The bible... why take it seriously?

[Exian]

Also the more scripture is read the more you get to see what the 'mata-narrative' is and so the more the small bits can be fit into a broader context; that often helps to separate out whether something should be considered more literal or not.

This bit here, the idea of meta-narrative, has been troubling me as of late. Here it's said that the more the bible is read, the better you are at telling which parts are just stories and which are literal. This just isn't going far enough. You need to build a mete-narative of life using reason and scientific understanding. The more you understand the physical world, the better you are at telling which parts of the bible are just stories. Noah's Flood. The young earth. Miracles.

It's hard to argue a theist when their whole narrative is found inside the bible (not all theist). How do you expect fossil bones of homo Neanderthalensis to be hard evidence against your opponent when they reject the dates? But that's the least of my worries. There was a time when I might have been ok with my daughter learning the different religious beliefs, but I can't in good conscience knowingly teach her things that are absolutely incorrect or susceptible to misinterpretation.

[Michael]

Well Shaman, that opens up a larger question of how much we seek to control others (we all do, well unless you favour complete lawlessness). I'm generally a libertarian myself, but democracies bring together a wide range of views and I certainly support churches' rights to enter into the democratic process. Censorship of opinion can be dangerous too.

[Minimalist]

But I don't see the bible from that perspective. I see is as being generated by a community and being read by, and commented on, by that community (albeit with some divisions over time!).

Yes. It is a fanfic.

[FatAndFaithless]

But I don't see the bible from that perspective. I see is as being generated by a community and being read by, and commented on, by that community (albeit with some divisions over time!).

Yes. It is a fanfic.

With plenty of non-canon fanfics that they decided weren't good enough to be included.

[naimless]

Yes. It is a fanfic.

With plenty of non-canon fanfics that they decided weren't good enough to be included.

This is fanficulous

[Michael]

Exian. I agree. Knowledge can certainly come from all sorts of sources: science, history, tradition, experience, etc. We all assimilate these things into one over-arching meta-model. I have no doubt some aspects of my meta-model are wrong and others right. But yes, I certainly wouldn't advocate seeing the bible as the only source of knowledge. Far from it.

[ShaMan]

I'm generally a libertarian myself, but democracies bring together a wide range of views and I certainly support churches' rights to enter into the democratic process. Censorship of opinion can be dangerous too.

OK. I support the Church of the FSM® and its right to enter into the democratic process. The first matter to be brought before congress is how all balls should be made of meat, and slathered in marinara sauce.

The FSM will not be censored! Viva la Pasta!

[Polaris]

In the academic fields of history and archaeology, the Biblical accounts from Kings and Chronicles are taken very seriously.

[Minimalist]

Only by idiots.

Got a mirror?

[ShaMan]

In the academic fields of history and archaeology, the Biblical accounts from Kings and Chronicles are taken very seriously.

Only by idiots.

Got a mirror?

Can't we all just get a meatball?