I Hate Religous Posts

In my searching for topics to write on this evening, I've come across several articles which have extremely strong religous undertones. One was a discussion of homosexuality, the other was a Jewish extremist position against the Road Map in Israel.

Both articles were posted in close proximity to each other on Free Republic, which allows for comments. The homosexuality story had well over 125 comments when I looked at it. I didn't bother to check out the comments on the other article - I never even finished reading it.

In both cases, there was liberal quotation of both the Old and New Testaments. There was considerable mustering of religious text for both sides.

But what I noticed, was that those using the Bible to promote their position, spoke of the Book as the absolute Word Of God. Those using the Bible more for defensive purposes, used other quotations to try to point out contradictions in the Book, but then tended to dismiss it as "a 3000 year old primitive text."

I don't like that - from either side.

For what it's worth, I am not claiming to speak from a position of authority or a position of religious righteousness. At one point in my life I attended Florida Southern College and was required to take two religion courses (I ended up taking four because I found them interesting). These classes really helped to shape the ideas that I had been forming for several years prior.

I don't believe that the Bible is without some Divine influence, but I also don't believe that it is the absolute Word of God.

The Old Testament is a series of Jewish oral traditions that have been written down. Over time and through translation, there have been slight changes to the stories. Wouldn't the Word of God be unchanging, no matter the time or the medium?

But at the same time, they are more than just mere stories. Never has there been a better basic handbook for life written than that of the Old Testament. The lessons of the Book are timeless. The basic lessons are never changing. Perhaps man could have come up with such a collection on his own, but the perfection of ideas, their very timelessness, points to something a bit greater.

Does the Old Testament (and the New as well) contain contradictions? Sure does. Does it mean that there are mistakes in Bible?

I don't think so. The Bible relates stories. Stories of different situations that man found himself in. Different situations require different solutions. The stories relate that.

But they are the stories of man. Man created the oral traditions and man wrote down the stories. Sometimes the details are imperfect, but the details themselves aren't the important part. The important part is the lesson, which remains constant despite discrepancies in the details.

The New Testament makes no pretensions about being The Word. Instead, you have four stories about the life of Christ, written by four men: Luke, John, Mark and Matthew. The second half of the New Testament consists of letter from Paul. All stories by man. The only book that even claims to be of divine origin is the Book of Revelations.

The stories of the Bible can be divided into a couple of categories: lessons that are timeless and lessons that were a product of their time.

The timeless lessons include those like thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not kill. Others like the kosher laws are products of a specific time and environment (The kosher laws were originally written to be a form of a health code. Their effect was to minimize the spread of disease. In the days before the value of sanitation was realized, simple precautions could have wondrous effects.)

But what about homosexuality and the form of the State of Israel? What kind of lessons are those?

I believe that the homosexuality lesson was closer being a product of the time, than to be a timeless lesson. The State of Israel lesson impresses upon us the need for such a state, but the boundaries weren't consistent even in the Bible. They would change with the ebb and flow of wars and changes of government. The lesson of Israel is closer to being timeless, but it doesn't quite have all the qualities.

These are the stories that really define a religion. No one doubts the timeless lessons; few adhere zealously to the lessons for a different time. It is the position on the middle lessons - the homosexuality, Israel, the institution of marriage - that make the Judeo-Christian religions unique, even amongst themselves.

So what is the right answer to these questions? Is there a right answer to these questions? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. All I know is that on the day I meet my Maker, I'll be sure to find out (I have a lot of questions for Him. In fact, He'll probably send me to Hell for being a pest.).

In the meantime, I'm going to go on believing that homosexuality is wrong, but not an abomination that damns one to Hell without hope. I'm going to believe that Israel does not absolutely have to have every single territory mentioned in the Old Testament - two people in two states is, I believe, an acceptable solution in the Eyes of God.

The Bible is a book written by man. It has a divine inspiration, but like everything man does, it is open to interpretation. It targeted a certain people at a certain time in history, but many of the lessons it teaches us are timeless.

My views on religion are not orthodox. I know this and as such I never try to force them on someone who doesn't want to listen. I try to live my life everyday following the lessons of the Book. Sometimes, I fail. Some would say that I have failed because I interpreted the book wrong, and that that alone is enough to damn me to an eternity in Hell. I don't believe them. My God is the kind and understanding God - one with a sense of humor (or else I really am screwed).

For those who would berate me for not accepting the Bible as the absolute Word: you live according to your interpretation; I'll live according to mine. I'll bet we'll meet in the same place on the other side.

In fact, I've already bet my soul on it.