Why has God allowed religion to be so tribal?

[Jason118]

There is so much solid teachings in religious dogma and so many warm and kind people who practice. Why has it all come to this, or was it ever thus?

Good post outwiththecrowd thank you

*I'm pretty sure they aren't 'places'.

We are all 'in' because we are all part of the world. You can't score points with God for being good, if you get it you should want to be good because you love your fellow humans and you know love wins, it brings us peace.*

Which makes you wonder why he bothered as most people work out that being kind is best for everyone with or without any religion. It just gave humans another opportunity to control. An all intelligent being would know this.

I’d say jesus has very little to do with Christianity!

We are all ‘god’ and the idea that we’re not is the biggest barrier created by religion. It’s the reason theists are waiting in vain for god to come again when god is here, as all of us all the time, and religion and doctrine is whatever we decide it to be. That's the first time I can recall on these threads anyone mentioning this. I'm glad you did.

To no end. Why does there have to be an end?

You've consistently questioned the purpose of lots of religious beliefs, why not question the purpose of evolution too?
There doesn't have to be an answer in order for people to ask why. It would appear to be part of human nature to question the unknown. Why do we exist? is not a religious question, it's one that mankind has been asking throughout history.

Why do we exist? is not a religious question

So why do we invent a religious answer then?

I would guess it's because we can't find a scientific answer (and maybe there isn't one), but a religious answer feels plausible to many, and it's enough to give them hope that they have a purpose, or something after this life?

The big bang theory assumes a singularity. The inevitable question is how that singularity came into being out of nothing.

We dont know. It may not have come from nothing, it may be a nonsensical question, as I've pointed out. And to assert that you have an answer, you are either wrong or you should be collecting a Nobel Prize.

One theory is that the universe explodes then implodes, in cycles. But still, the age old question remains. How did the cycle begin?

We dont know. See above.

Altruism is not so readily explained as one might expect sacrificial altruistic traits to die out. We aren't talking about kind acts in evolution, but actual sacrifice of life. There are numerous theories on how altruism remains, but no definitive answer. Trying to pass it off as easily explained is a little disingenuous.

Of course it's complicated. But it's relatively trivial to conceive some of the basics. Altruism is not evidence for the divine, nor does it destroy arguments for natural evolution. And actually, I wouldn't expect sacrificial altruistic traits to die out. For one thing, we have religious nutters in this world who think it will get them to a better place.

You've consistently questioned the purpose of lots of religious beliefs, why not question the purpose of evolution too?

This is an equivocation fallacy. They are not equivalent things. Religious beliefs are, amongst other things human attempts to understand the world. Despite them being consistently proven to be inaccurate, people continue to believe them. So I'm perfectly justified in questioning their purpose when they appear to have no role in progressing human understanding.

Evolution, on the other hand, is just something which happens. It's not man made, it's a natural phenomenon. There is no reason to think that there is any purpose to evolution. There is no 'final stage' beyond which you can no longer evolve further.

There doesn't have to be an answer in order for people to ask why.

No, but it does mean that you won't get an answer and that doesn't mean you can just make one up.

It would appear to be part of human nature to question the unknown.

Of course. But I'd rather not know than believe in something false.

Why do we exist? is not a religious question, it's one that mankind has been asking throughout history.

It is entirely a religious question because if you remove religion, there's absolutely no reason to ask the question. We don't exist for a reason, we just exist.

I would guess it's because we can't find a scientific answer (and maybe there isn't one), but a religious answer feels plausible to many, and it's enough to give them hope that they have a purpose, or something after this life?

If there is no answer, why invent one? Plausibility alone is a terrible basis for building a theory about how something works.

What is everyone's obsession about hoping there's a life after this one? I couldn't think of much worse, either in terms of valuing the life you know you have or in terms of living for eternity under the dictatorial rule of an immoral thug (of course, just because I don't like the idea doesn't mean it wont happen).

We are all ‘god’ and the idea that we’re not is the biggest barrier created by religion. It’s the reason theists are waiting in vain for god to come again when god is here, as all of us all the time, and religion and doctrine is whatever we decide it to be.

Is there a religious text which supports this idea?

Hello Outwiththeoutcrowd, good to see you, it's been a while!

Just to take up something you said:

Those who want to use religion as a means of social control have been handed a gift on a golden platter by St Paul.

Only true insofar as such people - those who want to control through religion - take the bits they please and ignore the rest. They search for proof-texts which back up their insidious ideology and then spout them out without due hermeneutical examination of the background and of the writings around it.

Now, I know that Christians themselves can have a habit of doing this, too, but in this case - the text you quote about women - you can't look at this text and take it at our western cultural understanding of its face value if you've looked at the other Pauline texts. His commendation of the women leaders in the church, the women apostles, make it obvious that he wasn't making a blanket directive about women being 'silent' in churches. Something else is in play in that particular passage, and all those using it would do well to think about what that might be. Paul talks about women prophesying in churches, so how can he turn and say they should not talk at all a few verses later?

There are some really difficult passages, but unless we're prepared to take the whole we have no right to pick out the few to make our point, and certainly to control, which was so far from the spirit of Christianity - yes, even St Paul's notion of what it is to follow Christ, which is heavily loaded with freedom language.

Sorry. As you were.

His commendation of the women leaders in the church, the women apostles, make it obvious that he wasn't making a blanket directive about women being 'silent' in churches. Something else is in play in that particular passage, and all those using it would do well to think about what that might be. Paul talks about women prophesying in churches, so how can he turn and say they should not talk at all a few verses later?

Is this not just an example of biblical contradiction? Exactly why people have to cherry pick verses because it makes no sense if you look at the whole thing.

It's an example of a contradiction which should be addressed if Christian people are going to try and use these verses in any way whatsoever - to the good or the bad. The problem is, when they have been cherry-picked and then abused as part of a patriarchal narrative throughout history, other texts have been ignored and so they have been lifted out of context to mean something people wanted them to mean to fulfil their agenda.

The bible should be looked at as part of a whole: what is the overarching narrative? And in this case, what is Paul's intention? How can we balance what he's saying here with what he's saying there? Unless we apply exegetical tools to the text and study more closely we are not giving the text its due.

Paul's narrative around these was astoundingly radical and egalitarian in nature. When we look at all the text, we find far, far more references to women as leaders, as church planters, as teachers, than we do to women as needing to stay quiet. Therefore, we should read those prickly texts intentionally and carefully.

I agree with you that far too much cherry-picking has been done. I'm sure I'm guilty of it at times, though do try to be rather more consistent in the way I approach these things.

Still, a passage such as:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Is fairly strong. I'm not sure there's any kind of context within which this doesn't mean women should not say anything in church unless the preceeding sentence is, "the following is not true".

Paul is writing to a particular church in a particular place at a time in history. The instruction that women should be silent in churches only applies to this church in Corinth because of a particular issue that they are having and is not a general rule for all time and in all situations.

It's interesting looking at the nuances of the translation, as well. The Greek word used here translated as 'silent' is much closer to 'quiet' in the context of 'stilling the disturbance' rather than being banned from speaking - this is made clear in the same book when he talks about how women prophesy within a service. The other startling aspect of it is that Paul was encouraging women to learn; a highly unusual notion in first century Judaism. Women were uneducated in that society and so rather than teaching being disrupted Paul was giving them permission to in fact educate themselves. It certainly didn't apply across all congregations, because elsewhere we have women leading and teaching, so it was a comment for a church in a particular situation.

Paul is writing to a particular church in a particular place at a time in history. The instruction that women should be silent in churches only applies to this church in Corinth because of a particular issue that they are having and is not a general rule for all time and in all situations.

You say that, and yet the church has, and continues to place women at a disadvantage in the church. Paul's letter could be interpreted as a specific instruction for a specific church, but that would seem a little odd that such a rule would exist for only one church.
It could also be interpreted that the letter was indeed for one church, but was giving guidance on what Paul felt was God's message for all churches.
Based on how women's role in the church has been restricted, I would suggest the wider church chose to adopt the latter interpretation.

I agree that the church has used this passage to oppress women and keep them from exercising their gifts, and that makes me very sad. So glad to be living in a time the balance is beginning to be redressed though as you say there's a long way to go.

The problem with saying that this was perhaps Paul's general thoughts for all churches is that it simply doesn't match with his actions and words right across the letters.

Interestingly some theologians have suggested that this was an add on in 1 Corinthians (taken out of a similar passage in 1 Timothy) because it isn't in the earliest apostolic traditions, and because it seems to be out of Paul's voice a little.

I do think much of the church has done as you say over the ages, but the early church certainly didn't take this view and their practice was of the opposite.

And this is why the bible is completely unreliable when it comes to being used for any kind of useful guidance. Even a very strong and direct sentence will be debated, excused, reinterpreted and eventually claimed that it means something different in Greek in order to fit the views of the particular Christian who's using it.

It's the same old rubbish every time.

1. You've taken it out of context.
2. You have to consider the world at the time it was written.
3. This bit is just a metaphor.
4. If you read some other bits you can tell this couldn't be what that bit means, despite it seemly being very explicit.
5. If you read it in the original language it's subtly different (honestly, telling women - specifically - to be quiet in church vs telling them to be silent is not that different).

It's impressive how far Christians will go to defend their holy text.

I agree that the church has used this passage to oppress women and keep them from exercising their gifts, and that makes me very sad. So glad to be living in a time the balance is beginning to be redressed though as you say there's a long way to go.

That's not really good enough though is it. If Jesus and god and the bible really thought and taught gender equality, it shouldn't have taken 2000 years to begin to redress the situation. The Bible is clearly written by men, for men no matter how you might attempt to spin it.

Interestingly some theologians have suggested that this was an add on in 1 Corinthians (taken out of a similar passage in 1 Timothy) because it isn't in the earliest apostolic traditions, and because it seems to be out of Paul's voice a little.

It doesn't really matter who wrote it though, does it? Not much of the bi Le was actually written by who it said wrote it anyway. The fact it's in there is enough. This is just yet another excuse. Are you suggesting it shouldn't be part of the bible at all?

I do think much of the church has done as you say over the ages, but the early church certainly didn't take this view and their practice was of the opposite.

How do you know this?

Paul is writing to a particular church in a particular place at a time in history. The instruction that women should be silent in churches only applies to this church in Corinth

Then why use the plural 'churches'. Either this is BS or Paul was an idiot.

I’m surprised that of the three passages from St Paul’s writings I referred to, it’s the one about women being silent in church that’s generated the most interest!

Personally, I find the other two statements more incendiary, though, obviously, telling women to be quiet in church isn’t ideal.

MHD referred to women being allowed to prophesy by St Paul and I thought I would include the passage in Corinthians where this is mentioned.

I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

Yes, it seems that St Paul tacitly accepts that women will pray and prophesy just as men do. What I’m unclear about is whether or not this is in the church and certainly it seems likely that prophesying/praying and speaking - as in preaching and discussing - are viewed differently, with only the former being permitted to women. I do not get the impression from the passage quoted above that St Paul is much of a proto-feminist. He is hung up on the external differences between men and women and places women below men in the hierarchy.

I was going to say his views are typical of his time, and perhaps they are, but at least one of his contemporaries has written about women in a more enlightened way.

Here is the Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus on the education of women:

It is reasonable, then, for me to think that women ought to be educated similarly to men in respect of virtue, and they must be taught starting when they are children, that this good, and that bad, and that they are the same for both, and that this is beneficial and that harmful, and that one must do this, and not that. From these lessons reasoning is developed in both girls and boys, and there is no distinction between them.

This was one of the other statements from St Paul I objected to.

For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

I am afraid that when St Paul starts separating children into our children (clean) and their children (unclean), the issue of whether he’s a feminist or not and allows women to preach fades into insignificance.

All children are holy or none of them are.

If Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General of the USA, and his rightwing Christian buddies thought of all children as holy, would it not have been harder for them to treat the immigrant children as they did?

.

The other statement of St Paul’s I referred to earlier was Romans 13, which begins:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

Jeff Sessions is not the first, nor will he be the last, to use Romans 13 to justify the actions of a draconian regime. In Nazi Germany, for example, pastors included it in their sermons to persuade their congregations to support harsh policies against vulnerable groups.

St Paul could have, and should have, called for a thoughtful vigilance when it comes to the behaviour of those in positions of power, after all they might get it wrong and should certainly be held to account by the hoi polloi. Yes, he talks of loving your neighbour in Romans 13 too but it's clear that the powers that be who embrace Paul's words on divinely-ordained authority do not consider the powerless who are victims of their policies to be neighbours.

Thomas Jefferson, former president of the USA, called St Paul ‘the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus’.

I must say that I agree with him. The statements from St Paul are often out of kilter with the Jesus we find in the gospels.