Jump to content

Migdalin

Members
  • Posts

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Migdalin

  1. Yes, this is one of my fears also.
  2. I agree with that, which is why I feel we should decanonize the OT. Because people do use it as applicable for today, and they'll continue to do so as long as they believe it to be above reproach, unaffected by the normal rules of morality and reason. Keeping the OT in the Bible supports such beliefs, while protestations to the opposite are ineffective by comparison.
  3. My impression, which is purely subjective, is that the OT is a major stumbling block for people (and a major target for attack). While the NT also has problems, I feel there's a qualitative difference. For Paul to say "wives be obedient" isn't wonderful, but it isn't in the same league with a story where an unnamed concubine is gang-raped and then cut up into pieces, so she can serve as an object lesson: to me, those are different levels of "bad." It's fair to say that I am a minimalist, and if it were totally up to me, I'd go with a Thomas Jefferson approach, so that the Bible would consist of the Two Commandments, the Golden Rule, the story of the Good Samaritan, the story of the Talents, the Sermon on the Mount, and perhaps a few other bits. I guess this would be closer to a Buddhist version of Christianity, where people sort of "meditate" on the Two Commandments. That's just me, and I don't have any desire to promote that as a good solution in general. The OT, on the other hand, contains enough overt violence, intolerance, and bigotry that I do feel Christians should formally and publically renounce it. I think that's the right thing to do. (Thanks for taking a look at the book!)
  4. My hope is that at least one major denomination will formally pursue decanonization, so people can have the choice available to them: to be part of a Christian community without the OT being in the mix. I see this as similar to the Equal Rights Amendment in the U.S. I've had people tell me that women already have all available rights, so a formal amendment isn't required. My response is that, if equal rights for women is already a defacto state, then passing the amendment should be trivial.... Better to have it be formally a part of the constitution, because regular laws are just too easy to change. Similarly, at some point in the future, rather than fading away, the darker aspects of the OT may once again be used to justify practices we today consider unthinkable. Today, we have a chance to make such a divinely inspired, darker future less likely.
  5. I wound up self-publishing the book. It's available in Kindle format and paperback from Amazon. I added a link to the book in my signature. If you have a Kindle and Amazon Prime, you can read it for free via the lending library. Also, as I'm desperate for reader reviews, I have some copies of the paperback I can send to anybody who thinks they would have time to at least give the book a try. Thanks!
  6. I joined the forum about three years ago, when I was doing research for my book. I got the friendly help and insight I'd been hoping for, and then I promptly became the prodigal son. But now I have returned! I remain an agnostic, though I'm leaning toward calling myself a deist these days. My approach to the OT has also changed, though my general conclusion remains the same: that the OT needs to be demoted, and that Christianity needs to be based solely on the NT. My new approach to the OT is, for the most part, to avoid the argument over whether the OT is inherently good or bad, but to point out that the OT has been a stumbling block for people, leading them out of the faith, ever since the 140s CE, when Marcion objected to the OT and then left, with a bunch of people following him. I work as a software engineer in the Charlotte, NC area, but otherwise maintain a fairly monastic existence. Thanks for letting me back in. Jim
  7. (I tried doing a multi-quote response, but it got eaten, so I'm doing a sort of manual reply to all here....) I'll leave a post in the "Introduce Yourself" area. I skipped that part only because I actually joined the forum about three years ago, while I was doing research for my book. I'm familiar with a number of progressive Christian authors and thinkers. In addition to Spong, Borg, and Bass, I like Philip Jenkins, Eric A. Seibert, Eryl W. Davies, and Robin Meyers. I'm comfortable with saying that the OT must be understood as a product of its time, so long as we then agree that it can no longer be treated as a modern guide to morality. Educating people on how to read the OT the right way is great when it works. A Christian woman told me that her 19-year-old son regularly challenges her with material out of the OT. Her patient attempts to set him straight have, so far, failed. Sadly, our response in such cases is to commiserate and then move on, even though we do have a solution available. I also question whether "educating" people on the OT is always the right answer, even when it works. The woman's son was objecting for reasons of conscience. Is it really a good idea for Christians to educate people on how to get around pangs of conscience? For that woman, I would say there is a clear choice: does she prefer to have her son, or the OT, with her in church?
  8. Ignoring passages doesn’t remove them from the Bible. Creatively interpreting passages doesn’t change what they say. Nor can well-intentioned Christians guarantee that people a hundred years from now will be willing to either ignore or whitewash the superficial meaning of various OT passages. By continuing to revere the OT, by using it to support moral or political arguments, Christians keep it alive. They reinforce its status as an authority. In this way, we aid and abet anyone who uses the OT to support moral or political ideas -- including ideas we disagree with. To protect the future from a literal interpretation of the OT, Christians today only have one reliable tool: decanonization. Only by undermining the OT’s perceived status as an authoritative document can Christians today hope to influence the way it is read in the future.
  9. The Quakers did actually do this. They're referred to coloquially as Christians (and Quakers), but they actually call themselves the Society of Friends. Coincidentally (?), they have been leaders in many moral revolutions, including the abolition of slavery, equality for women, racial equality, etc. I like what Robin Meyers says in his book, Saving Jesus From the Church: How to Stop Worshipping Christ and Start Following Jesus. And "Followers of Jesus" seems like a meaningful name. I would object, however, to anyone taking that name if they continued to use the Old Testament as part of their holy book. I'm with the second-century heretic Marcion on that one: the OT is incompatible with what Jesus was all about.
  10. The Rhino, on 27 Apr 2013 - 09:14, said: Progressive Christians are definitely "more" at fault in not taking the Old Testament at its word. This problem may have started right at the beginning, with the decision to bind the OT alongside the New, with the cynical agreement that everyone would "know" to ignore the commandments involving animal sacrifice. The result of that decision is a long history of abuse. Certainly, the disconnect between Jesus' message of love and the OT has become more and more apparent, starting with the movement to abolish slavery, and continuing on with issues such as capital punishment, racism, subjugation of women, discrimination based on sexual orientation.... At some point, progressive Christians need to admit that the OT isn't compatible with the Two Commandments of Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself, nor is it compatible with the divinely-inspired conscience that we were all issued.
  11. The more difficult question for me is, how can progressive Christians continue to use the Old Testament as an authoritative guide to higher morality? Part of my confusion may be the desirability of being a progressive Christian. It seems to me that the difference between orthodox and progressive Christians is often an issue of politics. For almost all Christians, the Bible (OT included) remains something that must be quoted in support of any moral stance. As a result, peole who want to label themselves progressive (because of their stance on women or homosexuals, usually) are forced to tell more lies and embrace greater intellectual dishonesty, in their approach to the OT. This is another reasy why I feel the OT should be removed from the progressive canon. To earn the title of progressive Christian, let's require tha a person must be willing to denounce the evils that are promoted in the OT. Not just by saying "yeah it's bad, but it's our books, so we're gonna keep on using it," but by demoting the OT to being "just" a book, not an authoritative guide to Christian doctrine or practice.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service