In response to Jess Gamari's post "Knowledge is Not a Sin" (March 23, 2012):
I agree that expecting people to accept religious doctrines on 'blind faith' is unreasonable. Furthermore, I think it is actually bad, and can lead to deterioration of actual belief. If one's belief is built solely on stubborn, blind acceptance of things one's teachers, parents, or other authority figures taught one, without any real understanding, that belief is easy to undermine by a simple change in circumstances. It also will not bend or fail when perhaps it should.
Doubting one's religious beliefs, investigating them, and deciding whether or not to continue with them based on real information can lead to a firmer, more confident type of belief without niggling doubts or discomfort. If one finds out all one can about Christianity, and makes an informed decision that they will believe in that particular religion, then one can rationally defend one's choice against critics - as opposed to stumble around blindly and end up looking like a stubborn fool who refuses to accept an alternative belief system in spite of overwhelming evidence in its favour. I do think that following Christian doctrine, or indeed almost any religious doctrine, can be just as rational a choice as atheism or agnosticism - but that it rarely seems so because people are afraid to doubt or question their beliefs.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Past Changes?
After reading Crossan's book, I think the idea that Christians must adapt the Bible to suit a new era is a very good one. It also seems as though Jesus interpreted the Old Testament in somewhat nontraditional ways in order to suit the era in which he lived. Furthermore, this concept of interpreting religious texts appears to have been far more accepted in the past.
Learning all of this has caused me to wonder if Jews who lived prior to Jesus' time actually revised the Old Testament textually. As new situations arose, it seems as though rewriting outdated sections of the Old Testament would have been very useful for the ancient Jews. While it may be impossible to prove whether or not such adaptation of text occurred, hypothesising about the possibility is interesting and may help some to understand the flexible and metaphorical nature of the Bible today.
Learning all of this has caused me to wonder if Jews who lived prior to Jesus' time actually revised the Old Testament textually. As new situations arose, it seems as though rewriting outdated sections of the Old Testament would have been very useful for the ancient Jews. While it may be impossible to prove whether or not such adaptation of text occurred, hypothesising about the possibility is interesting and may help some to understand the flexible and metaphorical nature of the Bible today.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Response: Multiple Options
In response to Martha Bruso's post on March 23, 2012:
I think that belief in God is not required in order to believe in Jesus' social views, although obviously the two often go together. One can support Jesus' vision of an egalitarian society without being religious at all, or one can believe that he was a (human) revolutionary with very strong and valid religious faith, or one can believe he was actually the son of God. God was certainly not just a feature of the story added in by later historians; Jesus himself was Jewish, and the Jews of his time did believe that God existed. Whether or not one believes in God, the fact that many people in Jesus' time (most probably including Jesus) did believe is hard to dispute. However, the idea of Jesus being the son of God was likely added in later. While of course I cannot prove this, I seriously doubt that Jesus himself thought that he was the son of God (unless, of course, he actually was.)
I think that belief in God is not required in order to believe in Jesus' social views, although obviously the two often go together. One can support Jesus' vision of an egalitarian society without being religious at all, or one can believe that he was a (human) revolutionary with very strong and valid religious faith, or one can believe he was actually the son of God. God was certainly not just a feature of the story added in by later historians; Jesus himself was Jewish, and the Jews of his time did believe that God existed. Whether or not one believes in God, the fact that many people in Jesus' time (most probably including Jesus) did believe is hard to dispute. However, the idea of Jesus being the son of God was likely added in later. While of course I cannot prove this, I seriously doubt that Jesus himself thought that he was the son of God (unless, of course, he actually was.)
Response: No Absolutes
In response to Lily O'Neill's post "Tearing the Family Apart" (March 22, 2012):
In Jesus' time, the structure of the family was not the same as it typically is in modern-day America. The hierarchy was far more pronounced, in keeping with the patriarchal nature of the society. As such, the relationships between husbands and wives, parents and children, and between siblings were far less amiable than they may have been in the families of many of us bloggers. Furthermore, there was little or no legal regulation on how to treat family members; as such, when abuse of power occurred, the victimised party or parties would have had much less ability to change their situations.
Even today, abuse of power within family structure persists, albeit in a rather stealthier form, due to the laws affecting treatment of family members. Without a far more substantial sample than simply one's own experiences with family structure, it is probably unwise to support the sort of hierarchy that even modern families usually contain. Jesus was almost certainly aware that not all heads of families abused their power; his objection to family structures was therefore likely based on the potential for such abuse. By destroying the framework that made the problems possible, he probably hoped to eliminate the problems. If it is still difficult to understand his rationale, consider; no matter how good a job your parents or parent may have done at raising you, what would have happened if they had used their authority (as sanctioned by society and, to some extent, by the law) to treat you in an overall negative fashion?
In Jesus' time, the structure of the family was not the same as it typically is in modern-day America. The hierarchy was far more pronounced, in keeping with the patriarchal nature of the society. As such, the relationships between husbands and wives, parents and children, and between siblings were far less amiable than they may have been in the families of many of us bloggers. Furthermore, there was little or no legal regulation on how to treat family members; as such, when abuse of power occurred, the victimised party or parties would have had much less ability to change their situations.
Even today, abuse of power within family structure persists, albeit in a rather stealthier form, due to the laws affecting treatment of family members. Without a far more substantial sample than simply one's own experiences with family structure, it is probably unwise to support the sort of hierarchy that even modern families usually contain. Jesus was almost certainly aware that not all heads of families abused their power; his objection to family structures was therefore likely based on the potential for such abuse. By destroying the framework that made the problems possible, he probably hoped to eliminate the problems. If it is still difficult to understand his rationale, consider; no matter how good a job your parents or parent may have done at raising you, what would have happened if they had used their authority (as sanctioned by society and, to some extent, by the law) to treat you in an overall negative fashion?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)