Al-a-cartism

Hivemind187

Its a funny thing, absolutely hilarious from certain perspectives, that the majority of moderate christians (and I suppose other religions to) tend to only follow the rules that they like and dismiss the other ones as inapplicable, out dated or misinterpreted metaphor.

What gets me is that even with this clear example of how the ideas of religion and of god are as mutable as the opinions of the follower how they can still identify as a member of anything.

Surely if you arent adhering to the definition of a group then you cant be really a part of it.

What I'm getting at is how do Christians get past the cognitive dissonence inherent to this, how do they decide what bits to follow and which to ignore and in the case of fundies how in the hell do they follow all the rules where those rules are self contradictory?

Zombrex

it is because the way the Bible is written. Its far too long to be a consistent work on morals. This therefore allows Christians to pick certain areas to support moral judgements they have already decide upon.

For example, in the Christian forum discussion on homosexuality the idea of polygyny (marriage with multiple wives) was raised (by myself if I remember).

Polygyny is a common tradition within both the Old Testament and the New Testament. There is no hint that Jesus disapproved of this practice.

In fact polgyny was practiced by early Christians and was only really clamped down when the church became more powerful due to mergers into the Roman traditions (which did outlaw polygyny)

Anyway I was using this as an example of how Christianity often updates morals based on a re-interpretation of what people think God wants. Most Christian denominations forbid polgyny despite the practice being common in the Bible.

A poster (think it was PDN) replied that if I read the early churches instruction of how it wanted its deacons to behave (they were allowed only one wife) it was clear that the church actually wanted people to have only one wife and was attempting to lead by example.

Therefore God actually didn't define marriage as one man and multiple wives.

I was rather dumbstruck at such a level of compartmentalized interpretation, particular from someone who claims to strive to interpret the Bible as the writers meant it to be interpreted, not through modern moral standards.

Despite the thousands of examples of polygyny in the Bible, PDN was picking one tiny passage about recommendations for church leaders (which mirrored the Old Testament ruling that the kings of Israel could only have one wife, not for moral reasons but because more than one wife gets in the way of managing his people) and using that as the basis for saying that God actually doesn't want polygyny at all, he is in fact tell us all that we are supposed to have only one wife.

Another example of course is slavery. For thousands of years the Bible appeared to support slavery. Then, as the moral zygest turned away from slavery, all of a sudden the Bible now appeared to not support slavery. Did the Bible change? No of course not. What changed was how people put emphasis on certain passages, and less emphasis on others that had been before used to support slavery. All of sudden the logic that the Old Testament was for a darker time, and not applicable to modern society appeared.

Again another example is the idea of the Christian Church. If you talk to protestants like BC the Catholic Church has no legitimacy from the Bible. Talk to a poster like Kelly1 and the Catholic church has a solid Biblical foundation.

At the day the Bible will always appear to the believer to support their own moral feelings on a matter, because to form an opinion as to what moral the Bible is supposed to be teaching one must interpret some parts and discard others. It is not possible to interpret the entire Bible as a single moral teaching, one must decide what bits are relevant and what bits aren't. And this is done based on a moral sense that already exists.

robindch

hivemind wrote:

Surely if you arent adhering to the definition of a group then you cant be really a part of it.

That's the whole problem -- religions generally don't provide unambiguous criteria for group membership, so it's often quite easy for somebody to claim to be a believer of religion X, while other believers will reject the claim. Most religions do it -- sunni vs shia and greater islamism, catholic vs protestant and greater christianity etc, etc.

In fact, I believe that this woolly group membership, far from being a problem, is actually a central part of how religions have evolved. If you tied down membership very tightly, particularly with respect to what you have to do, rather than what you have to believe, then the religions would be far too confining to retain adherents and they'd die over time. By being woolly, you can gain a much wider believership and guarantee your own future as a religion.

It's interesting to note the differences between the current 'rules' for being allowed to call oneself a catholic or protestantism -- with protestantism, all a member thinks he has to do to stay alive after he dies is to believe a magic phrase; whereas with catholicism, not only do you have to believe a different and probably larger magic phrase, but you have to do good works too. The second is a greater economic investment, so people, being inherently interested in wanting something for as close to nothing as possible, will tend to select protestantism in favour of catholicism.

hivemind wrote:

What I'm getting at is how do Christians get past the cognitive dissonence inherent to this, how do they decide what bits to follow and which to ignore and in the case of fundies how in the hell do they follow all the rules where those rules are self contradictory?

From discussions here, it seems to me that people simply decide that the bible is true, then selectively quote from it to justify their pre-conceived opinions and the economic cost of acquiring and maintaining the belief. The bible is full of contradictory rules and instructions and conspicuously lacking in notes on interpretation, so it allows just anybody to hold whatever position they wish, then back it up with biblical quotes.

As with the undefined group membership rules, I believe that the contradictory rules and instructions are a necessary part of the unconscious design of the religion, intended to guarantee as wide a believership as possible.

Incidentally, these views put religion's frequent railing again "moral relativism" in a poor light, as they suggest that religion itself consists of nothing but the relativism it decries.

stevejazzx

I think the word we're all looking for is
'compartmentalisation'
Firstly however we must understand literalism.
When one is a literalist, one is supposed to follow the exact precise meaning of the words themselves. However the english language is a funny beast and so in common literalism it is often the case that soemone misinterprets the meaning of words becasue they are following them too specifically.
In religous literalism the definition is different again. Here it means to follow the absolute code of the religon. So while reliogus apologists make allowances for say, homosexulaity, the Popes view on cntaception, eating of shellfish etc. literalists are afforded no such luxury.
The most glaring problem with religous literalism is that the practices they vow to continue are ancient and so in the process they make themsleves look very fundamental or just plain crazy. The most glaring problem with religous apologists or non fundamnetalists is that everytime they dismiss even a fraction of their religous codes they make themsleves look very hypocritical. This only fuels the literalistic mindset making them even more deluded into thinking that their outlook, despite it's antiquated notions has to be correct becasue the only alternative is dismissing the code in part, which if logically progressed would ultimately mean dismissing the whole thing. This is how the fundametalist mindset is created. All or nothing.

Now, compartmentalisation. This is the process by which the clever evolved human brain isolates certain contradictory ideas into their own little closed worlds. If these contradictory ideas meet then the thinker knows there will a clash of belief. Belief is the primary standard and starts off in most people as something precious, possibly the 'soul' of that person. All the thinkers beliefs must conform to the primary standard or else the thinker will simply not entertain them, for if he does then he/she is negating the very essence of his/her being/nature, in terms of how he/she sees themself.

For example I believe god doesn't exist becasue there is no eveidence scientific or otherwise, so I don't entertain ideas realting or pertaining to dieties. I don't entertain heaven directly as a result of having, as my primary standard, a non belief in deities. Now, if for some reason I needed to believe that heaven existed becase some other aspect of my life required it, then I might 'compartmentalise' my idea of 'heaven' and possibly even redefine it as something possible in theoretcial science, therby lending weight to it's existence. This is how I compartmentalise and fool myself that the two ideas are mutally compatible and that my primary standard is still intact.

Religous literalists have a huge probelm to reconcile, namely science. They have to have some aspects of science redefined in order for it to fit into their primary standard. For exmaple creationist pseudo-science which attempts to reconcile the great flood with geographical regions of the earth or even more remarkably tries to fit the a whole species of reptile back into a context that 'forgot' to mention them orignally and even more more remarkably still, tries to reconcile a timeline for the earth as 6 thousand years old when modern science has clearly shown that it millions of times older than this. This is compartmentalisation of a grand nature becasue the self same peplpe must go about their daily lives interacting with essentially the same set of scientific principals they are attempting to disprove in other contexts. When they tavel in their cars they don't qustion the mechanics of it's motor, the internal combstion engine, becasue that doesn't directly contravene their religous beliefs. The age of the earth does however. It makes the bible look like a stroy written in more ignorant times. So they open 'creationist museums' using the latest technology (science) to show how they have quantified the ideas of science into the the literlaistic timeline of the bible. So fossils become olny thousands of years old instead of millions of years old.

And then, after work they use, planes, trains and automobiles, telecomunications, mircowave ovens, computers and lights etc. in an almost dazzling display of contradiction and comparmentalisation.

Non fundamentalists on the other hand have other problems. They allow for the age of the earth. They just put that down to the mystery and or greatness of God. In fact every discovery of science which interferes with the timeline or ideas of the bible is put down to the greatness and or mystery of God. But the great compartmentalisation of non extremists isn't one of science and religon, it's one of religon and religon. Their greatest cover up is in accepting only parts of the religous code. The antiquated wacky parts are often written off as 'passages which are allegorical', not to be taken literally. This allows them redefinition and compartmentalisation.

In reality we are all great compartmentalisers, the question is how far into self delusion does each one of us go?
Clearly people eager to murder other pepple becasue they believe they are saving the souls of these people are extremely self delusional, more than likely brainwashed. It is more likley that the more deluded a person the less chance he/she has in reverting the process and this is where compartmentalisation redefines and manipulates the primary standard until the primary satndard is no longer important as it simply must conform to whatever idea is said to be central to the casue.

Hivemind187

stevejazzx wrote:

I think the word we're all looking for is
'compartmentalisation'
Firstly however we must understand literalism.
When one is a literalist, one is supposed to follow the exact precise meaning of the words themselves. However the english language is a funny beast and so in common literalism it is often the case that soemone misinterprets the meaning of words becasue they are following them too specifically.
In religous literalism the definition is different again. Here it means to follow the absolute code of the religon. So while reliogus apologists make allowances for say, homosexulaity, the Popes view on cntaception, eating of shellfish etc. literalists are afforded no such luxury.
The most glaring problem with religous literalism is that the practices they vow to continue are ancient and so in the process they make themsleves look very fundamental or just plain crazy. The most glaring problem with religous apologists or non fundamnetalists is that everytime they dismiss even a fraction of their religous codes they make themsleves look very hypocritical. This only fuels the literalistic mindset making them even more deluded into thinking that their outlook, despite it's antiquated notions has to be correct becasue the only alternative is dismissing the code in part, which if logically progressed would ultimately mean dismissing the whole thing. This is how the fundametalist mindset is created. All or nothing.

Now, compartmentalisation. This is the process by which the clever evolved human brain isolates certain contradictory ideas into their own little closed worlds. If these contradictory ideas meet then the thinker knows there will a clash of belief. Belief is the primary standard and starts off in most people as something precious, possibly the 'soul' of that person. All the thinkers beliefs must conform to the primary standard or else the thinker will simply not entertain them, for if he does then he/she is negating the very essence of his/her being/nature, in terms of how he/she sees themself.

For example I believe god doesn't exist becasue there is no eveidence scientific or otherwise, so I don't entertain ideas realting or pertaining to dieties. I don't entertain heaven directly as a result of having, as my primary standard, a non belief in deities. Now, if for some reason I needed to believe that heaven existed becase some other aspect of my life required it, then I might 'compartmentalise' my idea of 'heaven' and possibly even redefine it as something possible in theoretcial science, therby lending weight to it's existence. This is how I compartmentalise and fool myself that the two ideas are mutally compatible and that my primary standard is still intact.

Religous literalists have a huge probelm to reconcile, namely science. They have to have some aspects of science redefined in order for it to fit into their primary standard. For exmaple creationist pseudo-science which attempts to reconcile the great flood with geographical regions of the earth or even more remarkably tries to fit the a whole species of reptile back into a context that 'forgot' to mention them orignally and even more more remarkably still, tries to reconcile a timeline for the earth as 6 thousand years old when modern science has clearly shown that it millions of times older than this. This is compartmentalisation of a grand nature becasue the self same peplpe must go about their daily lives interacting with essentially the same set of scientific principals they are attempting to disprove in other contexts. When they tavel in their cars they don't qustion the mechanics of it's motor, the internal combstion engine, becasue that doesn't directly contravene their religous beliefs. The age of the earth does however. It makes the bible look like a stroy written in more ignorant times. So they open 'creationist museums' using the latest technology (sceince) to show how they have quantified the ideas of science into the the literlaistic timeline of the bible. So fossils become olny thousands of years old instead of millions of years old.

And then, after work they use, planes, trains and automobiles, telecomunications, mircowave ovens, computers and lights etc. in an almost dazzling display of contradiction and comparmentalisation.

Non fundamentalists on the other hand have other problems. They allow for the age of the earth. They just put that down to the mystery and or greatness of God. In fact every discovery of science which interferes with the timeline or ideas of the bible is put down to the greatness and or mystery of God. But the great compartmentalisation of non extremists isn't one of science and religon, it's one of religon and religon. Their greatest cover up is in accepting only parts of the religous code. The antiquated wacky parts are often written off as 'passages which are allegorical', not to be taken literally. This allows them redefinition and compartmentalisation.

In reality we are all great compartmentlaisers, the question is how far into self delusion does each one of us go?
Clearly people eager to murder other pepple becasue they believe they are saving the souls of these people are extremely self delusional, more than likely brainwashed. It is more likley that the more deluded a person the less chance he/she has in reverting the process and this is where compartmentalisation redefines and manipulates the primary standard until the pimary satndard is no longer important as it simply must conform to whatever idea is said to be central to the casue.

Now that makes a lot of sense

However, these compartmentalisations, how far do they go? surely, when people are honest with themselves, they must know that something doesnt fit - that the overwhelming evidence against a concept by comparrisson to the non-existant evidence in its favor demands that they aknowledge their beliefs as non-sensical.

... that can not be healthy.

JimiTime

You guys never cease to amaze:D

Hivemind187

JimiTime wrote:

You guys never cease to amaze:D

Que?

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote:

Now that makes a lot of sense

However, these compartmentalisations, how far do they go? surely, when people are honest with themselves, they must know that something doesnt fit - that the overwhelming evidence against a concept by comparrisson to the non-existant evidence in its favor demands that they aknowledge their beliefs as non-sensical.

... that can not be healthy.

I am not sure how far that compartmentalisation argument goes.
Put it this way: I love logic and from time to time I love being irrational.
In fact I wish I was more irrational and had more compartments.

I think we are all irrational and superstituos in some respects unless you have aspergers syndrome.
A good academic who would support me on this (not the aspergers syndrome part though) is Bruce Hood.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1864748,00.html
Peace be with you.

JimiTime

Hivemind187 wrote:

Que?

Just this whole, aren't they such idiots and we so clever type talk. Its very amusing.

pH

JimiTime wrote:

Just this whole, aren't they such idiots and we so clever type talk. Its very amusing.

If you find this even mildly amusing then you should sit in on a set of theology lectures and discussions - you'll have hysterics.

robindch

JimiTime wrote:

Its very amusing.

Perhaps, but do you think it's accurate?

Hivemind187

JimiTime wrote:

Just this whole, aren't they such idiots and we so clever type talk. Its very amusing.

This coming from the guy who asked to ban atheists from the christian board?

Pot - Kettle?

Anyway, I asked the question not based on issues of faith but on the clear disparity that their scriptures and dogma contain. I am trying to figure out how you can hold two completely contradictory thoughts at the same time without your head exploding like Scanners! I am trying to comprehend how it is possible, in the face of overwhelming evidence people can still deny what is front of their face in favor of superstitious non-sense.

And let me be clear on this point - it is superstitious nonsense, in my opinion (please note the sign on the door as you came in, "Atheist and Agnostic Forum").

Hivemind187

Tim Robbins wrote:

I am not sure how far that compartmentalisation argument goes.
Put it this way: I love logic and from time to time I love being irrational.
In fact I wish I was more irrational and had more compartments.

I think we are all irrational and superstituos in some respects unless you have aspergers syndrome.
A good academic who would support me on this (not the aspergers syndrome part though) is Bruce Hood.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1864748,00.html
Peace be with you.

... I always thought Aspergers Syndrome was primarily about the inability to comprehend other human beings and such in a normal way?

However, I'm not convinced that compartmentalisation is the definitive answer on this. I can understand people managing to hold two contradictary thoughts symoultaneously but I have difficulty understnading how they can "believe" both or hold both to be "fact" - surely one must take precidence over the other no?

JimiTime

Hivemind187 wrote:

This coming from the guy who asked to ban atheists from the christian board? Pot - Kettle?

Did I really?

Anyway, I asked the question not based on issues of faith but on the clear disparity that their scriptures and dogma contain. I am trying to figure out how you can hold two completely contradictory thoughts at the same time without your head exploding like Scanners! I am trying to comprehend how it is possible, in the face of overwhelming evidence people can still deny what is front of their face in favor of superstitious non-sense.

Indeed. Well, i put it down to the years of brainwashing.

And let me be clear on this point - it is superstitious nonsense, in my opinion (please note the sign on the door as you came in, "Atheist and Agnostic Forum").

Yeh, noticed the sign alright. just thought I'd get away from all those duluded christians.

robindch

hivemind wrote:

surely one must take precidence over the other no?

I don't believe the religious people believe that they are believing contradictory things. They may accept that they're believing unsubstantiated things (because the belief system tells them to, and tells them that they're better people for doing so) but that's a different thing. The closest I ever got was getting one to admit that what I viewed as a contradiction was, in his terms, a "divine mystery" and therefore, something to be admired and savoured.

When the belief system includes contradictory facts and tail-eating rules for dealing with these facts, then just about any interpretation can be supported.

Hivemind187

robindch wrote:

I don't believe the religious people believe that they are believing contradictory things. They may accept that they're believing unsubstantiated things (because the belief system tells them to, and tells them that they're better people for doing so) but that's a different thing. The closest I ever got was getting one to admit that what I viewed as a contradiction was, in his terms, a "divine mystery" and therefore, something to be admired and savoured.

When the belief system includes contradictory facts and tail-eating rules for dealing with these facts, then just about any interpretation can be supported.

Interesting. Kind of "justifiable ignorance" which is rewarded. Believe this peice of unsubstantiated, counterintuitivy and you can have a biccy?

How can I get that kind of power over people?

bonkey

Hivemind187 wrote:

How can I get that kind of power over people?

L Ron Hubbard could be a good source of inspiration.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Just this whole, aren't they such idiots and we so clever type talk. Its very amusing.

I think it is more "This is utterly ridiculous, how does a rational intelligent person actually believe this nonsense"

If we thought you were all idiots it wouldn't be such a puzzlement. The fact that you guys aren't idiots is the bit that makes it bewildering.

Zombrex

Hivemind187 wrote:

How can I get that kind of power over people?

Pretty simple really

Wicknights 3 steps of religion

1 - Convince someone that there is something terribly wrong with them, that they cannot fix on their own and that will lead to bad things in the future

2 - Convince a person that your religion, and only their religion, can save them from these terrible things

3 - There is no step 3 (ok, that was borrowed from the iMac ads)

How to achieve this is through the John Travolta effect. Tell steps 1 and 2 to people down on their luck (people dying of something is always good). If any of them manage some how to improve their lives (or simply not die) then you proclaim that it was your new religion that caused this. You don't even need to get this to happen that many times, just once or twice.

Hope is an interesting thing, and more importantly it is very easy to manipulate. People love to believe that there are things they can do that will cause a greater effect on their lives than they themselves could manage. So worship a god and this god (who is more powerful than you) will fix things that you cannot fix.

It is really quite fascinating how religion works. It is the great manipulator. Anyone who wants to manipulate groups of people (looking your way Communist) study how religion actually works.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

I think it is more "This is utterly ridiculous, how does a rational intelligent person actually believe this nonsense"

If we thought you were all idiots it wouldn't be such a puzzlement. The fact that you guys aren't idiots is the bit that makes it bewildering.

Good come back. Touche:D

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

it is because the way the Bible is written. Its far too long to be a consistent work on morals. This therefore allows Christians to pick certain areas to support moral judgements they have already decide upon.

For example, in the Christian forum discussion on homosexuality the idea of polygyny (marriage with multiple wives) was raised (by myself if I remember).

Polygyny is a common tradition within both the Old Testament and the New Testament. There is no hint that Jesus disapproved of this practice.

In fact polgyny was practiced by early Christians and was only really clamped down when the church became more powerful due to mergers into the Roman traditions (which did outlaw polygyny)

Anyway I was using this as an example of how Christianity often updates morals based on a re-interpretation of what people think God wants. Most Christian denominations forbid polgyny despite the practice being common in the Bible.

A poster (think it was PDN) replied that if I read the early churches instruction of how it wanted its deacons to behave (they were allowed only one wife) it was clear that the church actually wanted people to have only one wife and was attempting to lead by example.

Therefore God actually didn't define marriage as one man and multiple wives.

I was rather dumbstruck at such a level of compartmentalized interpretation, particular from someone who claims to strive to interpret the Bible as the writers meant it to be interpreted, not through modern moral standards.

Despite the thousands of examples of polygyny in the Bible, PDN was picking one tiny passage about recommendations for church leaders (which mirrored the Old Testament ruling that the kings of Israel could only have one wife, not for moral reasons but because more than one wife gets in the way of managing his people) and using that as the basis for saying that God actually doesn't want polygyny at all, he is in fact tell us all that we are supposed to have only one wife.

Maybe you could list some New Testament references to polygyny if it is really, as you claim, a common tradition in the New Testament. Actually, Wicknight, your church history is way off base. Polygamy was NOT a general practice in the early church despite your link to Wikipedia (which conveniently failed to mention that Wikipedia have flagged that entry as not meeting their clean-up standards). Here is a another quote from Wikipedia:

Polygamy is currently prohibited by almost all Jewish and Christian groups. It was permitted in early Judaism, as can be seen from the ancient Patriarchs and the Jewish Kings, although only a minority of Jews practiced it. It was forbidden by Roman law, and by the time of the rise of Christianity, nearly all Jews had abandoned the practice. It was never permitted in early Christianity.

There are few pronouncements of the early Christian church that explicitly prohibit polygamy, since it was almost unheard of in Graeco-Roman society. Early Christians desired to condemn polygamy, because it conflicted with the prevailing mores of the Graeco-Roman society in which they lived; yet at the same time they had to explain the clear permission given for it in the Old Testament.

Also Tertullian, one of the early church Fathers who lived 150 years before the Church/State merger with Rome, condemned monogamy as practiced only by heretics in his "On Monogamy" (an excellent English translation is available free online through Google's 2020 project.

I did try to post this on the thread in question, but the public access computer in my German hotel is, rather strangely, blocking access to that thread because its filter thinks it contains inappropriate material (even though the guy next to me is looking at some pretty graphic dirty pictures)

I am sorry that any rebuttal of your occasional and somewhat unusual interpretations of Scripture or Church history are viewed as compartmentalising. A more humble person might accept that others are actually able to come to a different interpretation than their own while still retaining scholarship and honesty.

robindch

PDN wrote:

Polygamy was NOT a general practice in the early church

It seems to have been widespread enough that 1 Timothy 3:2 asks church leaders to have "but one wife":

KJV wrote:

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

...?

pH

Wicknight wrote:

If we thought you were all idiots it wouldn't be such a puzzlement. The fact that you guys aren't idiots is the bit that makes it bewildering.

Though didn't someone's momma say "Stupid is as stupid does"?

Son Goku

Hivemind187 wrote:

Its a funny thing, absolutely hilarious from certain perspectives, that the majority of moderate christians (and I suppose other religions to) tend to only follow the rules that they like and dismiss the other ones as inapplicable, out dated or misinterpreted metaphor.

I think we get a skewed view of Christianity here, as most of the Chrisitian posters are from the more serious branches of the religion. They tend to have a detailed knowledge of the early church, incredible familiarity with the bible, e.t.c.
So we think they're ignoring one element they they don't like, when they probably have a detailed interpretation.

For instance a regular debate around here is that God's Omnipotence implies determinism. Commonly it comes down to determinism being poorly defined, since there is philosophical determinism and scientific determinism and it's hard to check which one somebody is talking about. Usually the Christian posters mean determinism in the philosophical sense. A free-will theology in the style of Aquinas (and occasionally Calvin) is built around this. However we're left going "But that is determinism!", because we're talking from the scientific standpoint.

The truth is the majority of modern Chrisitians actually believe:
1. God made the world.
2. Nice people go to heaven.
3. Bad people go to hell.
4. You should go to Mass on a Sunday.

And that's it. They don't really read the bible or understand Jesus to be the logos or discuss Old Testament laws.

stevejazzx

Hivemind187 wrote:

Now that makes a lot of sense

However, these compartmentalisations, how far do they go? surely, when people are honest with themselves, they must know that something doesnt fit - that the overwhelming evidence against a concept by comparrisson to the non-existant evidence in its favor demands that they aknowledge their beliefs as non-sensical.

... that can not be healthy.

Well, you see this is the point. Compartmentalisng is done by

a) redefining the contradiction to get it to fit in
b) isolating that idea from criticism, in the knowledge that it works for you in a very specific way and that others simply 'don't get it' when you try to explain it to them, except others of the same belief that is.
Reminds me of the quote
'fools like to compliment each others work'

When you speak of evidence you must realise that redefintion process protects the idea from criticism. The idea that there is purposefully no evidence of God created the redefintion that became
'one must have faith'.
Therefore any lack of evidence is no longer a criticism, it is in fact, in the eyes of the believer exactly the process that should be happening.
Now ask yourself, would this process work outside religon? Absolutely not.
That's what makes religon so dangerous. It allows a platform for holy people to redefine the process of creating belief.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Maybe you could list some New Testament references to polygyny if it is really, as you claim, a common tradition in the New Testament.

I will let my good friends at BiblicalPolygamy handle that one

http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/exegesis/a-new-testament-polygamist/

1 Corinthians 5
1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife.

Not his mother, but his fathers wife. The other wise is the mans mother.

Also, since you are such a big fan of exegesis, the nice polygamists have also put together a study of the Greek works used in Paul's address on marriage pointing out that he uses the Greek word for someone already married when discussing future marriage.

http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/exegesis/polygamy-commanded-in-new-testament/

There is also the fact that, as Robin pointed out, the New Testament doesn't ban polygyny, it just recommends that the elders of the church don't practice it. If it wanted to ban polygyny it would have banned polygyny.

Face it PDN, polygyny was accepted in the Old Testament and the New Testament doesn't change that (which it isn't supposed to). The reason Polygyny feel out of favour in Christianity is because it was already banned by the pagan godless Romans.

Of course you won't face that, because that is not what you want the New Testament to mean Which has always been the point.

PDN wrote:

Here is a another quote from Wikipedia:

That pretty much confirms exactly what I said :rolleyes:

Polygyny was banned not because Jesus or God had any issues with it, but because of the Roman influence on the Christian idea of morality in the early church. It was banned by the early church, not by God or Jesus (or even Paul or Peter). It was fine in the Old Testament and neither Jesus nor Paul changed that fact

There are Christian groups, such as the website I linked to, who are now saying "Hold on, this was a moral decision taken due to Roman influences on the early church. This isn't in the Bible, in fact quite the opposite. Why are folding to a non-Biblical interpretation of marriage just because the Romans were heavily influencing Jewish and early Christian society"

The out lawing of polygyny is a classic example of the the moral zygest of the time (Roman culture) influencing how the Bible is interpreted by the church.

In fact I seem to remember that was why I brought this up as an example in the first place.

PDN wrote:

Also Tertullian, one of the early church Fathers who lived 150 years before the Church/State merger with Rome, condemned monogamy

I know. Tertullian was a African Roman, particularly noted for his dedication to strictness and discipline, who believed that all Christians should strive for celibacy. He didn't like marriage, and really hated the idea of polygyny. So once again you have an example of someone reinterpreting scripture to fit his own view of the world.

Of course the fact that he was calling on Christians to not practice polygyny would kinda indicate that Christians were practicing polygyny, does it not?

PDN wrote:

I did try to post this on the thread in question

No need. I mentioned Montanism, which Tertullian was a follower. Montanists didn't believe in marriage, again believing that a Christian should strive to abandon all sexual desire. Of course they also believed that Jesus appeared to them in the form of a woman. Not sure how you view that revelation.

PDN wrote:

A more humble person might accept that others are actually able to come to a different interpretation than their own while still retaining scholarship and honesty.

If history teaches us nothing it is that people interpret the Bible as they want to.

If you want evidence of that simply look at what was happening with the early Christian church. Look at what someone like Tertullian or Montanus believed. It is far from what a modern day Christian would believe and is based on interpretation through the eyes of their own culture.

There is no "honesty" in how one interprets the Bible, due to the nature of religion.

You are not interpreting this without bias, because you want the Bible to mean something. What that is will determine how you interpret the Bible.

No Christian theologian is interpreting the Bible without bias because again they want it to mean something. If you want the Bible interpreted without bias you need to give it to someone from outside the religion, but of course they will probably just conclude it is the ramblings on religion of a group of men from the Middle East

JimiTime

Got to be honest, I went looking for something that condemned polgamy. Didn't really find it. It certainly encourages and promotes monogomy, but polygamy is not condemned on what I see. Its certainly not seen as Immoral, again on what I've seen. Certainly, when you consider what Jesus says about adultery i.e. it can be commited in ones heart, then that in itself condemns polygamy, as you would likely look at another woman with 'desires' for her. However, As with alot of cultures, this cavaet would not be present if a father asked you to take his daughter in marriage, as was customary in some cultures.

My conclusion, from my reading, which is open to correction is: Biblically, polygamy is not condemned as Immoral or evil etc, but it is certainly encouraged that a man should have only one wife. Whereas fornication and homosexuality are condemned as sinful, polygamy isn't.

Son Goku

JimiTime wrote:

My conclusion, from my reading, which is open to correction is: Biblically, polygamy is not condemned as Immoral or evil etc, but it is certainly encouraged that a man should have only one wife. Whereas fornication and homosexuality are condemned as sinful, polygamy isn't.

So you'd take it that a man having one wife would be better, but it's not strictly outlawed to have more than one wife.

This would work the other way I presume, in that a woman is allowed have more than one husband.

JimiTime

Son Goku wrote:

So you'd take it that a man having one wife would be better, but it's not strictly outlawed to have more than one wife.

What I said was, in my looking at it, The bible gives strong advice to be monogomous. However, it does not say that polygamy is immoral. However, I am open to correction as I only looked into this since it was raised here. The fact that Jesus said that to look at a woman so to lust for her, you have commited adultery in your heart. This then means that polygamy is immoral in that context. However, in certain old cultures, parents could give their daughter to a man (for her protection or wellbeing i assume) So that he would look after her and grant her a family. Thats the only circumstance I can think of that a man is not being adulterous in taking a second wife.
Of course, in a modern context, polygamy is illegal, so to take a second wife, no matter what the circumstance wouldn't be right.

This is new to me, I'm just being honest about my findings.

This would work the other way I presume, in that a woman is allowed have more than one husband.

No, there is never any woman with more than 1 husband. Biblically, woman is the glory of man. Man is lord over woman. As bitter a pill this is to swallow for alot of women, this is the biblical stance.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

1 Corinthians 5
1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife.

Not his mother, but his fathers wife. The other wise is the mans mother.

Ever hear of a stepmother? For example, my mother died in 1965, so it would be perfectly correct to refer to my stepmother "my father's wife". However, that does not make my father a polygamist.

JimiTime

PDN wrote:

Ever hear of a stepmother? For example, my mother died in 1965, so it would be perfectly correct to refer to my stepmother "my father's wife". However, that does not make my father a polygamist.

Is there anywhere that condemns polygamy as immoral? I have searched, and as I've said, it definately indicates that monogomy is the way to go, however, I haven't seen anywhere that actually condemns polygamy as sinful? Any insight?