That may be how it started, but when people today say that their idea of God is not the one in the Bible, what do they mean? How do they describe this entity in a way that does use the Bible’s descriptions? How is their god different from the one they were told about in the religion they were raised in?
Usually they mean “pretty much the same as the God in the Bible but with minor changes to correct aspects that I find embarrassing or awkward”.
Some more creativity would be fun. I’d love to meet a non-traditional believer who worshiped a 1000-foot-tall praying mantis that commanded his followers to walk around naked, fart after every sentence, and give muffins to firemen.
I usually take it to mean “If I describe my deity to you, I’m afraid that you will be able to poke holes in my beliefs, so I’m going to keep it so vague that you will never be able to study it!”
I may be wrong, but to show this, someone is going to have to actually describe their non-Biblical and/or non-religious deity.
Maybe both. People that say they are “spiritual”, not “religious”. Folks that say that it doesn’t matter that the Bible is riddled with inaccuracies because the god they believe in is still real. Those that say they came up with their idea of God(and sometimes even Jesus!) independent of the Bible and/or the religion they were brought up in.
That’s the irritating thing about somethingites.
Whenever you try and zoom in on one of the qualifications of their version of God they waltz away. It usually ends with a “Well, that’s just how I feel. You have to respect my opinion.”
It’s like they never really follow their own thinking to any conclusions. any thoughts they have on the subject are left dangling. Too complicated maybe, “oh look a kitten!”
How does that account for someone raised Buddhist, Hindu, etc? I believe in A god, however, not necessarily the Bible. Whether that’s considered “spiritual” or “religious”, I don’t know. I didn’t come up with it, or invent it, it’s just what I believe. The Bible really has no impact on my beliefs. (Other than I do think that Jesus had some pretty good ideas – a lot of what he was saying: “don’t be an asshole.”)
That’s just how I feel. I didn’t choose my beliefs – I don’t think people CAN “choose” how they believe. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. (If you want to poke holes in it, go for it.)
ETA: I don’t claim to know all the answers.
I think both answers are equivalent. Since the Bible had the bad taste to be written down, and not be vague, it must be interpreted as being vague for the very reasons you both give.
Literalist Christians are rather thin on the ground where I’m from.
Nonetheless, to my mind, an argument that anyone with actual knowledge of the subject can easily refute isn’t a very good argument, even assuming that it works on its intended target.
Simply reverse the situation and you will see what I mean.
You have raised the notion of explaining stuff to children. If children ask “where did people come from?” it is often a very effective argument by religious types to tell them “god made people 6K years ago”, since they don’t know better and may not be able to even understand ‘deep time’ and evolution … but that doesn’t make it a good argument, since anyone who knows anything about the subject can easily refute it. When they grow up and learn more, presumably they will realize they have been hoodwinked and resent it.
Then I disagree, obviously enough. Not about whether hairy old male nudist worshippers of the Great Mantis should exist; honestly they would probably elevate religious discussion in general above where it currently is, in much the same way the Pastafarians do.
Hold it right there. The people I’m debating might have a very good understanding of the bible, but so what? Arguing the accuracy of the bible is hard enough even if you don’t know most of the text. The rare people who do and actually know the bible thoroughly won’t mind me starting from a literal stand point. Most debaters will pretty much immediately grant me that the bible is not supposed to be taken literally, and that’s really all I’m after. If I ever encounter anyone who does take the bible as literal as possible and also knows what he’s talking about, we can have a different discussion.
You’re ignoring the fact that ignorant biblical literalists can just read their own damn holy book. I don’t have to lie about anything.
No no no no, you miss the point of moral story telling. Humans have always put things into stories to teach. Jesus is put as an example of what a human who is in tough with the godhead is like. Healing the sick etc are telling us that with love we are fulfilled.
Athiests like a fight and because some see the world in black and white find it hard to read anything unless it is a text book. The Bible is my cultures way of describing what it is like to be one with the universe.
Pretty words, but the Bible is still a nasty, barbaric work no matter what kind of shiny gloss you try to put on it.
And completely wrong. “Becoming one with the universe” is not even a sensible concept, short of going into space and blowing yourself up until your particles can’t be distinguished from the vacuum which is what most of the universe actually is. And at any rate, the Bible is most certainly not about any sort of mystical union with the universe; it’s about obeying a megalomaniacal sky thug.