Religion: pros & cons (Religion)

by dhw, Friday, October 24, 2014, 19:46 (3681 days ago) @ DragonsHeart

CASEY: Perhaps I might weigh in on some of this discussion. I hope you will pardon if I don't quote you all directly, and if I forget who said what. Now, onto the discussion.
I saw it mentioned about interfaith marriages, and whether they are forbidden or not. No, they certainly weren't. Joseph married an Egyptian, certainly of a different faith. Moses married a Midianite, after he had given up the beliefs of the Egyptian gods, so he and his wife were of different faiths. Over and over, we are shown examples of interfaith marriages. Interfaith marriages, while not the norm, were certainly not discouraged.-Thank you for joining in. You can be pretty sure that any complaints about the bible are from me! However, my fundamental point is not which interpretation is correct, but the fact that the bible is so open to interpretation that it cannot be seen as a reliable guide. I'm no theologian, and I'm no physicist, but when theologians disagree and physicists disagree, I get the feeling there is no consensus! On the subject of inter-faith marriage, what you say is very convincing, but perhaps you could look at this website: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ifm_bibl.htm
The authors mention exceptions, but conclude from their many biblical quotes that “almost all references to inter-faith marriage are condemned”. I was happily married (inter-faith AND mixed race) for 48 years. I still try to behave myself. And I see no reason why I should be told who to marry or how to behave by one or other set of scholars squabbling over the correct meaning of ancient texts written by, translated by and above all interpreted by fallible human beings. I know you believe the bible is the word of God and I don't, but if different people find different meanings, the words themselves do not seem to me to carry any authority.
 
You rightly say that blood transfusions are not 100% safe. No medical treatment is 100% safe, but that is a different reason from the belief that transfusions are against God's will. You are obviously telescoping arguments here, perhaps to say that God has warned you against using such a process. We have had very different experiences. My wife was given 20 more years of life by massive blood transfusions following post-operative negligence. I don't know of any Jews, or Christians other than Jehovah's Witnesses, who would claim that God will condemn her for that, but they all have the same bible and believe in the same God. Once again, my aim is not to establish what is right and wrong, but to show the ambiguity of these biblical instructions.
 
As regards the Catholics, they are in a mess of their own making, adhering to ancient ideas on contraception, homosexuality, celibacy in the priesthood, the status of women etc. These are not necessarily based on the bible, but they do raise the whole question of reliance on ideas that took root when times were totally different. Tony has defended some of what I call the vicious laws in Deuteronomy. (I wonder what you as a modern woman make of Deut. 21, 10-14!) The Islamic fundamentalists (IS, Boko Haram etc.) are indulging in precisely the same practices, citing their own religious texts. You criticized the Catholic Church for not considering the bible as a whole, and you wrote: “The Catholics ignore many passages in the Bible simply because it is convenient for them to do so (such as Mark 7:9 which says "You skillfully disregard the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition."). But what IS the commandment of God? In so many contexts, there is no consensus. If I need moral guidance, my inclination is to follow the simple rule of do as you would be done by. That seems to cover most things.