The topic of heaven is one of the most controversial in any type of religious discussion. Where is heaven? What does it look like? Will we see our loved ones there? Who gets to go to heaven? Will we turn into angels once we're there?
These questions and others have caused great debate among scholars and lay people alike. The Bible says a lot about the afterlife and heaven, but some of what the Bible says seems contradictory and people interpret it differently.
What do you think? What is your view of heaven? What has influenced your perceptions of heaven and the afterlife?
4.18.2007
4.11.2007
SALVATION: WHY IS IT NECESSARY?
What we believe about salvation is an indication as to what we believe about sin. For instance, if we believe that we have no sin, we will not find salvation necessary or even worthy of belief. If, however, we do believe that we are sinful, salvation becomes a necessity. But what does it mean to "be saved"? Does it mean that we won't ever commit another sin? Does it mean that we are brought into a closer relationship with Jesus so that we have a greater capacity for avoiding temptation? Does it mean that we will automatically go to heaven after we die? And, what are we being saved from? Evil influences here in this life? Eternal damnation? A sick soul?
The Old Testament tells us that salvation is heavily connected to real-life events. People ask God to save them from their enemies, from threats of nature, from sickness, from sinful acts committed against them. The New Testament makes salvation more spiritual. Salvation, that is, an eternal connection with God, comes only through faith in Jesus Christ. Throughout the Bible, however, we are told that salvation cannot be earned. God offers salvation to all human beings. Our only "act" is to have faith.
Visit this link: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1099/hellhouse.html
After reading this advertisement, what do you think about the method that this "church" uses to spread the good news? What do their tactics for saving people say about their ideas of sin? Finally, do you agree that people can be coerced into faith, or that salvation can be forced upon people, as suggested in the article?
The Old Testament tells us that salvation is heavily connected to real-life events. People ask God to save them from their enemies, from threats of nature, from sickness, from sinful acts committed against them. The New Testament makes salvation more spiritual. Salvation, that is, an eternal connection with God, comes only through faith in Jesus Christ. Throughout the Bible, however, we are told that salvation cannot be earned. God offers salvation to all human beings. Our only "act" is to have faith.
Visit this link: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1099/hellhouse.html
After reading this advertisement, what do you think about the method that this "church" uses to spread the good news? What do their tactics for saving people say about their ideas of sin? Finally, do you agree that people can be coerced into faith, or that salvation can be forced upon people, as suggested in the article?
4.04.2007
Exile and Immigration
The United States is the "land of opportunity." We are the wealthiest nation in the world; we have the most available natural resources and the technology to access them. As a whole, Americans believe in education for our children, accessible healthcare for all people, shelter and food for everyone, and the freedom to worship as one pleases. If you live in the USA, you can be anything you want to be, regardless of your social, economic, or racial status. Opportunities and resources for success are available for those willing to work hard. In a nation that thrives on captialism, anyone with heart, hard work, and imagination can live well.
But as Americans, we also know that not everyone in the world lives like we do. Many people in the world struggle just to put a roof over their heads and food on the table. Many people live in places where, for various reasons, basic needs are not available; places where abject poverty is the norm. For people who live in the midst of war, of famine, of government tyranny, of religious oppression, life holds very little opportunity. For those who have been exiled from their homes and countries because of forces beyond their control, or for those who have left their homes and their countries to seek something better for their families, life can be a state of isolation.
It is a fact that people from all over the world seek refuge in the United States. People come to the US looking for a better life, a life that can bring them happiness instead of despair, hope instead of hopelessness. Sometimes, the opportunities to be found in the US cannot be found anywhere else in the world, so displaced people come here to take advantage of those opportunities.
Immigration is a big issue in the United States right now, and will be a big issue on the Presidential platform for all candidates in the coming year. Taking into consideration that some immigrants are here legally, that some immigrants simply want what we all want, i.e., happiness and security, that some immigrants have been displaced from their own lands because of factors beyond their control, what do you think should be done about immigration? Does the USA, as the wealthiest nation in the world, have a responsibility to open its borders for those seeking refuge from war, poverty, and other factors? Does the USA have a responsibility to care for those who come to our land for hope?
But as Americans, we also know that not everyone in the world lives like we do. Many people in the world struggle just to put a roof over their heads and food on the table. Many people live in places where, for various reasons, basic needs are not available; places where abject poverty is the norm. For people who live in the midst of war, of famine, of government tyranny, of religious oppression, life holds very little opportunity. For those who have been exiled from their homes and countries because of forces beyond their control, or for those who have left their homes and their countries to seek something better for their families, life can be a state of isolation.
It is a fact that people from all over the world seek refuge in the United States. People come to the US looking for a better life, a life that can bring them happiness instead of despair, hope instead of hopelessness. Sometimes, the opportunities to be found in the US cannot be found anywhere else in the world, so displaced people come here to take advantage of those opportunities.
Immigration is a big issue in the United States right now, and will be a big issue on the Presidential platform for all candidates in the coming year. Taking into consideration that some immigrants are here legally, that some immigrants simply want what we all want, i.e., happiness and security, that some immigrants have been displaced from their own lands because of factors beyond their control, what do you think should be done about immigration? Does the USA, as the wealthiest nation in the world, have a responsibility to open its borders for those seeking refuge from war, poverty, and other factors? Does the USA have a responsibility to care for those who come to our land for hope?
3.14.2007
Remember the Exodus?
(This blog entry is worth 20 pts and will cover the Exodus and the Covenant themes.)
Long before the exodus, God made a covenant with Abraham: "I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you, and to your offspring after you, the land where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding; and I will be their God" (Gen 17:7-8). After the exodus from Egypt, on Mt. Sinai, God said to the people of Israel, "Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation" (Exodus 19:5-6).
The Exodus story is about freedom: freedom from slavery in Egypt under Pharaoh, freedom to worship God, freedom to work the land and provide a legacy for future generations. The Bible says that God chose the people of Israel to be a special, holy people, dedicated to worshiping God and to living as a community of faith in a land filled with non-Israelites. But in order to live in that land they needed first to escape slavery in Egypt and defeat the "foreigners" already living in the promised land. The Exodus story has provided hope for many people. During WWII, Jews, who believe very strongly in their covenant relationship with God, found hope that they would one day escape their imprisonment and flee to Israel to live on the land that was promised to their ancestors. During the 1800's, African-American slaves based their hopes for freedom on the Exodus story. Their music especially reflects their hope for freedom (www.negrospirituals.com).
But it must also be said that the Exodus/covenant story in the Old Testament has also caused some problems. For example, because the Jews believe that Israel is their promised land and that they are the chosen people, the Palestinian people (descendants of the Canaanites) have suffered death and destruction of their land. In addition, black South Africans were brutalized for centuries because white South Africans believed that South Africa was their promised land and that the "unbelieving black 'Canaanites'" needed to be conquered. One black South African says this: "Protestations to the effect that white people are misusing the Bible have neither empowered black people to deliver themselves from this white slavery nor successfully explained to anybody, except the beneficiaries of apartheid, why such a tradition of conquest exists in the Bible in the first place. My contention is that the only adequate and honest explanation is that not all the Bible is on the side of human rights or of oppressed and exploited people" (http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/joshua/apartheid.html). The problem is made even worse when one takes into consideration that in the New Testament Jesus becomes the new covenant and Christians become the chosen people. Many wars have been fought throughout the centuries because Christians believe in their superiority over peopl of other faiths.
What do you think? Is God on the side of all people, regardless of their "chosen" status? How do you know? What does the Bible say? What if you were to put yourself in the place of the "other"? How do you think you might read the Exodus/covenant story if you were a different color, ethnicity, or faith? In this multi-cultural, globally conscious world, who are the "foreigners" and are they truly the enemies? (Remember, this entry is worth 20 pts; think before you type!)
3.07.2007
The Bible and the Environment
Particularly in the last 30 years, environmental concerns have been at the forefront of Western society. Everything from the rate at which we consume the world's natural resources to alternative fuel sources, from "save the whales" to "earth-friendly," from landfills to recycling, from the ozone layer to global warming: each issue represents an effort to maintain and sustain our natural habitat.
The Bible says a lot about the natural world. First of all, God created the world and everything in it. Creation is God's means of judging and saving the people; it is also God's means of showing God's power in the world. People were put on the earth for a purpose: to care for God's creation. So, though human beings certainly have been blessed with the intelligence and the power to use creation to our own ends, according to the Bible our purpose is to serve the land and all that is in it.
Science has shown that we are not doing a very good job of this. Overpopulation and industrialization have impacted our environment in alarming, sometimes irreversible ways. Some have even predicted that at the rate we are consuming natural resources, there won't be any left for future generations.
What do you think? What is it that we truly need for survival and in what ways do we take advantage of the gift of creation? What can we do better?
The Bible says a lot about the natural world. First of all, God created the world and everything in it. Creation is God's means of judging and saving the people; it is also God's means of showing God's power in the world. People were put on the earth for a purpose: to care for God's creation. So, though human beings certainly have been blessed with the intelligence and the power to use creation to our own ends, according to the Bible our purpose is to serve the land and all that is in it.
Science has shown that we are not doing a very good job of this. Overpopulation and industrialization have impacted our environment in alarming, sometimes irreversible ways. Some have even predicted that at the rate we are consuming natural resources, there won't be any left for future generations.
What do you think? What is it that we truly need for survival and in what ways do we take advantage of the gift of creation? What can we do better?
3.01.2007
God in the Bible
Marcion, a second century bishop, believed that there were two Gods to be found in the Bible. In his work, Antitheses (c. 150 A. D.), he set forth many examples in which he compared Old Testament sayings about God and New Testament sayings about God. From these various examples Marcion concluded that the God of the Old Testament, the "Creator God" was harsh, judicial, and distant from humankind. On the other hand, the God of the New Testament, the "Supreme God," was kind, gentle, and in touch with the needs of human beings.
Though Marcion was considered a heretic by the early Christian church, his thoughts still live on in Christianity today. Ask any random Christian on the street and you will likely hear that God is harsher and more distant and judgmental in the Old Testament than in the New Testament. Though all Christians believe in one God, and that Jesus is the human incarnation of God, many will be hard-pressed to find evidence in the Bible that contradicts Marcion's ideas.
What do you think? Do you think God is portrayed differently in the Old Testament than in the New Testament? If so, how? Can you back up your thoughts with evidence from the Bible?
Though Marcion was considered a heretic by the early Christian church, his thoughts still live on in Christianity today. Ask any random Christian on the street and you will likely hear that God is harsher and more distant and judgmental in the Old Testament than in the New Testament. Though all Christians believe in one God, and that Jesus is the human incarnation of God, many will be hard-pressed to find evidence in the Bible that contradicts Marcion's ideas.
What do you think? Do you think God is portrayed differently in the Old Testament than in the New Testament? If so, how? Can you back up your thoughts with evidence from the Bible?
2.12.2007
To Interpret or to Not Interpret: That is the Question
"The Bible does not have answers to all of our questions. The Bible writers were unaware of many of today's issues (for example, cloning, the age of the earth, birth control, the depletion of the ozone layer, euthanasia). What role the Bible should play in thinking about these matters is not always clear. . . . Truth about the world has been made available to us through fields of inquiry not directly related to the Bible or the church (for example, astronomy and physics)." (Terence E. Fretheim, About the Bible: Short Answers to Big Questions [Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1999], 81).
In addition, sometimes the Bible has something to say about contemporary issues, but it may not be what we want to hear. For example, the Bible is pretty clear when it speaks about money, divorce, and same-sex intercourse. Yet, these (and others, like the role of women in the church) are the issues that have caused the most division between Christians. One of the biggest problems in reading the Bible is that it is an ancient document that Jews and Christians alike rely on to answer current questions. Essentially, the Bible is a first-century document often used to address twenty-first century problems.
To add to the problem, different people interpret the Bible in different ways. Some people may read the Bible for the entire message it offers, i.e., Jesus loves everyone, so it is important to accept people for who they are and love everyone. Others read individual passages in all parts of the Bible that relate to a particular topic and try to discern from them the Bible's position on the topic. Still others emphasize the laws and will derive their answers from them. In many respects, trying to find answers to current issues in the Bible becomes a question of interpretation and emphasis. What if the Bible is not clear on a particular issue? What are your recommendations for interpreting a book that does not always address our problems, yet a book that Christians rely on to inform faith and life? How does the way we read the Bible matter in addressing the important questions of life?
In addition, sometimes the Bible has something to say about contemporary issues, but it may not be what we want to hear. For example, the Bible is pretty clear when it speaks about money, divorce, and same-sex intercourse. Yet, these (and others, like the role of women in the church) are the issues that have caused the most division between Christians. One of the biggest problems in reading the Bible is that it is an ancient document that Jews and Christians alike rely on to answer current questions. Essentially, the Bible is a first-century document often used to address twenty-first century problems.
To add to the problem, different people interpret the Bible in different ways. Some people may read the Bible for the entire message it offers, i.e., Jesus loves everyone, so it is important to accept people for who they are and love everyone. Others read individual passages in all parts of the Bible that relate to a particular topic and try to discern from them the Bible's position on the topic. Still others emphasize the laws and will derive their answers from them. In many respects, trying to find answers to current issues in the Bible becomes a question of interpretation and emphasis. What if the Bible is not clear on a particular issue? What are your recommendations for interpreting a book that does not always address our problems, yet a book that Christians rely on to inform faith and life? How does the way we read the Bible matter in addressing the important questions of life?
2.01.2007
Canon: Closed or Not?
Since the time of the Reformation (ca. 1546), when Protestants and Catholics officially chose a different number of books for the Old Testament, the canon has been considered closed. Yet, as technology has advanced and as more and more ancient manuscripts have been discovered, the question of the canon creeps up again. Many of these ancient documnets, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, were written either shortly before or at the same time as the New Testament writings. Yet because they offer different perspectives on issues such as Jesus' divinity, earthly faithfulness, and life after death, they are considered useful, but not "holy." Given that the centuries since the Reformation have produced as many questions as certainties about the Bible, what do you think can be gained (or lost) by studying these "extra-canonical" books? Who gets to decide if one of these books should be added to the Bible? What benefit (or detriment) is there for Christians to have only the current collection of books in the Bible?
1.24.2007
Is God on our side?
The book of Joshua describes the Israelites as they invade the Promised Land and take control of it. One of the significant aspects of the book of Joshua is the portrayal of God as the one who makes the invasion and conquest possible (Josh 1:2-9; 6:2). In other words, it is because God is on the side of the Israelites and because the Israelites put their trust in God that they are successful in taking over the land from the other people already living there.
Particularly after 9/11, there has been a renewed nationalism in the United States, a mindset espoused by many that the United States will prevail over evil because we are a Christian nation, united under God. When President Bush declared war on Iraq he gained a great deal of support by playing into this mindset, and in some sense perpetuating it. All of the "Middle East" was defined as the "axis of evil," Suddam Hussein was portrayed as the devil incarnate, and ordinary citizens became even more wary of anyone with dark hair and dark skin. Anyone of Middle Eastern descent, real or imagined, became the target of scrutiny. Headlines splattered newspapers and magazines indicating that the USA would win this war not because of our military power, but because as a nation we trust in God to be on our side. In other words, God's name is invoked as a synonym for security.
Our topic this week in class has been the historical context of the Bible. We have discussed the geography and the history, and we have seen that, according to the Bible, the Promised Land was given by God and secured by God. It is only after many generations of unfaithfulness that the people were exiled from their land.
When we think of these two ideas in tandem, it is possible to see how many people could believe that because the US is a "Christian nation" we will win the war in Iraq. The questions to ponder are these: Is God on our side? Are we a Christian nation? Can the Bible be used to support our presence in Iraq? Why or why not?
Particularly after 9/11, there has been a renewed nationalism in the United States, a mindset espoused by many that the United States will prevail over evil because we are a Christian nation, united under God. When President Bush declared war on Iraq he gained a great deal of support by playing into this mindset, and in some sense perpetuating it. All of the "Middle East" was defined as the "axis of evil," Suddam Hussein was portrayed as the devil incarnate, and ordinary citizens became even more wary of anyone with dark hair and dark skin. Anyone of Middle Eastern descent, real or imagined, became the target of scrutiny. Headlines splattered newspapers and magazines indicating that the USA would win this war not because of our military power, but because as a nation we trust in God to be on our side. In other words, God's name is invoked as a synonym for security.
Our topic this week in class has been the historical context of the Bible. We have discussed the geography and the history, and we have seen that, according to the Bible, the Promised Land was given by God and secured by God. It is only after many generations of unfaithfulness that the people were exiled from their land.
When we think of these two ideas in tandem, it is possible to see how many people could believe that because the US is a "Christian nation" we will win the war in Iraq. The questions to ponder are these: Is God on our side? Are we a Christian nation? Can the Bible be used to support our presence in Iraq? Why or why not?
1.16.2007
The Bible Says . . .
The three small words "the Bible says . . ." have sparked much debate within and between Christian churches. For example, "the Bible says" that God created male and female at the same time (Gen. 1:27), but in addition, "the Bible says" that God created Adam first and then created Eve out of Adam's rib (Gen. 2:18-23). "The Bible says" that Noah took two of every kind of animal onto the ark (Gen. 6:19) and "the Bible says" that Noah took 7 pairs of every clean animal and 1 pair of every unclean animal onto the ark (Gen. 7:2). So what does the Bible really say about creation, or about the flood, or about anything else for that matter?
When people disagree about what the Bible says, or when they disagree about how to figure out what the Bible says about any given topic, division happens (most of the time anyway). Martin Luther unknowingly started the Reformation when he disagreed with how his Catholic Church was reading the Bible. The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod (LCMS) split from the predecessors of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) because of differing opinions on what the Bible says about who should preach the word and the place of women in the church. Many churches in the ELCA have recently broken away from the ELCA because of differences about what the Bible says about homosexuality and relations with other church bodies. How can we know for sure what the Bible really means when it speaks? How can the Bible be authoritative for life and faith when it seems that everyone has a different opinion about what it says? What do you think?
When people disagree about what the Bible says, or when they disagree about how to figure out what the Bible says about any given topic, division happens (most of the time anyway). Martin Luther unknowingly started the Reformation when he disagreed with how his Catholic Church was reading the Bible. The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod (LCMS) split from the predecessors of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) because of differing opinions on what the Bible says about who should preach the word and the place of women in the church. Many churches in the ELCA have recently broken away from the ELCA because of differences about what the Bible says about homosexuality and relations with other church bodies. How can we know for sure what the Bible really means when it speaks? How can the Bible be authoritative for life and faith when it seems that everyone has a different opinion about what it says? What do you think?
1.05.2007
The Ten Commandments in a courthouse: It's unconstitutional if we are serious about the first amendment which declares that the federal government shall not establish any religion. But how big a deal is it? Conservatives harp on such things in election years and try to win votes, but I ask you this: How many people do you know who can actually recite the ten commandments?
Prayer in the schools: It's also unconstitutional. If a prayer is led by a teacher or student in a classroom in which all are expected to participate, it is unconstitutional. It is the establismhemnt of a religion. Any prayer is going to be a particular prayer. The Hail Mary is a Catholic prayer. A prayer to Brahma is a Hindu prayer. Every prayer is going to reflect the pray-er's religios perspective. If one could construct a prayer so generic that it offended or favored no one, it would be so bland it wouldn't be worth praying anyway. And of course, any official prayer in school violates the right of an antheist not to believe. If we value religious freedom, we must let it remain free, and never pressure anyone to particiapte in the public schools. On the other hand, a student is guaranteed the right to pray privately in school. That is constitutional. Students can organize and have a prayer group or bible study group at school as long as participation is voluntary. Baccalaureate services are constitutional if they are voluntary. Prayer is allowed in school. Coerced prayer is not.
Saying the pledge: It is interesting to note that it was a Baptist minister who wrote the Pledge of Alligiance, and in the original version it did not say "under God." The pledge was written after the civil war to insist that we were still "one nation, indivisible." Those were the imporant words in the pledge. In the 1950's, during the cold war, the words "under God," were added. It was a way to distinguish the U.S. from the Soviets and atheistic communism. The grandchildren of the author of the pledge protested the addition of those words. They wrote to congress and said their grandfather deeply respected the separation of church and state and would not have wanted those words added. They were added anyway.
Using a nickle that says, "In God We Trust:" It's ironic and a bit of a joke. Most America's trust much more in their money than in God anyway.
The president being sworn into office with a hand on the bible is an old tradition that continues to stick around. It's justified under the "Lemon Law" (something I'm not going to get into now). What is interesting is that a newly elected congressional representative from St. Paul, Minnesota has asked to used a Qu'ran from Thomas Jefferson's personal library for his ceremonial swearing in. (Members of the House of Representatives aren't actually sworn in using Bibles. They simply raise their right hands and take the oath together.)
It seems to me that the line between church and state is not so much blurred as it is simply misunderstood. The First Amendment of the constitution was written to protect religion from the state. throughout most of our history, however, it has been interpreted backwards and has been used to protect the state from religion. If you'll remember from your history classes some who came and settled these shores did so to escape from places where the governemtn dictated how religion should be practiced. In this new land, religion could be practiced freely. The authors of our constitution were keenly aware of that history and wanted this to be a land where the government would not interfere with relgious practice. Religion was meant to be a matter of individual freedom. It was expected to be in ingredient in American society, politics, and culture. It was simply meant to be excercised without government interference. The constitution did not intend to keep religious viewpoints out of political arguments. In fact, by protecting religion, the authors thought that constitution would insure the religious voice a place in debates about public policy.
The Bible does exercise some infulence in our society, but it seems to me it is largely symbolic. Most Americans are Biblically illiterate--even those who are in church everyweek. The voices in the media that do use the Bible use it irresponsibly. Things are quoted out of context and the message of the whole Bible is not usually considered. It seems to me most who talk about the Bible have a position on an issue and then go to the Bible and search for a verse to support their position. It should work the other way around. One should first study the Bible, the whole Bible, and then bring what one has learned into thinking about contemporary issues. Most of the way the Bible is used is society today is bad from my perspective. It is irresponsible and unfaithful.
Prayer in the schools: It's also unconstitutional. If a prayer is led by a teacher or student in a classroom in which all are expected to participate, it is unconstitutional. It is the establismhemnt of a religion. Any prayer is going to be a particular prayer. The Hail Mary is a Catholic prayer. A prayer to Brahma is a Hindu prayer. Every prayer is going to reflect the pray-er's religios perspective. If one could construct a prayer so generic that it offended or favored no one, it would be so bland it wouldn't be worth praying anyway. And of course, any official prayer in school violates the right of an antheist not to believe. If we value religious freedom, we must let it remain free, and never pressure anyone to particiapte in the public schools. On the other hand, a student is guaranteed the right to pray privately in school. That is constitutional. Students can organize and have a prayer group or bible study group at school as long as participation is voluntary. Baccalaureate services are constitutional if they are voluntary. Prayer is allowed in school. Coerced prayer is not.
Saying the pledge: It is interesting to note that it was a Baptist minister who wrote the Pledge of Alligiance, and in the original version it did not say "under God." The pledge was written after the civil war to insist that we were still "one nation, indivisible." Those were the imporant words in the pledge. In the 1950's, during the cold war, the words "under God," were added. It was a way to distinguish the U.S. from the Soviets and atheistic communism. The grandchildren of the author of the pledge protested the addition of those words. They wrote to congress and said their grandfather deeply respected the separation of church and state and would not have wanted those words added. They were added anyway.
Using a nickle that says, "In God We Trust:" It's ironic and a bit of a joke. Most America's trust much more in their money than in God anyway.
The president being sworn into office with a hand on the bible is an old tradition that continues to stick around. It's justified under the "Lemon Law" (something I'm not going to get into now). What is interesting is that a newly elected congressional representative from St. Paul, Minnesota has asked to used a Qu'ran from Thomas Jefferson's personal library for his ceremonial swearing in. (Members of the House of Representatives aren't actually sworn in using Bibles. They simply raise their right hands and take the oath together.)
It seems to me that the line between church and state is not so much blurred as it is simply misunderstood. The First Amendment of the constitution was written to protect religion from the state. throughout most of our history, however, it has been interpreted backwards and has been used to protect the state from religion. If you'll remember from your history classes some who came and settled these shores did so to escape from places where the governemtn dictated how religion should be practiced. In this new land, religion could be practiced freely. The authors of our constitution were keenly aware of that history and wanted this to be a land where the government would not interfere with relgious practice. Religion was meant to be a matter of individual freedom. It was expected to be in ingredient in American society, politics, and culture. It was simply meant to be excercised without government interference. The constitution did not intend to keep religious viewpoints out of political arguments. In fact, by protecting religion, the authors thought that constitution would insure the religious voice a place in debates about public policy.
The Bible does exercise some infulence in our society, but it seems to me it is largely symbolic. Most Americans are Biblically illiterate--even those who are in church everyweek. The voices in the media that do use the Bible use it irresponsibly. Things are quoted out of context and the message of the whole Bible is not usually considered. It seems to me most who talk about the Bible have a position on an issue and then go to the Bible and search for a verse to support their position. It should work the other way around. One should first study the Bible, the whole Bible, and then bring what one has learned into thinking about contemporary issues. Most of the way the Bible is used is society today is bad from my perspective. It is irresponsible and unfaithful.
12.21.2006
Bible and Language
I'll go off on a tangent.
The Bible has had a profound impact on society because of it's influence on language -- all languages, not just English. Grammar and writing came to some languages (like Russian or Cherokee) because religious people wanted to put Holy Words before the people who spoke those languages. Of course, the publication of the Bible in "native" languages helped the evangelists, but I think it played a greater role in standardizing spelling and syntax. This, in turn, affected the literature that people wrote. It's easier to see this influence in drama than in storytelling, but the it is there.
Literature, especially in the West, has been heavily influenced by the content of the Bible, only not the preaching of Moses. It's the stories that were remembered and repeated and adapted. David and Absalom. David and Bathsheba. Moses and the Burning Bush.
The Bible has had a profound impact on society because of it's influence on language -- all languages, not just English. Grammar and writing came to some languages (like Russian or Cherokee) because religious people wanted to put Holy Words before the people who spoke those languages. Of course, the publication of the Bible in "native" languages helped the evangelists, but I think it played a greater role in standardizing spelling and syntax. This, in turn, affected the literature that people wrote. It's easier to see this influence in drama than in storytelling, but the it is there.
Literature, especially in the West, has been heavily influenced by the content of the Bible, only not the preaching of Moses. It's the stories that were remembered and repeated and adapted. David and Absalom. David and Bathsheba. Moses and the Burning Bush.
The Bible and Society
The Ten Commandments in a courthouse? Prayer in public schools? Saying the "Pledge of Allegiance"? Using a nickel that says "In God We Trust"? The President's hand on a Bible as he is sworn into office? It seems sometimes that the line separating church and state is not as well-defined as once thought. Even at the dawn of the 21st century, when technology is king and when the world is accessible at the click of a mouse, it appears that the Bible (an admittedly archaic document) still has some relevance. In what ways, for good or bad, do you think the Bible influences modern society(ies)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)