Refuse part or all of the bible?

Great Debates
101

Snipe1978, your beliefs are very similar to mine. It took me a long time to work my way here, but I feel very comfortable in what I believe. I just wish that I had come to these conclusions sooner. There are many other Christians with similar beliefs.

I think that it probably is a good idea to read some material that will provoke your thinking – in addition to what you read here. When I read a book, I highlight passages and make notes in the margins. That is one way that my “self” communicates to me what is on my mind. You know what I mean. Some of the best advice that I ever had was “Inquire within.”

102

[QUOTE=Miller]
The Ten Suggestions
[/QUOTE]

Wonderful. I laughed out loud. Taking it to work. Thanks :smiley:

103

That is the whole problem with all of these liberal theists who tell us that you cannot take the Bible literally, that you have to see some parts as somehow symbolic or instructive. What guide, besides your own prejudices and feelings, exists to direct you?

There are Jahovah’s Witnesses who would let a child die rather than have a blood transfusion because of their interpretation of a part of the Bible.

At least if a person says they follow every part literally, I can give them marks for consistency.

104

On consistency: Ralph Waldo Emerson

105

[QUOTE=Valteron]
That is the whole problem with all of these liberal theists who tell us that you cannot take the Bible literally, that you have to see some parts as somehow symbolic or instructive. What guide, besides your own prejudices and feelings, exists to direct you?

There are Jahovah’s Witnesses who would let a child die rather than have a blood transfusion because of their interpretation of a part of the Bible.

At least if a person says they follow every part literally, I can give them marks for consistency.
[/QUOTE]

You are just emotionally determined to find fault with anyone who even “likes” the bible aren’t you?

Yes, people have admitted that they interpret the Bible and that means through the filter of their own experiences, influenced by their feelings and personal biases.

So what? Because we are less than perfect we should not even try to improve ourselves as humans? Because Someone else read the Bible and used it to justify their own heinous act we should not find anything beautiful or moving when reading it?

My suggestion is you pay a bit more attention to your own feelings and prejudices before you are so eager to criticize and sneer at others.

106

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
I’m wearying of this. You make a point. I respond. Then you claim that wasn’t the point. Discussions with people who keep changing their story are tiresome.
[/quote]

I haven’t changed any story. You are incapable of following a discussion. There is little point unless you learn how to do so. Until I see some sign that you are capable of doing so, this will be the last time I waste any time responding to you only to have you rattle off incoherent retorts.

Because while they may be idiots for based their moral views on a literal reading of the Bible’s say so, them saying that this is what the Bible says is itself not irrational or idiotic.

This is what I mean: I never said anything about the “first commandment” saying that. How can I hold a discussion with someone who simply makes stuff like this up? There is no "first commandment in any case, because what is called the Ten commandments is not called that in the text (something else is)

No, I wasn’t. In the passage I cited, just after Moses comes down from the mount, he gathers together all who will stand with him and puts to the sword all those who made graven images, as per God’s direct command to do so. This is pretty ridiculous regardless. No actual scholar of the Bible would dispute with me that the punishment for breaking these commandments is death, not when it says so outright and you have to simply deny that it does. Have you even READ the section between the so-called first “ten commandments” and when Moses returns to the people after his 40 days and 40 nights? It again and again lays out death penalties. Your position that it never says such things is patently absurd to anyone who has actually read the text.

Let’s make a bet: how are you willing to wager with me that there is, as you seem to claim, no passage in the Bible that calls upon God’s followers to put to death, immediately, any who suggest belief in other gods? Put your money with your mouth is. 20$? 40$?

107

Is there anyone here that actually takes the Bible literally? I don’t mean that in a “moral compass” way but in the historical perspective.

108

[QUOTE=Apos]

No, I wasn’t. In the passage I cited, just after Moses comes down from the mount, he gathers together all who will stand with him and puts to the sword all those who made graven images, as per God’s direct command to do so. This is pretty ridiculous regardless. No actual scholar of the Bible would dispute with me that the punishment for breaking these commandments is death, not when it says so outright and you have to simply deny that it does. Have you even READ the section between the so-called first “ten commandments” and when Moses returns to the people after his 40 days and 40 nights? It again and again lays out death penalties. Your position that it never says such things is patently absurd to anyone who has actually read the text.

Let’s make a bet: how are you willing to wager with me that there is, as you seem to claim, no passage in the Bible that calls upon God’s followers to put to death, immediately, any who suggest belief in other gods? Put your money with your mouth is. 20$? 40$?
[/QUOTE]

There’s plenty of nasty stuff in the OT. There’s also an interesting and often overlooked section in Acts chapter 5:1-11 where a man and his wife are killed for lying about how much money they got for their land.
verse 11"Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events."

I bet that came in handy when tithing was down a bit.

109

[QUOTE=pool]
Is there anyone here that actually takes the Bible literally? I don’t mean that in a “moral compass” way but in the historical perspective.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think so.

Perhaps that’s why it’s so easy to call them idiots, irrational, and so forth when they aren’t here to stick up for themselves.

I’m working on a more robust, non-line by line post for Poly, Zoe, Miller, and others: don’t think I just abandoned ya’ll. I’m just slow and busy. :slight_smile:

110

Apos you continue to make claims but have yet to respond to any challenge for cites.
You can’t back up what you’re saying, clearly. And I’m not about to waste my time on someone who discusses that way. This is in Great Debates, not Great Uninformed, Unsupported Opinions. It should probably be moved to IMHO. Ta Ta.

111

[QUOTE=Snipe1978]
To Thudlow Boink

You ask me to pin down my definition of believe. I would say that it’s anyone else’s definition. But therein lies my problem.

I would like to believe a lot of the bible. It’s got a lot of messages in there that I really agree with. But the simple fact that it’s got so many things in it that I strongly disagree with is what’s causing me the problem.

I can bring myself to believe that god exists. I know that there’s “something” out there that’s greater than myself and everything else. But I just don’t see this being doing a lot of the things that were stated as direct acts or directions of god in the bible. I do not believe someone who would create us and love us unconditionally would do such things. And from my personal expierence, these far outnumber the good things done.

Let me explain a little further. Lets say I have a dictionary and I look up the word basketbal and find the following.

basketball - verb - the act of hitting someone with a fish.

Now I know this is incorrect. So I look up several more words. Most are wrong, but a few are what they’re supposed to be. Why would I keep this book around if it’s full of all these things that are incorrect? And don’t say that the bible doesn’t have incorrect things in it, most posters have already pointed out things that are wrong with it.

What it boils down to is this. I want to believe in god. I want to beieve that there’s an everlasting life waiting for me on the other side where I will get to see my grandparents and father again. I want to believe that someone somewhere really gives a crap about me and my wellbeing. What I don’t want to believe is that this person also will send unbabtized babies to purgatory, gays to hell (I have several gay friends whom I would take a bullet for), and send people who have never heard of him and therefor cannot take him as lord and savior and toss them into a lake of fire for all eternity. I absolutely refuse to believe such things. But where do I draw the line? I just cannot force myself to let all of the evil and just plain sick things slide by and accept all the loving and caring parts without fail.

Again, only my personal opinion. I have nothing against anyone who can and does only beileve parts of the bible, or none of it. Hell, I envy you, I would have a greater peace of mind if I could just do one of the other. But I just can’t seem to get there for myself. More thought and input will be greatly appreciated.
[/QUOTE]

I appreciate your post. After some years of going from more traditional Christianity to something quite different I’ve concluded that each path along the spiritual journey is unique to that person. We may be touched and influenced by those we encounter and our surrounding culture but I don’t think any one religion or spiritual discipline has all the answers. They are merely the tools we use to explore ourselves and as we change what tool fits the job changes as well.

Starting from more traditional Christianity I took a few things to heart.

James 1:5 If any man lack wisdom let him ask of God who gives to all men liberally

and the whole seek and you will find thing.
It occurred to me that any person anywhere who sincerely sought spiritual truth might have some insight to offer. That would be filtered through their own gift, their culture, and experiences. I also believe there are some universal truths about the nature of mankind so these will apply universally. I did a lot of reading about other religions. I started asking specific questions trying to sort out some common truths from among all the religious tradition. Even sifting through this we each must decide for ourselves what it means to us and how we will apply it.
I understand the appeal of a Heavenly Father. Someone who watches over our welfare and intervenes on our behalf. I have gradually and reluctantly let go of that concept. IMHO we are all part of a mysterious something. Universal Consciousness or whatever you want to call it.The term doesn’t matter. What the term means to us does. I think the idea of some master of the universe that is “out there somewhere” only inhibits what Jesus spoke of when he said “the kingdom of God is within you”
I tend to believe in a gradual spiritual awakening through reincarnation. As a side note, some early Christians also believed in reincarnation. When the church was made official under Constantine and began persecuting and purging any non officially sanctioned belief that teaching was lost to most Christians.
Ultimately what happens after we die is an unknown. We don’t need to know. What we do know is we have this moment and the moments to follow to do the best we can. It’s up to us to choose and then deal with the consequences of our choices.
Jesus used the analogy of the body. In that we know now that in each cell the essence of DNA is the same even though different cells preform different tasks. Each is an important part of the whole. If we accept this in principle, then we go on to discover within ourselves the depth of that understanding, our capacity for love, forgiveness, courage, and compassion when confronted with real life.

We don’t need to know what the future holds, or embrace any particular set of beliefs in order to do that. Good luck to you on your journey.

112

[QUOTE=pool]
Is there anyone here that actually takes the Bible literally? I don’t mean that in a “moral compass” way but in the historical perspective.
[/QUOTE]

Maybe there aren’t many Biblical literalists left, but there are millions of Christians who use Biblical precedent to support prejudicial points of view. Even very modern Christians are guilty of backing up antiquated positions with the Good Book. Here is a simple and valid reason why atheists feel resentment and varying degrees of contempt for using the Bible as a moral compass: because historical and current belief in that cryptic text has and is still preventing social and scientific advancement.

Because Galileo was imprisoned for teaching that the Earth revolves around the sun.

Because God’s speech to Adam in the book of Genesis is used to justify the inhumane treatment of animals and the eradication of the natural environment in order to serve the needs of Man. Because the book of Proverbs is used to justify hitting children. Because examples in the book of Genesis are used to justify the condemnation of homosexuality.

Because our students are falling far behind their foreign peers in their education thanks to the Christian endorsed and enforced restrictions on teaching science in our public schools.

Because we are still learning about the origins of the Earth, the origins of mankind, and evolution- but politicians are wary of giving grant money to assist in the research of evolution due to pressure from conservative Christians.

Because the United States has more people than we can feed, house, and support medically- but Christians are adamant about forcing women to deliver unwanted children. Biblical law is invoked when stem cell research is considered: people are suffering, starving, crippled, and in pain because many people rely on the ancient Bible to make decisions about modern medical matters.

Because the Catholic church has used the Bible as a medical reference to control the reproductive rights and sexuality of the congregation. Birth control is forbidden while the financial hardship of raising a large family is ignored. Masturbation is forbidden while shame is heavily endorsed. Homosexuality is forbidden while self-hatred is encouraged. Nearly everyone agrees that poverty, shame, and self-hatred do nothing to assist in the good health and happiness of the individual or the family; but Biblical precedent trumps emotional health and well-being.

Because the Bible was and is still used to justify slavery and/or discrimination. Because women were considered second class citizens until 1919 based on Biblical precedent. Because based on some Biblical intrepretations, interracial relationships are still frowned upon in many conservative areas. Because we can still legally discriminate against gays and refuse them equal rights based on the immutable word of God.

Because orders in the Bible have been used to justify the extermination of entire cultures and the eradication of religious and social practices from indigenous peoples all over the world.

We need less bigotry; not more. We need less mythology, and more fact. The Word and It’s Believers were and are today responsible for preventing scientific and social advancement.

(Disclaimer: For those Christians who subscribe to **Christian Lite™ ** and only apply the warm and fluffy Beatitudes, healings, and Golden Rule to your daily habits and practices: this complaint is not aimed at you.)

113

[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
Maybe there aren’t many Biblical literalists left, but there are millions of Christians who use Biblical precedent to support prejudicial
[/QUOTE]

I wish to Pete that people would start using ‘christian fundies’ or ‘fundies’ instead of ‘christians’.

114

[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
Maybe there aren’t many Biblical literalists left, but there are millions of Christians who use Biblical precedent to support prejudicial points of view.
[/QUOTE]
Sapo already addressed this way upthread:
[QUOTE=Sapo]
That’s precisely the point. They USE it for something just as you could use a screwdriver to stab someone. That doesn’t diminish the message of the Bible but the people using it.
[/QUOTE]
To take just your first example:

Yes, I admit it has been used this way. But it could also be used to argue the opposite: that humans have a duty to take care of animals and the environment. And a good case could be made that this is the more correct, more faithful interpretation.

Give me someone whose beliefs are actually based on the Bible and who sees it as authoritiative—not someone who is using it (and perhaps stretching or twisting it) to justify their own prejudices—and I can give them a pretty good rebuttal based on the Bible itself.

115

[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
Because the Catholic church has used the Bible as a medical reference to control the reproductive rights and sexuality of the congregation.
[/QUOTE]
This is not actually true. Catholic theology regarding conception, sexual relations within marriage, and a number of similar teachings certainly have a biblical component, but they have developed over time with a lot of other discussion. It is incorrect to portray it as a “Bible said so” issue–and those teachings clearly do not rest on assumption that the bible provides medical knowledge.

[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
Birth control is forbidden while the financial hardship of raising a large family is ignored.
[/QUOTE]
This statement is directly contradicted by Humanae Vitae. I will grant that there have been various groups within the RCC who have argued extreme positions of “Thou Shalt Not” and “Hey! do your own thing” based on readings of Humanae Vitae through their own predetermined filters, but that encyclical, while most strongly encouraging openness to conception in sex, does not limit persons in poverty or other restrictive circumstances to the dilemma of “procreate” or “abstain from sex.”

116

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
I wish to Pete that people would start using ‘christian fundies’ or ‘fundies’ instead of ‘christians’.
[/QUOTE]

I will do no such thing. The word “fundies” is a pejorative, and while I disagree heartily with the path that many Christians take, I refuse to call names just because you have dissension in your ranks. (But if you want to discriminate against your brethren, go ahead.) This subject is touchy enough without making sweeping assumptions about people I cannot see or talk to in real life. “I don’t apply the Bible literally” or “I feel that the Word of God is absolute” will suffice to explain either extreme position.

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
Sapo already addressed this way upthread:To take just your first example:Yes, I admit it has been used this way. But it could also be used to argue the opposite: that humans have a duty to take care of animals and the environment. And a good case could be made that this is the more correct, more faithful interpretation.

Give me someone whose beliefs are actually based on the Bible and who sees it as authoritiative—not someone who is using it (and perhaps stretching or twisting it) to justify their own prejudices—and I can give them a pretty good rebuttal based on the Bible itself.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Sapo]
That’s precisely the point. They USE it for something just as you could use a screwdriver to stab someone. That doesn’t diminish the message of the Bible but the people using it.

[/QUOTE]

I read Sapo’s comment.

That statement carries two meanings. You could also say that ignorance of the law (read ethics) does not excuse the action. The fact remains that people of varying degrees of intelligence and varying degrees of power often misappropriate Biblical verse in order to support an argument. And when the Bible is misused by a person in power, many will obligingly and blindly follow. An unbiased, unbigoted, equitable non-violent book of ethics could not be misunderstood, misappropriate, or used to justify discrimination. The Bible: is not that book.

Since there are undeniably numerous atrocities and hate crimes in the Bible, perhaps it should be re-written and re-worked in order to prevent unscrupulous and/or ignorant people from using the book as an excuse to discriminate. Would it work? Would the majority of Christians allow and apply a loving, inclusive, and modern adaptation? I’m doubtful. If the fear, hate, and intimidation is removed from the Book, it will lose it’s power. And if there is no power, how will political and spiritual leaders control the thoughts and actions of the people?

But I agree with your take on dominion over beasts. However, many persons who use the Bible as Ultimate Authority may not explore an alternate or diverse education. I am not suggesting that the fundamentalist farmer who raises cattle in deplorable conditions has also read the work of Temple Grandin but still chooses to apply his inhumane intrepretation of Genesis 1:26 instead. I am suggesting that the farmer (and many Christians) apply Biblical tenet instead of thinking for himself, instead of exploring alternative theories, instead of relying on self-guided morality. There are Christians who feel that the Bible is a sufficient guidebook for all aspects of life, and feel no need to explore secular ethics or alternative sources of wisdom. But the Bible is not keeping pace with modern life. Using it as a daily guide is like coding binary with an abacus.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
This is not actually true. Catholic theology regarding conception, sexual relations within marriage, and a number of similar teachings certainly have a biblical component, but they have developed over time with a lot of other discussion. It is incorrect to portray it as a “Bible said so” issue–and those teachings clearly do not rest on assumption that the bible provides medical knowledge.

This statement is directly contradicted by Humanae Vitae. I will grant that there have been various groups within the RCC who have argued extreme positions of “Thou Shalt Not” and “Hey! do your own thing” based on readings of Humanae Vitae through their own predetermined filters, but that encyclical, while most strongly encouraging openness to conception in sex, does not limit persons in poverty or other restrictive circumstances to the dilemma of “procreate” or “abstain from sex.”
[/QUOTE]

But tomndebb, birth control and sexual orientation are medical issues, and if the Bible is used to uphold positions and opinons about matters of sexuality, then it is being applied as medicine. How many children a woman carries, how many children she can safely and sanely care for, and how often she becomes pregnant affect her health. A person with issues regarding sexual orientation will not find help and support in the Bible, but he or she *will * find shame and condemnation. If he or she has a struggle, then medical help may be necessary to preserve emotional health or even save a life. Persons who apply Biblical decree to issues of sexuality whether they be in a position of authority or the Christian layman are endangering their health.

117

[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
But tomndebb, birth control and sexual orientation are medical issues, and if the Bible is used to uphold positions and opinons about matters of sexuality, then it is being applied as medicine.
[/QUOTE]
Based on the logic of this sentence, the U.S. Code or the various Revised Codes of the several states are all applied medical tracts. In any construction that I can imagine, a “medical reference” would be a text that applies the principles and science of diagnosis and treatment to the maintenance or restoration of a healthy body.
Texts that deal with the ethics or morality or legality of the application of medical science are not works of “medical reference” and it is disingenuous to claim that they are, as it implies that the person using the work is misapplying revealed text as though it were science. One may disagree with any particular influence that a philosophical text wields over persons who are employed carrying out medical activities. Have at it. However, when one claims that the text is being used “as a medical reference” when it clearly is not, that is simply a dishonest rhetorical trick.
Bash the RCC to your heart’s content. I only ask that you do it honestly.

118

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Based on the logic of this sentence, the U.S. Code or the various Revised Codes of the several states are all applied medical tracts. In any construction that I can imagine, a “medical reference” would be a text that applies the principles and science of diagnosis and treatment to the maintenance or restoration of a healthy body.
Texts that deal with the ethics or morality or legality of the application of medical science are not works of “medical reference” and it is disingenuous to claim that they are, as it implies that the person using the work is misapplying revealed text as though it were science. One may disagree with any particular influence that a philosophical text wields over persons who are employed carrying out medical activities. Have at it. However, when one claims that the text is being used “as a medical reference” when it clearly is not, that is simply a dishonest rhetorical trick.
Bash the RCC to your heart’s content. I only ask that you do it honestly.
[/QUOTE]

This topic is my cite. In this thread, a young man is tortured by thoughts of shame when biological urges crop up. Is the source of his shame biological, or philosophical? Is this a dysfunction caused by the Church, or by some biological anomaly? From what did this shame originate? Could it be addressed and treated by medicine or clergy? Should he take his concerns and frustrations to a priest or an M.D. Your call.

119

[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
Should he take his concerns and frustrations to a priest or an M.D. Your call.
[/QUOTE]
I know several priests who would deal with his questions in a quite satisfactiory manner to him, and whose suggestions would probably not give you any pause (beyond any automantic rejection of religious discussion you may harbor). (I know a couple of priests of whom I would suggest he never mention the word “sex” within 100 feet.)

Regardless, your claim was that the RCC used the bible as a medical reference and it does not.

120

It’s amazing to me to think that you see the Bible as a book of shame and condemnation for a person dealing with issues regarding sexual orientation. I would think that it would be a source of courage!

That problem is nowhere near being solved.

Cite for Christian enforced restrictions on teaching science in public schools, please.