Polyamory and Christianity

[Quath]

How do you do, Quath? Pleased to meetcha. Permit me to respond backwards through what you have to say here.

Pleased to meet you too.

People have always, throughout history, used the Bible to prove their opinions, sometimes going so far as to put their words into God's mouth. There are many ways of correcting that and I'm sure you have your own.

I personally do not believe in any gods, so it seem to me that all of it is thought up by people.

Most Christians today have finally learned the lesson not to pass judgment on people, and don't much anymore, or try not to.

I see a large conservative movement that is still trying very hard to push its religious views on others. I think this type of thing is declining, but it seems to be very prominent in some circles.

As far as commands in the Bible are concerned, some are false, not to put too fine a point on it. Which are and which aren't? Who would be able to tell you? You have to decide for yourself, and make sure it's your self that is saying, not some authority figure from the past whispering to you what you 'ought' to think.

I see the Old Testament as a book written by an ancient culture trying to guess how the universe worked. If they lost a war, then it must have been because the god of war was not on their side. So they would try something, and if that worked, then what they tried must have pleased that god. I also think that some people wanted to codify their personal beliefs by saying that a god agreed with them. Many liberal Christians seem to be ok with this line of thinking (or accepting that someone could think it).

As far as homosexuality being an abomination is concerned, most straight guys are grossed out by the idea of male gay sex. I imagine the ancients were the same, so they reasoned that 'anything that gross' was an abomination, something the Lord wouldn't like. So they wrote it down that way and it became canonized.

I tried many different ways to argue for homosexuality on one Christian website. I think "grossness" accounted for a lot of views, but they were rationalized by other reasons. For example, they would say that gay marriage should not be allowed because they can not have kids. But bring up adoption, artificial insemination, step-kids and heterosexual infertile couples, and they just jump to the next argument without realizing that this was not their real argument.

One attempt was to liken the homosexuality laws to the dietary or clothing laws. Eating lobster and wearing mixed fiber clothing was a sin back then. However, many Christians do not follow these laws today. The rationale is that we have a good understanding of clothes and foods so this restriction is no longer needed. But by the same idea, you could say we understand sexuality better and can ignore sexual rules of the Bible by the same logic. This was not too persuasive.

Faith is a cafeteria, Quath. You pick and choose what to believe. It's always been so. If you discuss faith with another having a difference of opinion is guaranteed.

I have talked to many people with varying views on this concept. Some say that there must be one truth and not contradictory truths. Either God exists or not. Either God accepts homosexuality as sinful or not. Either God created Adam from dust or he did not.

But then I also met a guy who said every religion was true. He was Christian, but thought that God was Allah to some people and Thor to others. I think he even accepted that atheists were just as correct as Christians.

 

[catbird]

Thanks for your reply, Quath; it was quite objective. Generally speaking, I like that. As far as what a person believes is concerned, the point I'm trying to put out here at the forum is, it has to be what she really believes. If she is clear on what that is. Often we aren't.

It isn't necessarily what you tell people. I'm not saying you ought to lie to people, just saying you don't owe people an answer just 'cause they ask for one. I have some issues with the Bible and with many of the believers you mention, 'cause there are many of us Christians who don't go along with every word in the ancient writings, no more the idea that all churches ought to be uniform. I would like you, an outsider, to be open to the idea that I might be telling a true story.

 

[Quath]

I always try to keep an open mind. Thanks for the reply, catbird.

 

[TL4everu2]

1) The "bible" as we know it, was translated, and re-written, by the English. (hence the "King James Version"). Does everyone know this?

2) Because it was translated and re-written, it may have areas which may not be completely correctly translated.

3) With that being said, I am a Christian, and due in large part to being very liberal, I believe that all that I do is within the confines of the Bible and biblical teachings. Some of the bible is literal, and some is not. Which parts? God only knows. LOL LITERALY! LOL

 

[Edward]

I highly recommend "The Year of Living Biblically" (can't remember the author at the moment). The author tried to live according to the Bible for an entire year (9 months for the Old Testament, 3 for the New, as that's the rough division of text). He meets with various religious speakers and believers, some of whom come across much better than others.

But the key comment is made very early, when he's speaking to a rabbinical scholar (I know, is there any other kind of rabbi?) about his project. The rabbi doesn't condemn or make fun of his idea; he's intrigued. But the rabbi does point out that ultimately, no one CAN live exactly by the Bible, because we don't know what some of the original words in the Bible mean!

And the minute someone claims I can't read something, because I'm not a part of their group, I tune them out.

 

[LovingRadiance]

With the astonishing realization of this simple but powerful truth, I understood that Christianity calls me to be a true and authentic person, first and foremost. True and authentic in dealing with polyamory, as much as with anything else.

I really like this, Jasmine. It's very much a concise statement of how I feel. Thank you for stating it. I'm going to share it with my husband.

 

[catbird]

I feel like there are many parts of the Bible that age well and are really great. Inspired by God? Perhaps. Much of it has to do with love relationships. I especially like the evidence that God is a neuter gender AND can be thought of as female, 'cause I relate well to an opposite sex God.

 

[Edward]

Geek Warning!

In the RPG "In Nomine", one of the Archangels is quoted as saying "The important thing is to love one another and not hurt people. Everything else is secondary at best." This, of course, is what truly faithful people (of all religions) have been saying for a very long time. Maybe someday more people will listen.

 

[Athena]

Hi Edward,

The Jewish rabbi was not saying you don't know the words because you are not a Jew. There are tons of words in the Bible the best, wisest Jewish scholar in the whole world (dare I even say universe?) doesn't know, and that is what that rabbi was telling you.

However, the Jewish sages wrote (in the Oral Torah, without which no one can understand what is in the Torah, Prophets and Writings at all, not to mention all the later inspired commentaries, such as Rashi): "The work is great (meaning very large), and one is unable to complete it, but neither is one allowed to turn away from it and not attempt it."

It is true that we can only incompletely follow God's law as laid out in the Bible and the numerous books of Oral Law and later case law, because even if we completely understood every word, we still, being finite human beings, would but incompletely understand and perform God's will. Jews meditate and repent every year at Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, because we know that even the most pious and perfected rabbi (pick any martyred rabbi that you care to recall), can't fulfill all of God's will and the law perfectly, and even such a saintly individual must repent of all the errors he or she made, both to God and to other human beings.

 

[Magdlyn]

There is a saying in Jewish circles that if ONE person could carry out the mitzvot perfectly for ONE day, the Temple would be rebuilt and God's Kingdom would come to earth.

This stresses the impossibility of perfectly following the mitzvot.

 

[catbird]

I wonder what God would have us do about portions of the Bible that don't apply to society or culture now, e.g. "You shall not suffer a witch to live" or "You shall not wear a garment made of blended fibers."

It seems like the obvious answer is, "Well, those strictures are outmoded," and so they might be. But does one set culture above God? My experience has been that God is freaking dangerous, and you don't mess with God, or show disrespect. Granted, you should always test God. I think the Creator wants that.

It would be great if there were an answer for the parts of the law that go against modern civil law or custom. Anybody know of any?

Please don't think I'm trying to play Gotcha or anything. I'm just dreadfully ignorant.

 

[Magdlyn]

I highly recommend "The Year of Living Biblically" (can't remember the author at the moment). The author tried to live according to the Bible for an entire year (9 months for the Old Testament, 3 for the New, as that's the rough division of text). He meets with various religious speakers and believers, some of whom come across much better than others.

Okay, okay, I just ordered a used copy off of Amazon! Its by AJ Jacobs, an admitted OCD person whose last book was about reading the entire Encyclopedia Britannica. A literary geek! Sounds fun. The reviews say it's hilarious.

I wonder what God would have us do about portions of the Bible that don't apply to society or culture now, e.g. "You shall not suffer a witch to live" or "You shall not wear a garment made of blended fibers."

Well, witch is a mistranslation. The Hebrew word means evil sorceress and refers to poisonous potions apparently. Interestingly, some say that phrase was from about 1400 BCE, a long-ass time ago! I doubt modern Jews feel evil sorceresses/poisoners today are that much of a threat. LOL

In my opinion, blended fibers is a metaphor for Yahweh (the Levites speaking for him) not wanting the Hebrews to enter into mixed marriages with other religious groups.

It seems like the obvious answer is, "Well, those strictures are outmoded," and so they might be. But does one set culture above God? My experience has been that God is freaking dangerous, and you don't mess with God, or show disrespect. Granted, you should always test God. I think the Creator wants that.

Or maybe the rules in the Bible were written by men, based on the Hammurabi code of Babylon, and not actually handed down by an invisible fire god on top of a volcano.

Genesis is all myth, IMNSHO.

It would be great if there were an answer for the parts of the law that go against modern civil law or custom. Anybody know of any?

Yes, it's called the Talmud, which we are discussing in the Judaism thread here.

 

[Athena]

Actually, the Talmud is not at all against modern law and custom. The Talmud actually requires one to obey the law of the country one lives in.

Next, pray tell, what is modern custom? I believe that modern custom is to live by the ethics one believes in, so long as they do not contradict the law of the land one lives in. So if one believes one's ethics are based on the Talmud, then, by definition, one is following both modern law and custom.

Many Jewish groups that are highly religious are able to reconcile having men and women live modestly, both be highly literate, educated, both to work outside of the home and to respect each other (see Bnei Akiva (for a group of mitnagdim) and Lubavitch (for a group of Hasidim) just for two examples. Many highly religious Jewish women work as educators, doctors, lawyers, scientists, are knowledgeable about both secular and religious education, and have fairly egalitarian homes, aside from a few nods to custom.

In fact, in my uncle's family precedence went by age, not sex (except where a custom was binding upon men only and not upon women). My aunt was principal of a school. and an educator of educators, as well as mother of three very principled, educated and religious children. Her eldest child is a nurse (and a woman). Her middle child is an electrical engineer (and is male). Her youngest child is a biologist (and male). The husband of her daughter is a lawyer. This couple has almost finished raising their two children. The second child is married to a communications specialist who works in PR and they have, at this point, 5 kids (maybe 4, I lose track). The youngest child's wife also has something like 5 kids, at this point, and is a teacher, an educator of educators and works with her sister-in-law doing PR work.

They all keep every law that is understood of Judaism to the best of human ability, and they have never forced their views on me during periods when I was more secular, and less oriented towards keeping all the religious laws.

 

[Derrythe]

For me, the first and biggest issue with people who have differing views about the Bible is that it is a heavily retranslated text between languages that are so different that large gaps of meaning exist in the wording. Most current translations of the Bible (in English) are built from earlier English texts, which were translated from even older Latin, which came from Greek and Aramaic (new testament), and Hebrew (old testament). Even the first verse, taken from the literal Hebrew reads more like "In creating, God created the Heavens and the Earth."

Hebrew is especially problematic to translate when dealing with emotions and the many abstract concepts that exist in the Bible. The idea of a literal translation after all these years even in the original language is hard to imagine, let alone translated numerous times through various languages.

By the way, maybe this was already said, (I skipped a page) but the website www.libchrist.com has some good information, for example the original Hebrew word for what we translate as adultery was more of a property crime than a sexual one. It means to have sex with another man's wife without his permission.

 

[Magdlyn]

That is why I love the New Oxford Annotated Bible (which I spent 7 years reading and rereading). It's crammed full of footnotes, many of which refer to alternate translations of contested words or phrases. It's also translated into modern English directly from the ancient Hebrew and Greek, by modern scholars of both languages, from sources as close to the originals as possible (the Nag Hammadi texts, for example).

 

[Derrythe]

Interesting, that is one that I have not seen. I will have to give it a look.

 

[Quath]

Even the first verse, taken from the literal Hebrew reads more like "In creating, God created the Heavens and the Earth."

Someone told me that the first verse was suppose to be "gods" not "God" because the Hebrews were polytheistic for a bit and Yahweh(God) was just one of the several gods they worshiped.

 

[PixieStyx]

Someone told me that the first verse was suppose to be "gods" not "God" because the Hebrews were polytheistic for a bit and Yahweh(God) was just one of the several gods they worshiped.

That is correct. The word Elohim is PLURAL form of God meaning GODS and appears everywhere in the Bible. Also when you read about the Tower of Babel, the Bible speaks of God in the plural when it says 'Let US confound their language.' (I'm paraphrasing here, as I don't have my scriptures handy at the moment.)

 

[Quath]

I talked to a guy at my work who was learning Hebrew so he could better read the Torah. There are a lot of languages differences in how people would say them back then in a different language and how they say them today. I remember a few examples:

1) The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is better interpreted as Tree of Knowledge of Everything from Good to Evil.
2) There is a story about the Messiah riding a donkey, even a colt. The idea was it was surprising that he would ride on a donkey, and even more so on a colt. Three of the gospels writers interpreted this correctly and said Jesus rode on one animal. However, Matthew seemed to have misread this and said that Jesus must have ridden two animals.
3) I heard a discussion about the nakedness in the Garden of Eden story. The standard Christian view is that nudity was seen as sinful. One guy I heard who studied this said it was more likely that it was about humans understanding their status. Gods are naked and animals are clothed in fur. Humans learned they were kind of in between.
4) There is also discussion of what "Son of Man" and "Son of God" mean. To a Hebrew back then, "Son of Man" would be a divine judge or Messiah (because he would appear after the beasts) while "Son of God" just means someone doing Godly works. To a Pagan back then, it would mean the opposite. So if a Jewish person said, "Jesus may have been the son of God, but he was not the son of man" then a Pagan may have gotten the wrong impression.

Anyway, I do find it interesting how things look different when language and culture become involved.

 

[Magdlyn]

There is historical evidence that El was the supreme god of Babylon. The understanding was that YHWH was a son of El. El "gave" the land of Canaan to YHWH, to rule over the Israelites and Judaeans. Later, Babylon (the great empire that swallowed Israel and Judah for a while) was seen as evil, and the ruling class of Judah, the Levites, wanted to distance themselves from El. So, instead of denying him (since he was too great) they conflated him with YHWH. Then the word "El" came to mean just "God." Also, YHWH was conflated with another god/dess, El Shaddai, commonly translated as God Almighty (but there is evidence shaddai could mean breasts, therefore, the Breasted God/dess).

Along the way, Asherah, a major goddess of Canaan, was seen as the consort of El, Ba'al and YHWH (hey, polyandry!). Later, she was called an abomination by the Levites who were responsible for writing down much of the Torah and Prophets. But her image stood in the pre-monotheistic Judaean temple for centuries.

Love that crazy mixed-up Levantine history!