I think you are deliberately missing the point. In fact I’m going to double down on the Doctor analogy. Nobody would follow advice from a doctor if they knew the doctor was a compulsive liar.
No shit. But are you calling Christians compulsive liars, simply because they don’t take everything literally? That’s what I’m asking.
Cultural Christians: reminds me of the old joke about the American visiting Northern Ireland. He’s talking to his tour guide and the guide says, “Oh hey, are you a Protestant or a Catholic?” The American says, “I’m an atheist.” And the guide rolls his eyes and says, “Yeah, but are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?”
No. I’m saying the bible is a compulsive liar, given all the falsehoods and fabrications found within.
Are poems “lies”? There’s poetry in the Bible. Some of it IS meant to be philosophy. I think you mean the authors of the book were “liars”. A book can’t be a liar, since it’s not alive. It’s just a book. It’s how people interpret it that counts.
:smack:
:smack:
:smack:
:smack:
:smack:
:smack:
I am referring to spiritual, metaphysical, supernatural, scientific or religious claims the bible makes. All of which it is pretty much 100% completely wrong about. And no, “Be kind to your neighbor” is not a “religious” concept because it is first and foremost a piece of everyday common sense. Nor is the fact that the bible contains donkeys or wine in any way significant - one way or the other - to it’s validity as making true and factual religious claims.
And as I keep stating, it’s all in how one interprets those so-called “true and factual religious claims”. Not everyone takes the Bible literally, most people accept that the Bible was written by fallible human beings, translated over and over again, and that it’s not as black or white as you seem to think. The Bible never claims to be a science text, for one.
Your views are obviously filtered through your experience growing up in a fundie area (I assume you live in the Bible Belt?) You need to be aware that others have had a totally different experience, have been taught otherwise (nine years of Catholic school, and three years at a Catholic college), and have told you, over and over and over, that it’s not as simple as you think.
If you can’t accept the fact that it’s not an “either or” concept, well, then I can’t help you.
No, you can not help me. There is no way possible that the whole earth can flood and you can stick all the animals on one boat to save them, a person can not live in the belly of a whale. A person can not spend hours in a burning furnace and come out alive and unburnt. Snakes and donkeys do not talk. The sun does not stop in the middle of the sky so battles can be fought until all the participants of one side are dead. You can not feed 1000 people with 3 fish and 7 loaves of bread. All of that is made up, lies, falsehoods. None of it was intended to be metaphorical or a parable. They were all, at the time, intended to be religious claims of truth. (even though they were deliberate lies, they were invented to mislead, scare and impress). Now that we have science people want to call them “metaphor”.
Depends on the denomination.
What denomination of is that? The We Deny The Bible Worship and Tabernacle Center???
You’re showing your ignorance of the literary work in question there. Let me help you out a little bit here. Specifically, this little bit in the Bible is kind of entertaining to remember as you’re flailing around in this thread:
Being rude is not helping your case, such as it is. Also, as someone else implied up-thread, you are not the arbiter of who is and is not Christian. Nor are you the arbiter of what is the primary tenet (not tenant) of another person’s faith.
And instead of your flippant terminology, consider that branch of Christianity known as Unitarianism. There are, of course, others, but all it takes is one to disprove your assertion.
Was Jonah living in the belly of a whale a parable?
Was the talking donkey a parable?
When Jesus cast out demons into pigs, was that a parable?
I am sure there are lots of faiths/churches that either disregard large sections of the bible or make up doctrine that is not contained within the bible. All this does is prove that large sections of the book are irrational and immoral and either need to be disregarded or have rationalizations made up in order to keep the faith intact. If the book is so corrupt and immoral that so many people have to either change it or ignore large parts of it all that does is back up my claim that the book is outdated, unnecessary and irrelevant.
We had a thread on this that was resurrected* recently. You can add most (non-evangelical) Quakers to that list.
The bible is not an instruction manual for religion; it is a collection of stories about man’s relationship with god. YMMV
*I make my own fun.
Are you claiming that these are all the Bible consists of?
Whose opinion are you soliciting here?
If you’re asking me for mine, I’d say ‘yes’, ‘no idea’, and ‘definitely not’. The thing you’re missing here is that the bible isn’t one book, it’s a collection of books written at widely varying times, by varying people for varying purposes. There’s a good long tradition of reading the Old Testament through different lenses than the New Testament and especially the gospels.
I don’t have any strong belief in any of these events other than the loaves and fishes and the fiery furnace, but you do realize that you’re making an assumption here (“the laws of nature are inviolable”?) If God and/or other supernatural beings exist, they aren’t bound by the laws of nature, and can perform miracles in violation of natural law. I don’t see why God couldn’t, if he chose, supernaturally keep a man alive in a fiery furnace, speak through the mouth of a donkey or a snake, or miraculously multiply loaves and fishes out of nothing.
If you want to decide whether or not these things actually happened, then of course you have to assess the evidence for and against them, and in the case of something like stopping the earth’s orbit I think there’s good reason to believe it didn’t happen. But to rule out miracles by definition is to make a big metaphysical assumption.
I neither claimed nor implied such a thing.
When Robert163 asked
He may not have got the precise terminology correct, but I got the gist of what he was asking: Are these believed to be factual events, events that actually happened, by those who call themselves Christians?
And you know all of this…how, exactly? Note that your feeling on what the truth is does not count. What is your evidence of your assertion?