Jim Guinee wrote:
> Once again the ax comes out for the grinding...
>
> For the sake of other listmembers, can we stick to the
> psychology of religion
> and try to stay away from theological disputes?
Er, Jim . . .
Most of my posts have been in response to your own comments
about religion, remember? Very few have dealt directly with the
psychology of religion; rather almost EVERYONE'S posts have dealt with
the religious beliefs themselves and/or the controversy between
scientific and religious interpretations of reality.
> I have no problem responding to your statements, and on the
> surface you
> make some good points (as have others), but I doubt others have much
> interest in a sermon.
Yet you provide them in your own responses to religious topics!
> Having said that, one problem I see with your argument is a lack of
> understanding of biblical teachings. You've yanked out
> something out of context.
Nope.
If your religion is based literally on the bible, then you have
to accept ALL parts of the book as equally valid--otherwise you
acknowledge that some parts are more important than others; totally
inappropriate if the book is "divinely inspired" or "the literal word of
god"--and of course if it isn't, then it's pure speculation on the part
of the authors and no more valid than, for example, Thus Spake
Zarathustra as a basis for a religion.
If, otoh, it IS based on a "divine inspiration," then by
necessity those who do not obey ALL its injunctions correspondingly deny
their religion or only practice those parts that are "convenient" for
them--tantamount to a scientist only accepting those results to his/her
research that fit prior assumptions and rejecting those which would tend
to support the opposite conclusions.
> For one, you're conflating the act and the punishment.
Nope--your religious book does that.
> If you read through the whole bible -- don't just stop at
> Leviticus -- you might
> meet someone named Jesus, someone who instituted a new covenant.
Translation: Despite the fact that Jesus states he did NOT come
to replace any of the teaching of the religion, it's more convenient for
Christians to pretend the first part of the bible is
"Overruled"--except, of course, when it comes to homosexuals,
creationism, belief in being swallowed by a whale and living there for
30 days, etc. In short--they are free to ignore those 'pesky' little
rules that make life "difficult."
How about Jews and Muslims? They DON'T have the "Jesus changed
the rules" cop-out--the book THEY adhere to is the Old Testament (and,
in the case of Islam, the Koran, of course). Should Jews put their
children to death for dishonoring them, etc.?
> That's why there are no animal sacrifices anymore -- for the
> Christian, Jesus is the perfect sacrifice.
Yep--most religions DO find human sacrifice more effective.
Now cite a single paragraph in the New Testament that states
that the sacrifices in the old testament are no longer required!
BTW, you said I should "read through the whole bible"--which
version would you prefer, I've read the KJV, RSV, Oxford, Jerusalem,
Women's and Vulgate versions (as well as a transliterated--versus
translated--Torah). How many _Christians_ have you met that have read it
even once, let alone six times?
> Further, one of his teachings is that a strict adherence to
> punishment would
> cause all to perish (familiar with the story of the woman who
> has committed
> adultery and those who try to stone her?). Jesus summed up
> the Law by
> preaching to love God and love your neighbor, and when He
> said love your
> neighbor, He meant love your neighbor, regardless of who he
> is and what he
> has done.
Er, Jim . . .
You DID say you wanted to see the conversation refrain from a
religious discussion and focus on the psychology of religion, right?
Haven't seen much here but prostylizing.
> Ever hear the biblical admonition "Hate the sin, love the sinner?"
Care to provide the specific citation?
> As far as your criticisms of biblical misogyny, the bible
> DOES NOT teach
> women to be subservient to her husband and be ruled in all
> things.
In Romans (NT, right?), a woman is injuncted to obey her husband
and to defer to him for her religious training. Several other points
emphasize the same perspective.
>The word
> is "submissive," not subservient. Spiritually she is his
> equal, but she has a
> different function. Just like all organizations --
> government, education,
> businesses have different people for different jobs -- the
> spiritual family is no
> different.
Tell modern women that they are to be "submissive" to their
husbands and see how quickly you discover that they don't exactly share
your religious beliefs!
> If you read on in one of those "submit" passages, the husband
> is required to
> love his wife, to cherish her, to even lay down his life for
> her if necessary. In
> God's plan, he is the benevolent leader, not a despot.
In the modern world he is a partner, not a leader.
> If you've ever had a department chair, or any kind of boss,
> what was a
> wonderful person to work for, that was kind, that took your
> input, and yet in
> the end the boss made the final decision, ultimately was
> responsible for the
> performance and status of the company/department, that's kind
> of what I'm
> getting at.
I'm sure that will please all the feminists who are thinking
"chauvinist!" right now.
> We seem to have no problem applying a hierarchy in all other
> systems of the
> community, but bristle when applied to the family. Why is that?
Maybe because most people regard their spouse as their equal and
their partner, not someone who should know her place and be submissive
to them.
What an odd view! ;-(
> Finally, as far as the "uncleanness" of the woman, I'd
> imagine that was a
> little more necessary out there in the desert. Than again,
> maybe it's still a
> good thing!
Why--scared a feminist with PMS is going after your head?
Don't worry--PMS isn't considered a valid legal defense for a
homicide--you're safe.
> And if you understood any of what I've argued above, you
> would see your
> criticism is simply not viable.
Sorry, Jim, but all you've done is to support my statements, not
refute them.
> Othewise, how do you explain that the overwhelming majority
> of the Christian
> religion's constituents are NOT out in the community
> committing a plethora
> of evil acts? Or are they just not paying as much attention
> as the ones who
> do commit evil? How do you explain that???
They don't adhere strongly enough to their religious teachings.
At this point, I'm withdrawing from the religious discussion
here in TIPS--it's become a question of either discussing theology or
debating the nature of Christianity, neither of which is really
appropriate to the list, as you point out.
Peace,
Rick
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
". . . and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the
love you leave behind when you're gone." --Fred Small
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
