This thread is brought on by a reply from this thread.
Ok, so god can be misquoted. I presume that they can also lie about his actions. How do you choose what parts to believe in then? I will remind you that Jesus said many times that the old testament is still valid.
I deal with this several ways:
Anything except the document commonly known as the Old Testament is created by human beings, and therefore questionable.
I accept that the document commonly known as the Old Testament was rendered by human beings, and therefore reflects its editors’ understanding of science, anthropology, politics, etc. Because I accept this, I am also willing to accept modern scholarly interpretations which draw on other contemporary documents, archeological evidence, and modern scientific knowledge.
For instance, if the text says someone commanded the sun to stand still, but physics says the sun cannot stand still, I’m going to go with modern physics. The text is profound and moving, but it does not stand the test of scientific rigor.
That sounds fair to me.
Since you believe that god actually said and did the stuff written in the old testament, I would like to hear your answer to this question:
Believers, why are you sure that god has the right moral values?
I don’t believe without question that G-d said or did everything described in the OT. See my point #2.
Ehm, how bad a “rendering” are we talking about? Can the people render completely false laws or stories that didnt happen at all?
And if so, how do you decide which parts are rendered properly?
It’s Cosmos…with that second S. Lot’s of people miss that.
I’m a little uncertain myself about how Jesus felt about the OT. He was obviously familar with it and he knew that those around him believed it was the word of god. My theory is that some of his comments that included OT references were with the belief of his audience in mind. In a similar way if I was discussing spiritual matters with someone who believed the Bible to be the inerrant word of God I might assume their position for the sake of argument and someone listening in might judge that I believed that too.
Regardless, there is no way to judge the historically accuracy of the NT. We don’t really know if any of these events really happened and the details vary from book to book telling the same story.
It would be inaccurate to say I believe the Bible or believe in the Bible {other than I know it exists} It would be accurate to say I value and revere the Bible for what it tells us about man and his search for God. I also value the teachings of Jesus Christ in the way I understand and interpret them. Each person has to do that for themselves. I judge what is meaningful and moving to me. This book and others like it stir things up in people when they ponder some of life’s mysteries and in that stirring, uncertainty, and interaction, we grow.
I have seen a number of sources that point out that what we know as the OT had not solidified in its current form by Jesus’ time.
In my observation, people accept everything except the parts they don’t like, then rationalize those parts away. For example, Paul is clear as can be that slaves should obey their masters. We as a society repudiate slavery, so Paul is interpreted to mean only slavery as practiced at the time, which was different in some respects from slavery in the 19th Century. A similar process has permitted the ordination of women by most modern Protestant sects, even though Paul is clear this isn’t permitted. BTW, I’m an atheist, so I have no axe to grind on either of these issues.
For a more scholarly approach, see the Jesus Seminar. Be aware that both the Seminar and its conclusions are highly controversial. For that matter, I don’t particularly agree with them either. But it’s an interesting approach.
As for the interplay of Old and New Testament, the problem was recognized early on. The resolution, as reflected in Acts 15:19-20 was (James speaking) “Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, [20] but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.” [NRSV]
Many Christians do not see the Bible as the literal “word of God”. I myself feel that while the authors of the Bible were “inspired” by God, this inspiration did not transcend their own personal biases, interpretations, and cultures. Being able to see this has really been able to liberate the Bible for me. Thus, I can see why Mark wrote the gospel he did, and why the other three gospels differed from his (and I can also accept that John Mark may very well not have written the gospel that bears his name anyway). At the same time, I can see why some parts of the Bible which would make no sense otherwise or seem absolutely abhorrent and immoral are in there without diluting the overall importance and message of the original texts. So now, during Holy Week, when I read the story of Jesus cursing the fig tree, it doesn’t seem nearly as ridiculous and inscrutable when I understand the symbolism involved.
Ultimately, when it comes to morals, I don’t think Christians are any different from anyone else. Morality is not exclusive to Christians who read the Bible and obey everything in it, and I think that as far as we liberal folk of faith go, “love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and spirit and love your neighbor as yourself” is what we must do: everything else follows from that. This is NOT a free pass for sinning of course- just about everything that most people agree is “sinful” or immoral is a violation of those two commandments.
Of course, I’m speaking from a mostly liberal Christian perspective, and while I used to be something of a fundamentalist, I have no idea how most fundamentalists do it. I believe most typically rationalize the more repulsive acts of the Old Testament God while taking most of the New Testament at literal face value (except for the implicit approval of slavery).
baransabato:
Ok, so you don’t believe many of the things in the NT. But you still believe that Jesus is the son of god, was resurrected, and that sinners go to hell, right?
But how do you know that this is right, and the other stuff is not?
Do you believe this because some other christians say so? They might be mistaken.
Or do you believe this because you think that the stuff you don’t believe is immoral, and god wouldn’t do anything immoral. If so, you have to know for absolute certain that your morals are “right”? Couldn’t you risk that your parents would impose “wrong” morals on you? After all, there might be a christian with slightly different moral values than you, who thus disregard other bible passages than you. So the viewpoint of this guy is equally valid as yours, and yet one of you have mistaken what god wants.
I started with the page numbers, and I’m working my way up from there.
Which transalation? 
mr. jp, the more that I have read the Bible and read about the Bible, the more firmly I believe that human error is involved. It is illogical to think otherwise. That does not lessen the strength of my faith at all. It has increased my focus upon the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
The Old Testament helps me to understand the historic and religious traditions into which Jesus was born. They are thus part of my own history and traditions. The stories inspire, comfort and sustain me. They teach me.
I will tell you honestly that I don’t recognize the “God of wrath” that is sometimes described in the Old Testament. I understand better the shepherd that David wrote about in the 23rd Psalm. That is more like the God of love and mercy that is revealed in the New Testament.
I can’t think of any of the teachings of Jesus that I don’t like. He was about love and compassion and living in the moment. I think that some of his followers after him added their own very human opinions and they shouldn’t have been taken as “gospel.” Paul admitted that he made mistakes. Some of them were doozies.
I think that I have to look at the overall truth of the New Testament, especially, and use it as a “rule of faith and practice” for myself. But I use other sources also. I can’t and shouldn’t decide for someone else how she or he should look at the Bible. I just believe that we shouldn’t judge each other.
Zoe:
Do you believe in the virgin birth, and the resurrection, and if so, how do you know they are true?
Matthew 5:18-19:
Luke 16:17
John 10:35
I think it was G.K. Chesterton who said: “It’s not the parts of the Bible I don’t understand that worry me, it’s the parts I do understand.”
What do you mean by “believe”? A statement like, “Don’t murder” or “Don’t steal” or “Love your neighbor” isn’t really a matter of “belief,” is it?
And there are levels of belief. The biblical stories (which is what I assume you’re asking about) can be believed as literature, poetry, symbolism to make moral/ethical points without having to believe it as if it were a science or history textbook.
Yeah, I didn’t explain myself very clearly.
I agree with both your points.
I meant to ask:
People who believe in something which is doubtful scientifically, like the virgin birth, the ressurection, that there is a hell, etc, because it is in the bible: Why do you believe that these parts are true, while you don’t believe a lot of other things written in the bible?
I do believe in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, but it isn’t a matter of “knowing.” It’s based on faith. That faith may be largely a matter of conditioning passed on to me from my parents and others or maybe it is a gift. I don’t know.
I do know that sometimes my faith waivers. I don’t worry about it. That seems to be normal. Even St. Paul wrote about it.
There are numerous reasons why I don’t believe word for word in a document that was written in other languages and then recopied numerous times by human beings as the languages changed over a 2,000 year period. And I don’t have faith in the understanding and the motives of the men at the Council of Nicea. I don’t have faith in the women and men who decide that they will interpret the meaning of the Bible for me from their viewpoint only. (They often quote the Bible to prove the Bible – which accomplishes nothing.)
They have one path to follow and I another. Why would either of us argue with the direction in which the Holy Spirit leads another?
I wish you a great Easter!
Pax
Which parts are you referring to?
You cite Matthew 5:18-19 and Luke 16:17; but that suggests you don’t understand of the basics of Christianity. For evangelicals (who is who you’re probably thinking of) the inability of human beings to live up to the OT law is sort of the whole point. Christ’s sacrifice does not invalidate the law – hence it does not “fail.” It does mean that the penalty no longer applies. The theological concept you want to look up is “atonement.”
That is exactly my point. Christians just decided that it is not important to try and follow the OT rules, yet Jesus clearly stated that it is important.
So if you can ignore this part of the NT, then why don’t you also ignore the scientifically doubtful stuff?
The rest of your answer makes sense to me. But I don’t understand this bit. Lets say one christian believes that it is wrong to marry, while another believe that it is no problem. Only one of those can be right. So are you saying that the holy spirit deliberately leads one of those people in the wrong direction?
Happy Easter people