# Literal Interpretation of the Bible **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2003, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679 "2003-01-30T18:53:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2003, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/181 "2003-02-08T09:06:26Z")
Meatros: _Also, I don’t agree with you about the reason for not getting things and why we can’t do his works. I don’t see a reason for either of those. If we had a genie at our disposal who would grant us our every whim, what good would faith be?_ Obviously you have not read your bible. Try John 14, it’s by faith that you are supposed to have that genie in the bottle. _I do live my life the way I want to. I think you have it in your head that all Christians live a very restricted life. I can’t speak for any except me, but I do what I want-I just don’t try to interfer in a negative way with other people._ Correct me if I’m wrong Meatros, but I think Jesus asked for a little more than that. You wouldn’t mind sending me a check too, would ya? Polycarp: _Christianity != Magic(k)! Our understanding of prayer is not “asking the Santa figure in the sky for what we want” and expecting Him to produce – it’s conforming our wills to His, and bringing before Him in humble petition the desires of our hearts, that He may give us what we need and remove covetousness for what we want in our finiteness but which would ultimately not redound to our good. “In Jesus’s name” is not a magic formula that “makes your prayers come true” but the effort of making a petition as He would if He were praying in one’s place._ Your understanding of prayer must come from someplace other than what Jesus told you to do. John 14: 12-14 “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the father may be glorified in the son. If ye ask anything in my name I will do it.” John 16: 23-24 “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy man be full.” Matthew 21:22 “And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.” That stuff was written in red in my bible. First you call the gospel writers liars and now Jesus? Or are you just that unfamiliar with his teachings? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2003, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/182 "2003-02-08T16:20:31Z")
**badchad** , it appears that you’re looking to do nothing but misrepresent my stance and refuse to read the distinctions I’ve already made, in this and other threads, and to attempt to anger me rather than debating seriously, with mutual respect. This is considered “trolling” and is frowned on here. Accordingly, I won’t answer your questions until and unless you give me some evidence of your intent to deal with me in an atmosphere of mutual respect. This is not an accusation – that’s improper in this forum. It’s a statement of my perceptions regarding your motivation, and how I plan to proceed, with a challenge to you to demonstrate that my perceptions are wrong. Quite frankly, I’d like to see that very much, because I think we could have a most interesting dialogue. But not in a poisoned atmosphere. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2003, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/183 "2003-02-08T17:21:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by badchad \* > \*\* Obviously you have not read your bible. Try John 14, it’s by faith that you are supposed to have that genie in the bottle. \*\* Oh you know that clears it up. I see, you are correct-How could I have every doubted! One verse and your point is made crystal clear. Tell me, how else am **I** supposed to worship. Can you redefine my beliefs for me? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by badchad \* > **Correct me if I’m wrong Meatros, but I think Jesus asked for a little more than that. You wouldn’t mind sending me a check too, would ya?** Look, you asked I answered. You are wrong in my opinion. I gave you a short summary of some of the things I believe; if you wish me to elaborate, ask. Don’t assume shit about me and my beliefs. As I have said in other threads, I have no problem with what you believe as long as you don’t try to force it down my throat. When you ask, I will tell you what I believe, but your ignorant mockery isn’t appreciated. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by badchad \* > \*\* That stuff was written in red in my bible. First you call the gospel writers liars and now Jesus? Or are you just that unfamiliar with his teachings? \*\* I think you are very unfamilar with **Polycarp** , this statement alone shows your cluelessness about him. You interpret the bible your way, and I will interpret it mine. If you ask why I believe a certain way, be prepared to deal with my answer. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2003, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/184 "2003-02-08T19:37:16Z")
**badchad** , I’m trying to figure out where you’re coming from. Neither **Polycarp** nor **Meatros** have much truck with Biblical inerrancy or literal interpretation of the Bible, yet you seem to have a problem with _any_ interpretation of the Bible. Yes, interpreting the Bible necessarily requires making choices about what is meant. It may involve taking some parts at face value, taking other parts fuguratively, and even outright discarding some parts as archaic or erroneous. No, it is not always obvious which parts are which. Yes there can be tremendous disagreement on those points, and yes, an interpreter can be wrong. That’s why it’s called _interpretation_. You actually share the Fundamentalist view that the if the Bible cannot be read literally that it must be discarded. In taking this tact, you are being just as closed minded as the fundies. I am an agnostic, but I can still find value and truth in the Bible. Please read my post in the [urlhttp://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2962942#post2962942]_Genesis_ thread to see how parts of the gospels may be read as entirely truthful without necessitating a belief in anything supernatural. I understand your frustration with intolerant fundamentalism, believe me (and so do Meatros and Poly), but that’s not who you’re talking to in these threads. Let me tell you, Chad, as one “unbeliever” to another , the Christians here will listen to what you have to say with an open mind, and they are not afraid of debate. But if you’re just going take a lot of snide potshots and you don’t really want a discussion then take it to the pit, not GD. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2003, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/185 "2003-02-08T19:43:27Z")
Oops, messed up the [Genesis link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2962942#post2962942). ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2003, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/186 "2003-02-08T20:03:16Z")
> [@](#): > > I understand your frustration with intolerant fundamentalism, believe me (and so do Meatros and Poly), but that’s not who you’re talking to in these threads. Let me tell you, Chad, as one “unbeliever” to another , the Christians here will listen to what you have to say with an open mind, and they are not afraid of debate. But if you’re just going take a lot of snide potshots and you don’t really want a discussion then take it to the pit, not GD. Exactly what I was trying to say, **Diogenes**. If you would, **badchad** , ignore my somewhat irritated comment above and hear me as seconding this (minus the “unbeliever clause” ;)). Thanks, and my apologies for letting irritation from other matters make me less than charitable to you in my last post. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2003, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/187 "2003-02-08T23:28:58Z")
Well said **Diogenes the Cynic** I also admit to being somewhat irritated by your post. I apologize for my tone, I was a little frusterated and your response, **badchad** , felt as though it came out of left field. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/188 "2003-02-09T02:36:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > In his book Darwin’s Black Box, Behe identified three types of structures/events in nature that he claimed were irreduceably complex, meaning that each of the parts fit so specifically into the whole, the the thing could not function if any of the parts were different. If the parts could not have arisen from previous parts, that made the system _irreduceably complex_. > > To provide examples of such irreduceably complex “designs,” he highlighted immune systems, blood-cotting mechanisms, and bacterial flagella. His points were that any changes to the immune sysem as we find it, today, would have been worthless, failing to provide immunity, and allowing no evolutionary prior step. He made the same claim regarding blood clotting, that any change in the chemicals used would have caused the system to fail, so there could be no prior system that “looked like” blood-clotting from which clotting could develop. Any different system would either fail to clot altogether or cause all the blood in the body to clot at once–either result being fatal, and, thus, unable to evolve . His third claim was that bacterial flagella need the specific enzymes acting in a specific order in order to develop the little whirligig tails that make up each flagellum, and that if any of those enzymes had ever been absent, the flagellum could never have arisen. > > He has been demonstrated to be wrong on several levels regarding the [immune system and blood clotting systems](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html). While we have no _definitive_ proof (yet) of the origin of bacterial flagella, there are a number of ways in which they _could_ have developed (against Behe’s claim that they could _not_ evolve), and we have a couple of hypthoses [described here](http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ribozone/resource/transport/Ian%20Musgrave_flagella.htm). It would seem to me that an even less surmountable objection would involve phenomena that involve several independent processes. The example that occurs to me is mammals suckling their young. This would seem to involve the physiological mammary structure, as well as two mental/instinctive factors (in the mother and child). The absence of any of the three would render the other two useless, and yet they seem to be unrelated to each other. (It is possible that this has been dealt with already, but I did a search at talk.origins and could not fiind anything). ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/189 "2003-02-09T03:12:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\*(It is possible that this has been dealt with already, but I did a search at talk.origins and could not fiind anything). \*\* [It has](http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/origin/oos7_4.htm). See also [here](http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/anat/mammary_glands.html) for a tidbit. Of course, what Behe (and others who seek to undermine evolution with examples of supposed irreducible complexity) fails to realize is that such examples only show that we may not know how a given structure / behavior / other trait evolved. What _must_ be shown, however, to be deemed truly irreducible, is that such traits _cannot_ evolve – a much tougher proposition than simply coming up with complex structures for which we may not have enough data to actually propose a viable theory of how they evolved. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/190 "2003-02-09T04:53:02Z")
**Badchad** : I had occasion to make reference to myth, and to need to define my terms, over in the Two Creation Stories? thread, and it occurred to me that it might help you to understand what I’m saying if I quoted that paragraph here: > [@](#): > > Since I do not feel that faith in God requires a naive acceptance of the Bible as a narrative, verbally inspired to be read literally as the ultimate truth about what He did and does, I have no problems in accepting these as two myths in the strict anthropological sense of the word – sacred stories embodying religious truths in symbolic language, not “made-up falsehoods” as the word has come to carry the pejorative meaning of. Is that any help in explaining where I’m coming from? ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/191 "2003-02-09T13:52:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > [It has](http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/origin/oos7_4.htm). Hmm…by Darwin himself. Seems to be saying that the physical ability alone would be useful when the baby was bit older, and that the newborn instinct came later. Hadn’t thought of that. The interesting thing is that (at least some) mammals would have lost the ability that they once had to eat regularly. But I guess that would be explainable as a not-harmful-enough byproduct of some other useful develoment. > [@](#): > > Of course, what Behe (and others who seek to undermine evolution with examples of supposed irreducible complexity) fails to realize is that such examples only show that we may not know how a given structure / behavior / other trait evolved. What _must_ be shown, however, to be deemed truly irreducible, is that such traits _cannot_ evolve – a much tougher proposition than simply coming up with complex structures for which we may not have enough data to actually propose a viable theory of how they evolved. Absolutely. I would agree that irreducible complexity can never disprove evolution. There is one simple standard “out” that will work every time - that the structure may be irreducibly complex in terms of its present structure and purpose, but that along its evolutionary path it had other forms, and other functions for which it sufficed in other forms. And it would not be reasonable to expect the evolutionist to have an answer as to the specifics of exactly what that other function might have been in every instance, or to know what the exact intermediate form might have been. Still, it would seem that right or wrong, this does represent a sort of gap in evolutionary theory, of the type that WRENCHHEAD put forth (and which was countered by you and tomndebb and Meatros). Once you allow evolution to rely on unproven and unprovable speculation about possible unknown explanations, it would seem to me that this lowers the bar for creationism as well. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/192 "2003-02-09T18:56:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\*Still, it would seem that right or wrong, this does represent a sort of gap in evolutionary theory, of the type that WRENCHHEAD put forth (and which was countered by you and tomndebb and Meatros). Once you allow evolution to rely on unproven and unprovable speculation about possible unknown explanations, it would seem to me that this lowers the bar for creationism as well. \*\* Yet such examples do not represent gaps in _theory_, so much as they represent gaps in _knowledge_ – again, a very different proposition. What may be unknown in cases of supposed irreducibility is not by what mechanism such a trait could arise, but by what pathway. The theories which supply the mechanism remain largely the same: various forms of selection, genetic drift, etc. The theories regarding the pathway are often determined on a case-by-case basis since they are contingent on history, and each lineage will have a different history. These “pathway theories” are where much of the speculation occurs (the fewer data available, the more speculation one encounters attempting to explain the pathway); however, the “theory of evolution” as a whole does not rise or fall by the success of these explanations (at least, not in scientific circles). ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/193 "2003-02-09T23:17:59Z")
Polycarp: _badchad, it appears that you’re looking to do nothing but misrepresent my stance and refuse to read the distinctions I’ve already made,_ I know you said to ignore this post but there is somthing I wanted to make clear here. Regarding the “distinctions” you are talking about. I’ve read them, I’m not ignoring them. It’s just that I don’t think they are any good. When you say a story is just a myth and not made up, I don’t call that a “distinction” I call it avoiding a stance that makes you uncomfortable. If you say the you think that various myths are based on facts then I think it would be reasonable to make an estimation of how much is fact and how much is made up (on purpose or on accident). If you say 20% or 80% or 100% were made up then I think in order to be honest with yourself you should be willing to admit it and not hide behind the gray “myth” statement. If you say that Matthew would have written that Jesus strangled a weasel, even if he really didn’t then then you are saying that he would lie to get his point across. When you said that all the gospel writers made up the story about walking on water and he really didn’t, then they lied, no 2 ways about it. But I don’t think you will admit they lied, rather you use the term “hagiographical, polemic biography”. I dont’ know what this means, one of us might be misusing the english language but unless your term is a synonym for mine I don’t think it is me. So I’ll ask you straight up. **Do you think the gospel writers lied?** Yes or no, then feel free to qualify. Meatros: ## quote: ## Originally posted by badchad Correct me if I’m wrong Meatros, but I think Jesus asked for a little more than that. You wouldn’t mind sending me a check too, would ya? \*Look, you asked I answered. You are wrong in my opinion. \* No offence intended but I believe you stated you liked to follow Jesus’ teachings with more or less a live and let live philosophy. When I stated that Jesus asked for more, that was more a matter of fact than a matter of opinion, coming out of the only source we have from the actual words of Jesus. Again, unless the gospel writers were suspected to lie, and if so we don’t have any reliable source about what he taught. _I think you are very unfamilar with Polycarp, this statement alone shows your cluelessness about him._ For what it’s worth I’m fairly familiar with Polycarp, I’ve lurked on theses boards for almost 2 years. I only recently registered to get the search capability. Diogenes the Cynic: _badchad, I’m trying to figure out where you’re coming from. Neither Polycarp nor Meatros have much truck with Biblical inerrancy or literal interpretation of the Bible, yet you seem to have a problem with any interpretation of the Bible._ Fair enough. Here is where I’m coming from. I think that the literal interpretation of the bible, has been attacked very effectivly on this board. Folks like His4ever will never get it but Ben, Darwins Finch and many others do a very very good job on countering the creationist, and others do as well with other literal topics. However the figurative christains in my opinion are every bit as unreasonable as the literalists. All they have done is define their beliefs in such a way that it is no longer subject to scientific scrutany. As Carl Popper would say, if it can’t be tested, it can’t be disproved and as such it’s worthless. Still they want to hold onto their superstitions. However, what do they base their beliefs on? The bible of course, unfortunatly when it comes to credibility they already ate that cake and have nothing to go on, and while Poly wants me to respect his opinion, I don’t think this is a matter where intelligent people can disagree. I’ve seen Poly say something to the effect of: _When interpreting the teachings of Jesus I go on his overall theme and character, if something is said out of character then that is what I don’t believe(paraphrasing on memory correct me if this is wrong._ This response is a complete crock and I know it. I’ve read the bible. I know that giving your belongings away to follow him is a fairly recurrent theme, yet he won’t do it. I know that hell as eternal punishment was all about Jesus, which if you ask me is by definition unjust and unloving. What’s so god awful bad about disbelief anyway. Yet Jesus talks about hell and who goes there over and over and over in the new testiment. Personally, I prefer the old testiment god, he just smote you then and there, and got it overwith. Nevermind that Jesus is according christianity was god from the beginning (trinity thing), so he was responsible for all the smiting as well. _Yes, interpreting the Bible necessarily requires making choices about what is meant. It may involve taking some parts at face value, taking other parts fuguratively, and even outright discarding some parts as archaic or erroneous. No, it is not always obvious which parts are which. Yes there can be tremendous disagreement on those points, and yes, an interpreter can be wrong. That’s why it’s called interpretation._ I’m saying that this interpretation is not only difficult. I’m saying it’s impossible. The more figurative you get the less you have to go on regarding what was intended. In a different social setting Poly could easily be telling me about the Iliad, how great a book it is and how he loves Zeus and Zeus loves him, though you cannot take it all literal. And no I am not exaggerating to make a point. _You actually share the Fundamentalist view that the if the Bible cannot be read literally that it must be discarded. In taking this tact, you are being just as closed minded as the fundies._ I agree with the fundies on this. If you take away all the supposed facts of supernatural events, creation and all the miracles, all you have less it a book of old time legends from superstitious people, some perhaps true, some obviously not, but you are left nothing to base a belief in god on. _I am an agnostic, but I can still find value and truth in the Bible._ I thought it was a good read but I don’t take any of it at face value. I have a figurative christian friend, who tells me I don’t understand the “truths” of the bible. I still haven’t gotten a response when I ask what they are. _Please read my post in the [urlhttp://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2962942#post2962942]Genesis thread to see how parts of the gospels may be read as entirely truthful without necessitating a belief in anything supernatural._ I read it and I don’t buy it. When Jesus walked on water, Peter lost faith and sank. That sure implies that he was literally walking on water, and I’m sure whoever wrote it wanted to give that impression. This response is long enough so I won’t go into the other examples. _I understand your frustration with intolerant fundamentalism, believe me (and so do Meatros and Poly), but that’s not who you’re talking to in these threads. Let me tell you, Chad, as one “unbeliever” to another , the Christians here will listen to what you have to say with an open mind, and they are not afraid of debate. But if you’re just going take a lot of snide potshots and you don’t really want a discussion then take it to the pit, not GD._ I appreciate your comments and hope I have made myself clear. I also know that Meatros and Poly aren’t out bashing gays, teaching creationism in school, or crashing jets into buildings, or robbing my parents of ten percent of their income under the euphamism tithe. Still they are promoting superstition, which makes the above possible. That’s why I think that their beliefs, watered down as they may be, should still be opposed. And yes I would like to see Poly answer my questions from my earlier post. I don’t think it is my tone that set him back but rather the cognitive dissonance. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/194 "2003-02-10T00:09:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > Yet such examples do not represent gaps in _theory_, so much as they represent gaps in _knowledge_ – again, a very different proposition. True. Of course, in creationist theory there are by definition no gaps in theory - only gaps in knowledge. 🙂 But I think the fundamental principle is the same - do we accept that the answer to some question is “something that we don’t know but might turn out to be the case”? In another thread I speculated that pseudogenes might turn out to have an as yet undiscovered function. This was dismissed as vague handwaving by another poster. But I don’t see how this differs from a logical standpoint from the suggestion that an irreducibly complex function might have had some other function in another form. Personally I would let both arguments pass - we can’t expect to know everything. But if you reject one it would seem that you have to reject the other as well. I think this is the point that wrenchhead was trying to make, and it seems like a valid one to me. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/195 "2003-02-10T02:11:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by badchad \* > \*\*No offence intended but I believe you stated you liked to follow Jesus’ teachings with more or less a live and let live philosophy. When I stated that Jesus asked for more, that was more a matter of fact than a matter of opinion, coming out of the only source we have from the actual words of Jesus. Again, unless the gospel writers were suspected to lie, and if so we don’t have any reliable source about what he taught. \*\* The actual “words” of Jesus? AFAIK Jesus didn’t write _any_ of the bible. I don’t think the gospel writers _intentionally_ lied, they might have been mistaken on a few things, I’m not disagreeing with that. And please, I realize Jesus asked for more, but back it up, put down the scripture you are referring to. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by badchad \* > \*\*However the figurative christains in my opinion are every bit as unreasonable as the literalists. All they have done is define their beliefs in such a way that it is no longer subject to scientific scrutany. \*\* Tell me how can _faith_ be scientific? I’m not asking you to believe what I believe, nor am I trying to put it down anyone’s throats. God can neither be proved or disproved, unless you have some astonishing new proof. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by badchad \* > \*\*As Carl Popper would say, if it can’t be tested, it can’t be disproved and as such it’s worthless. \*\* Good for Carl, unfortunately for him, I don’t base my life (or expect others) around what he said. He and _you_ can think my beliefs are worthless. Are you actually trying to tell me that it’s wrong to have faith? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by badchad \* > \*\*Still they want to hold onto their superstitions. However, what do they base their beliefs on? The bible of course, unfortunatly when it comes to credibility they already ate that cake and have nothing to go on, and while Poly wants me to respect his opinion, I don’t think this is a matter where intelligent people can disagree. \*\* The bible is not the only source I base my faith on. It’s a useful tool in my opinion, but it’s not the _only_ tool. How is my credibility or Polycarp’s credibility an issue? It seems as though you are saying that Christians can have no credibility what-so-ever. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by badchad \* > \*\*This response is a complete crock and I know it. I’ve read the bible. I know that giving your belongings away to follow him is a fairly recurrent theme, yet he won’t do it. \*\* The best you can do is a “recurrent theme”? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by badchad \* > \*\*I know that hell as eternal punishment was all about Jesus, which if you ask me is by definition unjust and unloving. What’s so god awful bad about disbelief anyway. Yet Jesus talks about hell and who goes there over and over and over in the new testiment. \*\* I think you misunderstood Jesus, if you think that eternal punishment was what Jesus was all about. > [@](#): > > You actually share the Fundamentalist view that the if the Bible cannot be read literally that it must be discarded. In taking this tact, you are being just as closed minded as the fundies. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by badchad \* > \*\*I agree with the fundies on this. If you take away all the supposed facts of supernatural events, creation and all the miracles, all you have less it a book of old time legends from superstitious people, some perhaps true, some obviously not, but you are left nothing to base a belief in god on. \*\* My belief in God does not stem from the bible. Also, I’m not using the bible to justify/prove my faith. If the bible was all lies and totally false it wouldn’t effect my belief in God in the slightest, it also wouldn’t effect the way I lived my life. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by badchad \* > **I appreciate your comments and hope I have made myself clear. I also know that Meatros and Poly aren’t out bashing gays, teaching creationism in school, or crashing jets into buildings, or robbing my parents of ten percent of their income under the euphamism tithe. Still they are promoting superstition, which makes the above possible. That’s why I think that their beliefs, watered down as they may be, should still be opposed.** Promoting? Watered down? Opposed?? Well aren’t you an expert on everything now. :rolleyes: It’s up to you to prove your assertion that my belief makes the above possible. You have made a HUGE slippery slope logical fallacy. What beliefs do you endorse? What meets with your superior stamp of approval? ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/196 "2003-02-10T07:20:55Z")
Meatros: _The actual “words” of Jesus? AFAIK Jesus didn’t write any of the bible. I don’t think the gospel writers intentionally lied, they might have been mistaken on a few things, I’m not disagreeing with that._ Your helping to make my point. Nobody I have heard of said Jesus wrote down anything, though his witnesses are suppsed to have been inerrant. I know you don’t believe that but if you don’t go by the supposed actual words of Jesus (the red stuff is supposed to be direct quotes) then you have nothing to go on. Again this is the whole point of my thread. _And please, I realize Jesus asked for more, but back it up, put down the scripture you are referring to._ Considering it’s your religion I would think you would be well familiar with what he had to say but people just don’t want to read the classics anymore:). ## A complete reference list would be very time consuming and make this a lengthy thread indeed but I think you can get a good idea from the sermon on the mount Matthew chapters 5-7. Among other things keep all the commandments, not one tittle of the old law shall pass away, love your enemies, never get angry(that’s for you:), never call anyone a fool, no adultery, don’t marry a divorced woman, don’t even look at a woman with lust (I’m sure that never happens), never swear, always give more than asked, give to him that asks (email me for my address, $10,000 would do me nicely), don’t pray in church or public, don’t plan for the future (got a 401k?), etc etc. quote: ## \*Originally posted by badchad However the figurative christains in my opinion are every bit as unreasonable as the literalists. All they have done is define their beliefs in such a way that it is no longer subject to scientific scrutany. _Tell me how can faith be scientific? I’m not asking you to believe what I believe, nor am I trying to put it down anyone’s throats. God can neither be proved or disproved, unless you have some astonishing new proof._ I don’t know if faith can be scientific but it can easily be tested within the wording of Jesus. By the way I don’t know who told you god can never be proved but all he as to do is show up and say hi, walk through the forest or send some angels to smite everyone like in the old testament days. All he needs to do is make the effort. I can easily test the scientifically the literal word of the bible. The bible says ask for anything in the name of the lord and you will get it. I can show up at your place with die, we can both examine, it. You can pick 2 numbers and I’ll take the other 4. We can bet $1000 per roll. I’ll take probability on my side and you can pray in Jesus name. We can agree to 100 trials to eliminate short term chance. If you win you can donate the money to your favorite church so greed won’t be a factor. At that price I’ll cover my own air fair. So far no christian has had enough faith to put their money where their mouth is, and I’ve got a side bet that says you won’t either. I can also watch you drink deadly poison as Jesus said believers can do without harm in Mark 16. That would be a pretty objective test and I’d put money on it as well. _Are you actually trying to tell me that it’s wrong to have faith?_ **Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying.** _The bible is not the only source I base my faith on. It’s a useful tool in my opinion, but it’s not the only tool. How is my credibility or Polycarp’s credibility an issue? It seems as though you are saying that Christians can have no credibility what-so-ever._ Actually I wasn’t calling your’s and Poly’s credibility into question but rather your source of info. Poly as much as said that the bible is full of untruths, yet that is where he gets much of his theology. Theology based on admitted lies is not very credible. Since you asked however, when christians talk about religious matters I tend not to be very trusting. ## quote: ## Originally posted by badchad This response is a complete crock and I know it. I’ve read the bible. I know that giving your belongings away to follow him is a fairly recurrent theme, yet he won’t do it. _The best you can do is a “recurrent theme”?_ ## What more do you want? quote: ## Originally posted by badchad I know that hell as eternal punishment was all about Jesus, which if you ask me is by definition unjust and unloving. What’s so god awful bad about disbelief anyway. Yet Jesus talks about hell and who goes there over and over and over in the new testiment. _I think you misunderstood Jesus, if you think that eternal punishment was what Jesus was all about._ Hell was not used to describe a place of eternal torment until Jesus came along. In the old testiment if you died that was it. Funny as close as Moses was to god, god never mentioned eternal life in heaven or hell to him. _My belief in God does not stem from the bible. Also, I’m not using the bible to justify/prove my faith. If the bible was all lies and totally false it wouldn’t effect my belief in God in the slightest, it also wouldn’t effect the way I lived my life._ I apologize, you are a man of reason:). _Promoting? Watered down? Opposed?? Well aren’t you an expert on everything now._ Christ does everything have to be spelled out to you. By posting here are you not taking the pro-god stance, and as such promoting his existance? Is your moral code not watered down from what Jesus requested? Is your faith insufficent to move mountains? Am I not opposing what I you have to say? _It’s up to you to prove your assertion that my belief makes the above possible. You have made a HUGE slippery slope logical fallacy._ Lets see what examples did I give, gay bashing, creationism, 9/11, and tithing. The christian god did say gays were an abomination and most of the anti-gay messages here come from christians, creationism certainly isn’t encouraged by atheists, most people won’t do a suicide attack unless there is something in it for them (in the case of 9/11 it was heaven) and tithing to the lord, in most circumstances, requires a belief that he exists. While in a true scientific stance you can’t prove anything, but I think the evidence I presented should be plainly apparent. _What beliefs do you endorse? What meets with your superior stamp of approval?_ I’m an atheist if that concerns you. For clarification that means that have no belief in a god, not that their couldn’t be one. It’s just that I think the evidence in favor of the god in question is about equal to that for the werewolf question. (I stole the last line but I forget where) And for what it’s worth I really wasn’t looking for your response I wanted to hear what Polycarp would have to say. My questions in this post were rhetorical. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/197 "2003-02-10T07:27:50Z")
> [@](#): > > Hell was not used to describe a place of eternal torment until Jesus came along. All your ersazt eruditon, and then you post _that_? tsk tsk tsk ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/198 "2003-02-10T07:35:18Z")
Sorry, I think Cecil said the persians had hell first but it wasn’t part of the the bible till Jesus:) ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/199 "2003-02-10T07:40:19Z")
Hell as in eternal punishment that is. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/200 "2003-02-10T07:48:57Z")
The use of _Gehenna_ and its reference to eternal punishment occurs as early as _1 Enoch_, around 200 B.C.E. It is echoed, (sometimes literally and sometimes figuratively) in _Esdras_ and the _Apocalypse of Baruch_. It also appears in several of the early Rabbinical writings, although there the “eternal fire” is not necessarily used to indicate that each soul will spend eternity suffering. However, the idea existed before “Jesus came along.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679.md?page=11)