VillageIRC religion discussions

Overview

This page is for summarizing some of the more interesting discussions in the irc://darkness.villageirc.net/#religion chatroom on VillageIRC. Specific chatters will not be identified (by nickname or real name) without their permission.

Unresolved Issues

2007-01-27 21:16:05 EST: quoting the Bible out of context

(Woozle said) Here are some questions which came to me as I was watching the Richard Dawkins video:

• If the Bible is being "quoted out of context" by those who attack religion (e.g. Dawkins), then why is there not more of a faith-based initiative (especially within the more moderate areas of Christianity) to publish a clearer, better-written version of the Bible which is harder to misunderstand?
• Why is there not more horror expressed by moderate Christians regarding the abuses of these "out of context" passages by those who *do* take them literally, such as those who believe adultery and homosexuality should be capital offenses?
• Where is the list of parts of the Bible which no civilized, reasonable person would take seriously?

Response was essentially "you can't just rewrite the Bible".

Counter-responses include (only the first one was brought up at the time):

• the existence of the Jefferson Bible
• the fact that there are thousands of different versions of the Bible, not to mention annotations presenting interpretations and historical background for all or part of it
• the fact that we certainly interpret the "word of God" the way we see fit; why not rewrite it to be more in line with the best ways in which people actually understand it? (If "best ways" is too vague or open to argument, then we could either apply criteria such as "doing the least harm", which would lead to rules such as "no stoning anyone for any reason even though the Bible states that stoning is required punishment for particular transgressions", or it could represent the particular views of specific sects of Christianity – something which would be useful to have regardless)

Subsequent conversation clarified some points, but did not resolve the original questions nor address these follow-up points.

Tentatively Resolved Issues

These issues seemed resolved to me, but as there wasn't much discussion it's hard to be sure. --Woozle 15:42, 11 February 2007 (EST)

2006-12-22 19:27:42 EST: "Men are weak"

The argument that "leaders are appointed by God, and God already knows that all Men are weak and will make mistakes, then criticizing them because of it is unhelpful" can be used to justify absolutely anything the leaders might choose to do, regardless of how stupid it might be – which makes it hardly a justification at all, even if some of the things the leaders do are correct or even directly ordered by God. (For that matter, the argument only says that they were appointed by God; couldn't they still be imperfect and make mistakes? Isn't it likely that ten reasonably intelligent people would be more likely to spot a mistake than the person committing it?)

2006-12-22 19:27:23 EST: Internal Consistency

The LDS doctrine is not internally consistent (e.g. the bits where Joseph Smith says one thing at first, and then something else 10 years later; first it was a dream, then later it was an angel, and earlier accounts said he was with his brothers, but he later said he was alone, which would have to be the case if he talked to an angel and nobody else even noticed anything...).

Resolved Issues

2007-01-05 16:17:07 EST: Milksop Jesus

Dawkins did not call Jesus a milksop; he did use the term "milksop" (or something similar), but was referring to a specific portrayal or image (in the marketing sense) of Jesus promoted by Catholicism, not the actual Jesus as given in scripture. "Jesus's milksop persona owes more to" Victorian (mis)interpretation than to Jesus himself. Nor does Dawkins say that Jesus is an "easy target"; he was calling God/Jahweh an easy target because of God's bad behavior in certain places (mostly in the Old Testament).