I like this post and appreciate your questions. The issue about Jesus saying that you should 'hate' your family is one of many 'hard' sayings of the Bible. Again I suggest that such sayings are more easily understood in the context of a full study of the Bible. Briefly the point is that Christians are to be a unique people. Our affections are not to be directed to the physical but to the spiritual. In that context, if one directs all of one’s love toward God one loves one’s family in the correct way. It is almost Mathematical.seespotrun2008 wrote:Wow, a lot has happened since I have been able to get back to this thread!
There are definitely parts of the bible that I would leave to the ancients. And hating your family is certainly not a good thing (even when they deserve itI guess you pretty much agree that this content is not all that moral then? It's better left to that ancient time period of brutality and to promote it as moral today is very errant.).
Yes, I think they do. However, I am of the opinion that even translators bring in their own perspectives, prejudices, and biases. Just as we all do in everything that we do.And as for biblical interpretation, the modern translations are based on going back to the oldest sources available to try and make as accurate a translation as possible.
Ok. And I looked up The New Oxford Annotated Bible( which is a much better scholarly source than the KJV) and it says the same. You could be right, we could just be stuck with someone writing that Jesus says to “hate” your family. Or that Jesus said to hate your family. I am still willing to look further, however. What did this mean in a cultural context? What was the author of this book doing? There are many, many questions.the original Greek word is "miseo," as in MISOGYNY, and it means "TO HATE." That's why it's been translated as such...
Here is the Strong's Concordance for the word in the New Testament:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 3404&t=KJV
I love the Bible. And I love religion in general. No, I would never say that religion is perfect. But I think it is much more complicated than people like to give it credit for. Yes, people have committed atrocities in the name of religion. They have also done incredibly compassionate things in the name of religion. Marx said that “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” I agree. But it has also been the basis for individuality, social justice, and love of others. It is amazing, but not perfect. I am ok with that because nothing that human beings get involved with is perfect. But for me that does not mean that I throw the baby out with the bath water; it just means you learn what you can. And since I do believe in a God, that means listening to Her.So why try and defend this archaic literature founded on errant contradiction that most likely never even arose from any historial Jesus or disciples in the first place? You've taken up apologetics for this nonsense and I have to wonder why, when you know as much as you do about the error involved in the bible.
I would look to Karen Armstrong The History of God for a look at the creation story. She says that there were many creation stories around this time. And no one took them literally. They simply did not know how the world was created so they came up with stories to explain it. And they made theological points through these stories. No one questioned religion like we do today. There was a God. It was just deciding to choose the best one; the one that did stuff for you.The bible starts off with a contradiction, that is, the first day has no firmament nor sun in the firmament by which to have a "day". The foundation of the bible begins with contradiction and many more follow through all the way to the contradictions we find here in the NT.She also says that the Judaism went through a long process. In fact, scholars are not even sure that Abraham or Moses were monotheists. The first commandment can actually mean that people believed in other Gods it is just that you will “have no other God before Yahweh.” The History of God is a fascinating book. She is not Christian either. She was raised that way but is no longer a Christian. She looks at the Bible from a purely historical perspective.
I know, it is horrible the way atheists are treated. When I read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins the letters that people sent him were horrible.The only way to break down the bias in this country against atheists and atheism is to shine a bright light on all of this as I have done here and keep the light on it. How else? We can't openly hold office because atheists are viewed as "immoral" by the majority of the nation.
Yes. I agree.As you point out, even the gospels are contradictory, but that is because they were written by men who were invested in the myths being put forth. Of course there are going to be mistakes.
Thank you, Dwill.If I may, I don't think it's accurate or fair to put down what seespotrun is saying as "apologetics." She presents an independent, thoughtful perspective, very different from that in which apologists attempt to reconcile any contradiction as consistent in logic with everything else in the Bible.
This is probably why I love the humanities.But the humanities allow and even require subjective responses and there is a lot of adjustability in the principles.
It most certainly does. We all have experiences, perspectives, and biases that we bring into art, literature, history, etc. I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as objectivity.Objectivity vs subjectivity has nothing to do with the process of study. If that were the case then why not read only one chapter of Moby Dick or two acts of Romeo and Juliet?
If I love my wife part of my love is not available to love God.
If I love God, my love can flow through God to my wife.
