theophiles.org - Atheist group holds ‘Smut for Smut’ swap

Atheist group holds ‘Smut for Smut’ swap

Written by holmegm

Monday, 08 March 2010 11:13

From The Sturgis Journal:

Atheist Agenda, a group of college students from the University of Texas at San Antonio, recently conducted a “Smut for Smut” campaign in which members offered students pornography in exchange for Bibles.

According to wire reports, the group believes religious texts contain violence, spark wars, advocate for the mistreatment of women and are therefore no better than pornography.

Comments

emperorbma - historical settings...

|2010-03-09 13:42:56

Why is it that some atheists seem to assume that these "wife beater" passages are the quintessential message of Scripture? Very few sane Christians make any such assumption and the insane ones have been rejected by atheists and (for lack of a better term...) normal Christians alike. What Christian today actually reads "shall be stoned" as "go out and throw rocks at them until they die?" Instead, the illustration is present to record the historical culture surrounding the Commandments and to reveal the grave importance God places upon them.

It's pretty clear that the Scripture that, while we believe it is fully inspired by God, it also contains some passages that are intended to serve as background material for the history of God's people (both good and bad) so that the intended message can be better understood. A case in point: The devil is quoted in Scripture. Does this mean we are to follow his temptations as were recorded in the Scripture? Of course not!

Likewise, while there are those commands which are in the Law that specify things that don't jive with modern sensibilities, they are not necessarily wrong simply because they don't jive with modern sensibilities. They were given by God in a different cultural setting and they apply only as they can be communicated from that context. The purpose of nation building in the Old Testament was to produce the conditions necessary for Himself to redeem the world through Christ, so it cannot ever be a license to declare a "Crusade against the unbelievers" just because some politico wants to.

It is rather unfair to extract the cultural elements from their historical context and judge them using modern sensibilities learned later than such history and, very often, as a result of such history. The Word of God was revealed in a very human social, cultural and historical framework that provides a context to His message. The key is to recognize the Spirit rather than to follow the letter blindly. It even says to do so in the Scripture itself!

Now, as for the comparison with pornography: the Bible is certainly explicit but it's not there simply for sexual titillation. (Except, maybe, Song of Songs and, even then, as a [rather graphic] metaphor for God's spiritual relationship with His Church)

emperorbma

|2010-03-09 13:46:42

I wrote:

Now, as for the comparison with pornography: the Bible is certainly explicit but it's not there simply for sexual titillation. (Except, maybe, Song of Songs and, even then, as a [rather graphic] metaphor for God's spiritual relationship with His Church)

Also, this is only a problem if we actually assume that sex is evil. As far as Christianity is concerned: Insofar as sexuality is used correctly (i.e. within a healthy, Godly, marriage), it is not...

SteveGus

|2010-03-09 15:16:11

I suspect that a message like this might be aimed at a different target. Bible readers generally are already aware of the fact that the laws are quite harsh, and that the histories contain accounts of wars directed by God.

The message won't convince Bible-reading Christians, and likely isn't meant to. It's targeted at cultural or fellow-traveler Christians, who vaguely identify with the faith but don't allow it to occupy much of their time or attention. These are the sort of people who might be dismayed to learn that the law of Moses ordered death for adultery.

PineHall - Set Up a Straw Religion to Knock Down

|2010-03-09 22:19:10

It is interesting how they take out of context and twist passages to build their argument, and at the same time ignore major obvious themes. Where is their acknowledgement that the Bible expresses God's love for us many times? They claim to be the "Brights", the intelligent ones who use reason, and yet they are either deliberately lying or they are ignorant. Unfortunately, American Biblical literacy is at an all-time low, so I wonder how many people are deceived by their rhetoric.

laika

|2010-03-15 19:00:24

emperorbma wrote:

Likewise, while there are those commands which are in the Law that specify things that don't jive with modern sensibilities, they are not necessarily wrong simply because they don't jive with modern sensibilities. They were given by God in a different cultural setting and they apply only as they can be communicated from that context.

so anything that offends modern sensibilities can be dismissed as only applicable in a particular cultural setting?

emperorbma

|2010-03-15 22:10:54

Let me put it this way: who among us eschews shellfish and pork? ...or mixed fibers?

laika

|2010-03-15 22:54:06

shellfish and pork? like on combination fried rice or mixed fajitas? yum!

i do generally wear clothing of one fiber (cotton), but it's often sown with man-made threads.

i'm wondering how far you would take this, though, emperor. the cultural context argument could be -and is- used to make all manner of formerly forbidden behaviors acceptable to followers of the One True. are you suggesting that this was The Plan all along?

emperorbma

|2010-03-16 14:28:07

laika wrote:

i'm wondering how far you would take this, though, emperor. the cultural context argument could be -and is- used to make all manner of formerly forbidden behaviors acceptable to followers of the One True. are you suggesting that this was The Plan all along?

Well, I'd hope that my track record on specific issues demonstrates "how far I would take things," at least. It's pretty clear that I'm not going to be advocating "gay marriages" and pagan revelries. I might, however, be ambivalent if other people did such things in the same country as me, but I'd certainly advocate that they should not.

The issue in general, however, is an interesting point. Yes, the culture argument can be and has been misused by many. One need only see the claims that "Satan is merely a metaphor for human evil" or the ordination of practicing homosexuals in other churches for an example. Some (such as Orthodox Jews, for example) might claim that we ourselves are among those "many," despite our (I believe correct) protests to the contrary.

As a religion, these sorts of issues are not always clear. Even though God is not an author of confusion and His Word is true, there are clearly things that we do not keep that are considered a part of His Law nonetheless. However, even in Scripture itself we find the Prophets and the Apostles struggling with the exact same problems of how to apply the Law as we have today:
*The Hebrews were commanded to destroy the Hittites from the land, yet a Hittite was in David's army and God wasn't too happy when David killed Uriah.
*Daniel did not decry the King of Babylon about the idolatry of the Babylonians, yet he did not join in the idolatry either, and God was pleased with Daniel enough to save him from a lion pit.
*The Apostles had many debates over what parts of the Law applied to converts and which were fulfilled in Christ so that we aren't required to keep them.

Even with all of this, the Apostles still kept a pretty clear set of things that they consistently rejected. Things like sexual immorality, thievery, murder, hatred, adultery, idolatry, blasphemy, are considered to be sins. Certainly not unforgivable, as "blasphemy of the Spirit" is, but still sins that are dangerous to the relationship of one's soul with God. Indeed, the genuine seriousness of the Law is crucially important because it is what ensures the reality of the Gospel. From what are we being saved, and for what did Christ die, if the Law is a triviality?

laika

|2010-03-16 17:55:36

thoughtfully and handsomely answered.

emperorbma wrote:

Even with all of this, the Apostles still kept a pretty clear set of things that they consistently rejected. Things like sexual immorality, thievery, murder, hatred, adultery, idolatry, blasphemy, are considered to be sins.

but it could be argued that they had received a revelation in yet another cultural context that would not apply to our situation two thousand years later. just as they scrapped bits and pieces colored by an earlier worldview, apparently well-intentioned people today feel justified in doing the same. it must sound a bit hollow and arbitrary to those folks when the cultural context argument is so readily whipped out for some things but not others.

emperorbma

|2010-03-16 21:39:00

laika wrote:

but it could be argued that they had received a revelation in yet another cultural context that would not apply to our situation two thousand years later.

Certainly, it can be argued thusly and there are some who have done so. Does that mean we have to agree with them? I certainly don't think so.

The Scripture is the inspired Word of God, and it certainly bears the hallmarks of the culture into which He chose to reveal it. That doesn't make its teachings arbitrary or inconsequential, though. On the contrary, it means that we are supposed to learn more from Scripture than just the letters. Yes, don't kill and don't steal. Why not? For what good does it ultimately do to keep arbitrary rules? Rather, we should learn, also, the Spirit that drives that teaching because the same God who inspired it is also the one directing the faithful how to understand it.

The distinction here is not merely an arbitrary one. Because it is God who inspires Scripture, the Word of God which is written down has really not changed at all. What has changed is our ability to understand and comprehend it. Some may even suggest that this has improved, although the fruits of this do not always bear out in society. Today, we benefit from ideas that were unknown to those whom our Lord originally inspired to write the message down. The message itself remains "complete" and unchanging, however.

When I say it is complete, however, that requires me to explain what "complete" means. Complete does not mean it answers all questions for all people, ever. While the Bible can sometimes provide interesting insights into other fields, it sometimes doesn't. Its purpose, the raison d'etre, is bringing us to Christ through whom we receive Salvation from our sins.

That purpose determines how we understand all the parts of Scripture. The history provides us with the background of the world in which God is working and demonstrates the principles of Scripture in action. Those principles are the Law and the Gospel upon which the entire Scriptures hinge.

The Law serves three purposes: [Gee, ain't I a Protestant...]
1. It curbs our tendencies and desires that put us at odds with God's Will. (curb use)
2. It shows us that we are sinful and need His mercy. (mirror use)
3. It shows us how we should live now that we are redeemed by Christ. (rule use)

The Gospel serves the purpose of bringing us the redemption and the promised gifts of God. The Law, without the Gospel, is empty. Similarly, a Gospel without the Law is also meaningless. ("from what was I saved, exactly?") The Law is the schoolmaster that prepares us to receive the fruits of the Gospel, but it is only the Gospel that brings Salvation.

The Old Testament, likewise, carries the Gospel but it is hidden within the Law because its purpose is to teach. That, in fact, is what Torah means "teaching." The teaching which leads to life is only fulfilled in the Life that it was intended to bring. Hence Christ. Hence, through Him, we are His children. The purpose of the Law explains how we are to use it. The Law should be kept, not because we are earning salvation through it, but to celebrate that we are saved through Him who fulfilled it. It is a marking that shows us as His own children and it distinguishes us from those who are against Him. Which parts of the Law are considered to apply, however, are determined by how necessary they are to accomplishing the purposes were described.

Does not eating pork help demonstrate the need for Christ or does it deprive us of a viable food source? Do we need to follow Jewish food codes to be saved or can we be saved through Christ, who is the fulfillment? Likewise, with all dietary regulations, they don't really pertain since we are not Jewish. Their intent was to create the culture into which God revealed Himself and fulfilled the Gospel. Christ Himself uses this, then, to break down the barrier that kept His Word among the Jews only and thus revealed the Gospel to the entire world. Through Christ, that which was unclean is declared clean. There would seem to be no concurrent rule use of the Law here for a code that makes a distinction that God has rendered moot. Hence, the Law prepared the way for the Gospel but it's clear that this regulation is intended to apply only to the prior culture. Its lessons are not.

With homosexuality, however, we see a similar possibile "fulfillment avenue" that is not taken. The original teachings against homosexual acts are found in a chapter about sexual immorality. These, and similar, teachings against sexual immorality are reaffirmed throughout the Apostles' writings as applying to Christians, including the writings of Paul which refer to it by the exact same name used in the LXX in the aforementioned chapter of Leviticus. He says this preaching to a culture, the Greeks, whom we know for a fact welcomed and embraced similar practices. (even to the extent of considering pederasty better than marriage) Such an insistence would usually be considered a detriment of to ministry, unless it is borne out of a sincere conviction that this is God's Word. Likewise, there is a strong rationale for this insistence because Scripture uses heterosexual marriage (exclusively) as a picture of God's own relationship with His people. (There's even a very graphic chapter devoted to poetry about sex in marriage nestled in the Old Testament) Thusly, this teaching of the Law reinforces itself with a rather clear "rule" usage against homosexuality instead of relegating itself to being fulfilled and serving to show us something that Christ has fulfilled.

Only registered users can write comments!

Last Updated on Monday, 08 March 2010 11:18

Our valuable member holmegm has been with us since Thursday, 03 April 2008.

Show Other Articles

Richard Dawkins causes outcry after likening the b... (16 August 2010)
Protestant churches use Jesus baby scan in anti-ab... (12 June 2010)
Church fund creates bitter feud (27 May 2010)
Christian leader faces questions about Muslim past (27 May 2010)
Don't dote, sez Spurgeon (05 May 2010)

Feeds

Make a Donation

Current Poll

Support Us!

Latest News

Latest Journals

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

Popular

Statistics

Who's Online