Organized Religions and "Literal" Bible Translations

Even though I am a-religious as much as I am a-political, that doesn't mean I am not well-read on the subject. I sometimes have to explain things about the religion I was taught for my first twenty years on the planet. Non-Catholics think that their doctrines and practices are better aligned with the "literal" bible. Although I don't go shooting my mouth off unless provoked, I have plenty to say to my good protestant friends.

Catholics have plenty of well-thought-out and long-debated biblical as well as traditional reasons for everything that they do, think, and believe. That said, I made the hard moral choice of deserting the Catholic church around the age of 22. I didn't do that because I thought I had all the answers; I just knew that organized religion's answers were wrong. Wrong in the sense that the Bible was written in a mystical and allegorical form, and all modern churches (unlike the original varied Christian groups) interpret the Bible like a bunch of lawyers. That's not what I call "Love". And if God is Love, then there's something extremely wrong with making legalistic claims concerning what is "biblical" or "non-biblical". 

Love is flexible, humble, tolerant, energetic, patient, creative, and kind. When apologists claim that "yes, God has perfect love, but he also has perfect justice", ... that's just an excuse for their own malice, intolerance, and laziness. When perfect justice is tempered with perfect love, you get perfect mercy. That's perfectly obvious to anyone humble enough to stop acting like a lawyer and politician. Politics is lazy and uncreative. Love is always active and on-the-ball.

The big "evil" that Protestants condemn and hate Catholics for is the Catholic acceptance of tradition as a guide to interpreting their practices and beliefs. Non Catholics also follow their own traditions in bible interpretations and practices, but they claim that they are not guided at all by tradition. Catholics are just more honest, that's all. Martin Luther dumped a few of the Roman traditions and started down a different path, but a path filled with "tradition" nonetheless. Let's call it what it is.

Protestants claim a "literal" interpretation of the Bible. That is shown to be a lie when even "experts" within the same denomination (including within the Catholic church) disagree strongly on what the "literal" words say and mean, and what the doctrine and practices ought to be. That's why Christian churches keep splitting off even to this very day. We have a church in Allegan that branched off from the CCC church about fifteen years ago. 

Our neighbor city of Holland has a rich history of splits. I read somewhere that after Van Raalte established the Reformed Church of Holland, people kept splitting away and moving inland. That's why the little inland towns of Zeeland, Drenthe, Vriesland, Hamilton, Byron Center, Borculo, Blendon, Jamestown, etc., all have off-shoots of the original Holland church. They didn't change the original Holland denomination name to "First Reformed" until all these other 2nd, 3rd, and 4th church groups split off over arguments about what the "literal" Bible meant. Maybe it means different things to different people. Duh? And maybe that's okay.

If you ever studied a language, you know that there is no such thing as "literal", especially in ancient languages. If God wanted to make his message clear with a miracle to keep the Bible pure over years of copying and translating, why couldn't God simply send his message by a single e-mail or letter to each human being on the planet? It's not any more far-fetched than the immense miracle it would take to keep the Bible books "true" and "literal". And that obviously hasn't worked well, given the historical and ongoing splits within Christianity.

Everyone else's belief is labelled "heresy". Every single thing that Protestants and Catholics believe now was once a heresy; the Redemption, Communion, Jesus as the Son of God, Jesus as the Messiah, Jesus as a physical being, the Trinity with the idea that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are the same "substance", Hell as a place for more than just the fallen angels, ... and on and on. Hundreds of details of Bible translation have been the subject of constant hatred and killing over the years. And it continues today.

1000's of soldiers who died to keep me free!

My sister who has a soldier son wrote in an e-mail, "1000's of soldiers who died to keep me free!"

I have no wish to argue with a mom who worries about her son's safety as he does the politicians' dirty work. So, I won't reply directly. I'll put my reply here, where hardly anyone will ever see it.

I have this to say about those thousands of soldiers.

I wonder if you can explain how soldiers dying keeps you free?

It would help me to hear what you think, because I don't understand that common saying.

I know we're taught that in school, but the more I study history, the more I find out that we were lied into almost every war.

So, maybe American soldiers have died in vain repeatedly, but that thought is too terrible to bear. 

So, maybe we need to say, "they died for our freedom" to sooth our wounded consciences.

I'm not saying that I know anything. I'm just suspicious when I'm told to believe something without explanation that makes moral sense.

I'm just being curious, because I've searched and searched for a good answer to this sad question. I care about moral truth, not the lies coming from the mouths of millionaire politicians. Voting gives creeps in D.C. the "mandate" to dream up more and more battlefields where they can send our kids into harms way. And cheer-leading chants like "they died for our freedom" keep people coming back and flipping those levers in the voting booth. A never-ending cycle that feeds on young soldiers, thanks to our gullibility.

What good did the Iraq war do? For one thing, of interest to a Catholic; there was a Catholic presence in Iraq under the old regime, but now the Shia have driven out all Christian groups. What good is the Afghan war doing? And Pakistan and Syria and now we're supposed to fear and hate the Russians once again. Many US politicians would love to start a war with Iran, a country that hasn't attacked anyone else in over 200 years.

I hate seeing flags at half-staff and I'm sick of seeing that symbol of wasted young lives. I cry at the sight.

It makes me sad, angry, but most of all confused. I think that war will not end until politics ends. Just my dream.

I wonder what lies our young soldiers are being told nowadays, because there are always lies behind the scenes.

We don't find out the truth until many years later.

I'm sorry if this is a touchy question. But I don't know the answer. 

Thanks for listening,

Rick

PS - It's interesting and sad to read Major General Smedley Butler's 1930 essay "War Is A Racket".

He was the most highly decorated US soldier ever at the time of his retirement. I think he might have something valuable to say.

His suggestions included that war financiers should be conscripted to fight in the front lines, with the young boys. He also suggested that boys on the front line be included in the decision-making process for choosing battle strategy. And, he suggested that the US military never be allowed more than 200 miles from the US coastline, so that the military can only be used for defensive purposes.

Excerpt: "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."