; only by the Pauline chapters which are the worst books of the New Testament in my opinion. But even if one considers Paul's inclusion to the NT to have legitimacy there is still singnificant debate about the meaning. cf., (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm)

Boaz, how come you have never threatened me in this way? I feel most offended.

>>Dear Lev, I'm a bit concerned with what you said above.. the 'I incite others to hate' also.. mate..I joke not, that that is very dangerous legally.<<

Why do you suddenly take umbrage? I have been explaining to you the possible consequences of your actions, with examples, for years now.

If you stood up in front of a crowd and told them that the Jews ran the country and controlled the government, and should be run out of town on a rail, would this be "incitement to hate" or "incit[ing] scrutiny and common sense and awareness of evil things"?

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, your actions, together with the air of injured innocence when challenged, remind me irresistibly of the Limehouse rallies, and the highly contentious Mr Mosley. You make statements - that you infer from the flimsiest evidence - about the intentions of a religious group, and advocate that these folk be hounded and pestered for the views and actions that you bestow upon them.

People of lesser intelligence might justifiably perceive that you are inciting them to some form of action, based upon your words of condemnation. The feelings you engender in their manly breasts would, I venture to suggest, be a facsimile, simulacrum or even genuinely-felt hatred. And the only form of action comprehensible to these folk would, I further suggest, be violence.

The violence would be a direct result of your rabble-rousing talk about the hidden meaning of Surah this or that, arguments that you know would not be comprehensible to the majority of your audience.

Incidentally, I couldn't find anywhere in Lev's posts where he accused you of "incitement to hate".

Never mind, I'll do it for him.