Lecturer and professor emeritus, DePaul University
Irish-born John Dominic Crossan is a professor emeritus in the religious studies department at DePaul University in Chicago. Between 1950 and 1969, he was a member of a 13th-century Roman Catholic religious order, the Servites, and remained an ordained priest from 1957 to 1969. He has delivered lectures to secular and lay audiences from Scandinavia to Australia to Japan to South Africa.
The On Faith panelist has authored 23 books and his writings have been translated into 11 languages. His work focuses on the historical Jesus, earliest Christianity and the historical Paul. Core titles include “The Historical Jesus,” “The Birth of Christianity” and “In Search of Paul,” co-written with archaeologist Jonathan L. Reed. Dr. Crossan’s next book, “God & Empire: Jesus Against Rome Then and Now,” is scheduled for publication in February.
The professor earned a doctor of divinity degree at St. Patrick’s College in Maynooth, Ireland and a humanities doctorate at Stetson University in Florida. The American Academy of Religion and DePaul and Stetson universities have recognized him with awards for scholarly excellence. His Web site is www.johndominiccrossan.com.
Close.
John Dominic Crossan
Lecturer and professor emeritus, DePaul University
Irish-born John Dominic Crossan is a professor emeritus in the religious studies department at DePaul University in Chicago. Between 1950 and 1969, he was a member of a 13th-century Roman Catholic religious order, the Servites, and remained an ordained priest from 1957 to 1969. He has delivered lectures to secular and lay audiences from Scandinavia to Australia to Japan to South Africa.
The On Faith panelist has authored 23 books and his writings have been translated into 11 languages.
more »
Inerrancy is just not a question... It shouldn't be in any form of Biblical scholarship! It's just wrong and the sooner people learn to deal with that, the better.
On a larger issue - the inerrancy, interpretation, accuracy etc of the Bible -
Here's a little experiment, for anyone who has had a direct spiritual experience - whether a vision, a dream, God speaking to them directly, something more concrete or less.
Try putting it down in words. Just try capturing the entirety, every nuance, every flavor of meaning, the precise and exact experience, conveying all and exactly all of the data your senses acquired.
Can't be done. Language is finite, God and experiences of God are not. Language can't even completely convey finite things.
Go ahead, try it. Write a description of red, without refering to anything that is red, that inerrantly communicates to any reader, sighted or not, what 'red' is.
Look at all the miscommunication that occurs between people from the same basic culture, speaking the same basic language, with the opportunity to question and clarify.
Now you want to insist that you know what a text written over the course of hundreds of years, several thousand years ago, means exactly - with so much assurance that you are entitled to hurt people?
It was so kind of you to provide an actual source for your prejudice against other people.
I have to ask, do you know that the Bible was not written in English?
Most of the New Testament was written in Greek, with a sentence or two of Aramaic here and there.
So, you drag out I Corinthians 6:9-11, which in its original language contains two words - arsenokoite and malakoi, that conservative translators for some seven hundred years have been translating as referring to homosexuality.
There's a problem though. Neither word actually means 'men who have sex with men'. And greek of Paul's time and place did have two words that did and do mean 'men who have sex with men' - erestes and erenamos. Paul did not use either one. He made up arsenokoite, and malakoi means 'soft, fine'.
It is as if I wrote a condemnation of people who smoke, and instead of using the word 'smokers', I used a made-up a word 'coffeebreakwhitepuffmakers' and 'ignition'. Then a couple of centuries later, people start condemning the eating of toasted marshmallows at work. Sheesh.
Ponder that for an hour or two. Let it sink in. Paul did not use either of the two words his audience - the people he was writing directly too - would have understood as a reference to people attracted to those of their own gender.
Paul did not use the words that conveyed the concept we use the word homosexual for. He used two entirely different words. He chose not to use the words that would convey the idea you are insisting on.
What he really meant? That's subject for considerable debate. But it is clear he didn't mean men who have sex with men, for he used neither greek word for that concept.
When you insist that homosexual lovemaking is a sin, you sin against me and my partner, and millions of other humans as well, by declaring that the most beautiful and intimate, unitive expression of our love is worthy of eternal torture. That is a truly hideous claim to make, one that violates something Jesus said was one of the Greatest Commandments - love your neighbor as yourself.
I forgive you, but still must ask that you sincerely repent.
Hey, I haven't forgotten you. I have, however, given my offer to you some thought and am wondering if it makes much sense to repeat many of the external evidences you've most likely already considered, and rejected. I'm reminded of the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus. As you probably remember, the rich man, suffering the torment of hell, sees Abraham and Lazarus in the distance. He pleads with Abraham to send Lazarus (who also has died) to warn his brothers, who he says will listen to Lazarus. Abraham's reply: "They have Moses and the Prophets...if they do not listen to them, they will not be convinced, even if someone rises from the dead."
I would have argued for a creator with things such as the tilt of the earth's axis, the distance of the earth from the sun and the moon, the conditions on earth necessary for life to exist, etc., etc. I would have argued against evolution with examples such as the human eye, the existence of a conscience, the existence of such unnecessary things as humor, laughter, guilt, etc., etc., etc. Ultimately, I believe that for those who die apart from Jesus Christ, all of these things will simply be icing on the cake. The most condemning evidence against most of those people will be that the biblical God, who I believe created them and everything else, told them how things are, and, in refusing to accept the truth, made a liar out of God. I know that's pretty heavy, but that's what I believe. However, I'll be pleased to discuss this with you further if you'd like to. In any event, I agree with you that I want to preserve our friendly posts. Just let me know. Take care.
For those referencing St. Paul's anti-feminine passages, please read Professor Crossan's book, In Search of Paul and other contemporary books about Paul's epistles. For example, the passages "Women are to keep silent in church" and
"Women are not to teach or to have authority over men" were not from St. Paul but were written by followers/pseudo-Pauls with an anti-feminine agenda common in the first century CE. (1 Timothy 2: 8-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36)
I realize that feminism was a long way in the future during Paul's day, and I grew up in churches that believed that the words of Paul were just as eternal and universal as Jesus' "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
Words such as:
"Women are to keep silent in church."
"Women are not to teach or to have authority over men."
"Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands in all things." Even with the subsequent, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for her.", it still speaks of women as servile to men, not equal servants of the Christ.
"It is better to marry than to burn."
Paul saw women as extensions of Eve, with weaker minds than men, and who could be more easily tempted and who would lead men astray.
Let's face it, women's lib was nowhere in sight back then, and if you read the text in entirety, you'll see that Paul is saying that women could be a distraction to men who are at the important work of prayer. Paul never says that women aren't important to God's work, and he even writes about a few who did discipling. Clearly, spreading the word of God and teaching the start-up churches was of utmost importance to Paul, and he felt that he had no time for women. Likewise, he felt that men would be able to concentrate better on the teachings of the early church without distraction. But he doesn't say that there is no place for women, or that men should never marry, or that women are evil. I do think that taking sentences here and there can make it sound that way, though.
Paul made it pretty clear that, as far as he was concerned, celibacy would be the path for all if it were up to him. And let's face it, while the society at large was male-dominated, Paul's ideas and attitudes regarding women who were supposedly his sisters in the faith did not speak of divine kinship, but accused all women of being temptresses who would distract men from the work of God. Paul had no real use for women, and this woman has no use for him.
I think that so much from Paul is included because of who he was and who he became. It was a mighty big step to go from powerful Jew persecuting the Christians to believer and apostle. Hearing from someone like that might be considered pretty important. Also, he was the apostle who took on a huge load of bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles, and that was the biggest part of what God was doing at that time.
As far as Paul and sex, I really don't think that he thought sex and marriage were bad for everyone. I think he just made it a point to make it clear that it was ok for people if they didn't want to be in relationships, since that was looked down upon in those times.
Anonymous:
I guess my question is, considering how it came to be, why would you consider the whole anthology to be the inerrant word of a god, any more than the collection that I described above, simply because a couple of centuries ago (give or take a few decades), a group of clerics sat down and voted on what would and would not be canon? It's not like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were taking shorthand in red ink as Jesus spoke.
And I put little credence in anything Paul said. How can you look to a man like Paul for wisdom concerning marriage (hetero or homosexual) when he had so many issues with any kind of sexuality? He wasn't wild about hetero marriage - he considered it a palliative for those who were too horny to be able to control themselves and he considered marrying and making babies a waste of time and a distraction from the preparing for the Second Coming. My reading of his letters leads me to believe that he would have been just as happy if my sex had simply disappeared. The fact that so much of Christianity is Pauline in nature is one of the many reasons I left it.
BUT, if you believe that it is all the Word of God, it doesn't matter how many people actually did the writing. What's nice for us is that it has all been put together into one package; many different stories, letters, commandments, and histories, that God wants us to know.
Anonymous:
You missed what I was saying - whether intentionally or not, I don't know. What I was trying to say was that since the Bible was not written as one single work, but compliled from many different works, there is no reason to look up it as a unified whole. It would be like taking part of a Dr. Suess story, one of my dad's letters to my mom from when he was in the service, some Leonard Cohen lyrics, and a partial stanza from a Pablo Neruda poem, binding them together between two covers, and calling the resulting anthology a unified guide to life. While there is much that can be learned from all of the above-mentioned texts, it would be ridiculous to say that because I find relevance and meaning in one or two of them, I must follow them all.
I understand that there are many Christians who don't believe that the entire Bible comes from God, and that is a shame that they were taught that way. The fact that the wording has been edited differently over the ages is what has caused so much turmoil and creation of denominations. It is precisely because of this that I take the extra time to study the literal translations from original texts (or at least as original as possible).
The ancient Hebrew and Greek texts used specific wording and language that meant one thing but was sometimes translated later to fit a belief or agenda. People should always go to the source as much as possible.
Anonymous: I know many Christians who do not believe that everything in the Bible was intended to be taken literally, or even that everything that was chosen as canon was meant by the writers to be universally applied. They realize that, even though it does contain much wisdom, it was assembled and edited by a group of clerics who had their own agenda. You don't have to believe that every word in the Bible is objective literal truth to be a Christian.
Christians do not turn off their minds when they come to know Adoni, it is quite obvious however, at that point, they have been trying to paddle the boat with a toothpick.
I Corinthians 1:17-31 - Jewish New Testament - Translation by David H. Stern
For the Messiah did not send me to immerse, but to proclaim the Good News - and to do it without relying on "wisdom" that consists of mere rhetoric, so as not to rob the Messiah's execution-stake of its power. For the message about the execution-stake is foolishness to those in the process of being destroyed, but to us in the process of being saved, it is the power of God. Indeed, the Tanakh says,
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and frustrate the intelligence of the intelligent."
Where does that leave the philosopher, the Torah-teacher,or any of today's thinkers? Hasn't God made this world's widom look pretty foolish? For God's wisdom ordained that the world, using its own wisdom, would would not come to know Him. Therefore God decided to use the "nonsense" of what we proclaim as His means of saving those who come to trust in it. Precisely because Jews ask for signs, and Greeks try to find wisdom, we go on proclaiming a Messiah executed on a stake as a criminal! To Jews this is an obstacle, and to Greeks it is nonsense; but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, this same Messiah is God's power and wisdom! For God's "nonsense" is wiser than humanity's "wisdom".
John, I used to live in the authority of my own opinion too. To live in the light of God's love and wisdon is a far superior experience.
My comment to Mr. Crossan was from one Christian to another, based on the belief that the Bible is the Word of God. If you believe that, then it is all true and relevant, and all of it is to be believed. If you don't believe that, then for you it's merely a book full of stories, and its relevancy depends on whether or not you like what you read.
It truly is a matter of faith (ooo, there's that word that makes so many people cringe...) The fact is that people believe in all kinds of things; bigfoot, aliens, psychics, astrology, gods and goddesses, witchcraft, scientific theories... And some believe that Jesus was God in man. People have their own reasons for choosing what to believe.
Anonymous: "Well, you can't pick and choose what you do and don't believe from the Bible, can you Mr. Crossan?"
Why not? It's not as though the Bible was written as one unified text. It was assembled by what amounted to a committee from many writings by many different authors many of whom were long dead by the time the Bible as you now know it came to be debated and voted on. If I have any other anthology of short stories and poetry, am I obligated to read each and every word of the contents, and to give each item equal consideration and credence? No. I read those that I like, that make sense to me; I will likely read them repeatedly. Those that turn me off, I am not obligated to read.
If you believe the Bible is the Word of God, then you can't pick and choose what you believe. If you don't believe it's God's Word, then you just consider it a suggestion, which justifies your choosing what you want to believe.
There are 4 gospels because 4 different people decided to write about it; note all of the similarities between them.
As for no archaeological proof of Moses having existed: there are millions and millions of people who have lived and died without leaving archaeological proof. The fact that the Jews worshipped God and not Moses would be a big reason why you don't find monuments built for him.
You have no proof that the OT is a bunch of tall tales, just as I have no proof that it's not.
When you pick bits and pieces of the Bible out, you can easily take things out of context to make it sound like something else (just as people often do with comments and speeches). You have to read the whole context within which your quotes reside to know exactly which laws are being referred to. And referring to commandments is different that referring to laws.
Part of the problem here is that people are using English translations. These things make much more sense when you go back to the original language that was used and translate that literally. My personal experience with that has been that I have been given a much more thorough understanding of the scriptures by seeing what was originally written as opposed to the differences in translations.
Many thanks for your kind words. Your posts which reflects a mind sharp as a razor's edge is an absolute delight to read too. I'm so happy that you are a Muslim woman sharing your brilliant thoughts on this thread, like Victoria. It is important for more people to get to know female progressive Muslims who can participate powerfully in inter-religious dialogue and work towards finding common ground with people of all faiths and none.
You guessed right I'm from India - from the state of Kerala (I mentioned it on several threads actually but probably not in the ones to which you have been contributing). Kerala by the way has had Muslims from the eighth century and they constitute 24.7% of the Kerala population. In Kerala because of the Abrahamic faith denominator Christians and Muslims feel a special bond, or at least some fundamentalist Hindus are convinced that we work closely together in Kerala. I left Kerala when I was eight years old, have been mostly an observer since, and couldn't verify that Hindu claim.
Among Indian writers, you forgot to mention the Indian born Sulman Rushdie. As to the world famous Arundhati Roy - her mother is from Kerala. Roy identifies herself only as being from Kerala although her father is a Bengali Hindu, because she did not know her father and lived with her mother in Kerala until the age of 17. Her mother had moved back to Kerala, supposedly separating from her father, shortly before/after she was born. I'm not well informed about her pesonal details. But the mixture of Bengali and Malayalee has given her an extra portion of beauty and intelligence, that is for sure.
"Well, you can't pick and choose what you do and don't believe from the Bible..."
Why not? We pick and choose what we believe everywhere else: TV, newspaper, friends, history books, rumor, even science. Picking and choosing what we believe is of the essence to human cognition.
Of course, picking and choosing means keeping your brain turned on. I'm aware that picking up the Bible means choosing to shut down the brain for many people. I'm also aware that this has nothing to do with a search for the truth. (You can't search for the truth with your brain turned off, can you?)
I'm pretty sure that if these people did actually do any mental test for the truth in the Bible, and realized it wasn't there, their world would come crashing down. I'm not sure why this is, though.
Anonymous. Maybe another illustration. Is it good to be rich?
The Bible, your word of God says no, it is a very bad thing.
Matthew 19:23-24 Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Luke 6:24 Woe to you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.
James 5:1 Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.
Except in the places where your Official Word of God says yes, it is a blessing to be rich and a reward to the Righteous.
Psalm 12:1, 3 Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord .... Wealth and riches shall be in his house.
Proverbs 15:6 In the house of the righteous is much treasure.
OK. You tell me. What part of the Bible should I believe? Is long hair good or bad?
Maybe that's not fair, so let's just stick with the New Testament, your inviolable Word of God. How does it answer the following question?
Does a good Christian have to obey all of the laws enumerated in the Old Testament?
The answer is Yes. According to:
Matthew 5:18-19
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.
Luke 16:17
It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
The answer is No. According to:
Luke 16:16
The law and the prophets were until John [the Baptist]. Since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached.
Romans 6:14
Ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Romans 7:4, 6
Ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ .... We are delivered from the law, that being dead.
Romans 10:4
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Galatians 5:18
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Ephesians 2:15
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.
Colossians 2:14
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances ... nailing it to his cross.
The major problem is the belief by some that the OT and NT are somehow the words of God. If they were the words of God there would be only one NT gospel not four and note the lack of attestation amongst the four Gospels of the NT.
There also is no archeological evidence that the Moses of the OT ever existed. The scribes who wrote the OT, embellished many old Jewish tales/legends/myths to fit their concept of Monad and to keep the general tribal communities in line with oral tradition/guilt. The trails/trials of Noah, Abraham, Job and Moses were concepts for tribal nomads/peasants/shepherds/ordinary folk living in the age of illiteracy, short life spans, hardships, diseases, and "dirt poor" living conditions. Mankind has advanced and these concepts although wise for the ages, are not historical.
The Bible also relies on itself for authenication. “I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would you or anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran”
Thank you for that clarification. My bad:)
It is always a pleasure to read your posts here. Very clear, cool and considered.
Are you from the Indian subcontinent? Only an Indian can write the way you do. The best writers in English now are Indians, from VS Naipaul to Vikram Seth to Arundhati Roy to Monica Ali.
John Crosson wrote:
"What Paul said about gendered hair-length and gendered sexuality was--for him--from "nature" in both cases. So "nature," for Paul, came from God on both hair and homosexuality. I prefer to think Paul was wrong on both and God wrong on neither."
Well, you can't pick and choose what you do and don't believe from the Bible, can you Mr. Crossan? And if you say that what Paul said came from God, and that Paul was wrong, then you are saying that God was wrong. Exactly what kind of a Christian are you Mr. Crossan?
It is not JD Crossan's idea that we are created in the image and likeness of God. It comes from the Bible - Genesis, Chapter 1, verse 27: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
The understanding that God created every human being in his image and likeness is fundamental to Christianity, and that is the basis of human dignity no matter who we are. And when one understands the whole verse fully, one sees that God gave women an equal standing - male and female he created them - equal and complementary. Any second class status given to women is man made and cultural, and has to do with abuse of male power rather than God's plan.
Christianity believes in the free will too. But unlike the Muslim belief which you mention (that human beings are born sinless), Christianity holds the belief that we are born with a fallen nature and must work our way back to God through Jesus Christ. One only has to look around to notice that human beings are far from perfect, and that goodness remains first and foremost merely a potential. Why would parents have such a difficult time teaching children virtue if goodness were so natural? Even as adults, at every turn when we are called upon to make choices, human beings seem to have a really hard time making the right choices and being good. None of it comes naturally to us, for we must sacrifice our lower nature with its sensual desires and inflated ego needs to manifest our higher nature, which is created in the image and likeness of God. Only self-righteous hypocrites steeped in self-deception claim that being good is natural and easy, while saints honestly admit their temptations and struggles and acknowledge their reliance on the mercy of God to resist temptation and on God's wisdom to make the right choices.
1. Abraham is the reported founder of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Based on all we know now, Abraham was at best a combination of three separate individuals with 1.5 million Conservative Jews no longer believing he existed at all. (ditto for all the characters in the OT).
references: National Georgraphic review on Abraham and http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm
2. The founders of Christianity and Islam were both illiterate. i.e. neither one proofread or approved the NT or the Koran so we are taking the word of scribes and embellishers with their own and sometimes militaristic and anti-female agendas.
references: NT exegetes from the last two hundred years, Karen Armstrong's reviews of Islam and http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
3. Christianity is based on the gossip about the sayings and ways of Jesus, the whim of Pilate, the false prophecy of the imminent second coming, and the sword of Constantine.
references: NT exegetes and their conclusions/books from the last two hundred years.
Conclusion: The Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions have very little foundation to rely on.
(from the first web reference)
"New Torah For Modern Minds
Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now.
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document.
I Corinthians 1:17-31 - Jewish New Testament - Translation by David H. Stern
For the Messiah did not send me to immerse, but to proclaim the Good News - and to do it without relying on "wisdom" that consists of mere rhetoric, so as not to rob the Messiah's execution-stake of its power. For the message about the execution-stake is foolishness to those in the process of being destroyed, but to us in the process of being saved, it is the power of God. Indeed, the Tanakh says,
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and frustrate the intelligence of the intelligent."
Where does that leave the philosopher, the Torah-teacher,or any of today's thinkers? Hasn't God made this world's widom look pretty foolish? For God's wisdom ordained that the world, using its own wisdom, would would not come to know Him. Therefore God decided to use the "nonsense" of what we proclaim as His means of saving those who come to trust in it. Precisely because Jews ask for signs, and Greeks try to find wisdom, we go on proclaiming a Messiah executed on a stake as a criminal! To Jews this is an obstacle, and to Greeks it is nonsense; but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, this same Messiah is God's power and wisdom! For God's "nonsense" is wiser than humanity's "wisdom".
As always, it's good to hear from you.
Some thoughts, in no particular order:
*Rummy was a very amusing stand-up comic who
entertained while people died. Sorry to dispute you, but "my bad" is awful.
*British mystery and detective novels are the best, as are British invectives.
*Webster's is no longer the best, most consulted, and most prestigious American Dictionary. The American Heritage Dictionary is.
*Please, do yourself a favor and keep up to date. When you're in a bookstore take a look at the AHD. I think you'll love it. Among its many virtues are its usage notes, beautiful printing, and legibility.
I speak in British English prounouciations and usage too, apart from the inimitable accent and idiomatic, idiosyncratic English of my homeland.
I say "can't" with a broad "a". I use "dustbin" instead of garbage can, "flat" instead of apartment, and "lift" instead of elevator for example. Obviously I get many "excuse mes?" and "sorrys?", from older American folks and "say whats?" or just "huhs!?" from younger ones. I can understand the older ones better as they are past using faddish English.
'My bad' is not too bad a trendy innovation of American English. I still don't understand what Rummy (Rumsfeld,) your former Secretary of Defence, said at his press conferences, e.g. "there are the known knowns" etc. That is either avant-garde poetry, or bureaucratese to obtuse and confuse.
I had read about Spiro Agnew too, a former Vice President of the US, who came up with phrases such as "the nattering nabobs of negativism". Margaret Thatcher is wonderful too. She said this about a British Chancellor of the Exchequer - "Some chancellors are fiscal. Some chancellors are monetary. This one is just plain cheap".
We are partial to British inventive invectives, being a former British colonised land and still prefer reading materials from Britain by British authors and writers. More people tune in to BBC than CNN.
All Anglo-Saxon dictionaries are easily available in my homeland. Apart from Oxford English dictionary, I have an American Webster English dictionary. I last got both in 2000 and has not bought updated versions since.
I never had an American Heritage dictionary. Webster is older, more prestigious and reputable among American dictionaries. After all, Mr. Webster was the first to Americanise, pardon, Americanize spellings from British English such as, "colour" to "color", and "centre" to "center" etc.
BA'AL
You are fast becoming my favourite scientist and secular humanist. An atheist with heart, passion, morals, ethics, humaneness and cool reason even when there are disagreements is hard to find in these On Faith threads.
As for St. Paul and hair length, as Prophet Muhammad PBUH had long hair that he tied, St. Paul would not have liked him at all. And the Prophet is a straight too.
Christian Taliban is a good one. Here I was thinking of Muslim Pat Robertsons:)
SOJA
I don't agree with JD Crossan that we are created in the likeness of God at all. But I will leave it at that. Must be the Muslim mindset that God did not create man in Its image; God give man free will; man is born sinless and will be held accountable for what s/he do and did not do in life, be it good or bad. Or, if you prefer, evil and/or sinful in place of bad.
You may have noticed that I like to recommend books to people. Here's one for you: THE COLLABORATOR OF BETHLEHEM.
The author is Matt Beynon Rees, a Welshman, who until recently was Time Magazine's Jerusalem Bureau Chief. It was published this year, 2007, and has gotten great reviews. The Library Journal's starred review said: "[An] outstanding debut,,,Powerful."
It's a detective/mystery novel but its real strength is its vivid portrayal of the West Bank town of Bethlehem, its people and their lives, at the present time. I'm about half-way through and it's fascinating. I think you'd enjoy it.
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicaters, nor idolitors, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkerds, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
King James Version of the Holy Bible
Praise be to God for His Son Jesus Christ, who died for our sins, rose again and prepared the way; (through repentance and belief); so that we can be forgiven, born again, not in the desires of our old sinful nature, but in a new nature: cleansed, and set free from the power of sin and death.
IN THE MATTER OF: "MY BAD" VS. THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE:
MY GOD! [GOVERNMENT WARNING: Expression only to be to taken metaphorically, not literally!!!]
I REALLY AM OUT OF IT! I'd never heard the expression (and am glad I hadn't). I checked with my ever au courant wife before posting, and she hadn't heard it either. And she was Chief-of-Staff for a recent, serious Presidential candidate!
My 30-year-old son, however, says it's been around "forever" (maybe 10-15 years) and that "it's everywhere."
Thanks, John Conolley, for telling me what it means. And, yes, Victoria, I do have a "television machine" and watch a lot of it, but try to avoid the verbal slums. My wife, however, watches all kinds of junk TV and she still never came across "my bad."
I just took the advice I gave above to Jihadist [to get the 2006 edition of The American Heritage Dictionary] and, My God! [Government warning: see above] it was there! I nearly fell over.
Thank you all for trying to keep me afloat in the contemporary scene.
Good to "hear" from you again. I have "seen" you around and have enjoyed reading your well thought out posts- as always. We even crossed paths on Kakar's thread, but perhaps you didn't read my response.
Many thanks for telling me about the Catholic theologians' take on Paul and the tests on homophobes with the interesting results. It does seem that homophobes are urgently in need of education. I think Jon Meachem and Sally Quinn are doing a terrific job with this forum (taking on the most sensitive issues of our time), and I hope that this forum will serve the purpose of educating homophobes to a small extent, and the ripple will spread. Psychiatrists after all did their best to "cure" homosexuals and declared them healthy instead.
Norrie, dont you own a television machine?
(im just teasing you- i wish i was outside of the ifluence of expressions like 'my bad' myself-
soja- long time no see- there are some catholic theologians who have postualted the theory that the often referred to "sin of the flesh" that plaqued paul so continuously but was never actually defined by him- may have been his own sexuality-
hence is preoccupation with the issue-
i was watching a program on my television machine on pbs (public television) about a study done with college boys-
first they were administerd psychological tests that determined if they had homophobic traits-
then they were wired up to monitor responses and shown homosexual pornography- ( i mean they were WELL wired ALL over) and the results were amazingly consistent- more consistent than one would expect from any behavioral study- not to a man but close-
the homophobes reacted visibly- and physically-
one young man was in such a state of denial that his exited state was clearly apparent to any who would see- and he denied it. period.
i thought it was an interesting test- and when i encounter vehement protestations against it-
well its something i always knew anyhow-
I agree fully with your implication that we human beings created in the image and likeness of God have the duty to read Scripture using our minds and reason - to differentiate between eternal spiritual truths and the social, cultural context based on which some passages are written, and in this case by Paul on homosexuality. As a Christian, first of all I base my ethics and morals on the New Testament and the life of Christ, after all Christians don't follow most of the instructions given in Leviticus. Secondly neither the Ten Commandments nor Jesus makes a mention of homosexuality. To me it is not clear whether Paul condemned homosexuality per se or only heterosexuals resorting to homosexual practises for hedonistic reasons and unethical homosexual practises.
It is tragic when "zealous" Christians and moralists of all stripes, lump such behaviour as addiction, incest, paedophilia, bestiality, rape, murder etc (which anyone without being a rocket scientist can conclude has to do with hurting the person concerned and/or another innocent victim) under the same category as monogamous homosexual relationship between two consenting homosexual adults. The zeal with which they advocate that homosexuals should remain celibate all their lives, denying themselves any kind of sexual pleasure and meaningful relationship, equal dignity and rights as a human being, is equally incomprehensible.
It is so vital to have Catholics like you speaking up on behalf of those whose voices are likely to be ignored or carry less weight. For additional information on homosexuality from a medical point of view please read the article by Bazemore PH, Wilson WH, Bigelow DA:
"My bad" is a way of saying "my mistake." It's everywhere, and it grates on my ears something furious. The origin of it is in basketball, where it's short for "my bad point." (Or something like that. I don't play basketball, myself.)
I'm not grading your posts - you could grade mine. Yours are terrific! And I'm not a Presbyterian, lapsed or otherwise. I think a great-grandfather was, but fortunately that religious strain withered and dropped off long ago from my family tree.
As for your speaking, I bet you have a very mellifluous accent, not like, but just as soothing as Caribbean English. If we can't understand someone's accented speech, we also say "Sorry?". Have you run into that response?
In all seriousness, I'd like to recommend THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 1996 edition, to you. It's a beautifully printed volume and is so up-to-date that I didn't know the meanings of many of its recently added words.
It devotes three column inches to a usage note on "ain't", a word that first appeared in 1778. You can get it the dictionary at Amazon for about $35 U.S., which is a real bargain. If it's closer to you, Amazon U.K. probably has it too. As your friend, I'll tell you: YOU MUST GET IT!
What in heaven's name is "my bad"?! Haven't heard it. Are you sure it's American? If it is, it must be one of those dreadful, illiterate Southernisms.
You may have learned British English, but, as you know, American English is the wave of the recent past and of the future. Ride that wave, lady!
I use "Jihadist" to take up a dare from a friend in these On Faith threads. Jihad has different meanings in Islam (greater Jihad - internal or personal striving or struggle to be and do better; lesser Jihad - armed striving or struggle against transgressors, tyrants).
Mujahid is the correct term for a person actually engaged in armed struggle. Mujahidin the plural. Jihadist is a western media bastardisation which alternately amuse and bemuse us as it is now as abused and misunderstood as swastikas - a religious symbol of Hindus, Jains and Buddhists, coopted by the Nazis and associated with them.
I got some flak from some posters in On Faith for using "Jihadist" for reasons best known to them.
NORRIE HOYT
You were an English major too? And a lawyer, a former or lasped Presbyterian grading my posts in English now? Neither shaken nor stirred as I never have any problems with my French, but the French did. Likewise for English. Not a problem for me, except that many Americans and English are a bit deaf. I have to repeat what I've said, for they are always asking either - say what? say again? excuse me? pardon?
Truth is, I've stop referring to the dictionary for spellings for a long time now. I learnt and am supposed to use British English spellings, but have been mixing them up with American spellings lately.
My English grammar and usage has also been picking up some Americanisms, such as "my bad", "ain't". It's infuriating me somewhat, to be mixing up limeys and yankees, but can't help it. Globalisation with an "s" or globalization with a "z" is unstoppable.
I'd be happy to hear (read, actually) "...what [you] could demonstrate to [me] in the form of 'external evidences' for a God..."
Before we get to that though, let's pause for a moment and consider a couple of caveats about your going ahead. I'm worried that our cordial relationship might founder in the dialogue you propose. I wouldn't want that to happen.
You need to know a bit more about my religious thinking. When I was six years old, I told my Congregational Sunday School teacher that her religious teachings were in effect "a load of
c--p." [I didn't use those words.]
She calmly and carefully asked me if, despite my disbelief, I didn't think that those religious teachings hadn't made the world better over the centuries?
I told her "yes" so as to not hurt her feelings and to get out of the situation, but I really didn't believe it. And I didn't even know about the Holy Inquisition at that time.
Since then I've loved to read about religion and to debate it, in public and within myself, but my beliefs, though evolved, haven't really changed from the time of that incident sixty-five years ago.
So, while I hope to have an open mind, my prediction is that the points you'll make will bounce off me like cannonballs off Old Ironsides.
I think I've come across and been subjected to every conceivable religious argument and they've all been for naught as far as converting me to theism.
I listen to the Jehovah's Witnesses when they arrive on my doorstep, debate with them, and once gave them a contribution.
[The J.W.'s have real perseverance. I live in the boonies; even UPS has trouble finding my place. Curiously, the Mormon missionaries have never shown up, even though Joseph Smith, the Founding Prophet, lived in my town as a boy - he was born in the adjoining town. Maybe the L.D.S.'s faith isn't as strong as the J.W.'s.]
So, Seemore, go ahead, give me your best shot, but please don't be disappointed if it glances off my intellectual-emotional force field and doesn't penetrate to my center. We can still be internet friends - I hope.
I can't resist quoting Mark Twain again: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
Franco knows it, too, which is why he's thrashing around grabbing at science one second and rejecting it the next. The rational part of his mind knows he's hanging from a cloud.
Franco, the fact that you operate on faith and faith alone could not be more obvious. Therefore it is pointless to argue with yo (which is why I don't). It is about as arguing with a wall -- or any other member of the Christian Taliban.
Franco – I do understand that you operate on faith. What I don’t understand is how in one breath you can present scientific and historical facts – based on information from “thousands of scholars and archaeologists” and then in the next breath reverse yourself using a completely faith-based argument – “My expert is God… Man's wisdom is God's foolishness.”
Why not avoid the bogus and sensational claim about “thousands of scholars and archaeologists” and just say that you don’t care what the facts are, you rely on faith no matter what.
When believers do this kind of thing, I can’t help but think they are either fooling themselves or trying to fool me, which I don't think is moral and ethical from either a religious or a secular point of view.
Although the thoughts I've expressed may not have an effect on your attitudes or behavior, I hoping some Christian readers will consider these issues before they make claims based on their faith.
For all of you who addressed me: Why is it so hard for you to understand that I operate on faith? Why not give me the credit of my conviction? What, pray tell, gives you the superior argument? I would quote more from the Good Book, but you have no interest in it. You'd rather place your faith on people who are imperfect. I respect your convictions, please respect mine. This blog is all about opinions from imperfect people, no one, even the one who announced she was a lawyer (as if her occupation has some superior standing) Oh, by the way, I am a Vietnam Combat Veteran :)) ... and a conservative and Christian who has this "weird immature" belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God. One day we will all know. I'd rather be on the right side!
That was an excellent presentation of your views and I apprectiate your taking time to share them with me (and, who knows, maybe hundreds or thousands of others, as well). You expressed astonishment at my interest in your opinions. I'll be totally up-front with you. On one very real level, I'm extremely inquisitive and have a near insatiable curiosity about how people came to be where they are in life. On a lot deeper level,however, I want the best for you and everyone I meet. Unlike many of the world's religions, the God of Christianity makes claims on His creation, or so I believe. I also believe that He has given us a great deal of information about both Him and us through His written word and through His incarnation over 2,000 years ago. The last thing I want to do is rain on your parade, but if your mind is indeed open and you'd be open to seeing what I could demonstrate to you in the form of "external evidences" for a God, I'd love to try. The "internal" hunch you described is way out of my league--in my vernacular, that is the provence of the Holy Spirit. Anyway, I'll check back for a reply and, if there isn't one by the end of the weekend, I'll consider that your very polite way of saying, "No thanks."
All Comments (108)
Inerrancy is just not a question... It shouldn't be in any form of Biblical scholarship! It's just wrong and the sooner people learn to deal with that, the better.
Allan.
June 26, 2007 3:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 26, 2007 03:20
On a larger issue - the inerrancy, interpretation, accuracy etc of the Bible -
Here's a little experiment, for anyone who has had a direct spiritual experience - whether a vision, a dream, God speaking to them directly, something more concrete or less.
Try putting it down in words. Just try capturing the entirety, every nuance, every flavor of meaning, the precise and exact experience, conveying all and exactly all of the data your senses acquired.
Can't be done. Language is finite, God and experiences of God are not. Language can't even completely convey finite things.
Go ahead, try it. Write a description of red, without refering to anything that is red, that inerrantly communicates to any reader, sighted or not, what 'red' is.
Look at all the miscommunication that occurs between people from the same basic culture, speaking the same basic language, with the opportunity to question and clarify.
Now you want to insist that you know what a text written over the course of hundreds of years, several thousand years ago, means exactly - with so much assurance that you are entitled to hurt people?
Better repent of that too.
April 6, 2007 1:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 01:14
Sharon
It was so kind of you to provide an actual source for your prejudice against other people.
I have to ask, do you know that the Bible was not written in English?
Most of the New Testament was written in Greek, with a sentence or two of Aramaic here and there.
So, you drag out I Corinthians 6:9-11, which in its original language contains two words - arsenokoite and malakoi, that conservative translators for some seven hundred years have been translating as referring to homosexuality.
There's a problem though. Neither word actually means 'men who have sex with men'. And greek of Paul's time and place did have two words that did and do mean 'men who have sex with men' - erestes and erenamos. Paul did not use either one. He made up arsenokoite, and malakoi means 'soft, fine'.
It is as if I wrote a condemnation of people who smoke, and instead of using the word 'smokers', I used a made-up a word 'coffeebreakwhitepuffmakers' and 'ignition'. Then a couple of centuries later, people start condemning the eating of toasted marshmallows at work. Sheesh.
Ponder that for an hour or two. Let it sink in. Paul did not use either of the two words his audience - the people he was writing directly too - would have understood as a reference to people attracted to those of their own gender.
Paul did not use the words that conveyed the concept we use the word homosexual for. He used two entirely different words. He chose not to use the words that would convey the idea you are insisting on.
What he really meant? That's subject for considerable debate. But it is clear he didn't mean men who have sex with men, for he used neither greek word for that concept.
When you insist that homosexual lovemaking is a sin, you sin against me and my partner, and millions of other humans as well, by declaring that the most beautiful and intimate, unitive expression of our love is worthy of eternal torture. That is a truly hideous claim to make, one that violates something Jesus said was one of the Greatest Commandments - love your neighbor as yourself.
I forgive you, but still must ask that you sincerely repent.
April 6, 2007 1:06 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 01:06
Norrie Hoyt,
Hey, I haven't forgotten you. I have, however, given my offer to you some thought and am wondering if it makes much sense to repeat many of the external evidences you've most likely already considered, and rejected. I'm reminded of the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus. As you probably remember, the rich man, suffering the torment of hell, sees Abraham and Lazarus in the distance. He pleads with Abraham to send Lazarus (who also has died) to warn his brothers, who he says will listen to Lazarus. Abraham's reply: "They have Moses and the Prophets...if they do not listen to them, they will not be convinced, even if someone rises from the dead."
I would have argued for a creator with things such as the tilt of the earth's axis, the distance of the earth from the sun and the moon, the conditions on earth necessary for life to exist, etc., etc. I would have argued against evolution with examples such as the human eye, the existence of a conscience, the existence of such unnecessary things as humor, laughter, guilt, etc., etc., etc. Ultimately, I believe that for those who die apart from Jesus Christ, all of these things will simply be icing on the cake. The most condemning evidence against most of those people will be that the biblical God, who I believe created them and everything else, told them how things are, and, in refusing to accept the truth, made a liar out of God. I know that's pretty heavy, but that's what I believe. However, I'll be pleased to discuss this with you further if you'd like to. In any event, I agree with you that I want to preserve our friendly posts. Just let me know. Take care.
March 7, 2007 3:33 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 7, 2007 03:33
For those referencing St. Paul's anti-feminine passages, please read Professor Crossan's book, In Search of Paul and other contemporary books about Paul's epistles. For example, the passages "Women are to keep silent in church" and
"Women are not to teach or to have authority over men" were not from St. Paul but were written by followers/pseudo-Pauls with an anti-feminine agenda common in the first century CE. (1 Timothy 2: 8-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36)
March 6, 2007 11:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 6, 2007 23:51
I realize that feminism was a long way in the future during Paul's day, and I grew up in churches that believed that the words of Paul were just as eternal and universal as Jesus' "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
Words such as:
"Women are to keep silent in church."
"Women are not to teach or to have authority over men."
"Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands in all things." Even with the subsequent, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for her.", it still speaks of women as servile to men, not equal servants of the Christ.
"It is better to marry than to burn."
Paul saw women as extensions of Eve, with weaker minds than men, and who could be more easily tempted and who would lead men astray.
March 6, 2007 4:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 6, 2007 16:36
Let's face it, women's lib was nowhere in sight back then, and if you read the text in entirety, you'll see that Paul is saying that women could be a distraction to men who are at the important work of prayer. Paul never says that women aren't important to God's work, and he even writes about a few who did discipling. Clearly, spreading the word of God and teaching the start-up churches was of utmost importance to Paul, and he felt that he had no time for women. Likewise, he felt that men would be able to concentrate better on the teachings of the early church without distraction. But he doesn't say that there is no place for women, or that men should never marry, or that women are evil. I do think that taking sentences here and there can make it sound that way, though.
March 6, 2007 3:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 6, 2007 15:39
Paul made it pretty clear that, as far as he was concerned, celibacy would be the path for all if it were up to him. And let's face it, while the society at large was male-dominated, Paul's ideas and attitudes regarding women who were supposedly his sisters in the faith did not speak of divine kinship, but accused all women of being temptresses who would distract men from the work of God. Paul had no real use for women, and this woman has no use for him.
March 6, 2007 3:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 6, 2007 15:13
I think that so much from Paul is included because of who he was and who he became. It was a mighty big step to go from powerful Jew persecuting the Christians to believer and apostle. Hearing from someone like that might be considered pretty important. Also, he was the apostle who took on a huge load of bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles, and that was the biggest part of what God was doing at that time.
As far as Paul and sex, I really don't think that he thought sex and marriage were bad for everyone. I think he just made it a point to make it clear that it was ok for people if they didn't want to be in relationships, since that was looked down upon in those times.
March 6, 2007 2:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 6, 2007 14:59
Anonymous:
I guess my question is, considering how it came to be, why would you consider the whole anthology to be the inerrant word of a god, any more than the collection that I described above, simply because a couple of centuries ago (give or take a few decades), a group of clerics sat down and voted on what would and would not be canon? It's not like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were taking shorthand in red ink as Jesus spoke.
And I put little credence in anything Paul said. How can you look to a man like Paul for wisdom concerning marriage (hetero or homosexual) when he had so many issues with any kind of sexuality? He wasn't wild about hetero marriage - he considered it a palliative for those who were too horny to be able to control themselves and he considered marrying and making babies a waste of time and a distraction from the preparing for the Second Coming. My reading of his letters leads me to believe that he would have been just as happy if my sex had simply disappeared. The fact that so much of Christianity is Pauline in nature is one of the many reasons I left it.
March 6, 2007 2:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 6, 2007 14:36
BUT, if you believe that it is all the Word of God, it doesn't matter how many people actually did the writing. What's nice for us is that it has all been put together into one package; many different stories, letters, commandments, and histories, that God wants us to know.
March 6, 2007 2:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 6, 2007 14:15
Anonymous:
You missed what I was saying - whether intentionally or not, I don't know. What I was trying to say was that since the Bible was not written as one single work, but compliled from many different works, there is no reason to look up it as a unified whole. It would be like taking part of a Dr. Suess story, one of my dad's letters to my mom from when he was in the service, some Leonard Cohen lyrics, and a partial stanza from a Pablo Neruda poem, binding them together between two covers, and calling the resulting anthology a unified guide to life. While there is much that can be learned from all of the above-mentioned texts, it would be ridiculous to say that because I find relevance and meaning in one or two of them, I must follow them all.
March 6, 2007 1:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 6, 2007 13:48
Lepitopteryx,
I understand that there are many Christians who don't believe that the entire Bible comes from God, and that is a shame that they were taught that way. The fact that the wording has been edited differently over the ages is what has caused so much turmoil and creation of denominations. It is precisely because of this that I take the extra time to study the literal translations from original texts (or at least as original as possible).
The ancient Hebrew and Greek texts used specific wording and language that meant one thing but was sometimes translated later to fit a belief or agenda. People should always go to the source as much as possible.
March 6, 2007 1:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 6, 2007 13:14
Anonymous: I know many Christians who do not believe that everything in the Bible was intended to be taken literally, or even that everything that was chosen as canon was meant by the writers to be universally applied. They realize that, even though it does contain much wisdom, it was assembled and edited by a group of clerics who had their own agenda. You don't have to believe that every word in the Bible is objective literal truth to be a Christian.
March 6, 2007 1:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 6, 2007 13:01
John Conelly,
Christians do not turn off their minds when they come to know Adoni, it is quite obvious however, at that point, they have been trying to paddle the boat with a toothpick.
I Corinthians 1:17-31 - Jewish New Testament - Translation by David H. Stern
For the Messiah did not send me to immerse, but to proclaim the Good News - and to do it without relying on "wisdom" that consists of mere rhetoric, so as not to rob the Messiah's execution-stake of its power. For the message about the execution-stake is foolishness to those in the process of being destroyed, but to us in the process of being saved, it is the power of God. Indeed, the Tanakh says,
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and frustrate the intelligence of the intelligent."
Where does that leave the philosopher, the Torah-teacher,or any of today's thinkers? Hasn't God made this world's widom look pretty foolish? For God's wisdom ordained that the world, using its own wisdom, would would not come to know Him. Therefore God decided to use the "nonsense" of what we proclaim as His means of saving those who come to trust in it. Precisely because Jews ask for signs, and Greeks try to find wisdom, we go on proclaiming a Messiah executed on a stake as a criminal! To Jews this is an obstacle, and to Greeks it is nonsense; but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, this same Messiah is God's power and wisdom! For God's "nonsense" is wiser than humanity's "wisdom".
John, I used to live in the authority of my own opinion too. To live in the light of God's love and wisdon is a far superior experience.
March 6, 2007 12:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 6, 2007 12:30
Lepidopteryx,
My comment to Mr. Crossan was from one Christian to another, based on the belief that the Bible is the Word of God. If you believe that, then it is all true and relevant, and all of it is to be believed. If you don't believe that, then for you it's merely a book full of stories, and its relevancy depends on whether or not you like what you read.
It truly is a matter of faith (ooo, there's that word that makes so many people cringe...) The fact is that people believe in all kinds of things; bigfoot, aliens, psychics, astrology, gods and goddesses, witchcraft, scientific theories... And some believe that Jesus was God in man. People have their own reasons for choosing what to believe.
March 6, 2007 12:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 6, 2007 12:09
The previous post is mine - forgot to enter my name.
March 6, 2007 11:38 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 6, 2007 11:38
Anonymous: "Well, you can't pick and choose what you do and don't believe from the Bible, can you Mr. Crossan?"
Why not? It's not as though the Bible was written as one unified text. It was assembled by what amounted to a committee from many writings by many different authors many of whom were long dead by the time the Bible as you now know it came to be debated and voted on. If I have any other anthology of short stories and poetry, am I obligated to read each and every word of the contents, and to give each item equal consideration and credence? No. I read those that I like, that make sense to me; I will likely read them repeatedly. Those that turn me off, I am not obligated to read.
March 6, 2007 11:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 6, 2007 11:37
If you believe the Bible is the Word of God, then you can't pick and choose what you believe. If you don't believe it's God's Word, then you just consider it a suggestion, which justifies your choosing what you want to believe.
There are 4 gospels because 4 different people decided to write about it; note all of the similarities between them.
As for no archaeological proof of Moses having existed: there are millions and millions of people who have lived and died without leaving archaeological proof. The fact that the Jews worshipped God and not Moses would be a big reason why you don't find monuments built for him.
You have no proof that the OT is a bunch of tall tales, just as I have no proof that it's not.
When you pick bits and pieces of the Bible out, you can easily take things out of context to make it sound like something else (just as people often do with comments and speeches). You have to read the whole context within which your quotes reside to know exactly which laws are being referred to. And referring to commandments is different that referring to laws.
Part of the problem here is that people are using English translations. These things make much more sense when you go back to the original language that was used and translate that literally. My personal experience with that has been that I have been given a much more thorough understanding of the scriptures by seeing what was originally written as opposed to the differences in translations.
March 6, 2007 10:43 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 6, 2007 10:43
Jihadist
Many thanks for your kind words. Your posts which reflects a mind sharp as a razor's edge is an absolute delight to read too. I'm so happy that you are a Muslim woman sharing your brilliant thoughts on this thread, like Victoria. It is important for more people to get to know female progressive Muslims who can participate powerfully in inter-religious dialogue and work towards finding common ground with people of all faiths and none.
You guessed right I'm from India - from the state of Kerala (I mentioned it on several threads actually but probably not in the ones to which you have been contributing). Kerala by the way has had Muslims from the eighth century and they constitute 24.7% of the Kerala population. In Kerala because of the Abrahamic faith denominator Christians and Muslims feel a special bond, or at least some fundamentalist Hindus are convinced that we work closely together in Kerala. I left Kerala when I was eight years old, have been mostly an observer since, and couldn't verify that Hindu claim.
Among Indian writers, you forgot to mention the Indian born Sulman Rushdie. As to the world famous Arundhati Roy - her mother is from Kerala. Roy identifies herself only as being from Kerala although her father is a Bengali Hindu, because she did not know her father and lived with her mother in Kerala until the age of 17. Her mother had moved back to Kerala, supposedly separating from her father, shortly before/after she was born. I'm not well informed about her pesonal details. But the mixture of Bengali and Malayalee has given her an extra portion of beauty and intelligence, that is for sure.
March 6, 2007 2:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 6, 2007 02:41
"Well, you can't pick and choose what you do and don't believe from the Bible..."
Why not? We pick and choose what we believe everywhere else: TV, newspaper, friends, history books, rumor, even science. Picking and choosing what we believe is of the essence to human cognition.
Of course, picking and choosing means keeping your brain turned on. I'm aware that picking up the Bible means choosing to shut down the brain for many people. I'm also aware that this has nothing to do with a search for the truth. (You can't search for the truth with your brain turned off, can you?)
I'm pretty sure that if these people did actually do any mental test for the truth in the Bible, and realized it wasn't there, their world would come crashing down. I'm not sure why this is, though.
Any ideas?
March 5, 2007 11:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 5, 2007 23:47
Anonymous. Maybe another illustration. Is it good to be rich?
The Bible, your word of God says no, it is a very bad thing.
Matthew 19:23-24 Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Luke 6:24 Woe to you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.
James 5:1 Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.
Except in the places where your Official Word of God says yes, it is a blessing to be rich and a reward to the Righteous.
Psalm 12:1, 3 Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord .... Wealth and riches shall be in his house.
Proverbs 15:6 In the house of the righteous is much treasure.
March 5, 2007 6:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 5, 2007 18:26
The last post was mine.
March 5, 2007 6:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 5, 2007 18:16
Anonymous
OK. You tell me. What part of the Bible should I believe? Is long hair good or bad?
Maybe that's not fair, so let's just stick with the New Testament, your inviolable Word of God. How does it answer the following question?
Does a good Christian have to obey all of the laws enumerated in the Old Testament?
The answer is Yes. According to:
Matthew 5:18-19
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.
Luke 16:17
It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
The answer is No. According to:
Luke 16:16
The law and the prophets were until John [the Baptist]. Since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached.
Romans 6:14
Ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Romans 7:4, 6
Ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ .... We are delivered from the law, that being dead.
Romans 10:4
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Galatians 5:18
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Ephesians 2:15
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.
Colossians 2:14
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances ... nailing it to his cross.
March 5, 2007 6:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 5, 2007 18:09
To reiterate:
Hello Anonymous,
The major problem is the belief by some that the OT and NT are somehow the words of God. If they were the words of God there would be only one NT gospel not four and note the lack of attestation amongst the four Gospels of the NT.
There also is no archeological evidence that the Moses of the OT ever existed. The scribes who wrote the OT, embellished many old Jewish tales/legends/myths to fit their concept of Monad and to keep the general tribal communities in line with oral tradition/guilt. The trails/trials of Noah, Abraham, Job and Moses were concepts for tribal nomads/peasants/shepherds/ordinary folk living in the age of illiteracy, short life spans, hardships, diseases, and "dirt poor" living conditions. Mankind has advanced and these concepts although wise for the ages, are not historical.
The Bible also relies on itself for authenication. “I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would you or anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran”
March 5, 2007 5:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 5, 2007 17:13
Anonymous
I suspect that Professor Crossan feels free to reject the portions of Paul's writings that he knows to be forgeries.
March 5, 2007 4:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 5, 2007 16:48
Soja
Thank you for that clarification. My bad:)
It is always a pleasure to read your posts here. Very clear, cool and considered.
Are you from the Indian subcontinent? Only an Indian can write the way you do. The best writers in English now are Indians, from VS Naipaul to Vikram Seth to Arundhati Roy to Monica Ali.
And an Asian -
Respecfully yours
Jihadist
March 5, 2007 4:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 5, 2007 16:38
John Crosson wrote:
"What Paul said about gendered hair-length and gendered sexuality was--for him--from "nature" in both cases. So "nature," for Paul, came from God on both hair and homosexuality. I prefer to think Paul was wrong on both and God wrong on neither."
Well, you can't pick and choose what you do and don't believe from the Bible, can you Mr. Crossan? And if you say that what Paul said came from God, and that Paul was wrong, then you are saying that God was wrong. Exactly what kind of a Christian are you Mr. Crossan?
March 5, 2007 11:06 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 5, 2007 11:06
JIHADIST
It is not JD Crossan's idea that we are created in the image and likeness of God. It comes from the Bible - Genesis, Chapter 1, verse 27: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
The understanding that God created every human being in his image and likeness is fundamental to Christianity, and that is the basis of human dignity no matter who we are. And when one understands the whole verse fully, one sees that God gave women an equal standing - male and female he created them - equal and complementary. Any second class status given to women is man made and cultural, and has to do with abuse of male power rather than God's plan.
Christianity believes in the free will too. But unlike the Muslim belief which you mention (that human beings are born sinless), Christianity holds the belief that we are born with a fallen nature and must work our way back to God through Jesus Christ. One only has to look around to notice that human beings are far from perfect, and that goodness remains first and foremost merely a potential. Why would parents have such a difficult time teaching children virtue if goodness were so natural? Even as adults, at every turn when we are called upon to make choices, human beings seem to have a really hard time making the right choices and being good. None of it comes naturally to us, for we must sacrifice our lower nature with its sensual desires and inflated ego needs to manifest our higher nature, which is created in the image and likeness of God. Only self-righteous hypocrites steeped in self-deception claim that being good is natural and easy, while saints honestly admit their temptations and struggles and acknowledge their reliance on the mercy of God to resist temptation and on God's wisdom to make the right choices.
March 4, 2007 8:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 20:48
I see the "bible thumpers" are back at it.
To repeat my op-ed about "holy" books:
1. Abraham is the reported founder of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Based on all we know now, Abraham was at best a combination of three separate individuals with 1.5 million Conservative Jews no longer believing he existed at all. (ditto for all the characters in the OT).
references: National Georgraphic review on Abraham and http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm
2. The founders of Christianity and Islam were both illiterate. i.e. neither one proofread or approved the NT or the Koran so we are taking the word of scribes and embellishers with their own and sometimes militaristic and anti-female agendas.
references: NT exegetes from the last two hundred years, Karen Armstrong's reviews of Islam and http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
3. Christianity is based on the gossip about the sayings and ways of Jesus, the whim of Pilate, the false prophecy of the imminent second coming, and the sword of Constantine.
references: NT exegetes and their conclusions/books from the last two hundred years.
Conclusion: The Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions have very little foundation to rely on.
(from the first web reference)
"New Torah For Modern Minds
Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now.
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document.
March 4, 2007 8:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 20:29
I Corinthians 1:17-31 - Jewish New Testament - Translation by David H. Stern
For the Messiah did not send me to immerse, but to proclaim the Good News - and to do it without relying on "wisdom" that consists of mere rhetoric, so as not to rob the Messiah's execution-stake of its power. For the message about the execution-stake is foolishness to those in the process of being destroyed, but to us in the process of being saved, it is the power of God. Indeed, the Tanakh says,
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and frustrate the intelligence of the intelligent."
Where does that leave the philosopher, the Torah-teacher,or any of today's thinkers? Hasn't God made this world's widom look pretty foolish? For God's wisdom ordained that the world, using its own wisdom, would would not come to know Him. Therefore God decided to use the "nonsense" of what we proclaim as His means of saving those who come to trust in it. Precisely because Jews ask for signs, and Greeks try to find wisdom, we go on proclaiming a Messiah executed on a stake as a criminal! To Jews this is an obstacle, and to Greeks it is nonsense; but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, this same Messiah is God's power and wisdom! For God's "nonsense" is wiser than humanity's "wisdom".
March 4, 2007 6:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 18:38
Jihadist,
As always, it's good to hear from you.
Some thoughts, in no particular order:
*Rummy was a very amusing stand-up comic who
entertained while people died. Sorry to dispute you, but "my bad" is awful.
*British mystery and detective novels are the best, as are British invectives.
*Webster's is no longer the best, most consulted, and most prestigious American Dictionary. The American Heritage Dictionary is.
*Please, do yourself a favor and keep up to date. When you're in a bookstore take a look at the AHD. I think you'll love it. Among its many virtues are its usage notes, beautiful printing, and legibility.
As always, best wishes to you.
March 4, 2007 6:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 18:27
Norrie Hoyt
I speak in British English prounouciations and usage too, apart from the inimitable accent and idiomatic, idiosyncratic English of my homeland.
I say "can't" with a broad "a". I use "dustbin" instead of garbage can, "flat" instead of apartment, and "lift" instead of elevator for example. Obviously I get many "excuse mes?" and "sorrys?", from older American folks and "say whats?" or just "huhs!?" from younger ones. I can understand the older ones better as they are past using faddish English.
'My bad' is not too bad a trendy innovation of American English. I still don't understand what Rummy (Rumsfeld,) your former Secretary of Defence, said at his press conferences, e.g. "there are the known knowns" etc. That is either avant-garde poetry, or bureaucratese to obtuse and confuse.
I had read about Spiro Agnew too, a former Vice President of the US, who came up with phrases such as "the nattering nabobs of negativism". Margaret Thatcher is wonderful too. She said this about a British Chancellor of the Exchequer - "Some chancellors are fiscal. Some chancellors are monetary. This one is just plain cheap".
We are partial to British inventive invectives, being a former British colonised land and still prefer reading materials from Britain by British authors and writers. More people tune in to BBC than CNN.
All Anglo-Saxon dictionaries are easily available in my homeland. Apart from Oxford English dictionary, I have an American Webster English dictionary. I last got both in 2000 and has not bought updated versions since.
I never had an American Heritage dictionary. Webster is older, more prestigious and reputable among American dictionaries. After all, Mr. Webster was the first to Americanise, pardon, Americanize spellings from British English such as, "colour" to "color", and "centre" to "center" etc.
BA'AL
You are fast becoming my favourite scientist and secular humanist. An atheist with heart, passion, morals, ethics, humaneness and cool reason even when there are disagreements is hard to find in these On Faith threads.
As for St. Paul and hair length, as Prophet Muhammad PBUH had long hair that he tied, St. Paul would not have liked him at all. And the Prophet is a straight too.
Christian Taliban is a good one. Here I was thinking of Muslim Pat Robertsons:)
SOJA
I don't agree with JD Crossan that we are created in the likeness of God at all. But I will leave it at that. Must be the Muslim mindset that God did not create man in Its image; God give man free will; man is born sinless and will be held accountable for what s/he do and did not do in life, be it good or bad. Or, if you prefer, evil and/or sinful in place of bad.
March 4, 2007 5:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 17:50
Victoria,
You may have noticed that I like to recommend books to people. Here's one for you: THE COLLABORATOR OF BETHLEHEM.
The author is Matt Beynon Rees, a Welshman, who until recently was Time Magazine's Jerusalem Bureau Chief. It was published this year, 2007, and has gotten great reviews. The Library Journal's starred review said: "[An] outstanding debut,,,Powerful."
It's a detective/mystery novel but its real strength is its vivid portrayal of the West Bank town of Bethlehem, its people and their lives, at the present time. I'm about half-way through and it's fascinating. I think you'd enjoy it.
March 4, 2007 3:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 15:20
I Corinthians 6:9-11:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicaters, nor idolitors, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkerds, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
King James Version of the Holy Bible
Praise be to God for His Son Jesus Christ, who died for our sins, rose again and prepared the way; (through repentance and belief); so that we can be forgiven, born again, not in the desires of our old sinful nature, but in a new nature: cleansed, and set free from the power of sin and death.
March 4, 2007 2:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 14:29
IN THE MATTER OF: "MY BAD" VS. THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE:
MY GOD! [GOVERNMENT WARNING: Expression only to be to taken metaphorically, not literally!!!]
I REALLY AM OUT OF IT! I'd never heard the expression (and am glad I hadn't). I checked with my ever au courant wife before posting, and she hadn't heard it either. And she was Chief-of-Staff for a recent, serious Presidential candidate!
My 30-year-old son, however, says it's been around "forever" (maybe 10-15 years) and that "it's everywhere."
Thanks, John Conolley, for telling me what it means. And, yes, Victoria, I do have a "television machine" and watch a lot of it, but try to avoid the verbal slums. My wife, however, watches all kinds of junk TV and she still never came across "my bad."
I just took the advice I gave above to Jihadist [to get the 2006 edition of The American Heritage Dictionary] and, My God! [Government warning: see above] it was there! I nearly fell over.
Thank you all for trying to keep me afloat in the contemporary scene.
March 4, 2007 12:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 12:08
Victoria
Good to "hear" from you again. I have "seen" you around and have enjoyed reading your well thought out posts- as always. We even crossed paths on Kakar's thread, but perhaps you didn't read my response.
Many thanks for telling me about the Catholic theologians' take on Paul and the tests on homophobes with the interesting results. It does seem that homophobes are urgently in need of education. I think Jon Meachem and Sally Quinn are doing a terrific job with this forum (taking on the most sensitive issues of our time), and I hope that this forum will serve the purpose of educating homophobes to a small extent, and the ripple will spread. Psychiatrists after all did their best to "cure" homosexuals and declared them healthy instead.
March 4, 2007 4:07 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 04:07
Norrie, dont you own a television machine?
(im just teasing you- i wish i was outside of the ifluence of expressions like 'my bad' myself-
soja- long time no see- there are some catholic theologians who have postualted the theory that the often referred to "sin of the flesh" that plaqued paul so continuously but was never actually defined by him- may have been his own sexuality-
hence is preoccupation with the issue-
i was watching a program on my television machine on pbs (public television) about a study done with college boys-
first they were administerd psychological tests that determined if they had homophobic traits-
then they were wired up to monitor responses and shown homosexual pornography- ( i mean they were WELL wired ALL over) and the results were amazingly consistent- more consistent than one would expect from any behavioral study- not to a man but close-
the homophobes reacted visibly- and physically-
one young man was in such a state of denial that his exited state was clearly apparent to any who would see- and he denied it. period.
i thought it was an interesting test- and when i encounter vehement protestations against it-
well its something i always knew anyhow-
peace
March 4, 2007 2:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 02:55
Dear Professor Crossan
I agree fully with your implication that we human beings created in the image and likeness of God have the duty to read Scripture using our minds and reason - to differentiate between eternal spiritual truths and the social, cultural context based on which some passages are written, and in this case by Paul on homosexuality. As a Christian, first of all I base my ethics and morals on the New Testament and the life of Christ, after all Christians don't follow most of the instructions given in Leviticus. Secondly neither the Ten Commandments nor Jesus makes a mention of homosexuality. To me it is not clear whether Paul condemned homosexuality per se or only heterosexuals resorting to homosexual practises for hedonistic reasons and unethical homosexual practises.
It is tragic when "zealous" Christians and moralists of all stripes, lump such behaviour as addiction, incest, paedophilia, bestiality, rape, murder etc (which anyone without being a rocket scientist can conclude has to do with hurting the person concerned and/or another innocent victim) under the same category as monogamous homosexual relationship between two consenting homosexual adults. The zeal with which they advocate that homosexuals should remain celibate all their lives, denying themselves any kind of sexual pleasure and meaningful relationship, equal dignity and rights as a human being, is equally incomprehensible.
It is so vital to have Catholics like you speaking up on behalf of those whose voices are likely to be ignored or carry less weight. For additional information on homosexuality from a medical point of view please read the article by Bazemore PH, Wilson WH, Bigelow DA:
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3359.htm
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
March 4, 2007 1:59 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 01:59
The last post is mine.
March 4, 2007 12:35 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 00:35
Professor Crossan is correct about Paul not liking men with long hair. Against that, however, we find the following:
Numbers 6:5
No razor shall come upon his head. He shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair on his head grow.
Judges 13:5
For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son [Samson]; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite.
1 Samuel 1:11
I will give him [Samuel] unto the Lord all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head.
March 4, 2007 12:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 00:34
"My bad" is a way of saying "my mistake." It's everywhere, and it grates on my ears something furious. The origin of it is in basketball, where it's short for "my bad point." (Or something like that. I don't play basketball, myself.)
March 3, 2007 11:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 23:39
Jihadist,
BIG MISTAKE: THE EDITION OF THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY THAT YOU SHOULD GET IS 2006 - YES, 2006!
Not 1996. SORRY!
March 3, 2007 8:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 20:33
Jihadist,
Hello!
I'm not grading your posts - you could grade mine. Yours are terrific! And I'm not a Presbyterian, lapsed or otherwise. I think a great-grandfather was, but fortunately that religious strain withered and dropped off long ago from my family tree.
As for your speaking, I bet you have a very mellifluous accent, not like, but just as soothing as Caribbean English. If we can't understand someone's accented speech, we also say "Sorry?". Have you run into that response?
In all seriousness, I'd like to recommend THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 1996 edition, to you. It's a beautifully printed volume and is so up-to-date that I didn't know the meanings of many of its recently added words.
It devotes three column inches to a usage note on "ain't", a word that first appeared in 1778. You can get it the dictionary at Amazon for about $35 U.S., which is a real bargain. If it's closer to you, Amazon U.K. probably has it too. As your friend, I'll tell you: YOU MUST GET IT!
What in heaven's name is "my bad"?! Haven't heard it. Are you sure it's American? If it is, it must be one of those dreadful, illiterate Southernisms.
You may have learned British English, but, as you know, American English is the wave of the recent past and of the future. Ride that wave, lady!
March 3, 2007 8:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 20:06
SEEMORE
9/11 is murder.
And back to Islam 101:
I use "Jihadist" to take up a dare from a friend in these On Faith threads. Jihad has different meanings in Islam (greater Jihad - internal or personal striving or struggle to be and do better; lesser Jihad - armed striving or struggle against transgressors, tyrants).
Mujahid is the correct term for a person actually engaged in armed struggle. Mujahidin the plural. Jihadist is a western media bastardisation which alternately amuse and bemuse us as it is now as abused and misunderstood as swastikas - a religious symbol of Hindus, Jains and Buddhists, coopted by the Nazis and associated with them.
I got some flak from some posters in On Faith for using "Jihadist" for reasons best known to them.
NORRIE HOYT
You were an English major too? And a lawyer, a former or lasped Presbyterian grading my posts in English now? Neither shaken nor stirred as I never have any problems with my French, but the French did. Likewise for English. Not a problem for me, except that many Americans and English are a bit deaf. I have to repeat what I've said, for they are always asking either - say what? say again? excuse me? pardon?
Truth is, I've stop referring to the dictionary for spellings for a long time now. I learnt and am supposed to use British English spellings, but have been mixing them up with American spellings lately.
My English grammar and usage has also been picking up some Americanisms, such as "my bad", "ain't". It's infuriating me somewhat, to be mixing up limeys and yankees, but can't help it. Globalisation with an "s" or globalization with a "z" is unstoppable.
March 3, 2007 6:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 18:27
Seemore,
I'd be happy to hear (read, actually) "...what [you] could demonstrate to [me] in the form of 'external evidences' for a God..."
Before we get to that though, let's pause for a moment and consider a couple of caveats about your going ahead. I'm worried that our cordial relationship might founder in the dialogue you propose. I wouldn't want that to happen.
You need to know a bit more about my religious thinking. When I was six years old, I told my Congregational Sunday School teacher that her religious teachings were in effect "a load of
c--p." [I didn't use those words.]
She calmly and carefully asked me if, despite my disbelief, I didn't think that those religious teachings hadn't made the world better over the centuries?
I told her "yes" so as to not hurt her feelings and to get out of the situation, but I really didn't believe it. And I didn't even know about the Holy Inquisition at that time.
Since then I've loved to read about religion and to debate it, in public and within myself, but my beliefs, though evolved, haven't really changed from the time of that incident sixty-five years ago.
So, while I hope to have an open mind, my prediction is that the points you'll make will bounce off me like cannonballs off Old Ironsides.
I think I've come across and been subjected to every conceivable religious argument and they've all been for naught as far as converting me to theism.
I listen to the Jehovah's Witnesses when they arrive on my doorstep, debate with them, and once gave them a contribution.
[The J.W.'s have real perseverance. I live in the boonies; even UPS has trouble finding my place. Curiously, the Mormon missionaries have never shown up, even though Joseph Smith, the Founding Prophet, lived in my town as a boy - he was born in the adjoining town. Maybe the L.D.S.'s faith isn't as strong as the J.W.'s.]
So, Seemore, go ahead, give me your best shot, but please don't be disappointed if it glances off my intellectual-emotional force field and doesn't penetrate to my center. We can still be internet friends - I hope.
Best wishes.
March 3, 2007 5:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 17:28
"Christian Taliban" - what a great expression - a humorous alternative to Andrew Sullivan's "Christianists". Thanks, Ba'al.
March 3, 2007 4:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 16:41
I can't resist quoting Mark Twain again: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
Franco knows it, too, which is why he's thrashing around grabbing at science one second and rejecting it the next. The rational part of his mind knows he's hanging from a cloud.
March 3, 2007 11:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 11:44
Franco, the fact that you operate on faith and faith alone could not be more obvious. Therefore it is pointless to argue with yo (which is why I don't). It is about as arguing with a wall -- or any other member of the Christian Taliban.
March 3, 2007 10:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 10:34
Franco – I do understand that you operate on faith. What I don’t understand is how in one breath you can present scientific and historical facts – based on information from “thousands of scholars and archaeologists” and then in the next breath reverse yourself using a completely faith-based argument – “My expert is God… Man's wisdom is God's foolishness.”
Why not avoid the bogus and sensational claim about “thousands of scholars and archaeologists” and just say that you don’t care what the facts are, you rely on faith no matter what.
When believers do this kind of thing, I can’t help but think they are either fooling themselves or trying to fool me, which I don't think is moral and ethical from either a religious or a secular point of view.
Although the thoughts I've expressed may not have an effect on your attitudes or behavior, I hoping some Christian readers will consider these issues before they make claims based on their faith.
March 3, 2007 10:28 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 10:28
For all of you who addressed me: Why is it so hard for you to understand that I operate on faith? Why not give me the credit of my conviction? What, pray tell, gives you the superior argument? I would quote more from the Good Book, but you have no interest in it. You'd rather place your faith on people who are imperfect. I respect your convictions, please respect mine. This blog is all about opinions from imperfect people, no one, even the one who announced she was a lawyer (as if her occupation has some superior standing) Oh, by the way, I am a Vietnam Combat Veteran :)) ... and a conservative and Christian who has this "weird immature" belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God. One day we will all know. I'd rather be on the right side!
March 3, 2007 7:33 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 07:33
Norrie Hoyt,
That was an excellent presentation of your views and I apprectiate your taking time to share them with me (and, who knows, maybe hundreds or thousands of others, as well). You expressed astonishment at my interest in your opinions. I'll be totally up-front with you. On one very real level, I'm extremely inquisitive and have a near insatiable curiosity about how people came to be where they are in life. On a lot deeper level,however, I want the best for you and everyone I meet. Unlike many of the world's religions, the God of Christianity makes claims on His creation, or so I believe. I also believe that He has given us a great deal of information about both Him and us through His written word and through His incarnation over 2,000 years ago. The last thing I want to do is rain on your parade, but if your mind is indeed open and you'd be open to seeing what I could demonstrate to you in the form of "external evidences" for a God, I'd love to try. The "internal" hunch you described is way out of my league--in my vernacular, that is the provence of the Holy Spirit. Anyway, I'll check back for a reply and, if there isn't one by the end of the weekend, I'll consider that your very polite way of saying, "No thanks."