Game Of Thrones: House Stark Gets An Avenger - G4tv.com
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Game Of Thrones: House Stark Gets An Avenger - G4tv.com
Game Of Thrones: House Stark Gets An Avenger - G4tv.com
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Kirk Cameron Claims He Loves Everyone, Even If They're Going To Hell
So today Kirk Cameron went on The Today Show to explain what he really meant by what he said. And all he really explained was that he’s still a homophobic asshole who can’t understand why people are mad that he thinks gay people are the worst.
He never said that. It's like what he said went through a filter and out comes something unrecognizable. I think that some people will hear what a Christian says and then run it through a filter and their minds twist it into something else. For example Kirk is quoted in the article:
“Absolutely not, of course not. I love all people, I hate no one and, you know, when you take a subject and you reduce it to something like a four-second sound bite and a check mark on a ballot, I think that that’s inappropriate and insensitive…Nobody should mistreat anybody—homosexuals should not be mistreated, heterosexuals should not be mistreated, bisexuals should not be mistreated. All of us who really think deeply about social issues like gay marriage and abortion and homosexuality have convictions on issues, and and we all have our convictions formed by different things, and mine are formed by my faith, they’re informed by the word of God, and I found that to be an anchor for me, a compass and a guide for me."
The article's author seems to be fine and understands exactly what was said. But then Cameron is quoted:
“I was surprised, frankly, that people were surprised by the things I said. I have been consistent for 15 years as a Christian. I’m a Bible-believing Christian. What I would have thought was more newsworthy is if I had said something that contradicted the word of God, if I had contradicted my faith.”
I see nothing wrong with this statement. It is consistent and clear. But the author of the article feels the need to re-contextualize and re-state the comment in their own words. Not surprisingly, it's completely different than what Kirk Cameron said and wrote:
Let’s translate that real fast to non-PR lingo:
“Guys, remember that time God called me and told me being gay was unnatural and sinful and dirty? Yeah that was years ago and I told ya’ll years ago. So I don’t get why you’re all acting surprised that I still think they’re ‘unnatural’ and gross. Wouldn’t it be weirder if I came on this show and said ‘Gays are awesome, rainbow flags for everyone!’ I’m not saying you should like stone them, but I am saying you should stay away so you don’t get dragged to hell with them. Okay?”
So yeah, Kirk Cameron still sucks. It’s a shame, you know? The Seavers seemed like such good parents!
This is completely not what he said. And I think that it should be remembered that as a Christian, Kirk Cameron believes, and as he has stated in the past, that all people are sinners and without Jesus' sacrifice and Resurrection we would all be going to hell no matter if your gay or not.
View the Video
Kirk Cameron Claims He Loves Everyone, Even If They're Going To Hell
Monday, March 19, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: The Major Reason Why I Am a Skeptic
David Marshall continually says I must read up on world religions and the history of religions. But why? It's because he thinks it will help me to believe. So David, I'll grant that you have read more world literature than I have and that you have the benefit of world travel. But I think the brain is such that if I had your experiences and read only the works you have, I would agree with you and think like you. Our brains are like that. So in order to think like you I must be more like you (which also includes IQ, gender, race, sexuality, place and time of birth, and so forth--do you know that sociologists can identify different ideas held by people born in America during the 20's vs the 30's vs the 40's vs the 50's and so on?). BUT I AM NOT YOU! Nor can I ever be. The same thing goes in reverse for you. If you had my experiences and read only the works I have, you would agree with me and think like me. That is probably the major reason why I am a skeptic, because of this propensity of ours to believe and defend a host of ideas just because we were exposed to them, which is as obvious of an empirical fact as we can get. It's overwhelming that our respective cultures influence us, since that's what we're talking about. Just take four babies and raise one in China the other in Saudi Arabia the third in Kentucky and the fourth in Russia and you will see clearly how cultures influence us all. And it’s never more pronounced than when it comes to religion. Knowing this I must reject faith based reasoning of any kind. Knowing this I am skeptical of ideas that do not have sufficient evidence for them. Knowing this I try as best as I possibly can to only accept science based reasoning. Science is the only hope out of this epistemological morass. How can you possibly counter this? How can any believer counter this? Believers can only do so out of ignorance, pure ignorance, willful ignorance, a head-in-the-sand type of fear based ignorance.
Loftus admits the following:
So David, I'll grant that you have read more world literature than I have and that you have the benefit of world travel.
But he also asserts:
Believers can only do so out of ignorance, pure ignorance, willful ignorance, a head-in-the-sand type of fear based ignorance.
Rather inconsistent. Loftus admits that in reference to Marshall, he is ignorant about a lot of things that Marshall is knowledgeable about. Given that Marshall is a Believer, it would mean that many, if not all, of Loftus' assumptions and premises are flawed, leading to his flawed conclusion.
Debunking Christianity: The Major Reason Why I Am a Skeptic
Answering Muslims: More Hypocrisy/Sharia Compliance from the New York Times
David Wood asks and answers a really great question in a recent post: Why is it okay for the New York Times to publish the following ad:
But not okay to publish this one:
David writes:
Answering Muslims: More Hypocrisy/Sharia Compliance from the New York Times
But not okay to publish this one:
David writes:
Not surprisingly, the New York Times refused to publish the ad (at the moment, anyway), claiming that “the fallout from running this ad now could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the [Afghan] region in danger.”
In other words, the New York Times will run an ad against Catholicism because Catholics won't go on a killing spree. But the Times won't run an ad critical of Islam because Muslims will go on a killing spree.
Answering Muslims: More Hypocrisy/Sharia Compliance from the New York Times
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Bill Honsberger - Why not burn witches? - YouTube
Thinking about Suffering and Death, Part 1 | Reflections
People often ask why a good God would allow human beings to suffer. In fact, the problem of pain and suffering (theodicy) is arguably the greatest challenge to the truth of Christian theism. But if suffering is the only way or perhaps the best way to move people toward ultimate truth and virtue, then God’s goodness is compatible with pain and suffering (this is known as the “greater good” response to theodicy).
Obviously, people can still ask why certain folks suffer when they don’t appear to be the direct beneficiary of the good that can come from sorrow. Or people can ask why there is so much suffering in the world. From a Christian apologetics standpoint there is no one response that explains, let alone solves, all of the problems connected to suffering. But the Christian response that God has dealt decisively with the problem of human suffering and evil through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ appears to be a far greater explanation than other worldviews offer.
The Gospel offers humankind hope and purpose because the Lord Jesus Christ suffered with us and for us. The historic Christian claim to the believer is that the suffering one endures in this life cannot compare with the glory that will be revealed in the next life.
Read the whole thing at:
Thinking about Suffering and Death, Part 1 | Reflections
Given what I've just gone through watching my sister waste away and finally succumbed to the suffering she courageously endured from the cancer that attacked her body, this post carried with it a different feel than when I usually think of theodicy. Dr Samples' article is indeed true. My sister lived it and I witnessed it - God is indeed enough.
Monday, March 12, 2012
FacePlant of the Day - Mis-Defining Faith
Yesterday, John Loftus posted a few article attempting to attack what Christians mean by "faith". He issues the following challenge:I think that John Loftus has no idea how Christians understand faith. His first premise is easy to prove, but the second is silly. The Christian argument is not that atheists have the same kind of faith that Christians do because atheists don't know how to understand what Biblical faith is. Loftus has written several times akin to the following mis-definition of Biblical faith.
Christian theists make two claims about faith: 1) That atheists define the concept of faith wrong, and 2) That atheists have faith just like Christian theists do. So here's my challenge: Define faith in such a way that it fulfills both requirements!
An Open Challenge to Christians About Faith
I've been writing about faith lately, claiming it is an irrational leap over the probabilities. Faith is IrrationalIn short, Loftus keeps arguing that if something is improbable then there isn't any reason to believe it. This is flawed for many reasons but two of the major ones are just because something is improbable does not mean it is also false. And no where in the Bible is believing something that is not true condoned or commanded. The ancients were commended for believing things that were improbable and impossible on the basis of what God said to them and on the evidence of their relationship with God. Not wishful thinking or a shot in the dark. The second premise is flawed because Christians are not arguing that Atheists operate on blind faith but on evidence of past experience and inferences that seem reasonable to them although they may not be able to empirically prove those assumptions and conclusions correct. This is not the definition of Biblical faith.but it is faith such as the world has come to define it. The premiss fail and so does Loftus' arguments.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day by Kayt Sukel
Technology and science have now advanced to the point that disciplines like biology, genetics, epidemiology, evolutionary science, psychology, philosophy, computer science, and medicine have converged into the catchall field of neuroscience. More and more, neuroscientists are demonstrating that the brain is behavior—the two simply cannot be teased apart.
Sukel is author of Dirty Minds: How Our Brains Influence Love, Sex, and Relationships. This reminds me of Helen Fisher's TED talk on Why We Love and Cheat, as well as Jesse Bering on the Klüver-Bucy Syndrome and Nymphomania. I think the days of faith talk, sin talk, and final divine judgment talk are over.
Here is the problem: Loftus and Sukel are arguing that people are hard-wired to cheat on people they love. In other words, sinning isn't something everyone has control over. In other words people are held captive by their own passions and lust. Some people even go as far as arguing that one can't be held accountable for such things beyond their control. John Loftus seems to think that this means that Christian theism is undermined. This isn't true in the slightest. If anything it confirms what the Bible says about sin:
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. - Romans 3:21-26
And
13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. - James 1:13-15
23 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. - Romans 4:23-25
14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. - James 1:13-15
So in effect Sukel and Loftus are agreeing with the Bible, bringing up the question: Does one have to be enslaved to your own lusts and desires even if they are bad for you? No, you don't. That is why Jesus came and died in your place and raised for your justification.
23 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. - Romans 4:23-25
Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day by Kayt Sukel
The Day we Stopped Dreaming About Tomorrow [Video]
The Day we Stopped Dreaming About Tomorrow [Video]
Calvinistic Cartoons: It Could Happen...
Calvinistic Cartoons: It Could Happen...
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
Debunking Christianity: What Would a Secular Translation of the Bible Look Like?
What if one were to translate the Bible according to the same principles as we translate Homer, Aristotle, and Freud? What if we were to translate the Bible regardless of the faith of its potential readership, regardless of any investment in the question of whether the texts are right or wrong, and regardless of how the texts might be used to address contemporary faith? Link
I find the article written by Zeba Crook of Carleton University, Ottawa very good. I think the author is not correct in everything but at least it's clearly written. I wonder if Loftus' definition of "Secular" matches what the author of the article defines as secular. I agree with the author's definition so let's use it:
A secular translation, in contrast, might be backward-looking: it might seek to bring modern readers back in time into the world of these ancient stories and characters. Let me not, at this point, say more than that. Let the rest of this paper be an exploration into what a secular translation might do, and how it might differ (if at all) from a theological translation. Let me say at the outset: there are no easy or obvious answers to the question of what might distinguish a theological from a secular translation.
I would argue that all the good translations attempt to give you what the original text says without bias, but none of them does this perfectly. This is why it's important to consult many translations. The majority of the article attempts to raise examples of how theological concerns trumps good translation in today's main English translations.
1) The perfect example of a translation governed by theological interests relates to Zechariah 11:13 in Christian Bibles, which is often forced to corroborate Matthew’s fourteenth fulfillment formula. Matthew 27:3-10 relates the story of Judas trying to return the money he took for betraying the location of Jesus. After Judas hangs himself, the priests take the money and buy “the potter’s field” as a place to bury foreigners. All this happened, according to Matthew’s fourteenth Fulfillment Formula, because “Jeremiah” foretold it: “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one on whom a price had been set, on whom some of the people of Israel had set a price, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded.”
This is one of the more challenging of Matthew’s Fulfillment Formulae. We search in vain in Jeremiah for the prophesied details to this story: in Jeremiah 32:8-10 we find a field being purchased, and some silver pieces (though 17, not 30); in Jeremiah 18:1-3 we find a potter working at his wheel. Perhaps, some have surmised, Matthew had Zechariah in mind despite naming Jeremiah, and indeed at Zechariah 11:12-13 we find thirty pieces of silver, a price being set on someone, and the money being thrown somewhere. The where, in this instance, is the crux of the problem. Matthew claims that the where is “the potter’s field.”The key term in Zechariah is yotzer. The noun derives from the Hebrew verb yatzar, the most common meaning of which refers to the act of shaping something, often clay, and metaphorically to God’s identity as Creator (or “shaper”). Another metaphorical usage is the process of melting metal in a foundry (which also involves creating something by shaping it). And finally, the analogical use of yotzer reaches its most extreme limit when it comes to refer to the treasury, as the place where “shaped” coins are kept. The latter is clearly its meaning in Zech 11:13. As Mitchell, Smith, and Brewer say so forcefully, “there is no discoverable reason why the money should be thrown to the potter in the temple or elsewhere.”3 They argue, quite logically, that the command refers to the temple treasury in this passage.
There is only one explanation then, for why some English translations go with “potter” when translating Zech 11:13: to make it confirm Matthew’s fulfillment formula. Matthew claims that it has been prophesied that money would go to a potter, and though it is found in Zechariah, not Jeremiah, something no translator can change, translators can salvage Matthew’s claim by translating Zechariah in a way that makes no sense in Zechariah, but in a way that supports Matthew’s claim.
There are a number of modern mainstream translations that translate Zechariah so that it corroborates Matthew’s claim (with “potter” for yotzer): American and New American Standard Bible, English Standard Version, King James Version, New English Translation, and New International Version, and Today’s New International Version. I draw your attention to the fact that these are not “fringe” Bibles: they are mainstream Bibles. So in this instance, a “secular” translation would go with “treasury” because it makes the most sense in its literary context and because a secular translation cannot be concerned with corroborating Matthew’s fulfillment formula. In other words, the secular translator cannot be concerned with upholding the “truth” of some religious idea.
I would not agree with this point. A secular translation should agree with thoughts and ideas that the original readers would have understood it. From this context, the problem disappears.
"While commenting on
what happened to Judas Iscariot and
his blood money, Matthew introduces a reference to the prophets as part
of his
favorite theme of the fulfillment of Scripture. He clearly cites
Jeremiah as
the prophet who gave the saying, but the saying itself is from Zechariah 11:12–3. Did Matthew make a
mistake?
The
quotation is not entirely a quotation of
Zechariah. The majority of the quotation does come from Zechariah 11:13, but there is a change
from the first person
singular (“” to the third plural (“hey”. Furthermore, there is no field
mentioned in Zechariah (in fact, in Matthew the NSRV
follows the Syriac translation and has “he treasury”instead of “he
potter”because Matthew clearly is not quoting Zechariah about the
location).
Finally, Zechariah does not include the phrase “s the Lord commanded
me.”
Second,
Jeremiah is also involved with potters (Jer
17:1–1; 19:1–3—n
this second passage he purchases something from a potter). Furthermore,
Jeremiah purchases a field (Jer 32:6–5),
although the price is seventeen pieces of silver rather than thirty.
Finally, Jeremiah 13:5 has the
phrase “s the Lord commanded
me”(RSV) (which also has to do with
a
purchase).
In
the first century the Old Testament did not come
as a bound volume with chapters and verses. Instead, the work was a
series of
scrolls. Shorter books were often put together on a single scroll. For
example,
Zechariah would be part of “he Book of the Twelve,”a single scroll
containing
all twelve minor prophets. There were paragraph divisions, but they
were not
numbered. It would be after a.d.
1500 before chapter and verse divisions and numbering were introduced.
That
means that Jesus in Matthew would have cited an Old Testament passage
simply by
the name of the author.
When
it came to interpreting the Old Testament, it
was common to bring passages together based on words they had in common
(this
is the second of Hillel the Elder’ seven rules of interpretation). In
this
case, it is clear that Jeremiah and Zechariah have several words in
common,
especially potter and shekel. Probably potter
is the key
term. As even the English reader might suspect from the information
above, the
quotation in Matthew is really Zechariah mixed with several phrases
taken from
Jeremiah. Again, we need to remember that while this may not be an
acceptable
way of citing Scripture today (although it is still done by accident!),
it was
a perfectly acceptable technique in the Palestine of Matthew’ day.
(Matthew was
probably written in Syria or northern Palestine; he is certainly
focused on the
Jewish community. Thus he reflects the usage of Scripture in such
communities.)
What
we have, then, is Matthew pulling together at
least two texts in Jeremiah with one text in Zechariah to show that
there was a
type of biblical prefiguring of Judas’ actions, down to the amount of
blood
money and the fact that it was given to a potter and was used for the
purchase
of a field. While the logic of this type of exegesis is strange to the
modern
Western way of thinking, it would have been viewed as quite normal in
Matthew’
time. Likewise it was normal for Matthew to cite the more important
prophet,
Jeremiah, despite the fact that most of his material came from
Zechariah. Thus
judged by first-century standards, Matthew is quite accurate and
acceptable in
what he does. [Hard
Sayings of the Bible]
The article then brings up Isaiah 7:14 as a further example.
Precisely the same thing occurs in Isaiah 7:14, which is too well known to detain us for long: Matthew’s first fulfillment formula (1:22-23) relies on the Greek Septuagint version of Isaiah 7:14, which has parthenos, which means unambiguously “virgin,” whereas the Hebrew of Isaiah has almah, which unambiguously means “young woman.” Of course, in this culture, one hoped that a young woman was a virgin (which possibly explains the Septuagint translator’s decision), but there was a Hebrew word for virgin (betulah) that was not used by Isaiah here, which presumably he would have done if that was what he meant to say. At any rate, my point is not to argue about what Isaiah meant, but to point out that many translations of Isaiah 7:14, like the translations of Zech 11:13, do so in a way that confirms Matthew’s Septuagint-derived fulfillment formula. They go with the Septuagint’s and Matthew’s “virgin” when translating Isaiah 7:14 rather than with “young woman” as it is in the Hebrew original (again, these include mainstream bibles like American Standard Version, New American Bible, New American Standard, and New International Version).
No Dice. The Greek Version of the Isaiah found in the Septuagint was translated by Jewish Rabbis couple centuries before Jesus Christ who had no interest in trying to show that Jesus was born of a virgin but that the Messiah would be. Further, look at the Hebrew for Isaiah 7:14. The word translated "sign" denotes a miraculous quality - something out of the ordinary thereby leading to a conclusion that "virgin" is an acceptable translation not based on theology.
2) Another example of a clearly theologized translation is the universal tendency to translate charis as “grace,” especially when it occurs in an “of God” phrase. Charis is an extremely common word in ancient Greek; its lexical context is ancient Mediterranean patronage and reciprocity, sometimes referring to patronage and reciprocity between humans and sometimes between humans and their gods. The context of patronage and reciprocity accounts for two of the most common uses of charis: to refer to the thing that is given (benefaction or favor), and to refer to the response of the recipient (gratitude). Thus the two most common ways of translating charis ought to be “benefaction” and “gratitude.” Frederick Danker calls charis “a t.t. [technical term] in the reciprocity-oriented world dominated by Hellenic influence.”4In other words, there is nothing unclear about the meaning of this term in its original context: it has to do with ancient patronage.5 But modern translations are more interested in the theological weight of the term and less in its original usage. And here, the theological context is a post-Lutheran understanding of God’s grace, and the central position it comes to have (which came to affect Catholic theology as well). And what is at stake is not just the word one has chosen: the contemporary theological (post-Lutheran) understanding of Grace is that it comes to people from God free of charge, without merit, and with no strings attached. But this could not be further from the Greek meaning and context of charis.In terms of ancient patronage and reciprocity, a benefaction could be earned, could be sought out. It might have at times been unearned, spontaneous, but that quality is not part of what makes it a charis. What makes it a charis (whether it comes from a god or from a human) is that it comes at all, and that the recipient could not have attained it alone. And benefactions do come with strings attached: the recipient is expected to honor and praise the benefactor or patron loudly and publicly. Anything less would be construed as ingratitude: ranked, by Seneca, among the most egregious social diseases.6Here then, a secular translation would not allow the translation of the ancient Greek term charis to be colored by a post-Lutheran theology of grace.
I wonder why the article does not give an example of scripture where an understanding of reciprocity between God and man is shown to better explain what the New Testament says. I can't think of a single Bible text that can be spin this way. The reformers did not make this up. Luther got this teaching from the Bible not the other way around.
3) Another modern translation challenge has to do with gender inclusivity. As a rule, translating for gender inclusivity recognizes the very high likelihood that men and women were present in certain situations. So a translation of adelphoi (which means, literally, “brothers”) that has “brethren” or “brothers and sisters” when a large group is being addressed is entirely fair: since surely there were men and women present. This is surely the case in most of Paul’s uses of adelphoi to address the people hearing his letters. We know there were women in his communities; it is inconceivable that Paul did not think he was addressing them too. This was Schussler-Fiorenza’s seminal point, and I think it is unassailable.
Agreed.
On the other hand, the point of translating for gender inclusivity and neutrality is rarely solely for historical accuracy. For example, the NRSV does not consistently translate adelphoi as “brothers and sisters.” Several times in Galatians, the NRSV uses “friends” for adelphoi. Is this because they felt it was unclear whether Paul wrote adelphoi because that is what he meant? If so, then the translators have not felt comfortable adding “sisters,” but have nonetheless avoided the patriarchalism of the text. One example can suffice: in 1 Cor 11:9, Paul claims that when he was among them in need, he was not a burden because his needs had been met by the adelphoi from Macedonia. Perhaps Paul uses adelphoi because he means adelphoi. It is certainly not as clear here as in other places that Paul would have in mind both men and women. And yet the committee still avoids making Paul look dated and irrelevant by avoiding the androcentric language Paul uses by translating adelphoi as “friends” there.
We know that historically women helped to support Churches by service and finances. I see no reason to think that Women are not included in 1 Cor 11:9. And just because some translations translate it differently doesn't mean that they have some kind of theological ax to grind or trying to play up or hide patriarchalism.
Thus, gender inclusive and gender neutral translation is also useful, theologically, because it hides the strong patriarchalism and androcentricity of the New Testament writers. I think it is a fair guess that the goal of gender inclusive and neutral translations is theological, and not historical: it is to avoid making Christian women feel alienated from their scriptures.
I think it's hard to argue that the New Testament is strongly patriachialistic and man centered given that the New Testament upholds the ontological equality of men and women.
So, how might a “secular critical” translation respond to this? On the one hand, gender inclusive translation makes the text more historically accurate, for it recognizes the almost certain presence of women. On the other hand, it also makes the text less historically accurate, for it hides the androcentricity and patriarchalism of the biblical world. In this way, the motivation of gender inclusive translation is almost certainly theological. Perhaps a secular critical translation ought to have as a modus operandi retention of cultural realism. For example, gender inclusive language, even where the concern is historical, still operates in the service of modern liberal concerns, not ancient ones. If we “correct” the ancient text on issues of sexism, then we would be obligated to correct it as well on issues of factual inaccuracy (such as Mark naming Abiathar as High Priest in 2:26). Modern concerns, whether theological or social, cannot be the concern a secular translator.8
While the ancient world was patriarchal in the culture of the first Christians, you can't really argue that this is the attitude to be picked up from the Bible. Instead of trying to "correct" the ancient text, we should try to "correct:" our attitudes and presuppositions on the text. As an aside, Mark 2:26 was cited by Dr Bart Ehrman as the first text the lead him to doubt the reliability of the Bible because he thought Mark made a mistake, as if in 2000 years no one had ever thought there was a problem and people just threw up their hands and there was no solution. Read Did Jesus make a crucial historical blunder in the Gospel of Mark?
4) My final example pertains to the issue of sexuality, and it revolves around to terms found in 1 Cor 6:9: malakos and arsenokoites. It is the issue I find most challenging to address. It is by far the norm for translation to relate these terms to homosexuality or homosexual behavior in one way or another. Sometimes, translations conflate the two terms, as the old Geneva Bible does colorfully with “buggers.” In addition, the 1985 RSV does so with “sexual perverts”; 1992 Good News with “homosexual perverts”; 1995 God’s Word with “homosexuals”; 2001 English Standard Version with “nor men who practice homosexuality”; 2011 NIV with “men who have sex with men.” As a rule, however, most translations distinguish between the two terms by referring to active and passive homosexual roles: 2004 New Living Translation and 2005 Today’s New International Version with “male prostitutes, or those who practice homosexuality”; 2005 New English Translation with “passive homosexual partners and practicing homosexuals.” The 1989 NRSV has “male prostitutes and sodomites.”
I think this is an example of how translations can become biased. In this section, the article discusses how homosexuality in the Bible. I think that the problem is that people go to extremes. Either to demonize homosexuality as if it is the worst possible thing you could ever do or try to excuse it as just another lifestyle or way living your life. Both are wrong. Even the article's author agrees, reluctantly.
How to translate these terms, the extent to which these translations are theological, and how a secular translation would differ are each complex questions. On the one hand, concerning the first two questions, I would say only this (necessarily briefly): malakos refers to softness. While “softness” includes the act of being penetrated, it is a much broader term than that, including any male who lives extravagantly (Xen, Hiero 1.23; Plutarch Moralia 831B, 136B), who cannot handle hard work (Xen, Memorabilia 1.2.2), who reads too much (Dio Chrysostom Orations 66.25), who has sex with women too much or who seduces other men’s wives or who dresses up in order to attract women (Plautus, Truculentus; Chariton; Pseudo-Aristotle; P. Hibeh 54.11). In other words, most of the things malakos refers to are not in the slightest bit “homosexual.”The problems with how to translate arsenokoites are well-known, owing to the fact that it is a neologism, containing the words for “male” and for “sleeping”: apparently “sleeping together” is a euphemism in many languages in addition to English! It is also clear that many translations of these terms seek to be polite, but perhaps they over-sanitize the language. The possibility should not be overlooked that Paul had no desire to be polite here. Donald Harman Akenson has argued that Paul intended this neologism arsenokoites to carry all the rhetorical force of “butt-fuckers.”9So here is the difficulty I am faced with. On the one hand, people are correct to object to the claim that malakos refers solely to men penetrating men, and people are right to point out that arsenokoites is a neologism, and thus its exact meaning is difficult to know. But some translators and scholars make these points in order to avoid having Paul condemn modern homosexuality. It is a theological agenda meant to disarm Paul, meant to disarm homophobes who use the Bible to justify acts of hatred, prejudice, and violence against homosexuals. It is hard to disapprove of such an agenda, but it misses one very important point: I think it is beyond debate that Paul would have found homosexual behavior extremely objectionable and immoral. Paul was not a 20th century liberal, open-minded metrosexual. Translations that work too hard to hide or deny Paul’s objection to homosexual behavior risk anachronism. For example, I think Dale Martin’s contention that arsenokoites refers not to homosexuality per se but to male homosexual extortion has many historical-critical merits, but I wonder if its intention is to make Paul more pleasing, less alarming, and less alienating to a diverse and modern Christian readership.10
I doubt that the author would agree that Paul and the rest of the New Testament is factually correct and should be used as a guide for living, but at least the author seems willing to let text speak for itself without bias. That is a goal I can get behind.
Debunking Christianity: What Would a Secular Translation of the Bible Look Like?
Thursday, March 8, 2012
FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Even Christians Agree That Faith is Opposed to Reason
Yep, that's right. What's all the hullabaloo about? Christians themselves agree with skeptics:
Not all Christians.
Christians have taken an unenthusiastic view of philosophy because there are dangers in it for their faith.
I'm sure Doctors of Philosophy like Gary Habermas. William :Lane Craig, Timothy McGrew, Paul Copan, JP Moreland, and many others would find it hard to believe that they are unenthusiastic about philosophy.
According to Paul in Colossians 2:8, “See no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy.”
Is Paul really throwing Philosophy under the bus? No, unless you wanna argue that all Philosophy is hollow and deceptive? No? I wouldn't. But maybe John Loftus would given that his philosophy is hollow and deceptive.
Jesus purportedly said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.” (Luke 10:21).
Again, Jesus does not say that philosophy or reason is bad. He is saying that God chose to give truth to people who have not been educated instead of people who think they have the truth because they think they have been looking for it.
Paul wrote, “The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’ Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? . . . For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom” (1 Cor. 1:18–25).
Paul is correct. Again wisdom and reason are not said to be evil or to be shunned. The Bible never says that. Paul is writing about how you can't get to God based on your own intellect.
Tertullian (160–220 CE) asked: “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” In words reminiscent of Søren Kierkegaard, Tertullian wrote of the incarnation of Jesus by saying, “Just because it is absurd, it is to be believed . . . it is certain because it is impossible.” Martin Luther called reason “the Devil’s Whore.” As such, reason “can do nothing but slander and harm all that God says and does.” William Lane Craig agrees with Luther’s viewpoint. He argues that “reason is a tool to help us better understand our faith. Should faith and reason conflict, it is reason that must submit to faith, not vice versa.” Immanuel Kant said that he “found it necessary to deny knowledge of God…in order to find a place for faith.”
I don't have the time to discuss this scattershot approach in suggesting that Tertullian, Martin Luther, William Lane Craig, and Immanuel Kant all think/thought that reason should be thrown out in favor of faith But let's look at that whole quote from Martin Luther.
Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom … Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.:”
And try this one
But since the devil’s bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she’s wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil’s greatest whore.:”(Note that at present I have not verified this citation, which I found in a secondary source. That source gave the following attribution: Martin Luther’s Last Sermon in Wittenberg … Second Sunday in Epiphany, 17 January 1546. Dr. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. [Weimar: Herman Boehlaus Nachfolger, 1914], Band 51:126, Line 7ff)”:
I found a great site that discusses what Martin Luther meant. Read it here by Tim Enloe. Enloe observes
We can neither prove nor disprove that reason is reliable, because all attempts to prove or disprove it would have to use it to make their arguments. Reason, defined as our basic human rational ability, is literally the standard by which we determine whether a thing is true or false. We have to just accept its reliability because without it we cannot think at all – let alone think that reason is unreliable!
This is the type of theology that Luther was referring to when he spoke of “reason” proudly presuming to tell us what God requires of us for salvation. This is why in one place he railed against what he called “the accursed fictions of Aristotle,” and in another place of how “this damned, conceited, rascally heathen [Aristotle] has with his false words deluded and made fools of so many of the best Christians. God has sent him as a plague upon us for our sins.”
Let me close this short treatment with one of the clearest citations of Luther’s view of reason, from the 1522 Postil for Epiphany on Isaiah 60:1-6:
In temporal affairs and those which have to do with men, the rational man is self-sufficient…here he needs no other light than reason’s. Therefore, God does not teach us in the Scriptures how to build houses, make clothing, marry, wage war, navigate, and the like. For here the light of nature is sufficient. But in godly affairs, that is, in those which have to do with God, where man must do what is acceptable with God and be saved thereby – here, however, nature is absolutely stone-blind, so that it cannot even catch a glimpse…of what those things are. It is presumptuous enough to bluster and plunge into them, like a blind horse; but all its conclusions are utterly false, as surely as God lives.Note the two sides of reason for Luther in this quote. In temporal affairs, that is, affairs having to do only with man’s earthly life, human reason is sufficient and no other light is needed. However, on “those things which have to do with God” and man’s salvation, nature, and therefore, man’s natural reason is “stone-blind” and “cannot even catch a glimpse” of the truth.
It should be clear, then, that when Luther called reason “the Devil’s Whore,” he was not being an irrational fool or exempting himself from criticism by the basic standards of logic. The “reason” that Luther identifies as “the Devil’s Whore” is not basic human standards of logic, but the intrusion into the things of God by a certain mode of doing theology.
There is something wrong with any belief system that needs to disparage reason like this. To read what skeptics say see here.
Agreed there is something wrong with such a belief system. Disaraging reason is stupid because you in doind so you are using bad reasoning. Fortunately, Biblical Christianity is not like that.
Debunking Christianity: Even Christians Agree That Faith is Opposed to Reason
First Look: Armie Hammer As The Lone Ranger And Johnny Depp As Tonto
First Look: Armie Hammer As The Lone Ranger And Johnny Depp As Tonto
Infographic: Two Years Later, Where Are the Haitian Recovery Funds? - News - GOOD
According to The Chronicle of Philanthropy, 60 aid groups have raised $2.1 billion for recovery efforts since the earthquake in Haiti two years ago. But a significant fraction of that money has yet to be spent, while half a million Hatians remain living in displacement camps and a cholera epidemic has killed more than 7,000 people.
Infographic: Two Years Later, Where Are the Haitian Recovery Funds? - News - GOOD
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)