TOPIC SUGGESTION: Authority of the Bible

[mdarby]

Hello,

I am a new listener and have enjoyed four episodes so far. I really like the format -- friendly, informative and civil. I think it's helpful to hear the best arguments from each side.

I've noticed, however, that many of Norton's arguments / explanations rely in part or in essence on "what the Bible says" on a topic. However, as an atheistic listener I find this frustrating, because it takes the discussion away form what is often based on logic / empiricism / ethics into a statement which is offered as authoritative but is of value only to a Christian.

I one took the Bible literally, then I could understand offering a passage from the Bible as evidence. However, non-literalists seem willing to acknowledge the Bible has factual errors, contradictions, uses analogies and parables, suffers from prejudices of ancient and distance peoples, etc.

If one takes this latter view then, how is it helpful to offer up a passage from the Bible as evidence without justifying why this quote (a) isn't one that is a mis-translation (b) isn't one which is meant as an analogy (c) isn't a parable (d) isn't merely a cultural anachronism and therefore should be taken somewhat literally?

My impression is that the Bible was once taken much more literally by most people. Over time, as the explanatory power of science grew, an increasing number of passages in the Bible were acknowledged to be false. (The age of the earth, heliocentrism, evolution, the value of pi, etc.) Similarly, as broadly held cultural norms (often based on humanistic principles) evolved, various moral prescriptions were viewed as anachronistic and to be ignored. Thus, while in the past many people used the Bible to justify slavery, few do so today. Fewer people use the Bible to justify misogyny today than in the past. Few people suggest that a rape victim should marry her rapist even though this is suggested in the Bible. At some point, when the broad culture advances Christians will probably place comments in the Bible about homosexuality in the same camp as those about slavery. It's in the Bible but with their modern perspective they will be able to justify ignoring it for one reason or another.

Given this perspective, it seems quite arbitrary then to quote the Bible to justify an argument. One of the episodes I listened to was on homosexuality. It seems the co-hosts agreed that (a) for many homosexuality was an inborn impulse (created by God?) not a chosen one (b) for many, it imposed no social cost and was harmless to others (c) it was probably unlikely that most people could change their impulses. Unstated but probably agreed by both hosts was that punishing people for things they couldn't change was morally ambiguous. All this was good: logical, based on ethics and empirical evidence.

Yet in the face of these rational arguments, Norton brought up alleged support in the Bible for condemning gays. OK, maybe the Bible said this, but how does one justify quoting these passages while disavowing similar ones on slavery / rape / genocide?

TOPIC IDEA

All of this leads me to my topic suggestion. Rather than allowing Christians to engage in ex-post special pleading about what in the Bible should be followed and what shouldn't, discuss optimal principles which in theory any intelligent person could use to parse the Bible. In other words, define a set of rules / principles / guidelines about how one can determine which parts of the Bible one should absolutely believe, which one should ignore, and which are unclear? Reasonable principles might be (a) believe those that are not contradicted by consensus science worldview (b) believe those passages that are supported by historical evidence outside the Bible (c) ignore moral prescriptions which violate the Golden Rule (d) etc. This is entirely possible in other areas of knowledge. For example, it would be fairly simple to define rules for judging scientific principles, e.g. (a) believe theories which are confirmed by increasing volumes of evidence (b) place weight on theories which make predictions that are shown to be true (c) question theories when new evidence arises that is inconsistent with the theory (d) etc.

It would be interesting to come up with the rules in advance, then go through some parts of the Bible to see what the rules would suggest? It would be particularly interesting to contrast this exercise with how the Bible seems actually to be parsed: (a) Christians believe factual claims in the Bible until science proves them wrong (b) Christians believe moral claims in the Bible until the prevailing morality changes then they don't (e.g. slavery, misogyny, etc.) (c) Christians generally affirm passages that show God / Jesus in a good light and disavow / ignore those that show him in a bad light.

The fact that Norton quotes passages justifying prejudice against gay people but not promoting slavery is more consistent with the latter approach than the former. I would be interested to see what kind of rules, established in advance, would justify our current view of the Bible.

Of course, if the Bible isn't generally reliable, or it isn't clear whether any individual fact or moral claim is reliable, then it shouldn't be used as evidence.

Thanks! I look forward to listening to more podcasts, even if only to better understand the Christian point of view.

Michael

[Pseudonym]

Hi, mdarby, and welcome to the group.

My impression is that the Bible was once taken much more literally by most people. Over time, as the explanatory power of science grew, an increasing number of passages in the Bible were acknowledged to be false. (The age of the earth, heliocentrism, evolution, the value of pi, etc.)

Might I suggest to you that your impression is... well, not exactly wrong, but kind of misleading.

As an aside, I find the whole "value of pi" thing to be more than a bit silly. The Bible doesn't give a value for pi. What is usually trotted out on such occasions is the dimensions of a stone structure which has to be built, where those dimensions are rounded to the nearest cubit. Oh, and several quite good rational approximations to the value of pi were known in early antiquity. Let's lay this one to rest, okay?

Now, on to the main point: It's kind of true that the Bible was once taken more literally by "most people", especially if by "most people" you mean the illiterate masses. What's not true is the idea that it's science that caused this to wane. The abundance of figurative, allegorical and generally non-literal interpretations of various bits of the Hebrew sacred texts go back as far in history as you care to go. Indeed, as I've noted before on the forum, non-literal approaches to Genesis 1 are the overwhelming majority amongst every Christian theologian who has expressed an opinion on the matter before Darwin.

The way you put it is that you've only given two options for how "true" a Biblical text can be: It's either "literal" or it's "false". This exposes a post-Enlightenment bias which most people in Biblical times would not have understood. If you look at the religions which exist today which are closest to how we believe pre-written-language religions probably looked (e.g. indigenous animist religions), you'll see that concepts such as "religion", "law", "medicine", "culture" and "art" were once less distinct than they are to us.

What does it even mean for a piece of the Levitical civil law to be "literal" or "false"? Stoning may be appropriate in a modern context but that doesn't mean that it wasn't literally part of their legal code.

Rather than allowing Christians to engage in ex-post special pleading about what in the Bible should be followed and what shouldn't, discuss optimal principles which in theory any intelligent person could use to parse the Bible.

The tricky bit about this is that it would surely require studying the languages the various parts of the Bible were written in, the history and cultures of the people which produced them, the specific challenges which were being addressed and the process by which religious texts are produced in general. Any intelligent person could do it in principle, but wouldn't it take a lifetime to master? Isn't that why we have experts?

If they want to cover all this on the podcast, I'd be the first to be excited about it, but I suspect their strengths lie elsewhere.

[mdarby]

@Pseudonym,

Thanks for your reply.

Now, on to the main point: It's kind of true that the Bible was once taken more literally by "most people", especially if by "most people" you mean the illiterate masses.

I think my point is valid even if you consider the views of church leaders, presumably among the most educated members of society through most of history. Do you deny that the consensus view of the church elites through much of history was that the world is <10,000 years old, that the Earth is the center of the universe, that Heaven is a physical place in the sky, that all life was created and did not evolve, etc.? Do you deny that fewer educated Christians hold these views today? I agree we should ignore the views of people truly ignorant of the issues on both sides.

The way you put it is that you've only given two options for how "true" a Biblical text can be: It's either "literal" or it's "false".

I am not actually claiming any element of the Bible is either "true" or "false." To the extent a particular passage is metaphorical or allegorical, for example, it's clearly neither.

But passages which make factual statements can be either true of false. If you claim the Bible shows God finds homosexuality to be an abomination, subject to defining abomination properly this is either true of false in my opinion. Either God finds homosexuality to be an abomination or he doesn't.

My point was that if in the middle of a discussion about homosexuality, during which we are debating whether it is harmful, whether it is chosen or a product of birth, etc., you quote a Bible passage suggesting God abhors homosexuality, yet admit that on any given subject the BIble might be true or false or in between or neither, what place does quoting the Bible have in the argument? If you are going to claim that you know which passages are about truth and to be taken literally and which are about metaphor, I would be more convinced if you articulated which are which in advance and how you know which are which. Otherwise, it risks coming off as ad hoc argument. ("Oh, yes, the passage on homosexuality is meant to be taken literally whereas the passage on slavery was just a product of the cultural norms at the time and should not apply today.") I would like to know the basis for this kind of thinking.

I agree that having defined a set of criteria, it would take lots of specific expertise including knowledge of language and local history to decide each claim. But I think it's possible to define a set of criteria for judging the truth value of the Bible in principle. For example, historical sources are favored which (a) agree with other contemporary sources (b) are written by contemporary to the events described (c) are written by "enemies" of the espoused position (d) are written by people who would tend to be embarrassed by the espoused position (e) are supported by physical evidence (f) are not self-contradictory.

I would be curious to see a set of principles which, when applied, excluded the parts of the Bible which most reasonable people exclude yet which supported the popular beliefs and which also concluded that competing worldviews (like Islam, Hinduism, etc.) were invalid. I would be curious even to the extent they could justify some popular religious rites (e.g. Communion) yet ignore various other archaic practices in the Old Testament.

As a non-Christian, my strong sense is as I've outlined, that the filtering is done ex-post largely influenced by evolving scientific knowledge and broader social trends.

Best,
Michael

[Pseudonym]

I think my point is valid even if you consider the views of church leaders, presumably among the most educated members of society through most of history. Do you deny that the consensus view of the church elites through much of history was that the world is <10,000 years old, that the Earth is the center of the universe, that Heaven is a physical place in the sky, that all life was created and did not evolve, etc.? Do you deny that fewer educated Christians hold these views today?

I'm not an expert on the history of thought on most of these points, but I will deny one thing if it helps: I deny that the specific bundle of beliefs that we commonly refer to as "Young Earth Creationism" predates the late 19th Century in any meaningful sense, and is a marginal position outside of North America.

The prevalent cosmology of most of the church's history probably owes more to Aristotle than to Genesis. It's also certainly true that when British geologists started making scientifically-based estimates of the age of the Earth (several hundred million years was a typical figure), very few if any leaders of the Church of England spoke out against it. Very few clerics spoke out against the timelines proposed by post-Darwin biologists, too.

But I'm not sure why any of this us relevant. Christianity has always been a religion of change. Even during the New Testament, it changed from being a Jewish sect to something adapted for the Greek-speaking world. The church has always adapted local customs, festivals and practices wherever it's gone. That the mainstream of Christianity adapted to the discovery of evolution is unremarkable.

But passages which make factual statements can be either true of false. If you claim the Bible shows God finds homosexuality to be an abomination, subject to defining abomination properly this is either true of false in my opinion. Either God finds homosexuality to be an abomination or he doesn't.

We've been through this before: The Bible doesn't mention homosexuality. The modern understanding of what is a "sexual orientation" is extremely recent.

What a couple of books of the Bible do talk about (quite briefly) is certain sexual practices which may or may not have some context attached to them. The hard work is understanding exactly what those Biblical authors meant and why they said it.

My point was that if in the middle of a discussion about homosexuality, during which we are debating whether it is harmful, whether it is chosen or a product of birth, etc., you quote a Bible passage suggesting God abhors homosexuality, yet admit that on any given subject the BIble might be true or false or in between or neither, what place does quoting the Bible have in the argument?

If we weren't both Christians, then it obviously wouldn't. And even if we were, it might not be relevant to the specific discussion.

If you are going to claim that you know which passages are about truth and to be taken literally and which are about metaphor, I would be more convinced if you articulated which are which in advance and how you know which are which. Otherwise, it risks coming off as ad hoc argument. ("Oh, yes, the passage on homosexuality is meant to be taken literally whereas the passage on slavery was just a product of the cultural norms at the time and should not apply today.") I would like to know the basis for this kind of thinking.

Oh, that one is easy: Historical research.

Once again, this is a topic that we've been through before on the forum. Searching for topics like "Leviticus" and "homosexuality" will bring up those old discussions.

But I think it's possible to define a set of criteria for judging the truth value of the Bible in principle.

You might be able to do that with a historical text where "truth value" makes sense, but for a text that is more like preaching, the best you could hope for is to understand what the author was trying to say and why they thought it was important to say at the time. Then you would have a basis for making a decision about whether or not it makes sense to apply that in a modern context.

For example, historical sources are favored which (a) agree with other contemporary sources (b) are written by contemporary to the events described (c) are written by "enemies" of the espoused position (d) are written by people who would tend to be embarrassed by the espoused position (e) are supported by physical evidence (f) are not self-contradictory.

Yup. So this is why, for example, pretty much all historians agree that it was likely that Jesus was indeed killed by the Romans, because this is "embarrassing" to Jesus' supporters.

I would be curious to see a set of principles which, when applied, excluded the parts of the Bible which most reasonable people exclude yet which supported the popular beliefs and which also concluded that competing worldviews (like Islam, Hinduism, etc.) were invalid.

The problem with most other major world religions such as Islam and Hinduism is that the basic research on the origins and transmission of the foundational texts isn't there. Christianity is in a privileged position in that we have gone through a post-enlightenment reform phase a hundred years ago.

Incidentally, comparing Christianity and Hinduism has the additional complication that many Hindus are of the opinion that these are not even "competing worldviews" at all.

I would be curious even to the extent they could justify some popular religious rites (e.g. Communion) yet ignore various other archaic practices in the Old Testament.

Giving credit where credit is due: The dispensationalists have this one worked out at least.

[mdarby]

@Pseudonym:

I appreciate your detailed reply. It's hard to disagree with your nuanced approach to the Bible, if I understand you to mean (approximately) that:

(a) a literal interpretation is inappropriate
(b) it should not generally be used a source for "truth" claims
(c) what the authors of the Bible mean in any given instance is not readily apparent, but frequently requires sophisticated historical analysis
(d) the interpretation of the Bible is dynamic and changes with the culture
(e) confidence in specific claims of the Bible should be subject, in principle, to the same principles of historical analysis as secular history
(f) interpretation of the Bible should evolve to be consistent will well-established scientific consensus

That being said, this has relatively little to do with my experiences with formal Christianity having attended church services over the years at a couple dozen churches. Based on the fact that the Bible is quoted at every Christian service, that is is usually the only book quoted, that the parts which are believed to be invalid are never mentioned, that parts presumably known to be incorrect (e.g. the myth of Noah and the flood) are taught to children with no mention of their myth status, etc. gave me the strong impression that the "good" parts of the Bible (ie. not the obviously archaic parts) are held to have a strong truth value beyond the principles (a) to (f) above.

This strikes me as how the Bible is used in practice by most educated people. For example, I brought up homosexuality in reference to the Christian and Atheist podcast on the subject, where the Bible was used as a source for potentially opposing homosexuality on moral grounds. Whether as you suggest the Bible doesn't in fact say this based on textual / historical / language analysis, the podcast discussion suggested that it did. (My casual reading of Leviticus 20:13 is also unambiguous, but I am sure a proper analysis of sources could raise many valid questions and I will check the forums as you suggest).

Anyway, my original post was a topic suggestion about how we know which parts of the Bible are worth interpreting literally or semi-literally, and which are not (either because they are myth, commonly mistranslated, represent outdated social norms, conflict with science, etc.) Christians often say that atheists have no basis for their morals since they are not provided by God. If the Bible is the Christian's source of eternal morals, it would help me (as somebody who lives with Christians) to understand how one is to decide which parts are a valid source of moral teaching.

I continue to think that textual analysis, historical analysis, going back to the ancient Greek meanings, etc. is an insufficient explanation. I continue to get the strong impression that undesirable verses (like Leviticus above) are studied for reasons they should be not taken seriously whereas more positive verses are given a pass, even thought they may have similar problems using the identical criteria.

If the podcasters think this essentially re-hashes previous topics or forum discussion, it can easily be ignored.

[Pseudonym]

I appreciate your detailed reply.

Thanks, and I appreciate the discussion.

It's hard to disagree with your nuanced approach to the Bible, if I understand you to mean (approximately) that:

(a) a literal interpretation is inappropriate
(b) it should not generally be used a source for "truth" claims
(c) what the authors of the Bible mean in any given instance is not readily apparent, but frequently requires sophisticated historical analysis
(d) the interpretation of the Bible is dynamic and changes with the culture
(e) confidence in specific claims of the Bible should be subject, in principle, to the same principles of historical analysis as secular history
(f) interpretation of the Bible should evolve to be consistent will well-established scientific consensus

Wow, what a great summary!

That being said, this has relatively little to do with my experiences with formal Christianity having attended church services over the years at a couple dozen churches.

Granted. Your experiences and mine are clearly different and, I dare say, if one of those churches had been Scott's, you'd have had a different experience again. Had you grown up as a Christian in the UK, India, South Korea, or Morocco, your experiences would be different yet again.

Now the churches that I grew up in (originally Methodist, but when I was very young the Methodist church merged with the Presbyterian and Congregationalist churches; the resulting Uniting Church is the third-largest religious institution in Australia) were neo-orthodox-to-liberal, which is itself a limited experience. And I'm spoiled by having lived for many years at a university college which doubled as a theological seminary, so I got to hang out with real live theologians of that persuasion.

Based on the fact that the Bible is quoted at every Christian service, that is is usually the only book quoted, that the parts which are believed to be invalid are never mentioned, that parts presumably known to be incorrect (e.g. the myth of Noah and the flood) are taught to children with no mention of their myth status, etc. gave me the strong impression that the "good" parts of the Bible (ie. not the obviously archaic parts) are held to have a strong truth value beyond the principles (a) to (f) above.

I'm curious to know how true this is. Most Christians in the world are Roman Catholic, and most of those that aren't are Eastern Orthodox or Anglican, with Lutheran close behind. This constitutes the majority of Christianity. Can I ask if any of these denominations were in your sample? (I'm not saying they're not. I'm just really curious about this.)

For example, I brought up homosexuality in reference to the Christian and Atheist podcast on the subject, where the Bible was used as a source for potentially opposing homosexuality on moral grounds. Whether as you suggest the Bible doesn't in fact say this based on textual / historical / language analysis, the podcast discussion suggested that it did. (My casual reading of Leviticus 20:13 is also unambiguous, but I am sure a proper analysis of sources could raise many valid questions and I will check the forums as you suggest).

Just to be clear, I'm drawing a distinction between "homosexuality", which is a sexual orientation, and various sexual practices. The Bible says nothing about sexual orientation, but does condemn certain sexual practices.

This distinction is important, because it's routinely applied elsewhere. The famous "no graven images" commandment, even though it literally reads like an injunction against representational sculpture, is almost always interpreted as meaning "no idolatry". Similarly, an injunction against two guys sleeping together does not imply that homosexuality is a "choice", as I've heard some say.

[mdarby]

Pseudonym,

I just noticed you hail from Melbourne. Perhaps that explains the differences in our experience with organized Christianity. I've attended a variety of Protestant churches (Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.) with some experience in Catholic churches and even some Orthodox churches via wedding ceremonies. I've attended and viewed on television some Mega Churches as well. I gather the American experience is different then elsewhere in the world.

Regarding your final point, if you are saying the Bible condemns the act of same sex intercourse, but not the desire to have same sex intercourse or homosexuality, that seems a stretch to me. Given the flexibility to interpret the Bible favorably Christians employ, I think a reasonable interpretation of same sex practices would be homosexuality.

If not, this would seem to provide a great example of applying loose interpretation in one area (to avoid crediting the Bible with a ban on representational sculpture) but strict in another (to avoid having the Bible condemn gays) in no way that could be justified ex ante, only ex post. That's why you should set the rules in advance to be credible!

At least that is how it appears to me as an outsider.

Best,
Michael

[Pseudonym]

Regarding your final point, if you are saying the Bible condemns the act of same sex intercourse, but not the desire to have same sex intercourse or homosexuality, that seems a stretch to me. Given the flexibility to interpret the Bible favorably Christians employ, I think a reasonable interpretation of same sex practices would be homosexuality.

Just to be clear, I'm not sure that it makes sense to talk about what "the Bible says" in many areas. The Bible is not a single book, but an anthology, and the opinions of its writers and later editors show clear examples of changing opinions over time.

In the case of the "no graven images" rule, its purpose is pretty obvious: According to the story, the Hebrews were busy casting a golden calf idol at the time.

It's also clear, I agree, that "men lying with men" is explicitly condemned by the Leviticus legal code. What's not clear is what the purpose of the prohibition was.

Well, kind of. The main thrust of Leviticus is that the Hebrews are not to be like those other nations. The prohibition of "men lying with men" is sandwiched inbetween not sacrificing your children to Molech and not eating unclean foods. It's probably a safe assumption that "men lying with men" was something that those other nations did.

[mdarby]

I agree the Bible was clearly an anthology written and edited by many people over the centuries.

However, most churches I've been to describe it as "the Word of God" or divinely inspired by God. God is the unifying element whose will and morality are presumed to flow through the stories, fables, etc. It is not an anthology as in "Best Poetry of Australia 2010" in which the poets compose independently of one another.

So going back to the my original post about the homosexuality discussion on this podcast, "the Bible" and not a particular chapter author was cited as providing a moral justification that some people might use to condemn gays. The Bible quote was not presented as a view into a particular tribe's desire to be distinct from a different tribe many centuries ago. I think most people who bother to reference the Bible on homosexuality have a pretty clear negative agenda.

The collective weight of your comments makes me think that you believe passages from the Bible should not be used as a source for objective morality. You clearly acknowledge that it should not be taken literally; that seemingly clear passages really ought to be seen as something else (e.g. not a prohibition on same-sex intercourse but a statement about being different from competing tribes); and that there is no reason to expect different parts of the Bible to agree with each other. These are not the qualities of a document that should be used to document Divinely inspired morality.

[Pseudonym]

However, most churches I've been to describe it as "the Word of God" or divinely inspired by God.

Yes, most Christians will say that. Pretty much every Christian will agree with "divinely inspired". Most will agree with "the Word of God" (though some reserve that title for Jesus). Few agree on precisely what that means.

So going back to the my original post about the homosexuality discussion on this podcast, "the Bible" and not a particular chapter author was cited as providing a moral justification that some people might use to condemn gays. The Bible quote was not presented as a view into a particular tribe's desire to be distinct from a different tribe many centuries ago. I think most people who bother to reference the Bible on homosexuality have a pretty clear negative agenda.

You're probably right about that.

Most Christians who use Leviticus in this way are probably being inconsistent in some way or another. The overwhelming majority of Christians do not believe they are bound by the Levitical legal code, and are perfectly happy to eat scallops and wear wool blend socks.

The collective weight of your comments makes me think that you believe passages from the Bible should not be used as a source for objective morality. You clearly acknowledge that it should not be taken literally; that seemingly clear passages really ought to be seen as something else (e.g. not a prohibition on same-sex intercourse but a statement about being different from competing tribes); and that there is no reason to expect different parts of the Bible to agree with each other. These are not the qualities of a document that should be used to document Divinely inspired morality.

I think you've conflated a few things there.

The first sentence I agree with up to a point. I'm a Christian, therefore I follow the teachings and practices of Jesus. I think that this is an objectively good moral code to follow, though arguably not the only one.

The second sentence I disagree with up to the semicolon. The "men lying with men" thing is 100% literal: It literally was part of the legal code of the Ancient Hebrews.

"Seemingly clear" is relative, though. There is probably no 3000-year-old document which is "clear" to a modern reader who has not studied the culture and history which produced that document. Remember, it's the same group of people from the same time and place who wrote the phrase "all men are created equal" and yet kept slaves. Without knowing something about the history and culture, you have no hope of understanding this.

The last point I'd like to make is that we often think we know what something means only because we've heard it repeated so much that we never question it. There is a few thousand years of history behind the interpretation "God says that men lying with men is an abomination" that it's only recently that anyone, even those who believe in a more involved form of "divine inspiration", has bothered to question this assumption.

Let me try to illustrate what I mean by that.

You've been to a bunch of churches, so you're no doubt familiar with this story:

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" He answered: " '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, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."
-- Luke 10:25-37 (NIV, minor editing by me)

What's the moral of the story?

This is not a trick question. I just want to know what your first response is, based on everything you know about this story. You're allowed to put more thought into a second response if you want, but I want the first response first, because this is likely to be the same as what "most people" think.

[mdarby]

As an aside, if this passage were one aspect of the Christian God's attempt to communicate what is required of men to enter Heaven, it is surprisingly opaque given the topic's importance. Jesus is answering a direct question about what is required to be with God after his death. My conception of God is one who would provide a clear, unambiguous statement, if for no other reason that future Christians would not kill each other over the proper interpretation of various doctrinal points. Instead, it seems to hang on the interpretation of "neighbor." The overall lack of clarity and contradictions in the Bible about such matters supports, in my opinion, the atheistic worldview.

But to answer your question, as I read the story "neighbor" refers to fellow men in general, but in particular men outside your primary social group and in particular men in need. Presumably the attacked man was not a Samaritan and was clearly down on his luck. My understanding is that Jesus is very clear about his strong feelings of connection to the poor, which is consistent with interpreting "neighbor" broadly and focusing on the needy. I believe the Old Testament was very much about identification with one's tribal group, and this story seems to expand upon that narrow view of social obligation.

I assume "most people" think something similar. I gather from you comments that a deeper textual analysis provides a different interpretation.

[Pseudonym]

The overall lack of clarity and contradictions in the Bible about such matters supports, in my opinion, the atheistic worldview.

Don't get me started on the misuse of the word "worldview" in Christian-Atheist discussions. (And yes, before anyone comments, I fully realise that it was Evangelical Christian apologists who started it!)

But to answer your question, as I read the story "neighbor" refers to fellow men in general, but in particular men outside your primary social group and in particular men in need. Presumably the attacked man was not a Samaritan and was clearly down on his luck. My understanding is that Jesus is very clear about his strong feelings of connection to the poor, which is consistent with interpreting "neighbor" broadly and focusing on the needy. I believe the Old Testament was very much about identification with one's tribal group, and this story seems to expand upon that narrow view of social obligation.

I assume "most people" think something similar. I gather from you comments that a deeper textual analysis provides a different interpretation.

The point of the exercise is that there are often shades of meaning in stories, even ones that we know extremely well, which are glaringly obvious but it just never occurs to us that they are there. There is a shade of meaning in this story which most people don't spot, and the only reason why they don't spot it is that it's never occurred to them that it is there.

It may have occurred to you before, or it may have been pointed out to you before. If so, my apologies. But this was the first example I could think of that would illustrate my point.

The protagonist of the story is the person who was mugged. The audience, the person to whom the story is being told, is an "expert in the law", as the NIV puts it. So yes, you're meant to get the notion that the person being mugged is a person very like the expert in Jewish law. You're also meant to get the idea that the Samaritan, the one who renders assistance, is outside that tribal group.

Here's the thing, though: It's very easy to show pity on someone who is outside your tribal group, even someone your culture has a prejudice against. What's difficult is putting your life in their hands and depending on their pity, which is what's actually happening in this story.

No, there's nothing Earth-shattering about this. No, this new shade of meaning of the story (assuming it is new for you) won't change your life. My point is just that it's a story we all know well, and have heard many times, but there's something quite obvious in it that that most of us have never spotted. I certainly hadn't until a Professor of New Testament pointed it out to me a few years ago.

(Incidentally, the reason why I wanted your thoughts was simply to give everyone else reading this thread a moment to think about everything they knew about this story. If I'd just launched into it, most people would have just read on without thinking. Sorry for making you do that.)

Now, back to the topic.

It seems to me that with Leviticus 20:13, there is a similar thing going on here. Just glancing at the verses around it in Leviticus 20, we see that verses 1 to 9 or so are about offering your children as sacrifices to Molech, consulting spiritists and cursing people. Verses 10 to 21 are sexual purity laws. Then verses 22 to 26 are another declaration that the Hebrews should not be like that unclean nation that Yahweh drove out ahead of them.

Isn't it obvious in retrospect that the sexual purity laws probably aren't thrown in there at random in the middle of a bunch of stuff about not being like those other unclean idolatrous nations?

Yes, Leviticus seems to have random stuff thrown in at odd points at times, but this isn't the only instance. In fact, the other Levitical law which is often used against homosexuality is even more explicit. This is most of Leviticus 18, taken from the NIV:

The LORD said to Moses, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'I am the LORD your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD.

At this point, there is the start of a long list of "unlawful sexual practices", the third last of which is:

" 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

This is the only item in the list which to modern eyes doesn't look like a sexual practice, unless the Molech worshippers did some stuff that was truly horrible.

But I digress. Second last:

" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

That's the one verse that's usually quoted in such discussions.

There follows a law about bestiality, then finally the epilogue:

" 'Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

That seems pretty clear to me. All of these "unlawful sexual practices" are pretty explicitly associated with those other unclean nations.

Do you agree?

[JustJim]

Here's the thing, though: It's very easy to show pity on someone who is outside your tribal group, even someone your culture has a prejudice against. What's difficult is putting your life in their hands and depending on their pity, which is what's actually happening in this story.

In what way did the victim of the mugging in the story "put his life into the hands of" the Samaritan and "depend on his pity"? It seems to me the victim played a totally passive role, while the Samaritan took on the merciful, "neighborly" role. And I think it's also noteworthy that, in the story, Jesus asks which of the three passers-by was a neighbor to the victim. That sets up a whole different perspective on what "neighbor" means, carrying it far beyond a matter of proximity or tribal relationship to a neighborly "action". He didn't really explain who our neighbors are - perhaps because that's so obvious - but he instead described what it means to be a neighbor to others. I like that....

That seems pretty clear to me. All of these "unlawful sexual practices" are pretty explicitly associated with those other unclean nations.

Even given your understanding of the association of those unlawful sexual practices with other (unclean) nations, isn't it still true that God is saying that such practices are nonetheless "unlawful" and, therefore, forbidden? Isn't he still saying homosexual acts are unlawful and immoral? Is there anything in these passages that provides a loophole for, say, our friend NH Baritone, to love another man and for them to act out their love for each other sexually? Maybe I just don't get what you're saying here.... Help?

Jim

P.S. I'm REALLY enjoying the conversation between you and mdarby, and I hope it continues. You guys do it GOOD!!!

[StillSearching]

In what way did the victim of the mugging in the story "put his life into the hands of" the Samaritan and "depend on his pity"? It seems to me the victim played a totally passive role, while the Samaritan took on the merciful, "neighborly" role. And I think it's also noteworthy that, in the story, Jesus asks which of the three passers-by was a neighbor to the victim. That sets up a whole different perspective on what "neighbor" means, carrying it far beyond a matter of proximity or tribal relationship to a neighborly "action". He didn't really explain who our neighbors are - perhaps because that's so obvious - but he instead described what it means to be a neighbor to others. I like that....

Interestingly enough, this passage was our Gospel reading this morning.

If you want the Cliff's Notes on how deep the rabbit hole goes on this parable, read the Wiki.

[Pseudonym]

Interestingly enough, this passage was our Gospel reading this morning.

Yes, it's was on the lectionary. Part of the reason why this story was the first example I thought of is that my mother (a lay preacher) was preparing a sermon on this very topic.

In what way did the victim of the mugging in the story "put his life into the hands of" the Samaritan and "depend on his pity"?

The story isn't really about a random victim. The audience of the parable was the Jewish "expert in the law" (using the NIV's words), who is the one who was supposed to imagine himself in the shoes of the protagonist.

Even given your understanding of the association of those unlawful sexual practices with other (unclean) nations, isn't it still true that God is saying that such practices are nonetheless "unlawful" and, therefore, forbidden? Isn't he still saying homosexual acts are unlawful and immoral? Is there anything in these passages that provides a loophole for, say, our friend NH Baritone, to love another man and for them to act out their love for each other sexually?

No, I'm not saying there are "loopholes", though a Jewish "expert in the law" could probably find one. If NH Baritone was an Ancient Hebrew, he would be out of luck, legally speaking.

Incidentally, I would also be out of luck, as I am currently wearing both cotton and polyester and ate bacon for breakfast this morning.