Religion: pros & cons pt1 (Religion)

by dhw, Sunday, October 26, 2014, 19:30 (3679 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DHW: Leviticus 17 repeatedly prohibits the EATING of blood, in the context of food.
TONY: There is also the prohibition about having sexual relations with a woman while she is bleeding. [...] If the prohibition was simply against eating it, why the additional exclusions?-I used the example of blood to illustrate my contention that the bible is open to interpretation and so is not a reliable guide. The article below provides a detailed analysis of the argument (I'm pleasantly surprised that my own attempts at theological exegesis were not far off the mark!) and concludes: “To demand that Acts 15:29 means never taking any kind of blood into the body for any reason in any way is going far beyond what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6).” I don't think even you will accuse these people of being "ignorant, malicious or self-interested.”
 
•Apologetics Press - Must Christians Today “Abstain from Blood”?-http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/2276-Please read the whole argument, which I'm sure you'll want to comment on, but I suggest we then drop the subject of blood, since you have made your point (you think blood transfusions are banned) and I have made mine.-DHW: .. Even if the bible was the Word of God, only God knows what he meant, because there is no consensus among his human interpreters. 
TONY: You know, to a large extent I actually agree with that statement. I have shown before where the Bible clearly states that things were hidden. It also states that things were especially hidden from those who are wise in their own eyes. (Matt 11:25) See, in my opinion, it doesn't matter if I am wrong about blood. If I am wrong, but my motives are correct, then there is a chance at least that my mistakes will be forgiven. So we err on the side of caution.-In this case, fair enough. But there are other cases in which certain interpretations of the bible have been and continue to be extremely damaging to others - e.g. through persecution, bigotry, oppression, all the way through to slavery and slaughter. You will no doubt say such interpretations are wrong, but when Christians slaughtered Muslims during the Crusades (and Christians and Muslims are still slaughtering one another today in Africa), I don't suppose they actually believed they were breaking God's laws. And Deuteronomy sets them a fine example of what they should do to people who don't share their religious views. We needn't argue semantics here: once again, my point is that the bible is open to different interpretations, and so is not a reliable guide. If God forgives the persecutors, bigots, oppressors, slave-owners and slaughterers because their motives were pure, that's his prerogative. I feel sorry for the victims.
 
On the subject of war, you have high praise for the rules laid down, and have also rightly pointed out that “it was a damned bloody time in history”. Most times are. However, this was in response to my challenging your claim that God did not condone making war and that Deut. implied “defensive action”. You quoted a passage: “If you approach a city to fight against it...if it refuses to make peace with you and instead goes to war with you, you should besiege it.” The same text refers to “cities very far away from you.” I asked you how this could refer to defensive action. You have not told me. I see no reason why this text should not be taken as justification for wars of aggression.
 
Next you say what's wrong with the prison system, praise the rights given to slaves under Mosaic Law, and in this context even tell me that “The section you stated regarding 'if you beat your slave and..' was to protect slaves from abuse.” The passage states that if the person is beaten and dies, the owner must be punished, but “if he lingers for a day or two days, he is not to be avenged, because he is his money.” To me that means the owner can thrash him to within an inch of his life, but so long as he survives for a couple of days, it's OK because the slave is the owner's property. Even this ancient concept of slavery still involves people being forced against their will to serve others - and in some cases, to marry them. For us today, the idea is abhorrent. Times have moved on. You say the New Covenant abolished slavery, though that didn't seem to bother the many Christian slave owners in your country and mine from using the bible to justify their practices. That's the problem with a book that offers so many openings for different interpretations. -TONY: Now, you cry foul over some of the things punishable by death, but you are not putting them in their historical context either. -You are quite right. That is why killing people for worshipping different gods, blasphemy, homosexuality, adultery, breaking the Sabbath, disobeying their parents etc. doesn't seem like a good and reliable twenty-first century guide to someone like me, who believes in the rule of “do as you would be done by”. I find these laws “vicious”, and dangerous in the light of the influence they still have on some modern minds.