3 ms·

What we have is a simple contradiction between the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Jesus was a strongly religious Jew, so it is not surprising that

by olavk 11y ago

What we have is a simple contradiction between the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Jesus was a strongly religious Jew, so it is not surprising that he considered the mosaic law God-given and eternal. Paul on the other hand wanted to convert non-Jews, and then the mosaic law was a hindrance. Obviously Paul won, which leaves some inconvenient quotes by Jesus, which theologians then have to work hard to explain away. My point is this: Scripture is a really terrible "moral compass" because due to contradictions like these you have to use your own value judgement to decide what is really the correct interpretation. For example if Mosaic law is brought up you can claim that Paul overruled Jesus and did away with Mosaic law. And if Pauls denigration of women is brought up you can say that this was only Paul, Jesus never said such a thing. In order to explain away the inconvenient quote you say maybe Jesus he was political and didn't want to alienate his audience. Problem is, you can explain away any quote that way. Maybe Jesus didn't really think we should love our neighbor, he just didn't want to alienate the audience. And take this quote by Jesus: If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+14%3A26&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+14%3A26&ve... Here Jesus is clearly preaching hate. So you can take away a message of love from the bible, but you can just as well take away a message of hate. That is not a good moral compass.

dvt 11y ago
> What we have is a simple contradiction between the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. What we have here is you not applying the Principe of Charity and accepting the fact that Jesus was saying the things he was in a certain social and historical context. I don't know why you insist on approaching a religious text as a logic textbook. > My point is this: Scripture is a really terrible "moral compass" because due to contradictions like these you have to use your own value judgement to decide what is really the correct interpretation. Coming from someone that has studied ethics, I can assure you that most ethical theories rely on value judgments at some point down the line. If this is your only criticism, the ethical theories of the Bible share many similarities with many non-religious theories as well. Sure, maybe Christian ethical theory is not as strong as something like Kantian ethics of duty, but we're splitting hairs here. Is it maybe a sub-optimal moral compass? Sure, but a moral compass nonetheless. > If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. I'm trying to be as charitable as possible here, but you are grossly overreaching. There are literally dozens of explanations of the above quote on the internet, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/14-26.htm http://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/14-26.htm. The translation also doesn't quite capture the fact that "hate" should probably be "loves less" or, more correctly, "honors less" or "treat with less affection."
- olavk 11y ago
  I actually fully agree with you that the quotes - and really everything in the Bible - should be understood in its social and historical context. I think the trouble arises when someone tries to take scripture out of the contexts and treat them as some kind of universal moral guideline. This is what I am protesting. The cultural contexts of Jesus and Paul (not to mention the many other authors in the Bible) are quite different and they have quite different agendas. If you try to combine them into a single message, you will gets lots of contradictions.

by olavk 11y ago

dvt 11y ago

> What we have is a simple contradiction between the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. What we have here is you not applying the Principe of Charity and accepting the fact that Jesus was saying the things he was in a certain social and historical context. I don't know why you insist on approaching a religious text as a logic textbook. > My point is this: Scripture is a really terrible "moral compass" because due to contradictions like these you have to use your own value judgement to decide what is really the correct interpretation. Coming from someone that has studied ethics, I can assure you that most ethical theories rely on value judgments at some point down the line. If this is your only criticism, the ethical theories of the Bible share many similarities with many non-religious theories as well. Sure, maybe Christian ethical theory is not as strong as something like Kantian ethics of duty, but we're splitting hairs here. Is it maybe a sub-optimal moral compass? Sure, but a moral compass nonetheless. > If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. I'm trying to be as charitable as possible here, but you are grossly overreaching. There are literally dozens of explanations of the above quote on the internet, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/14-26.htm http://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/14-26.htm. The translation also doesn't quite capture the fact that "hate" should probably be "loves less" or, more correctly, "honors less" or "treat with less affection."

olavk 11y ago
I actually fully agree with you that the quotes - and really everything in the Bible - should be understood in its social and historical context. I think the trouble arises when someone tries to take scripture out of the contexts and treat them as some kind of universal moral guideline. This is what I am protesting. The cultural contexts of Jesus and Paul (not to mention the many other authors in the Bible) are quite different and they have quite different agendas. If you try to combine them into a single message, you will gets lots of contradictions.