The bible... why take it seriously?

[robvalue]

When you look at the bible, is there any reason to even believe that this book is meant to be telling true stories or is meant to be taken seriously?

There is no introduction by god telling you what this book is all about, that it is accounts of actual stuff, that it is how you should live your life- like any serious book meant to teach you something would do.

It just goes straight into a story. And from there, another story. And so on. Like... a story book. What makes this story book any different from any other one? Sure it has some interesting characters (the worst being god which is the cruelest most hideous character that could be imagined, if you bother to read what he actually does) but why think that this is intended to be real?

Because everyone tells you so?

A lot of books have some semblance of reality in them, and some correlation with real events in history. It's part of storytelling, and it doesn't mean that the whole book is true. Or even that this is the intention.

It sure doesn't look like the word of god to me, it looks like the word of a printer putting ink on paper. Surely god could to better than that. It would just be in my head available at all times, and I'd be instantly corrected if I misinterpreted it. If god really is trying to communicate with me, he is the worst communicator ever in history. And you'd kind of think he would be the best. Why would he create me with a brain that is going to reject this "word of god" as myth, knowing that is what I would do, and then punish me for it? That's not cool.

[Michael]

Hi Rob

It seems to me that you're looking at the bible from the perspective of a stranger coming across it in isolation. How then would you, as an individual, know what to make of it? That's a fair question.

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!). So we have all the thoughts of the community as well; the 'tradition' that accompanies the bible throughout the centuries.

In short, the bible was never something separate from the community that wrote and read it.

[robvalue]

Hi Michael

Well we know that the bible has a lot more to do with the community than with being any actual word of god, as it has been heavily edited over time and a group of men even voted on which words of god to keep and which to get rid of. My point is, how can this book be considered any kind of good evidence when you have to rely on other people telling you it is true, without them providing any further evidence? Besides them just having been told it's true? That's just exactly the same as any other myth that is believed for no reason.

If this bible is just the sum part of a community putting their experiences together (and I would say even that is a generous description) then that is fair enough, but that's a far cry from "real" or "word of god".

PS: yes exactly, approaching it in isolation is what I am referring to. Any other book which contained truths could be approached in isolation, and then you could test the truth of it against other sources and with reality. The bible does not pass this test. In isolation it is either (a) a story book or (b) fevered rantings of an ancient civilization trying to control everyone. Either way, I think it's time this was finally admitted.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

In short; no. It's marketed as a literal fact (or at least has been over the centuries) but you're right that when you drill down into it very little of it actually holds up to scrutiny.

Many will argue the allegorical value of the stories and myths contained within it, which is fine I guess if that's what you're after. Michael's point about community stories wirtten by communties for communities that have since evolved is probably right. But sometimes those very same people flip between "it's just allegorical designed to impart some 'higher' truth" to "It says so in the bible so it must be true!"

Like the flood story, for example. There is evidence that the whole flood story is actually just cannibalised from mythologies about local/regional floods (or indeed a single flood) that came many centuires before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth

So elements of stories that, somewhere back down the line, may have had some truth that have been re-written to serve the ends of the biblical tales and indeed those wishing to promote the biblical god. A flood of somesort could have indeed happened. But a global flood, and a ark designed to carry all the animals and a centuries old man is just absurd and clearly false by the standards of anyone who is sane. IF we're judging it on its truth merits then the bible has to be seen as nothing more than a claim. Not evidence.

[robvalue]

Indeed, I've read a lot about christianity being a cut and paste, just stealing loads of the "best bits" from other myths and religions. This is very clear if you do any amount of research, and heavily reduces the credibility of the whole thing.

What christians actually do with the bible now is they act on the parts they think are good, and they ignore (or try to argue away) the bits they don't think are good. So what they are really doing, is just doing what they think is good anyway, and using the bible as evidence that they are right. This shows that they do indeed have their own morals, and don't need a book to tell them what they are.

I would love to hear from any christian who actually follows all the instruction in the bible. Which would actually be impossible anyway, as it gives contradictory instructions at different points.

Why would god make it so unclear what is metaphor and what is literal? Why screw around with the "most important document ever" in ways that he knows will be misinterpreted?

[Michael]

My point is, how can this book be considered any kind of good evidence when you have to rely on other people telling you it is true, without then providing any further evidence?

I think that's the role for historians of scripture and of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Just as a small example, Prof. Richard Bauckham did work on the names used in the Gospels and compared them with accumulated data on names of Palestinian Jews of that time period. He found the frequency of names in the Gospels and in the wider data on Palestinian Jews matched well, providing evidence that the authors appeared to have had local knowledge of 1st century Palestine (giving lie, for example, to the wilder theories that the Gospels were written by 2nd century Romans). At the same time though we can acknowledge that scripture is also telling stories; the narrative is a pedagogic one, and not necessarily always a literal retelling of history (the different Gospel writers, for example, appear to order events differently to match the revelation that they unfold for us).

Yet, for me, my trust in scripture has been developed largely through an existential approach. What happens in our lives when we trust in the message of Jesus? What happens when we spend time in prayer with the God of the bible?

I very much doubt any one can ever prove what is literal history in the bible, and what is a pedagogic gloss. The 'Jesus Seminar' of the 80s and 90s tried to work our which bits of dialogue were actually said by Jesus and which were words put into the mouth of Jesus by the Evangelists, but, to me, that misses the point. Faith, for me, will always entail some risk, but I am personally happy that taking that risk has led me to living a better life than avoiding that risk.

That's obviously just a personal view of things.

[robvalue]

Well, no one does trust in the message of jesus. No one does what he actually says you should do. That's the problem. I don't know, maybe you do! I'd be interested if you compared your actions to jesus' instructions.

For example, jesus tells you to give all your money to the poor. If you actually do that, give all of it, you pretty soon find out this is not a good idea in the long run. You can help more by looking after yourself, and then helping the poor more over time. Unless you have some other framework in place (which is adding to the words of jesus, not strictly following them) you're going to be in trouble.

And that's just one simple example. He also tells you to rip out your eye if you see something that offends you. I don't recall hearing that happening ever.

I respect being able to have a sensible debate with you Michael That is usually impossible with a non-atheist.

[Michael]

Rob,

Your challenge of how well I live out the words of Jesus reminds me of something G.K.Chesteron said....

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried".

I suspect Francis of Assisi is someone we can look to for how well 'ordinary' people can live out Jesus's teachings. I wouldn't compare myself with him.

Thanks for your kind comments.

[robvalue]

Well that is a very good quote, and I find it brave of you to say

I think, at best, people will say "hmm that's interesting advice jesus, thanks" and then discount most of what he says as not practical. I highly doubt by ripping our your eye and giving all your money away that your life will be improved, or other people's, all things considered. I see no possible reason to see that it would. And sure, I would invite someone to prove me wrong, but no one ever would if they are of sound mind.

The idea of charity and looking after the poor is wonderful advice for sure, but that's not the same as constantly giving all your money away leaving nothing for yourself to survive on.

The problem is that jesus was giving advice based on a short term plan that the world would end soon. Clearly such advice is not good in a world that is not ending soon.

Back onto my OP, I guess the whole point is that religious people do not use the same level of scrutiny with the bible that they would do with any other book, or in fact anything else at all.

And how you could pick one holy book over another is beyond me! In fact, I believe the Quran at least begins by saying it is the word of god instead of going into a story right away. (I tried reading it online, and it's hard work!) Correct me if I'm wrong there. Of course, a book that wants to lay claim to be the word of god is going to say it is the word of god. So that shows nothing.

I never mean my words to be insulting to anyone, I don't hate religious people, I hate religion and I hate the hold is has over people's ability to reason clearly. In fact I think I'll put that in my signature

[Heavily edited here as usual as I reread my drivel]

[Michael]

Well on the ripping out of eyes, I would say that is a rheorical device. So, for example, you'll find the same technique used in the Talmud...

'The pain of humiliation is more bitter than death. Therefore, one should rather fling himself into a fiery furnace than humiliate someone in public' (Talmud, Bava Metzia 59a)

On the giving away of money. Yes, Jesus seems to have much more to say on greed than, for example, about sexuality! Certainly the early apostolic church (described in Acts) held things in common and used their wealth to support the poor. And we know that Jesus and the disciples had a common purse. So we're given a more complete picture that isn't necessarily about giving everything away, but rather holding it in common and using it generously. With the fuller picture we can see Jesus's message about the problem of greed and hoarding, and again we perhaps have some hyperbole to stress that, though Jesus's reality is also much harder than most of us manage to achieve. The holding to a common purse is still the way with Benedictine communities: there is no private ownership but the community do hold things in common. Before the welfare state the Benedictine communities would often provide alms to the poor and the sick. The Benedictine communities perhaps challenge your view that this can only be for the short term; they have been a stable part of history and have seen countries and governments come and go around them.