If you don't believe all the bible, why believe any of it?

reply to post by SpaceGoatFarts

I agree with your point from a morality point, but from a Christianity point I disagree. I'm an atheist so I believe living morally is all that matters. The bible tells the opposite story. It says you have to believe specific tenants.

ArtemisE
I'm an atheist so I believe living morally is all that matters. The bible tells the opposite story.

From my point of view, the Bible also says that living morally is all that matters, and then it even proceeds to explain what is considered "morally correct".

That message is by far much more important than metaphysical and theological considerations.

Not saying it doesn't contain these considerations, just that they aren't the heart of the message of the Bible

IMHO

reply to post by SpaceGoatFarts


There are many denominations and sects within Christianity and there are some beliefs which are peculiar to certain groups but there is one which they all have in common therefore your habit of mentioning that there are many different groups is irrelevant.

I don't need to carefully re-read your post to know what you said, the meaning of that post is clear. Backpedal all you want but you said that the number one belief they hold is plain stupid and then co-opted their name for your own beliefs.

When you say that people should respect other people's beliefs as valid does the word "people" include you?

reply to post by SpaceGoatFarts


I don't think it says that anywhere amigo... Tho I'm sure an evangelical could give a dozen quotes that say the opposite.

Goteborg
I don't need to carefully re-read your post to know what you said, the meaning of that post is clear. Backpedal all you want but you said that the number one belief they hold is plain stupid and then co-opted their name for your own beliefs.

This isn't true, you just project and see what you want to see in me. Actually I do believe in the divinity of Christ, how does that make you feel now? All I ever said is that it's stupid to deny someone the name Christian based on his theological stance. Saying I find any Christian belief stupid is a manipulation of my words. The only thing I ever said regarding belief is that obsession with prophecies is unhealthy.

Anyway this thread isn't about me and this derail is stupid.

ArtemisE
reply to post by SpaceGoatFarts

 

I don't think it says that anywhere amigo... Tho I'm sure an evangelical could give a dozen quotes that say the opposite.

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

^^^^^^^^
Right here (among tons of other examples).

You're actually responding to my post which was quoted by someone else so I'll go ahead and respond here.

ArtemisE
reply to post by tsingtao

 

The art of war is the most profound book I've ever read as well!!

Very well thought out post, but I think you missed the point a little. Tho OP is mainly asking " how could you ever know what is metaphor and what isn't. Your point seemed to be " oh you can tell what's true and what's metaphor",I gotta disagree.

I didn't miss that. My response to that was that many stories in the bible are obviously not meant to be taken literally and almost all of the rest of it is open to personal interpretation, there is no right or wrong in those cases.

ArtemisE Look at the creation story. Got created the world in 7 days. That's very specific. It doesn't say god created the world in 7, 24 hour blocks. It said days. That's one trip around the sun. That should be a " universal" concept that doesn't change weather from gods POV or mans. The people who say " but one day to him is a thousand years to us" , I don't see the reaching to make that fit. A day on earth hasn't changed even close to that much.

This is the problem with translation, A better way to word that part might have been something like God created the world in seven of His days. This is actually a perfect example of the atheist dirty tricks I talked about, Atheists use our definition of day which is the earth revolving once on it's axis but if the earth hadn't been created yet then how can that definition of day be used?

ArtemisE I don't think atheists cherry pick. There's just some part science has disproven, so we point out the inconsistencies.

The parts science has disproven:

Creation story

Biblical version of the flood myth

The existance of hell

So of course these are the things athiest latch on too. The rest hasn't been disproven, so how could they use the rest as evidence against Christianity. As science continues to disprove parts they will be added to the atheists ammunition. That's not cherry picking. It's pointing out the facts.

None of those are facts. The Creation story hasn't been disproven and if you'd like to extend it to the cosmos the big bang theory has some problems.

As for the flood please be more specific. There's plenty of evidence of massive, sudden flooding in the past...if it's Noah's Ark you're referring to then I'm with you, to me that's not meant to be taken literally.

By Hell do you mean the Dante version? Of course that doesn't exist, that was a middle age propaganda piece written by a guy who wanted to get in good with the church and anyone who would give a Christian any trouble over that probably doesn't know enough about the subject matter to be giving Christians any grief to begin with. Hell is a very simple concept, it means you're not connected to the divine, that's all it means. To clarify, yes, there are some people who cling to that Dante version. Some of them are a small group of wacko fundies and some of them are nuns who want to scare school children for whatever reason but it's not Christians as a group who should be taken to task for that...it's that small group of fundies who should be asked about it.

I'm not even a Christian, in fact I have some serious dislike for that particular religion but I'm also amazed at the lengths people will go to to try to attack it or redefine it...if people attacked assumptions and statements in the secular world with the same fervor they do religion we wouldn't have many of the problems we have today.

SpaceGoatFarts
This isn't true, you just project and see what you want to see in me. Actually I do believe in the divinity of Christ, how does that make you feel now? All I ever said is that it's stupid to deny someone the name Christian based on his theological stance. Saying I find any Christian belief stupid is a manipulation of my words. The only thing I ever said regarding belief is that obsession with prophecies is unhealthy.

Anyway this thread isn't about me and this derail is stupid.

It absolutely is true. I'm not projecting anything, I am reading your posts and assigning meaning to them based upon the words you used. I've already quoted you saying things you claim you didn't say. You've been derailing, you make simple, short, easy to understand posts and when various people call you out you then claim that they don't understand what you meant...your posts aren't that wordy or deep, if people aren't getting your meaning it's not them who's the issue here.

I think one of the biggest problems we have to face today is that the idea of live and let live seems to have disappeared, too many people want to try to define other people or groups of people and this has basically turned all of our societal discourse into one huge logical fallacy.

If you want I'll stop responding to you but don't accuse me of de-railing anything, before I responded to this I went back and checked the thread and I am not the only member who has had this issue with you. Words mean things.

reply to post by Verum1quaere


Do you think the Catholic church has an agenda? I do. That's why they keep changing things that only a centrury ago was supposed to be written in stone, literally. The church is a money genrating corporation, with insane tax breaks.

TownCryer
The church is a money genrating corporation, with and insane...

Fixed that.

theabsolutetruth
reply to post by ArtemisE

 

I don't call myself a Christian though as a child I did, I went to Church and Sunday school.

Having since studied many religions over many years, as well as various sciences, I have concluded that most religions are rehashed versions of other, previous religions, mostly as a means of gaining support and control of the masses, they were told they had to believe, often it was law, they didn't know any better, so they did as they were told, the original sheeple.

However, I believe ancient religions are based on archaic wisdom of the heavens, the planets, the stars, star clusters, galaxies, the Universe etc and are really just the 'ancient mysteries' of this heavenly knowledge made in to stories, essentially an illustrated version of astronomy told as stories.

That is essentially where the truth of the bible and any other religion lies, if it is demonstrating a principle of the heavens for example, an illustration of the Universe in which humanity is placed.

The fact that religions have been unscrupulously used and invented many times over by those seeking power over others and layers of untruths and lies placed therein for the purpose of deceit is obviously anathema to good cause and the truth.

Sometimes both science and religion mirror each other in theory and exclamation, this is because at the root of many religions is the essential truth of the heavens (the Universal whole) that is above the norm, and shines through no matter how many layers of egotistical power seeking have been placed upon it.

If both science and religion stopped believing each other as polar opposites and stripped back their misconceptions they would find there is a lot more common ground than presumed.

The ancients obviously knew a lot about astronomy and this is still showing in religions when the layers are peeled back and the truth is revealed.

This says it perfectly. But the question you asked is good. Your government lied about 9/11, does that mean we shouldn't believe any piece of history we are told? Then again, seeking externally isn't ever the right way to understand something

I believe the core parts of the Bible to be the truest parts of the Bible. Such as Jesus dying for our sins, and that Jesus loves us all and to love one another etc.

The parts I believe to be left for interpretation are the ones where it says homosexuality is a sin, or the parts that make women out to be subhuman, or the parts where God is shown to be a war monger etc. I believe these parts were taken by men and more or less twisted in their own choosing. Much like how groups like the Westboro baptist church take what is essentially "God's word" and deviate it to fit their agenda.

I do not have any sources or really anything to back up why I believed this. I was raised to believe that everything in the Bible was verbatim God's word, and I believe that for all of my life. I struggled when my homosexual and queer friends asked my why God seemed to hate them? Or why did God seem to have a thing against women? Or why did God decide it was okay to slaughter children and innocents and so on. So over the years I did some radical re-changing of my belief in the Bible, and decided that what I know of God and His heart, that He would not slaughter innocents, or condemn homosexuals or make women out to be dogs basically.

Something has always felt wrong about a literal belief in the Bible, and I don't feel it is wrong to think in that way, so long as doctrine stays sound. The truest and most important part of the Bible is the simple doctrine that Jesus died for our sins and loves us, and to love one another and him (or at least do your best.) That might not answer your question, but I simply refuse to believe that God is hateful towards those who are not straight white men. I do not believe people actually go to hell unless the specifically choose to in the next life, it is unfathomable for me to believe there is even a hell at all.

So you can choose to believe that a lot of influence in the Bible is from men and that the true heart of God is one of love, or you can continue believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible and continue isolating nearly every non white straight man. For me it was easy to believe the literal interpretation of the Bible when everything in it fit me, but then later in life I discover that I am not straight, I am not cis gender, and suddenly I feel like God hates me, I feel how it feels to be on the other side of God's love according to the people who wrote the Bible. Yet I felt like God still loved me, and that the God I know His love is greater than we can imagine and people who tried to control it were wrong. So there it is, you can call me a bad christian and say I am going to hell or something like that, but I am not going to live my life believing that God is hateful when I know he is not.

^^ Cherry picking.

How do you tell what you consider the true parts of the bible from the not-true bits? Don't bother - that's rhetorical since I know the answer ("I know in my heart" etc)... subjective non-reasoning which could be twisted and turned to to any agenda you like.

So nebulous.

God is not hateful, but the bible is.

As it is said in Genesis that man was made of the image of God, the reality is that God was made in the image of primitive man. He was made hateful and spiteful and angry and bloodthirsty and he was made to hold Man above women as they believed it to be back in those days.

True Christianity would be to rep out the old testament and really anything except the 4 gospels but then...there are other gospels that were left out etc. Really it's time to just start over. AS long as the bible stays the way it is, then Christianity will always be a religion of Hate.

amazing
Really it's time to just start over.

You only need one page. Hell, one sentence: The Golden Rule.

Everything else is superstitious mumbo-jumbo.

reply to post by honested3


I'm not sure Westbro Baptis 'twisted' the bible at all. I think they were pretty faithful to the murderous, hateful spirit of the thing. They didn't cherry pick it...

amazing
God is not hateful, but the bible is.

As it is said in Genesis that man was made of the image of God, the reality is that God was made in the image of primitive man. He was made hateful and spiteful and angry and bloodthirsty and he was made to hold Man above women as they believed it to be back in those days.

True Christianity would be to rep out the old testament and really anything except the 4 gospels but then...there are other gospels that were left out etc. Really it's time to just start over. AS long as the bible stays the way it is, then Christianity will always be a religion of Hate.

isn't that the problem people have with the bible? it's not perfectly aligned and every book supports and agrees in lock step?

you would think it would be slimlined, like mao's little red book or mein komph or NK dear leader.

no wiggle room at all. oh, koran, too.

the bible isn't that.

book of ester, what about that one? why add that one?

who would follow something that is just so slick and has all the answers?
like a text book in school. oooooooooooooo yeah.

start over? for what? ever learn some science or math, chem in grade school? how different is it in high school and college? then go into a PHD program.

music, twinkle twinkle when you are 4yo is a far cry from charlie parker or motzart.

the bible is a book for the ages to learn from. it's a long term progressive book. no need to change. (lol, i said progressive.)

logic plays a major part of the bible. believe it or not.
just because God killed people by proxy and directly, way long ago, doesn't mean He is guilty of anything.
we ARE His creation. how many of you would turn your kids into the cops, for a crime they committed? and fight to save them?

so

reply to post by ArtemisE


I grew up in a church denomination that are for Biblical literalism. As I grew up I did not notice anything out of the ordinary with this view, if they were talking about a particular event taking place then often the sermon would include some archaeological evidence to help set the scene and confirm what was being said. It was just normal for me. I did not take my faith particularly seriously/consciously until I was about 16 or so. Since that time I have studied many events in the Bible for myself and have found much strong evidence to support what is said. I can not say that I have looked into everything, some of the nuances of Hebrew history are not terribly exciting and some things I expect would be fairly difficult to confirm (or have some kind of credible artifact for) but most of the major early things written one can find much supporting evidence for if one looks with the intent that they expect to find something because it actually happened.

When you find confirmations for much of the Exodus escape in 1450 B.C, global flood and early settlement afterwords in Armenia, Balaam's talking donkey, 3500 year of diet recommended happens to be healthiest in the world, ancient places unearthed thought to be complete fiction, young earth ages constraining limits to within Biblical time frames, Sodom and Gomorrah cities found with the destruction from molten sulfur balls, supernatural creation, fulfillment of prophecies, resurrection of Jesus, occurrence of miracles documented to occur in front of medical professionals, and personal communication with the Holy Spirit then you tend not to care too much whether you can find some confirmation that Jonah was actually swallowed by a big fish or not.

I would not know how to handle lacking in knowledge to the point where I have to disbelieve the Old Testament. I feel bad for people who feel they have to do this. I imagine it would be difficult on their faith and not give themselves a firm foundation to really build upon, perhaps readily swaying in the wind of any fade ideas.

I have come to appreciate my church more and more now and think I must have been lucky to grow up surrounded by people who to the bible seriously enough to dedicate their lives to archaeology and science or historical research that proves it.

Some Christians on this forum are quiet outspoken that they 'know' Abraham or some other early story to be a myth. I would be embarrassed if I was them. Not only are they showing their own lack of research but they are also destroying the faith of people around them while thinking they are clever in the alternate answer they have given. If Christian's don't know then they should do much research seriously before opening their mouth.

Those are my views. I don't particularly desire being ridiculed about them. If people want to know more about a particular point I will be happy to share.

reply to post by ArtemisE


Have resisted even looking at this thread until now as I just didn't feel like wading through the inevitable Christian bashing on such threads.

1. I believe all the Bible as the Holy Spirit inspired Word of IN THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS--which, of course, are unavailable--HOWEVER--that we have VERY EARLY COPIES OF ALMOST all the text--certainly of the key parts, doctrines etc. of the NT.

2. The Bible itself exhorts us to STUDY TO SHOW OURSELVES APPROVED unto God, rightly dividing the Word of Truth. Evidently God intended a Holy Spirit dialogue to be involved with our study of His Word.

3. I'm convinced that many Scriptures--prophetic passages--have a historic AND a current END TIMES era fulfillment.

4. Many Scriptures have layers of meaning and richness to discover.

5. Translations NECESSARILY involve nuances of meaning are inferred, guessed at, approximated because no two languages are that identical. If they were that identical, they'd be the same language.

6. Some translations are better, more accurate to the original, than others.

7. I personally am totally convinced that the 'young earth creationists' are off the wall and out to lunch when they believe that the Bible supports that opinion. I just don't see it in the text. They do. It's not an issue critical to Salvation, imho.

8. Some folks seem to believe that Jesus spoke KJV English. LOL. Others believe that the KJV is the MOST ACCURATE translation--failing to understand that the best of the KJV versions ALSO HAS SIGNIFICANT TRANSLATION FLAWS.

9. The text of the Bible stands the test of accuracy about ancient events, peoples, geographies etc. FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR BETTER THAN ANY other similarly ancient text and better than 100's of texts far more recent in time.

10. The Bible is sufficiently clear about establishing and maintaining a RELATIONSHIP with CREATOR ALMIGHTY GOD. That's it's main goal. It does well at that goal when individuals take it at face value and invite Holy Spirit to facilitate and nurture that RELATIONSHIP.

11. Christians and their antagonists can be a lot like Jews--where there's 4 Jews, there'll be at least 12 opinions. LOL. People are different with different experiences and different perspectives. God's big enough to handle that when our hearts are TO SEEK HIM AND HAVE AN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM as our priority goal.

12. I believe all the Bible. I do NOT believe all the silly notions everyone has about the Bible. That would be impossible anyway--because many silly notions are at odds with major chunks of other silly notions about the Bible.

imho.

ArtemisE
reply to post by SpaceGoatFarts

 

The bible tells the opposite story. It says you have to believe specific tenants.

To believe, know and follow the specific tenants is not something everyone has been educated on or been able to quickly discover. God is interested in the intent we have to find Him and a heart ready to be open to learn and humble to follow. God takes into account everyone's individual experiences and upbringing. The specific tenants are like achieving the optimal situation, where taking them completely on board one can feel closest to God in relationship, healthiest in life, strong in faith and courageous to take risks for God (and many other things), easiest to know and love God's character, easiest to convince others of the worthiness to follow Him. To deny God (i.e any particular tenant of the Bible) when you have been presented strong evidence that it is true is when one will definitely need to take an account of their actions before God in this circumstance.

BO XIAN
reply to post by ArtemisE

 

9. The text of the Bible stands the test of accuracy about ancient events, peoples, geographies etc. FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR BETTER THAN ANY other similarly ancient text and better than 100's of texts far more recent in time.

So, for instance, just to choose a few from the OT, would you include in that statement genesis (both gen1 and gen2 which contradict each other, darwinian evolution and modern scientific understanding), the exodus (which is logically impossible and for which no supporting archeological evidence has ever been found), the flood story (where do I even start? worldwide flood = impossible, boat which is too big to be structually seaworthy and many magnitudes too small to contain 2x representatives of all animal species ), the book of Joshua and it's account of rapid conquest of the Caananite cities (again completely unsupported by the archaeological record - for example excavations in the 1950's showed that the supposed fall of Jericho in Joshua's time happened at a time when the city was long abandoned) or the conquests of Solomon and David ( none of which are supported by contemporary histories) ?

Are you comparing these to the accounts by other peoples of the same events, or just historical events in general... The Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Persians, Phoenicians, Alexandrians etc might want a word with you..