A Letter To Religious Moderates
By Daniel Miessler on June 26th, 2007: Tagged as Atheism | Bible | Philosophy | Religion
Accepted wisdom says we should respect moderates and look down on fundamentalists. This is supposedly because the moderates know how to pick out the good parts of their Holy books and ignore the bad, whereas the crazy folks can’t tell the difference.
I still agree with this in practice because moderates are less of an immediate danger to the world, but philosophically I now have a new perspective on the issue. My new view is that fundamentalists should at least be given some respect for actually following their books.
People seem to think it’s ok to pick and choose what to follow, but the Bible clearly disagrees:
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. — Deuteronomy 4:2Let’s review what the Bible demands as punishments for breaking these rules:
Leviticus 24:16: And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 31:15: Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 21:17: He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 20:13: If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 20:10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.Let’s be clear — this is not some garbage I made up, and it’s not something pulled out of context. These are standalone commands from God, written in the Bible, for Christians to obey unquestioningly. That doesn’t mean obey them unless there’s a law against it, or obey them unless they make you feel bad.
Remember, it specifically says not to take anything away from these commands, and keep in mind that God knew what the future would look like. If He intended that there be any wiggle room he would have included something to the effect of, “Unless there is a law against it later…”
Quite simply, God has commanded that people die for working on Saturday, sleeping with someone other than their spouse, being gay, talking back to their parents, or saying “Jesus” or “God” when they are upset. If you as a Christian have seen those commands and have judged them unacceptable due to a man-made, secular morality then you are rejecting God outright. You have consciously chosen to place man’s laws above God.
Make no mistake — this is not simply a failure to live up to expectations, this is active rejection. This is so-called “religious” people making their own personal judgment that the word of God should not be followed because it interferes with their morality.The point, of course, is not that moderate Christians should be killing people. What this shows us is that moderate Christians already reject God for precisely the same reason that Atheists do – because the teachings in the Bible don’t make sense.
Once you figure out that God really is demanding that all these people die, and that it’s quite easy for you to see that this is morally out of the question, it should be pretty easy to get to the next step:So if that ugliness is supposed to be the literal word of God himself, and it’s clearly wrong, how can I trust anything in there?Exactly. And that really only leaves two options for kind, thoughtful religious moderates:
- Realize that human laws and knowledge are contrary to God. Join a “community” that owns lots of land that separates itself from the evils of human society and devotes itself to the true path. In short, become a fundamentalist.or…
- Accept that the Bible was written by superstitious men, and that the beautiful parts (of which there are many) can be incorporated into your life without having to subscribe to the fantasy of a God that wants people to be killed for working on Saturday.
--
There is both context and translation. Leviticus 20.13 would be more correctly read as a man who lies in the marrage bed with another man.
In the Hebrew. יג וְאִישׁ, אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת-זָכָר מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה–תּוֹעֵבָה עָשׂוּ, שְׁנֵיהֶם; מוֹת יוּמָתוּ, דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם.
It is also better translated as being an affront that will result in death in the spiritual sense. This is God and not mankind gets to enact death.
Craig
Comment by Craig S Wright — 6/27/2007 @ 1:19 am
A couple of points of logic.
I already commented in an earlier thread that meaning is not separate from context and that it is not always a simple matter to ascertain “the” literal meaning of a passage in the Bible. So, as Craig has already indicated, even among those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible there is disagreement as to what the correct literal interpretation is.
I’m puzzled by your option 2 … I think that this is precisely where ALL religious moderates fall (it could almost serve as my definition of a religious moderate).
Your statement that “moderate Christians already reject God” is just absurd. Not taking the Bible as absolutely literal or (alternatively) believing that certain passages and rules were meant only for the time during which they were written is NOT the same thing as rejecting God. It may seem that way to a fundamentalist, but it shouldn’t seem that way to an athiest or agnostic. Here’s an example: I respect you and enjoy (and learn from) some parts of what you write. On the other hand, I do not agree with all that you write. Is that REJECTING you? It isn’t from my perspective (and I hope that it isn’t from yours either).
Finally, “People seem to think it’s ok to pick and choose what to follow, but the Bible clearly states that it is wrong: Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. — Deuteronomy 4:2″ Surely you see the logical error you’re making here. If it is NOT OK to pick-and-choose, then this passage carries meaning. If it IS OK to pick-and-choose, then this passage simply is not chosen. There’s no logical contradiction in that. Religious moderates find their God and their religion in their hearts (not in the literal interpretation of every word in a book). When something in a book (the Bible or other book), in a sermon, or in life resonates with a deeply held belief (or perhaps one not so deeply held), then the belief is strengthened. The fact that the book, the sermon, or life is cluttered with OTHER stuff doesn’t really matter.
I believe that the sun will appear on schedule each morning. Every time it does, it reinforces this belief. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you SEEMS like a good philosophy. Every time you see it work, your belief in that philosophy is strengthened. Is it impossible that moderates (consciously or not) have a similar approach to religion?
Comment by Carl M — 6/27/2007 @ 8:17 am
With or without logic, with or without context, there are two simple words to consider here:
Old Testament
The Old Testament is exactly that: an old testament. Even a cursory relationship with the New Testament will familiarize you with the idea that it completes and supplants the old testament. There is a new testator, Christ, and upon His death the New Testament becomes valid. The law - all those mean nasty things that you quote from the OT - is replaced with GRACE, the result of Christ’s atoning sacrifice for us.
That being the case I can see a moral imperative from the Old Testament but I cannot and will not follow it to the letter of the law. That inability to live by the letter of the law is what prompted Christ’s sacrifice in the first place.
When shallow people look for an excuse to criticize God they always start in the same place: the Old Testament. It’s easy pickings and shows a basic ignorance of Christianity. You’re a smart guy. Please stick to things you know.
Comment by DMize — 6/27/2007 @ 8:31 am
I think what you guys are missing is the point of the Deuteronomy quote. The Bible is absolutist in nature. It claims, within its own text, to be an all or nothing affair.
You who claim it allows for you to take x and leave y are simply not following the Bible — you’re following what you think the Bible should be. An absolutist text doesn’t get modified by man-made laws at sometime in the future.
Remember three things:
Read that part again. It’s a binary decision, according to the BIble. I’m not saying not to have your own beliefs, or not to use the Bible as a basis for them. All I’m asking is that you realize that this isn’t the way the author of the Bible intended, and that if you insist on doing so you are basically forging your own new religion.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 6/27/2007 @ 8:34 am
Okay, I am a fundamental Christian so… I agree with not being able to pick and choose and I do not agree that the death was a spiritual death. When outlining the form of capital punishment it said (for the sited infractions) stone them with stones that they die… if you are stoned to death it is more than your spirit that dies. If fact, the belief in the after life (inherent with a belief in God) requires the spirit to not die to be with God, or punished.
And DMize is correct, you have to have an understanding of the separation of the OT and NT. And that understanding includes that, as Daniel has mentioned, God knowing the future wrote in prophecy of the pending NT. While not going into the depths of listing all the changes, He does detail why the changes and that the changes would come.
So, I concur with the premise.. although I discount that fundamental Christians are dangerous… I mean we can get extreme in the whole ‘and they shall know you by the love you have’.
And as for Daniels point on moderates, how can you believe one part by faith and reject the next part because you are smarter than that. Bottom line… you believe it or you don’t.
Comment by Rick — 6/27/2007 @ 9:55 am
Thanks for the comments, Rick. It’s nice to have your perspective.
As you know, we are about as far as can be on the scale of beliefs, but our debates are interesting and cordial. And as I mention in the article, I disagree with your positions but respect the consistency in them. You believe in a text, and you follow it.
That to me is the problem with the moderate approach. If the only reason you DO believe is because of a given text, and that text demands that you NOT take anything away from it, it seems odd that one would feel free to ignore that and still claim to follow it.
As Rick points out — the Bible truly is an absolutist text. Ignoring this fact is an exercise in delusion.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 6/27/2007 @ 10:06 am
In having had this debate many times with professing moderate believers, they site that they cannot believe in a book that has been changed but that their faith is not in a text but in Jesus Christ (in the instance of Christianity) and thereby removing themselves from this equation. I will challenge however that everything they are taught and do believe goes back to the Bible and that 99% of the time I find it is not about textual critizism (which is what they site as to why they cannot believe in a literal word of God) but is about their own logic or opinions. I contend that those are not valid reasons to dismiss the text. There is a lot that I do not understand, humanly speaking, about the methods God has chosen to use, but I accept the fact He is God and not me. Therefore I do not have to agree in my human understanding, but rather follow after His paths and trust Him. And I will attest that since I purposed to do so; my journey has been much more rewarding and often times I can look back and see why He did something I would have done differently on the onset… because I did not know wheat He knew.
Daniel, I am not trying to ‘preach’ on your blog, I respect your beliefs but did not feel I could adequately attain a solid representation of the ‘other side’ of the coin and why I do not buy it.
I am willing to put in my two cents whenever… and I am to think skinned to be offended so, everyone can fire away.
Good day all!
Comment by Rick — 6/27/2007 @ 10:58 am
You can preach all you want, man. This site is open to debate. Those are your beliefs and as such are part of the discussion.
:)
Cheers,
-Daniel
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 6/27/2007 @ 11:02 am
:-)
Comment by Rick — 6/27/2007 @ 11:07 am
Comment by Steven G. Harms — 6/27/2007 @ 1:07 pm
Daniel,
Thank you for the thought provoking post. Just a couple of thoughts.
In Matthew, Jesus says “I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it”. I think the orthodox response to your argument would be that Christ paid the penalty for sins. So for this reason it would no longer be appropriate for man to punish sins in the way it was prior to Christ’s death.
The penalty for working on the sabbath hasn’t gone away, but it has already been paid completely. To execute the sabbath breaker (or any other sinner) would essentially be a form of blasphemy since we would have to admit that Christ’s death was insufficient.
AFAIK, this was also the reason Christians abolished the sacrifices that are required in Numbers and Deuteronomy. These are really the core issues around which the books of Romans and Hebrews are written.
Respectfully,
Tim
Comment by Timothy — 6/29/2007 @ 7:45 am
Timothy is correct in regards to the sacrifice. Christ was the completion of the law… the perfect sacrifice. However I would have to respectfully disagree that all earthly penalty for sin has been paid. While not popular today and often over looked by churches in the quest for members, there are portions of the NT that does give examples of penalties on earth. It is also worth noting that we have the promise of payment for our actions, good or bad, spiritually. To say that Christ’s death on the cross negated our responsibility would negate the whole point of commanding us to live right. It is true we are not commanded to kill anyone (read: fanatics miss-applying scriptures), one should remember the nation of Israel was given the law from God as a theocratic nation (the kingships came later) and it was given a due process with judging and rulings. The death penalty was determined not by the priests (while you can find examples of them doing so it was not as God set it up) but judges (and later kings and judges appointed by kings) and carried out, not by those affected or witnesses, but rather the elder men of the area. *Note: There is the exception of avenging murder. A man that avenged the murder of a family member was to be found innocent. This was typically illustrated in the Bible when a man would commit murder and run… the family could pursue and slay him and did not have to bring the murderer in for ‘due process’ but to not be found guilty of murder themselves had to be able to prove it. So the death penalty was given to the government in the OT. It is worth noting that the situation that Jesus when He said let “he that is without sin cast the first stone” he was being setup and He knew it. *Note: the Bible says she was taken in the very act… where was the man? And he was not condemning the Government or denying the penal system but rather a mob. And in the NT you have the reason for government: Romans 13 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
So, government is given a responsibility to punish evil (by the sword… somehow I do not think it was community service) and reward good.
That is one reason I am grateful to be an American my ‘authority’ is the constitution of our great nation. And we are given the ability (read: responsibility) to interact with our government.
Sorry for the lengthy dissertation.
-Rick
Comment by Rick — 6/29/2007 @ 8:49 am
As to Christ being the completion of the law and the perfect sacrifice, it should be noted: just as He gave up life to provide the gift, so are we required to lay down our lives in discipleship to Him, in return.
Discipleship is the price of following Christ. Good discussions.Comment by Jacob Kline — 2/25/2008 @ 7:19 am
I would consider myself a moderate (although Orthodox Christian) and it is my understanding that in the New Testament Christ’s preachings were about taking our attention off picayune details such what combinations of fabrics we could wear and focusing us on love of God and our neighbor, which was the point of the OT law anyway. So when thinking about an ethical question I look at how I can best carry out the commands to love God and my neighbor. It would have been impossible to write a set of specific laws concerning every possible situation and at any rate would not have allowed us to use the gifts of intelligence and free will that God gave us. Jesus’s frustration with the Pharisees was in their obsessive observance of the letter of the law without looking at the “big picture.” Paul reiterates this in 2 Corinthians 3:6 when he says, “who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” Daniel, I respect you and your efforts but at the same time I think the Bible and Christianity are incredibly hard to understand. I had a strong motivation which I will not go into here, but suffice it to say that before seriously wrestling with the basics of Christian faith I had many misconceptions.
Comment by Amy Miller — 3/28/2008 @ 8:59 pm