Crisis of Faith

Ethereal41 · Post by **Ethereal41** » 2006-10-31 07:50am

First up, let me just say that I am Christian and that I follow my faith as devoutly as I can. Lately, however, I've been having a crisis of faith with regards to how relgion applies to public institutions.

NB: This was cut and pasted from an email I circulated, apologies if it seems a bit choppy.

Further NB: I'm not interested in hearing any comments along the lines of "Christians are teh faggots!11!", or "Yeah, you are all a bunch of goose-stepping bastards". I'm posting this because I want your input on what I should do next. To this end, I'm going to ignore flaming and try and concentrate on the issue at hand.

(All quotes are cited in the exact context they were given)
Taken from the Lutheran High School of Dallas Website
(The former school of my current principal)
http://www.lhsdfw.com/lhslife/handbook/general2.htm
CONFLICT RESOLUTION

If a conflict should arise, the student is encouraged to follow the guidelines of Matthew 18:15-16 in order to resolve the conflict in a Christian manner. Part of this process may involve the adviser as a confidant and/or mediator on the student’s behalf. Though the use of a Bible verse in a school rule is something of an eyebrow-raiser, LHSD is, after all, a Christian school to the core, so this is ok.
Good News Bible (Standard Issue for everybody in my school)

Matthew 18: 15-16
“If your brother sins against you, go to him and show him his fault. But do it privately, just between yourselves. If he listens to you, you have won your brother back. But if he will not listen to you, take on or two other persons with you, so that every accusation may be upheld by the testimony of two or more witnesses as the scripture says.”

So far so good…But,

Matthew 18: 17
“And if he will not listen to them, then tell the whole thing to the Church. Finally, if he will not listen to the Church, treat him as though were a pagan or tax collector.” (Emphasis added)

Freedom of information is guaranteed in our society, while slander is not. One question, however. How precisely is one supposed to treat a ‘pagan’.

Ethereal41 · Post by **Ethereal41** » 2006-10-31 08:03am

Good grief...5 minutes now
I'd expected to get flamed in half that time

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-10-31 08:08am

What exactly are you asking?

"Pagan" was referring to believers in other religions.

If you're confused about how this fits into society, how about you first explain how Christianity can fit into American society. What Jesus taught is a far cry from capitalism. Camel? Eye? Needle? Remember?

At any rate, your sky fairy hasn't told me anything about it, so what do I know?

Ethereal41 · Post by **Ethereal41** » 2006-10-31 08:10am

I guess I just wanted the advice of the members of this board. The Principal in question has made choices pertaining to issues of this kind that I disagree with. If you want more information, I can give it to you.

So suggestions would be along the lines of...

Petitions, emails, that sort of thing

Ethereal41 · Post by **Ethereal41** » 2006-10-31 08:11am

Newb edit:

What exactly are you asking?

"Pagan" was referring to believers in other religions.

If you're confused about how this fits into society, how about you first explain how Christianity can fit into American society. What Jesus taught is a far cry from capitalism. Camel? Eye? Needle? Remember?

At any rate, your sky fairy hasn't told me anything about it, so what do I know?

This quote was made when I was angry, so I apologize for its incoherent flow.

Sorry

Ethereal41 · Post by **Ethereal41** » 2006-10-31 08:13am

You know, in retrospect, this whole thread was a stupid idea.

I think I'll just go away and simmer down.

Feel free to lock it.

Apologies for all those whose time was wasted

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-10-31 08:19am

I think you're making a mistake in assuming that the verse was written for the so-called Christians of today. This was directed toward the Matthean church when it was principally composed of Jews. An observant Jew would have avoided a gentile or tax collector, so the author of Matthew was pointing out that the congregation of disciples was to separate itself from the arrogantly sinful member who refuses to repent even when convicted. Paul mentions the same rules for excommunication in 1 Corinthians.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2006-10-31 08:25am

"Pagan" means they're not quite "clean people" like tax collectors, mentally ill "possessed people" or lepers for that matter, so they shouldn't be considered true parts of the fold; however, if you want to do as Jesus did, that shouldn't stop you hanging out with them (and presumably yakking on about God, though generally, I would advise agaisnt that since it marks you out to be a lame person).

In practise, it will mean shun them. Always does.

Here's the commentary from the USCCB: Source.

[15-20] Passing from the duty of Christian disciples toward those who have strayed from their number, the discourse now turns to how they are to deal with one who sins and yet remains within the community. First there is to be private correction (Matthew 18:15); if this is unsuccessful, further correction before two or three witnesses (Matthew 18:16); if this fails, the matter is to be brought before the assembled community (the church), and if the sinner refuses to attend to the correction of the church, he is to be expelled (Matthew 18:17).

The church's judgment will be ratified in heaven, i.e., by God (Matthew 18:18). This three-step process of correction corresponds, though not exactly, to the procedure of the Qumran community; see 1QS 5:25-6:1; 6:24-7:25; CD 9:2-8. The section ends with a saying about the favorable response of God to prayer, even to that of a very small number, for Jesus is in the midst of any gathering of his disciples, however small (Matthew 18:19-20). Whether this prayer has anything to do with the preceding judgment is uncertain.

Ethereal41 · Post by **Ethereal41** » 2006-10-31 08:31am

I guess now that I have "sown the wind" I might as well reap the whirlwind.

Forget all of the above examples. As I said, they were made when I was very angry, and are thus very confused.

A big struggle for me as a Christian is how to interpret the Bible. For a book we are supposed to interpret literally (at least according to prevailing relgious sentiment), I do not understand 'pick and choose' mentality that most other Christians seem to have when reading scripture. If you argue that the Bible has to be interpreted through the lens of history (which it probably does), then you acknowledge that you cannot accept it on the literal level any longer. You have begun to interpret it, and thus its literal 'meaning' has been lost.

Leviticus is often used by homophobes for its fairly clear stance on homosexuality. Yet in the very same book, we are given orders to destroy clothes and houses contaminated with mildew.

If you think my arguments above are stupid, let me boil it down to this.

You cannot pluck verses from the Bible and use them to support your own assumptions. If we regard relgion as totally infaillable and sacred, then It's either all or nothing

Talanth · Post by **Talanth** » 2006-10-31 08:33am

I can't see anything wrong with the thread so long as you're genuinly asking for advice.

In answer to your question I'd say that you have three choices. 1) Go by the word of the bible over and above the law of the land, in which case you will be likely to go to goal for stoning anyone who sins against you. 2) Go by the law of the land first and formost, and fill in any of the gaps with biblical law, in which case you will find an aufull lot of conflicts and descover you're breaking or ignoring much of the bibles teachings. 3) Ignore the bible and make the asumption that God Is Good but Man makes a very unreliable typewriter, and therefor work within your own moral code (as well as within the law) and asume any contradictions in the bible are printing errors.

Or 4) Follow (3) but also become an Athiest so it does'nt bother you so much.

Hope that helps.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-10-31 08:37am

Ethereal41 wrote: You cannot pluck verses from the Bible and use them to support your own assumptions. If we regard relgion as totally infaillable and sacred, then It's either all or nothing

That's quite a blanket statement fallacy there, and it's bullshit. Hopefully, as you get older and more learned in your education, you'll see how silly this type of thinking is.

The Bible was written by many authors throughout many periods of history. It has gone through numerous translations. Give me a break...

Ethereal41 · Post by **Ethereal41** » 2006-10-31 08:40am

I've tried to provide evidence for my post (which I admit was stupid, but that was in fact the point). I'd be obliged if you would repay the favor by offering specific examples.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-10-31 08:44am

Ethereal41 wrote:I've tried to provide evidence for my post (which I admit was stupid, but that was in fact the point). I'd be obliged if you would repay the favor by offering specific examples.

Examples of what? Bible contradicting reality? For fuck's sake, where should I start? It's a book of mythology like any other...

You want examples of Biblical bullshit?

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-10-31 08:47am

And by the way, the burdon of proof lies on you. You're saying it's infallible, so you have to prove that.

I don't have to disprove anything.

Hillary · Post by **Hillary** » 2006-10-31 08:49am

Superman wrote:
Ethereal41 wrote: You cannot pluck verses from the Bible and use them to support your own assumptions. If we regard relgion as totally infaillable and sacred, then It's either all or nothing
That's quite a blanket statement fallacy there, and it's bullshit. Hopefully, as you get older and more learned in your education, you'll see how silly this type of thinking is.

Why? I think it's rather logical myself. If you believe the bible is God's word and he is infallible, then you have to follow all of it, not pick and choose.

If, on the other hand, you believe that it is written by men who are very fallible, how on earth do you decide which bits to believe in?

Most Christians seem (in my view) to run the bible through their own morality filter - picking the bits they agree with and dismissing the rest as allegory. Surely that's totally illogical as they are putting their own moral values above that of their God. That, or they are claiming to know their God well enough to decide which bits he means literally and which he doesn't, which is rather arrogant and not at all humble as they are supposed to be.

Talanth · Post by **Talanth** » 2006-10-31 08:51am

You could always convert to Islam. It's still (suposedly) sanctified by God, on acount of the Koran being delivered by the Angel Gabriel, but contains far fewer contradictions. A few shitty laws admitedly, but at least you wouldn't have any problems with following it to the letter.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-10-31 08:51am

Superman wrote:
Ethereal41 wrote: You cannot pluck verses from the Bible and use them to support your own assumptions. If we regard relgion as totally infaillable and sacred, then It's either all or nothing
That's quite a blanket statement fallacy there, and it's bullshit. Hopefully, as you get older and more learned in your education, you'll see how silly this type of thinking is.

The Bible was written by many authors throughout many periods of history. It has gone through numerous translations. Give me a break...

As far as I can see, his statement is logically accurate...it just depends on an IF statement, the condition of which is patently false.

If the IF of an IF-THEN statement is false, the statement is automatically true, isn't it?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-10-31 08:51am

Ethereal41 wrote:I guess now that I have "sown the wind" I might as well reap the whirlwind.

Forget all of the above examples. As I said, they were made when I was very angry, and are thus very confused.

A big struggle for me as a Christian is how to interpret the Bible. For a book we are supposed to interpret literally (at least according to prevailing relgious sentiment), I do not understand 'pick and choose' mentality that most other Christians seem to have when reading scripture. If you argue that the Bible has to be interpreted through the lens of history (which it probably does), then you acknowledge that you cannot accept it on the literal level any longer. You have begun to interpret it, and thus its literal 'meaning' has been lost.

Leviticus is often used by homophobes for its fairly clear stance on homosexuality. Yet in the very same book, we are given orders to destroy clothes and houses contaminated with mildew.

If you think my arguments above are stupid, let me boil it down to this.

You cannot pluck verses from the Bible and use them to support your own assumptions. If we regard relgion as totally infaillable and sacred, then It's either all or nothing

If you accept talking snakes and bushes as apart of reality and some sort of infallible truth, then frankly you're beyond any kind of help we can give you. I'd personally advise a psychiatrist.

Ethereal41 · Post by **Ethereal41** » 2006-10-31 08:53am

Examples of what? Bible contradicting reality? For fuck's sake, where should I start? It's a book of mythology like any other...

You want examples of Biblical bullshit?

So it begins

Maybe Chrisitianity is wrong, but I'd like to hold off the Bible smack talk for now.

I'm looking for facts, not an argument.

Let me summarize
An event reccently happened which caused me to question my faith, specifically an event in my school pertaining to the issue of religion with regard to school rules. My question was initially about what I should do about it (sorry if this didn't come across, I'm still seeing red right now). What I was asking for above were example of mistranslations. I'm already familiar with most of the inconsistencies: "Sun stop, moon stand still" and all that stuff.

I

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-10-31 08:55am

Hillary wrote:
Superman wrote:
Ethereal41 wrote: You cannot pluck verses from the Bible and use them to support your own assumptions. If we regard relgion as totally infaillable and sacred, then It's either all or nothing
That's quite a blanket statement fallacy there, and it's bullshit. Hopefully, as you get older and more learned in your education, you'll see how silly this type of thinking is.
Why? I think it's rather logical myself. If you believe the bible is God's word and he is infallible, then you have to follow all of it, not pick and choose.

If, on the other hand, you believe that it is written by men who are very fallible, how on earth do you decide which bits to believe in?

Most Christians seem (in my view) to run the bible through their own morality filter - picking the bits they agree with and dismissing the rest as allegory. Surely that's totally illogical as they are putting their own moral values above that of their God. That, or they are claiming to know their God well enough to decide which bits he means literally and which he doesn't, which is rather arrogant and not at all humble as they are supposed to be.

It's working from the premise that the bible must either be absolutely true or not true at all. That's frankly a severe form of black and white thinking, which is highly fallacious as anyone can tell you. Second, why not make up your own mind as to what you believe instead of having it spoon fed by old men in robes and thinking it must be true because your parents/church/etc believes so and so way?

Ethereal41 · Post by **Ethereal41** » 2006-10-31 08:55am

If you accept talking snakes and bushes as apart of reality and some sort of infallible truth, then frankly you're beyond any kind of help we can give you. I'd personally advise a psychiatrist.

For all the anger I'm trying to cope with at the moment, I actually laughed out loud when I read this. I think It's sig-worthy
I don't think I'm in need of that kind of help

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-10-31 08:58am

Hillary wrote:Why? I think it's rather logical myself. If you believe the bible is God's word and he is infallible, then you have to follow all of it, not pick and choose..

You are still 'picking and choosing.' No matter what you profess, there are thousands of protestant evangelical morons in different denominations who all claim to believe the Bible is the infallible word of god. You still follow a subjective interpretation.

If, on the other hand, you believe that it is written by men who are very fallible, how on earth do you decide which bits to believe in?]

The Catholic church existed for almost 2,000 years before any evangelicals spouted this crap, and they existed under the authority of their church. They told people what was and what wasn't. This is the job of clergy or 'holy men' in almost any religion. When the authority of the church was rejected, the door was opened for what exists now.

Why not just realize it's bullshit and not live life worrying about nonsense? You really need some book to tell you not to kill your neighbor?

Most Christians seem (in my view) to run the bible through their own morality filter - picking the bits they agree with and dismissing the rest as allegory. Surely that's totally illogical as they are putting their own moral values above that of their God. That, or they are claiming to know their God well enough to decide which bits he means literally and which he doesn't, which is rather arrogant and not at all humble as they are supposed to be.

Good example of a 'no true scottsman' fallacy.

[/quote]

Ethereal41 · Post by **Ethereal41** » 2006-10-31 09:00am

It's working from the premise that the bible must either be absolutely true or not true at all. That's frankly a severe form of black and white thinking, which is highly fallacious as anyone can tell you.

Yes it is fallacious, but its a doctrine that is preached from pulpits across the United States. I would argue that Relgion is often associated with absolutes, which is what attracts people because it offers security and finality.

Second, why not make up your own mind as to what you believe instead of having it spoon fed by old men in robes and thinking it must be true because your parents/church/etc believes so and so way?

I've been trying to make up my mind about what I beleive, and I was hoping you could help me do it.

Hillary · Post by **Hillary** » 2006-10-31 09:01am

General Zod wrote:
Hillary wrote:
Superman wrote: That's quite a blanket statement fallacy there, and it's bullshit. Hopefully, as you get older and more learned in your education, you'll see how silly this type of thinking is.
Why? I think it's rather logical myself. If you believe the bible is God's word and he is infallible, then you have to follow all of it, not pick and choose.

If, on the other hand, you believe that it is written by men who are very fallible, how on earth do you decide which bits to believe in?

Most Christians seem (in my view) to run the bible through their own morality filter - picking the bits they agree with and dismissing the rest as allegory. Surely that's totally illogical as they are putting their own moral values above that of their God. That, or they are claiming to know their God well enough to decide which bits he means literally and which he doesn't, which is rather arrogant and not at all humble as they are supposed to be.
It's working from the premise that the bible must either be absolutely true or not true at all. That's frankly a severe form of black and white thinking, which is highly fallacious as anyone can tell you. Second, why not make up your own mind as to what you believe instead of having it spoon fed by old men in robes and thinking it must be true because your parents/church/etc believes so and so way?

But if the only "evidence" of Christianity is the bible, then it is pretty much black and white, isn't it? Either the bible is wholly true or it isn't? If it isn't, which bits do you believe in?

As for the last bit, I'm a raving heathen so you're preaching to the converted so to speak

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-10-31 09:04am

Hillary wrote:

But if the only "evidence" of Christianity is the bible, then it is pretty much black and white, isn't it? Either the bible is wholly true or it isn't? If it isn't, which bits do you believe in?

As for the last bit, I'm a raving heathen so you're preaching to the converted so to speak

Again, you're working from a faulty premise. Christianity is largely based off of Jewish laws and tradition which existed for centuries before Paul came around and reformed everything. The bible is not the sole source for Christianity and several other religions have myths that it stole from. Saturnalia being adopted into celebrations by Christians to help in converting local pagan groups, for example. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to ask here except 'is Christianity a crock of shit'. If that's all it is, I'd suggest Snopes or the skeptics annotated bible, which can both be found by googling.