Posts: 19
Threads: 5
Joined: March 31, 2012
Reputation:
3
The Bible
March 31, 2012 at 11:11 am
(This post was last modified: March 31, 2012 at 11:13 am by cdabamsworth.)
If you interpret the whole Bible literally, you're a bad Christian because you could justify evil behaviour, and scientists will laugh at you because you're probably a creationist.
If you interpret some of the Bible literally and some of it as metaphor, you're cherry-picking, and historians will laugh at you for making a judgement of what happened / didn't happen according to guesswork rather than evidence.
If you interpret the whole Bible as metaphor, you're not a Christian.
It seems to me like you just can't get it right with Christianity. I guess the Bible contradicts itself way too much to be a practical moral tool in any way.
Posts: 390
Threads: 8
Joined: March 17, 2012
Reputation:
6
RE: The Bible
March 31, 2012 at 11:18 am
(This post was last modified: March 31, 2012 at 11:20 am by mediamogul.)
(March 31, 2012 at 11:11 am)cdabamsworth Wrote: If you interpret the whole Bible literally, you're a bad Christian because you could justify evil behaviour, and scientists will laugh at you because you're probably a creationist.
If you interpret some of the Bible literally and some of it as metaphor, you're cherry-picking.
If you interpret the whole Bible as metaphor, you're not a Christian.
It seems to me like you just can't get it right with Christianity. I guess the Bible contradicts itself way too much.
The issue again here will be the word "evil". Christians will argue that anything encompassed by god's will does not represent evil. I have even heard the argument that there is no such thing as evil and that if we could see the whole of history that everything has a place within it, including what we in our "limited perception" refer to as evil, and that this is "the best of all possible worlds". I personally find this a highly objectionable answer because a god who created a world where the holocaust not only happened but was NECCESSARY, as in it had to happen, raises some serious questions about the nature of god that I have never heard satisfactorily answered.
Then there is the free will argument that has another thread here. This just side-steps the question. Once again god has created a world where "evil" was neccessary, as a component of freewill, and therefore is responsible for it.
The rest I agree with.
Welcome, by the way.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"All thinking men are atheists." -Ernest Hemmingway
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -Voltaire
Posts: 19
Threads: 5
Joined: March 31, 2012
Reputation:
3
RE: The Bible
March 31, 2012 at 11:24 am
(This post was last modified: March 31, 2012 at 11:25 am by cdabamsworth.)
Thanks for your response.
(March 31, 2012 at 11:18 am)mediamogul Wrote: A god who created a world where the holocaust not only happened but was NECCESSARY, as in it had to happen, raises some serious questions about the nature of god that I have never heard satisfactorily answered.
Hehe, this reminds me of a comment I read recently:
"Every time I look at God as a being who can make decisions he strikes me as the worst caricature of man itself. I don’t know which is worse, a parent who will never leave you alone, never go away, never let you be independent of mind and body not even after you die, or a parent is always there but pretends not to be because of some test he never told you about which involves everyone on the planet, all the evil and the good, and every moment of your life."
Posts: 66329
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: The Bible
March 31, 2012 at 11:31 am
(This post was last modified: March 31, 2012 at 11:32 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Similar to the results of taking the Tain Bo Cuailgne to be some sort of moral/historical/metaphorical procedural for life.
It isn't so much that you can't use just about anything as the backdrop for your inner narrative (The Tao of Poo...anyone?), as that one has to be honest at least with themselves with regards to what they're engaging in.
If you interpret a fairy tale as a literal history then you've gone completely off the res.
If you cherry pick certain parts of the narrative it helps to at least acknowledge that you are doing so, if for no other reason than to avoid looking like a complete ass as you loudly proclaim the truth of this bit, and the falsehood of that bit. You'd better have either A: a rock solid reason for your separating the two bits, or B: an easy time of saying "yeah that part sucks and I don't think it's useful so I discarded it, it doesn't sit right with me".
If you interpret the entire bit as metaphor then so what? People who believe in fairies or sift through the narrative like a spiritual buffet will point fingers? Who gives a shit what either of these groups of people think? If you can draw a useful metaphor out of a dated ghost story then more power to you. I'm an atheist and I can draw a useful metaphor from the bible. Of course "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" isn't as long winded as the narrative in question and gets the same message across for me.
Just who "gets it right" when it comes to fairy tales...honestly? They don't have to be consistent with reality, or even with themselves. Nobody makes such demands of the Tain Bo Cuailnge.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 12513
Threads: 202
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
107
RE: The Bible
March 31, 2012 at 11:36 am
(This post was last modified: March 31, 2012 at 11:36 am by KichigaiNeko.)
Why do we "have to be right" ?? As Rhythm says..if you gain something from the story...more power to you!! I like stories, some of them are insightful (Sir Terry Pratchett) some are just silly but entertaining just the same.. (LOTR). I came to the conclusion that the bible is just a collection (poorly edited) of oral stories to date , circulating in the Levant around 200 BCE. Not interested in impressing anyone really.
my2c
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
Posts: 2254
Threads: 85
Joined: January 24, 2010
Reputation:
29
RE: The Bible
March 31, 2012 at 11:51 am
(This post was last modified: March 31, 2012 at 11:51 am by Welsh cake.)
(March 31, 2012 at 11:11 am)cdabamsworth Wrote: If you interpret the whole Bible as metaphor, you're not a Christian. Not necessarily true.
I've spoken with Christians who regard the current Bible as the "former Holy Bible" because they believe Man and Satan have corrupted the original message in the Gospels.
Fact is, there are also Christians out there who have never read the Bible. They frequent this site often.
Posts: 560
Threads: 0
Joined: January 16, 2012
Reputation:
5
RE: The Bible
March 31, 2012 at 2:36 pm
(This post was last modified: March 31, 2012 at 2:59 pm by Undeceived.)
(March 31, 2012 at 11:11 am)cdabamsworth Wrote: If you interpret some of the Bible literally and some of it as metaphor, you're cherry-picking, and historians will laugh at you for making a judgment of what happened / didn't happen according to guesswork rather than evidence. Christians can determine what is metaphor and what is not by using historical context and seeing where else the phrase comes up in the Bible. We know Jesus literally claimed to be God because he said "I AM" or "YHWH," which led to the sort of reaction you'd expect from the pharisees (try to kill him). We know the bride and the beast with seven horns in Revelation is probably metaphor because the bride is used symbolically by Jesus and Paul refers to Satan as the beast. In the NT, Jesus tells his disciples when he's telling a parable and says "I tell you the truth" when he's not. The missionary trips described of Paul are told with such detail as to not be assumed metaphor. The same goes for the Exodus. So the critical points of Christianity--law and gospel--are undeniably literal. A Christian knows more than enough to obtain salvation--Jesus spells it out in John 3:16. You bring up the Creation story. There is some controversy over that even among Christians, but one thing is clear--God displayed his power by creating the heavens and earth and every living thing. It doesn't even leave a metaphorical door open for evolution. As a Christian, it doesn't help spiritually to imagine the Bible as metaphor; it might as well be literal. Using historical context and knowledge of Hebrew narrative form, 99% of the Bible is probably literal, most of the 1% being descriptions of the end times (which cannot be described concretely anyway). The Psalms and Proverbs are not literal stories, but they are real art used by David to describe his true feelings about God. Metaphorical stories (such as Jesus' parables) are known to be very concise to get the point across in as little scroll space as possible. To make a larger story like Sodom and Gomorrah metaphor would be to use massive space on a very small moral lesson. In short, why create an entire story with the appearance of truth if you intended it only to instruct? You, being some kind of believing Jew, would not want to mislead later generations, yet you wrote it with details you would only include if you intended to fool somebody--and only somebody in the future. Today, Christian authorities spend years studying Biblical history to determine the best ways to interpret every verse. The validity of scripture is important to them. That makes them more trustworthy than a cherry-picking atheist who assumes the Bible is myth and changes his stance on how it could be wrong. The historical documents called the Gospels literally say Jesus died, resurrected, and fulfilled OT prophecies. Where is the metaphor in that?
Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: The Bible
March 31, 2012 at 2:59 pm
(March 31, 2012 at 11:11 am)cdabamsworth Wrote: If you interpret the whole Bible literally, you're a bad Christian because you could justify evil behaviour, and scientists will laugh at you because you're probably a creationist.
If you interpret some of the Bible literally and some of it as metaphor, you're cherry-picking, and historians will laugh at you for making a judgement of what happened / didn't happen according to guesswork rather than evidence.
If you interpret the whole Bible as metaphor, you're not a Christian.
It seems to me like you just can't get it right with Christianity. I guess the Bible contradicts itself way too much to be a practical moral tool in any way.
Bible interpretation only becomes a problem when you filter it through the culture first.
If you first separate the culture from scripture then one can interpret the bible literally.
Posts: 1327
Threads: 37
Joined: January 15, 2012
Reputation:
15
RE: The Bible
March 31, 2012 at 3:08 pm
(March 31, 2012 at 2:59 pm)Drich Wrote: If you first separate the culture from scripture then one can interpret the bible literally. So your god commited genocide of the entire human race except the 8 humans on the ark. You worship him. Are you a Hitler wannabe?
Posts: 3188
Threads: 8
Joined: December 9, 2011
Reputation:
31
RE: The Bible
March 31, 2012 at 3:10 pm
(March 31, 2012 at 2:36 pm)Undeceived Wrote: (March 31, 2012 at 11:11 am)cdabamsworth Wrote: If you interpret some of the Bible literally and some of it as metaphor, you're cherry-picking, and historians will laugh at you for making a judgment of what happened / didn't happen according to guesswork rather than evidence. Christians can determine what is metaphor and what is not by using historical context and seeing where else the phrase comes up in the Bible. We know Jesus literally claimed to be God because he said "I AM" or "YHWH," which led to the sort of reaction you'd expect from the pharisees (try to kill him). We know the bride and the beast with seven horns in Revelation is probably metaphor because the bride is used symbolically by Jesus and Paul refers to Satan as the beast. In the NT, Jesus tells his disciples when he's telling a parable and says "I tell you the truth" when he's not. The missionary trips described of Paul are told with such detail as to not be assumed metaphor. The same goes for the Exodus. So the critical points of Christianity--law and gospel--are undeniably literal. A Christian knows more than enough to obtain salvation--Jesus spells it out in John 3:16. You bring up the Creation story. There is some controversy over that even among Christians, but one thing is clear--God displayed his power by creating the heavens and earth and every living thing. It doesn't even leave a metaphorical door open for evolution. As a Christian, it doesn't help spiritually to imagine the Bible as metaphor; it might as well be literal. Using historical context and knowledge of Hebrew narrative form, 99% of the Bible is probably literal, most of the 1% being descriptions of the end times (which cannot be described concretely anyway). The Psalms and Proverbs are not literal stories, but they are real art used by David to describe his true feelings about God. Metaphorical stories (such as Jesus' parables) are known to be very concise to get the point across in as little scroll space as possible. To make a larger story like Sodom and Gomorrah metaphor would be to use massive space on a very small moral lesson. In short, why create an entire story with the appearance of truth if you intended it only to instruct? You, being some kind of believing Jew, would not want to mislead later generations, yet you wrote it with details you would only include if you intended to fool somebody--and only somebody in the future. Today, Christian authorities spend years studying Biblical history to determine the best ways to interpret every verse. The validity of scripture is important to them. That makes them more trustworthy than a cherry-picking atheist who assumes the Bible is myth and changes his stance on how it could be wrong. The historical documents called the Gospels literally say Jesus died, resurrected, and fulfilled OT prophecies. Where is the metaphor in that?
Q: Where is the truth in that?
A: Nowhere.
|
