So, just how DOES one justify picking and choosing what parts of the bible to accept?

[badchad]

Polycarp:

badchad, it’s an interesting question about my own psychology, which I would have thought about if Barry had noted that I had overlook it, but since you ask, no. I choose not to explain my self-analysis in response to a question of the sort you decided to quote, with the tone in which you raise it. My apologies, Barry.

Yeah, sure.

[badchad]

Polycarp:

David was condemned for sending a loyal man to his death simply so that he could lay hands on the man’s wife.

I’m glad to see we take that story literally. I should point out that god condemned David considerably less harshly than he did his baby:

2nd Samuel12:12-18
For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died.

[Fatwater_Fewl]

FWF, to the contrary, you raise a valid point. I’d considered throwing abortion into the mix, since that was known in his day and remains controversial. I decided not to, to avoid inculcating a hijack. (There’s a variant on Godwin’s Law that says any thread in which abortion is mentioned degenerates into an argument on the morality of abortion.)

Poly, my observation may have been valid, but where I went with it wasn’t because, in the final analysis, belief – from which I believe faith springs – is a matter of personal choice which depends on an individual’s subjective experience to provide the criteria by which to judge what constitutes proof.

This approach, of course, is of no help to anyone who takes the stance that the world is entirely and only knowable and explainable by objective and rational means. And, similiar to you and other theists on these boards, I don’t consider aproachs which aren’t rational to necessarily be irrational.

So, I considered – and still consider – myself to have been out of line in using your name in an ongoing debate with myself (which might be described as being about the respective values of content and form in matters of belief/faith).

[John_Zahn]

Originally posted by tomndeb
Feel free to use it to mean fiction, but if you do, be prepared to go through this cycle of clarification, again.

We will if you attempt to show that the meaning I gave wasn’t a definition being used in a primary dictionary again. Since I’ve been referred to Joseph Campbell, and no one has been forthcoming with his definition, I thought I’d spend some time researching it a bit further. After reading various cites, it is obvious that Campbell, who was a professor of mythology and literature, has a very strong passion for this sort of thing, and was able to get much joy and meaning out of the mythological stories he read and told. He has appeal to many religious dabblers, even New Agers, pagans and others. He wants to take these stories and enrich them with what I see are being called metaphorical truths, but still realizing they are literally false. That is fine and well with me. The link I provide says that for * Campbell, the “power of myth” is the power of metaphor and poetry to capture the imaginations of individuals and societies. Myth supplies a sense of meaning and direction that transcends mundane existence while giving it significance.* Which is fine with me too. Now, having missed some of Joseph Campbell’s six part series of “Power of Myth” on PBS, and it being many years ago, and not having read his book, I spent some time googling to refresh my memory a bit. After reading many reviews, but in particular this one, which it says first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, I decided to concentrate on it since it gives us one Christian perspective that I’m sure represents at least a certain segment of Christians. I think it was also one of the most fair with him, and was able to show objections it had, without blistering him as some of the other Christians cites did. But I am surprised that a Christian who is grounded in any historic aspects of the resurrection and others would be seeking out Campbell’s viewpoint. Campbell chides Moyers for thinking the resurrection of Christ in historic terms. In the PBS series, he refers to the bodily resurrection as a “clown act.“ Perhaps, in the PBS series, it didn’t come off as harsh as it appears when I read it. And he is quite clear that many are out of date, including “the personal lawgiver God of Jews and Christians.” Douglas Groothuis who wrote this review also says:

Campbell is pleased with diverse mythic expressions so long as they refer only to the unknowable transcendent. But he strongly rejects the concept of a fallen creation in need of external redemption made known through an historically grounded revelation from a personal God. He expresses amazement at the Hebraic commandment “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Such militant monotheism curtails the mythic imagination. Campbell chokes on the hard historicity of Christianity, and is not comfortable until he recasts it in metaphorical terms.

And this:

Campbell defends the benefits of myths as literally false but metaphorically true for the broad range of human experience. But certain myths are (at least in part) to be rejected as “out of date,” particularly the personal lawgiver God of Jews and Christians.

As well as:

Yet when Campbell addresses biblical materials, such as the Gospels or Acts (which were written as history, not poetry or visionary literature), it becomes painfully evident that his metaphoric interpretation is forced at best.

This brings us back to the OP. For some Christians that still accept the resurrection and other aspects as historical, obviously they think Campbell is erring with what he has to say about this and other parts. For those that go as far as Campbell, feel free to recast these stories using as much metaphorical expression as you deem necessary in any of the stories to help you find purpose and meaning in life, or for whatever reason. But if a Christian does give more credence to Campbell’s viewpoint, though, I fail to see how they would have the need in a “fallen creation in need of external redemption made known through an historically grounded revelation from a personal God,” since he rejects this. So, I appreciate the perspective that Campbell gives, but I doubt very few Christians would agree to put as much of it in the metaphorical realm that he does.

Polycarp, it doesn‘t have to be scientific rewrite of Genesis. But, anyway, I didn’t exactly expect you to do so. Concerning slavery, Jesus the man, probably did the best he could do to deal with it in his time. ** Fatwater Fewl** expressed my sentiments in this regard in his post to you. Jesus the man has my respect in some regards. How much respect he gets from me, is really hard to say, because of how often muddled the many writers speaking for him, put these texts together. But Jesus the God, downgrades his status to me considerably. To your last question, let me think about it some more before I answer, and I’ll see if I can see it a bit more your way. I may even do a quick re-read of several of the gospels if I get time.

Steve Wright, concerning Hussein, I suppose that is reasonable, as long as you’re dealing with reasonable people. Of which, Saddam Hussein is not one. He wouldn’t think twice about handing someone’s head to their loved ones on a food platter, which he has done in the past. I don‘t see too much to disagree with you on with much of your posts. I appreciate the clarity in which you write. I need no further clarification from you, and it’s easy to see where you’re coming from the first time around. I doubt I have too much more to add in this thread, but will continue to read from it as long as the hamsters will allow.

JZ

[tomndebb]

We will if you attempt to show that the meaning I gave wasn’t a definition being used in a primary dictionary again.

The word myth has a specific meaning in anthropology. If you bring in the “dictionary” definition to a discussion that will involve religion and culture and anthropology, you will very likely be challenged, again. This is exactly equivalent to Creationists who use the “dictionary” definition of theory to misconstrue how it is used in biological sciences (and I suspect that the Creationist meaning of theory is the first one listed in your six inch thick dictionary).

Note that I am not claiming that your usage is “wrong,” only that using the “common” meaning in a discussion that is open to drawing on anthropological frames may be confusing in the same way that referring to Evolution as “just a theory” can be misleading.

[CanvasShoes]

Not sure if this is along the same lines as answering your question. But my main problems as a christian (but NOT the insane shouting on streetcorners fundie type, Sheesh, can we “normal” ones have a label of our own already??:D), anyway, I digress…

My main problem has been, not so much with the inconsistancies in the bible, but that the church tries to push it’s doctrines as the Word of God.

I laughingly refer to myself as a “recovering baptist”. I felt terrible and “backslidden” and a sinner for years because I still loved to dance and listen to rock n roll (that evil devil’s music!!).

I felt guilty for doing something that I really loved, and fought this conflict for many years. Finally one day it dawned on me. This isn’t GOD’S law, it’s the @#$#@! baptist CHURCH’S rule!!

Who are THEY to decide that God says dancing is a sin??? This realization strengthened rather than weakened my faith. I became a MORE dedicated christian, rather than less.

I don’t attend any one church, I remain a bit suspicious of (especially baptist) organized religions.

Sorry, hope I didn’t stray too far from the question of your OP.