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?

Aaagh just wrote super long post and it disappeared.

Don't get me going on Jeff Sessions, Outwith

Back later - no more time!

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.

It doesn't seem like this is at odds with the silencing passage. If anything, it reinforces that women are ranked below men and different rules apply to the way they dress. There's nothing in this which suggests that a woman prays or prophesies in a church, nor indeed that they have to do this out loud.

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.

Why oh why is the creator of the entire universe, galaxies, black holes etc even fleetingly concerned about head gear!

God: I'm going to send a a message to the world via a book I will get men to write for me
Angels: great idea god, will you give them instructions on how to cure cancer/kill germs/create a sustainable green fuel source?
God: nah, I'm going to tell them who can and can't have their head covered and what bits of their bodies they can cut off their babies.
Angels: 🤔

I do get your comments wiseoldelf about how Christians can seem to twist a passage in order to make it fit with their worldview. But I wonder if we can't win: if we take each word as literal and at face value then we are naive or even delusional, and not employing our mental faculties in any way whatsoever. But if we do grapple with the text then we are accused of trying to make that text suit us and employing a heck of a lot of cognitive dissonance in the process.

Persoanlyl I prefer to wrestle with texts, just as I would with any historical document, because I want to understand what it is the writer is saying - and for that I need to examine carefully contextual issues as well as issues of translation. But it doesn't mean that I attempt to squeeze disingenuous drops out of each tricky text; there are some which remain utterly ambiguous to me and I simply don't get. I'm interested in exegeting them because it fascinates me anyway, but there are definitely some I struggle with - and in those cases, I don't try to defend them by dragging up every last translation nuance, but do say I'm happy to live in that ambiguity because of the impact my faith has on my life every day. I do realise that to you and others this is not a reasoned and sufficient place to be, but so be it.

Alongside that, there are passages I do feel should be examined and defended because those translation or contextual issues are absolutely vital in grappling with them. To not to this would seem to me such a disservice, it would be like reading Shakespeare and making no attempt to understand what he was writing about in a more obscure passage.

how do you know?

Because of Paul's letters and the descriptions in Acts and other NT documents. In the book of Romans, for example, Paul wrote commending 29 people who were 'partners in the gospel' - people who were church leaders, who were prophets and apostles. Among these he named 10 women - completely countercultural for that time. People like Priscilla and Phoebe who were honoured as leaders of churhces and Junia who was named as among the most honoured apostles. There's no doubt that in the earliest Christian communities women were leading, speaking, prophesying and teaching.

Regarding your comment about prophesying above - it was as part of Paul's advice and admonitions to the corinthians about their disordered public worship. Prophesying wouldn't ever be conceived of something done in private and silence, it was an outward act to encourage and build up the church as well as exhort them to do good works and follow the way of Christ more closely. The only reason head coverings were mentioned was due to a cultural aspect - the early Christians were trying to build community within their culture and so had to take on norms in order to do this. As for the head passage - many more interesting points of translation in that one (not least being the word for head did not mean in the sense of authority, but more source - so describing a practical creation order.)

I do realise it can look as if I'm desperately trying to make the words fit into my perception of how it should be / have been, but let me assure you that I'm too invested and interested in what was actually happening and being said to do that. I simply wish to draw out everything that needs to be drawn out, and the more I do so the more I'm convinced that Paul was radical in his egalitarian and emancipatory notions, just as Jesus was.

I did laugh a bit at that, headinhands.

But I think the answer re headgear is that Paul was most concerned about the spread of Christianity in a very hostile culture.

I do get your comments wiseoldelf about how Christians can seem to twist a passage in order to make it fit with their worldview. But I wonder if we can't win: if we take each word as literal and at face value then we are naive or even delusional, and not employing our mental faculties in any way whatsoever. But if we do grapple with the text then we are accused of trying to make that text suit us and employing a heck of a lot of cognitive dissonance in the process.

The problem is that you begin with the premise that it's all true, certain characters are flawless, God exists and that the entire text is inspired by God.

If you don't begin with these premises which are very flawed in the first place, it's much easier to take an objective view of a collection of stories written over several hundred years and compiled by people who had a vested interest in controlling a population with it. You then neither have to take it all literally, nor attempt to interpret any of it.

It's quite bizarre that an all powerful God would deliver his message in a way which was so open to interpretation. He would obviously be capable of making things very clear so why didn't he?

Persoanlyl I prefer to wrestle with texts, just as I would with any historical document

It's possible to do that with literally any text though. People interpret poetry and significant liturature all the time. But it doesn't make it true. Harry Potter is filled with moral stories, fascinating characters, real events and locations, etc, etc. But it's all just fiction. Having said that, I guarantee it would be relatively easy to build a religion around it as if we're true and we'd have a far better basis for living life than we get from the Bible.

Alongside that, there are passages I do feel should be examined and defended because those translation or contextual issues are absolutely vital in grappling with them. To not to this would seem to me such a disservice, it would be like reading Shakespeare and making no attempt to understand what he was writing about in a more obscure passage.

But Shakespeare is fiction. You can draw meaning from the plays but it doesn't mean that any of it is necessarily true.

how do you know?

Regarding your comment about prophesying above - it was as part of Paul's advice and admonitions to the corinthians about their disordered public worship. Prophesying wouldn't ever be conceived of something done in private and silence

OK, I'll take that at face value. But the passage still doesn't say anything about it happening in a church, so there's still no conflict there.

I do realise it can look as if I'm desperately trying to make the words fit into my perception of how it should be

Yep :)

but let me assure you that I'm too invested and interested in what was actually happening and being said to do that.

And therein lies the problem. You feel that you need to understand things which may never have happened.

But I think the answer re headgear is that Paul was most concerned about the spread of Christianity in a very hostile culture.

Couldn't he have said that?

Verily verily I say, that these instructions about what men and women can/can't do are just for a few years because of the current political climate. Let me make it clear that women are every bit as important in the church and should be able to join the highest level of leadership. And being gay is totally fine. Peace out.

Ephesians 18v44

Having said that, I guarantee it would be relatively easy to build a religion around it as if we're true and we'd have a far better basis for living life than we get from the Bible

Brilliant. Where do I sign up? I saw this the other day:

Hey, I'm up for HP religion

The problem is that you begin with the premise that it's all true, certain characters are flawless, God exists and that the entire text is inspired by God.

Therein's the rub, I suppose. I can make all manner of statements about me being rational and wanting to interpret the text just because I should interpret the text, but in the end I do realise that in your eyes this isn't enough because I do believe it's true. And I believe it's true because of experience and study. And so it becomes a bit of a cycle.

However, I really don't think the characters are flawless. They're blatantly not I do think the text is inspired by God, but I don't think every word is literally true. Those things don't mean the same thing.

But the passage still doesn't say anything about it happening in a church, so there's still no conflict there.

This entire section of 1 Corinthians is very specifically targeted to the public worship in the church in Corinth.14 v 26 says 'What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.'

He was talking about women speaking in the church, blatantly and explicitly. So then we must interpret v 34 in the light of that - which is backed up and reflected by many other passages.

Hey, I'm up for HP religion

Great!

Therein's the rub, I suppose. I can make all manner of statements about me being rational and wanting to interpret the text just because I should interpret the text, but in the end I do realise that in your eyes this isn't enough because I do believe it's true. And I believe it's true because of experience and study. And so it becomes a bit of a cycle.

Your belief doesn't really matter about what's good enough in my eyes. What does fascinate me though is how you come to believe something for which there's insufficient evidence. I don't know if you're familiar with Matt Dillahunty, but I subscribe to his mantra that I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. The way I aim to achieve this is through skepticism. I require sufficient evidence for everything that I believe in and the strength of the evidence required is proportional to how much a claim, if true, would change my world view. For example, if you told me you owned a dog, I'd be happy to take that at face value. I know dogs exist, I know people own dogs and whether or not you actually own a dog is of little consequence to me. But if you claim that there's a 'supernatural' dude in the sky who judges me on the way I live my life based on the translated texts from a book written thousands of years ago by countless authors which is open to so much interpretation that virtually every person who reads it gets something different..... I'm going to need a bit more than hearsay, personal accounts, the written word or even a personal 'experience' which I can't explain.

However, I really don't think the characters are flawless. They're blatantly not

Which then makes it very difficult to use what is written to guide anything. If Paul wrote stuff you don't agree with, why attempt to rationalise it? Why not dismiss it as the ramblings of a sexiest man? Of course, if you do that, you then have to question everything else he said and it all becomes a bit of a farce.

I subscribe to his mantra that I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.

That seems very sensible. I fully subscribe to that too. The thing is, I do believe it's one of the true things...

But if you claim that there's a 'supernatural' dude in the sky who judges me on the way I live my life based on the translated texts from a book written thousands of years ago by countless authors which is open to so much interpretation that virtually every person who reads it gets something different..... I'm going to need a bit more than hearsay, personal accounts, the written word or even a personal 'experience' which I can't explain.

Yep, makes complete sense. But I don't believe in a dude in the sky, I believe in a God who is everything and everywhere. The library of books which is the Bible is life to me, not simply a few thousands-year-old pieces of manuscript. It makes sense of everything even though I don't understand everything in it. I don't think my exploration of it is about passages being open to interpretation but rather that I want to discern what the author in question was actually saying rather than what others might have assigned to the texts for various reasons. Because we have the tools to get deep into the exegesis of these texts I think we should do this, and not leave it to be 'open to interpretation.' So I don't try and twist texts I don't get; I simply say I don't get them.

I'm satisfied in the evidence I can see, and am always digging for more, listening carefully to both sides and examining my own motives/pride/possibility of being wrong in it all. But my faith doesn't spring only from hard evidence, but from relationship and experience. And I do realise these are impossible to quantify, because if I tell you some stories about God at work in my life they could just be things I made up, or even things I think happened or that I have spun to make them about God rather than being grounded in naturalistic reality. I know all these things, and yet my faith is living and vibrant, liberating and beautiful, hope-filled and dynamic.

If Paul wrote stuff you don't agree with, why attempt to rationalise it?

I want to understand what he was thinking and saying. I want to know how his mind worked. I want to understand something of what it was like for early Christians. I'm captivated by his emancipating and subversive words and find that they release a peace in me I can't explain.

I don't actually think he's sexist. I don't think some of the interpretations we have give full expression to what he was saying. So I have a responsibility as a thinking Christian to burrow into it. It's fascinating stuff.

That seems very sensible. I fully subscribe to that too. The thing is, I do believe it's one of the true things...

Ok, which is fine. So the next question becomes what do you believe and why? Then you look at the things which you believe and evaluate whether you have good reasons to believe them or not.

Yep, makes complete sense. But I don't believe in a dude in the sky, I believe in a God who is everything and everywhere.

Same difference though, right? I was generalising, but it's still a sensational claim and actually, if anything, even more difficult to believe.

The library of books which is the Bible is life to me, not simply a few thousands-year-old pieces of manuscript. It makes sense of everything even though I don't understand everything in it.

Right, so this is a good start. You have a common sense fallacy right off the bat. It makes sense of stuff. Whilst I don't actually think it does, even if I granted you that, it's not a good reason for believing it's actually true.

I don't think my exploration of it is about passages being open to interpretation but rather that I want to discern what the author in question was actually saying rather than what others might have assigned to the texts for various reasons.

But this is only worth doing if you believe that the bible is true and worth investigating in the first place. Going back to the Harry Potter analogy, you can (and believe me I have) spend huge amounts of time studying the texts of the 7 Holy Books of Potter, interpreting passages about the lineage of the great wizarding houses and putting together timelines and family trees. But it's a work of fiction. So no matter how well you understand what the author was trying to tell you, it's not real. So before you expend all the hours trying to work out how to live your life by any book, you first need to determine whether it's actually real, or at least likely to be real. In the case of the bible, there's simply nowhere near sufficient evidence to suggest that it's real enough to be worth caring what any of it says.

I'm satisfied in the evidence I can see, and am always digging for more, listening carefully to both sides and examining my own motives/pride/possibility of being wrong in it all.

What is the evidence you can see?

But my faith doesn't spring only from hard evidence, but from relationship and experience. And I do realise these are impossible to quantify, because if I tell you some stories about God at work in my life they could just be things I made up, or even things I think happened or that I have spun to make them about God rather than being grounded in naturalistic reality. I know all these things, and yet my faith is living and vibrant, liberating and beautiful, hope-filled and dynamic.

So, firstly, 'faith' is the excuse people give when they don't have sufficient evidence for believing in something. Secondly, your experiences, whatever they are, you are right, are entirely personal to you and there's no reason I would have to believe them. But how do you know that the experiences you have are real and even if they were, how do you know they mean god. I strongly suspect that you have bad reasons for believing.

Thanks for the reply. I think you and my 17 year old DD would get on like a house on fire. She's mad for anything HP and spends hours working out the complicated inter-connectedness between plot lines and people and places, and writing (quite good) Potter fanfic

But this is only worth doing if you believe that the bible is true and worth investigating in the first place.

A good point, of course, though there are countless biblical scholars who don't think it's true but do think it's worth investigating in terms of it being an interesting historical documents which says something about various cultures through the ancient world. But that's off point; I know what you're saying. How can I invest so much time in study of these texts if there isn't enough evidence for them to be true - or more pertinently perhaps, how can I live my life by these texts? (Given that, as you said, it's quite possible to invest hours of time in something which interests us).

You ask me about evidence. Why do I believe it's true? I'm certain you'll have heard all the arguments from cosmology, ontology, anthropology, morality etc etc, and realise they are not enough for you. I find that they point towards a God, but that could be any God (apart from the moral and probably ontological/anthropological arguments which go rather deeper into the possible nature of that possible God) - so, instead of hashing them all out, which would take some time and be unbearably tedious for those reading, I'll come to the central point of belief for me, and that's Jesus.

We live in a world where there are countless claims to authentic spiritual experience, which is why you ask these questions: I'm simply laying claim to another one of the many. When you hear so many differing accounts, it's not surprising that you remain skeptical and discount the lot. I probably would, too. So how can I know what is actually rooted in reality? That my 'experiences' are authentic and not simply heightened emotion/the power of suggestion?

For me, the key is Jesus, because in addition to my experience of God is this person in human history - and because of this person, Christianity can be investigated.

It's impossible to explain the rise and actions of the early church if events recorded in the bible didn't actually happen. Very few peer-reviewed scholars doubt the existence of Jesus. Jesus has left a massive print on history - an unknown carpenter, murdered ignobly in shame. Any movement started by someone like that would be quickly curtailed at that moment.

Obviously, the key question comes back to the resurrection. It's an outrageous claim, flying right in the face of what we know of the natural world. A claim which the ancient Graeco-Roman world would have jeered at and completely discounted as much as we do today. Their worldview - and that of the Jews also - would have rejected resurrection as impossible and also undesirable. Some Greeks and other eastern faith systems had some concept of a god in human form, but it would have been absolute anathema to Jews, believing as they did in the one transcendent God.

Many other messianic pretenders at the time died in a similar way, but none claimed resurrection. It's a unique claim which fired a body of people into radical and subversive action, a unique, embarassing story. The earliest believers must have come to their belief despite it rather than because of a formed idea about how it 'should' be - it simply wouldn't have been accepted as a notion, let alone carried through as a massive deception involving stolen bodies and unfounded claims.

The huge explosion of Christianity was unprecedented. These new followers of Christ adopted this brand new belief unlike anything in the ancient world (and don't get me going on the Mithraism 'comparisons'... ) Usually, in the adoption of faith systems, it would take decades to form a developed understanding of practice. This took a very few years, as some of the Pauline letters show, and some extra-biblical evidence (yeah, yeah, I know, let's not get going on it)

I know all the refutations for all of this (and there is so, so much more, but really don't want to go on), but despite them and through them it still makes sense to me, and more than that, it breathes life to me, and to countless millions through history who have encountered Jesus afresh. Jesus is who I look at to make sense of God.

But how do you know that the experiences you have are real and even if they were, how do you know they mean god. I strongly suspect that you have bad reasons for believing.

Yes, I understand why you would think that about believing something so incredibly out-there. How could anyone? And how could anyone know an experience means God?

I think, for me, part of it is the changes I see in my life when I've encountered God in different ways. There's a passage in Galatians which talks about the fruit of the spirit, or the result of following Jesus, things like patience, kindness, gentleness etc. My experience has been that those things have increased in me and become even more important. This does NOT equate to me saying that folk without belief can't show these characteristics: far, far from it - just that in my own life, these things have further formed through coming closer to God. I've been changed. So while the experiences themselves are unquanitifiable and unmeasurable, the result of them are less so - though of course you could say that was my own drive and longing to be more like that. I can only tell of my experience - I know it's never going to be enough. But it is for me - immeasurably enough and more.

It's peace too - a peace so deep I've never found in anything else. I don't want to sound too cliched, but I can't not mention it. It's just there. It's soul-rest.

That’s lovely!
Can’t deny Jesus was an amazing man.
My problem is that the church hasn’t done him justice. It’s the growth of secularism that has dragged the church slowly away from clinging on to doctrine. Writing stuff down and claiming it to be eternal holy law is always going to fail. Jesus tried to stop the rigid adherence didn’t he? He tried to set everyone free from it. Still no one listened!

You were asked for evidence, Madhairday and didn't provide any at all. You disguised this amongst a great many words, but all you can really say is "I believe it because I do".

It's impossible to explain the rise and actions of the very early church if events recorded in the bible didn't happen No, it isn't. And any "theologian/historian" would know that, in fact, most of the "events recorded in the bible" didn't happen.

The explosion of christianity was unprecedented Nope.

Very few peer-reviewed scholars doubt the existence of Jesus So what? Worth mentioning, of course, that the vast majority of these "peer reviewed scholars" are Christian theologians who already believe in Jesus so "doubt" would be unlikely. Secular historians rarely bother to properly look at the issue since the evidence pointing one way or the other is so scarce.

So, there was quite a lot there and I don't think I need to cover everything because you appear to acknowledge for most part that the 'evidence' which many theists would put forward is just not evidence at all (or at least not sufficient evidence of course, anything can technically be evidence!). But there are some key points I think.

You ask me about evidence. Why do I believe it's true? I'm certain you'll have heard all the arguments from cosmology, ontology, anthropology, morality etc etc, and realise they are not enough for you.

Maybe not all of them, but certainly a good deal and it's not just that they are not good enough for me. They are, without exception, fundamentally flawed arguments.

I find that they point towards a God

I know you don't want to go into them all, but I'd be interested to hear perhaps the best argument you've come across which points to a god.

but that could be any God

This is actually a very good point. It's quite important to define what you mean by god before attempting to argue its existence. There are almost certainly definitions of god out there which I'd be happy to accept, although they wouldn't be the traditional ones!

When you hear so many differing accounts, it's not surprising that you remain skeptical and discount the lot.

I'm more than happy to discount each one on its own merits

Very few peer-reviewed scholars doubt the existence of Jesus.

Actually there's plenty of debate still about the existence of the historical Jesus. But actually, this is one point upon which I don't actually care. It makes no difference to me whether this guy existed or not because even if he did, it stills has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not he was divine.

Obviously, the key question comes back to the resurrection.

It's a unique claim which fired a body of people into radical and subversive action, a unique, embarassing story.

If you believe what's in the bible, resurrection was fairly commonplace at the time, so it's hardly a unique claim.

The earliest believers must have come to their belief despite it rather than because of a formed idea about how it 'should' be - it simply wouldn't have been accepted as a notion, let alone carried through as a massive deception involving stolen bodies and unfounded claims.

How can you know this would have been the case?

I know all the refutations for all of this (and there is so, so much more, but really don't want to go on), but despite them and through them it still makes sense to me, and more than that, it breathes life to me, and to countless millions through history who have encountered Jesus afresh. Jesus is who I look at to make sense of God.

A common sense fallacy. Just because it seems to make sense to you doesn't make it true. Now, obviously, if it has a positive impact on you, then there's not much to refute there, but I'm concerned with what is true and having good reasons to believe that it's true. What also concerns me is that people who believe things for bad reasons can make choices which affect me. For example (and I'm not saying this is you by any stretch of the imagination!), hardcore Southern Baptists in the US who have strong views on homosexuality because of their extremist interpretations of the bible will vote to legislate, based on their beliefs, against the equal rights for same sex marriage. This can have a profound affect on the world and the population which is entirely based on bad reasons for believing in things.

I think, for me, part of it is the changes I see in my life when I've encountered God in different ways.

I what ways have you encountered god?

So while the experiences themselves are unquanitifiable and unmeasurable, the result of them are less so - though of course you could say that was my own drive and longing to be more like that. I can only tell of my experience - I know it's never going to be enough. But it is for me - immeasurably enough and more.

I would almost certainly say that given that there's no test which has ever demonstrated that these types of effects are anything outside of what you'd expect in a world without a god.

The whole idea of the "embarrassment of the crucifixion" is nonsense.

It's trotted out by apologists who insist that, as crucifixion was a shameful end to a life, nobody would invent a god who died (and then rose again) this way.

But this is absurd in the light of other god figures who died by crucifixion, and plenty of people worshipped them at the time.

The Sumerians had a goddess called Innana, for example, who was crucified (after being stripped naked...even more of a humiliation) and then rose again. Christian apologists would probably acknowledge that Innana was fictitious, so the worship of a fictitious god undergoing a fictitious crucifixion is not remotely unlikely. It had happened before.

It's also historically unsound to claim that the resurrection immediately had huge numbers of people leaping to action. There's simply no evidence whatsoever to support this. The Bible says so, sure...but Christians/Christianity don't even make it into the historical record (from one of the best attested eras of the ancient world) for a hundred years after Jesus' supposed death - so all this guff about people being galvanized by the resurrected Christ is total supposition.

The fully referenced wiki entry on Inanna does not mention crucifixion at all, so I'm not sure where you got that from.

Sorry - mad rush of a couple of days. Just a quick one to Toffo (ooh I miss those!) - about scholars: there are many, many atheist scholars who don't dispute the existence of Jesus though I'm well aware of the debate. One of the most vocal, Bart Ehrman, is an unbeliever yet says there is no doubt from the evidence available (also on the history of the early church)

Sorry to be rushed. Hope everyone's enjoying the sunshine :)

Bart Ehrman is not a historian.

The fully referenced wiki entry on Inanna does not mention crucifixion at all, so I'm not sure where you got that from

Sources other than Wikipedia! (Funniest remark I've seen on MN for a while).

Also, Madhairday - argument from authority is a logical fallacy that you should not be relying on. Either your assertions stand up to scrutiny or they do not.

The argument from authority is also an essential part of all intellectual procedures. Science, for example, has to proceed by the argument from authority since no-one can replicate themselves the entire chain of experimental work (where such experimental work exists, which is certainly not the case for all scientific knowledge) in order to proceed beyond it.

Legal judgements would be impossible without the argument from authority. History as a discipline rests on the argument from authority. If something is a logical fallacy that means its fallaciousness is limited to formal logic, a sub-discipline of analytical philosophy.

Banana you still don't say what your source for the 'cruxifixion' of Inanna is. I'm intrigued because there are no sources other than the collections of myths fully referenced in the wiki article.

Bart Ehrman is a 'an expert on the New Testament and the history of Early Christianity' who holds a Chair in Religious Studies, a discipline that includes the history of religions. He is one of the editors of the Encylopaedia of Ancient History. His latest book is a historical work on the early church. I think that probably qualifies him as a historian.

The argument from authority is also an essential part of all intellectual procedures.

Actually, it's not. The argument from authority fallacy is appealing to an agency's authority on a matter as evidence for a claim. Prior scientific work does not rely on authority, it has been demonstrated in its own right.