The bible... why take it seriously?

[robvalue]

I applaud Benedictine communities if this is how they operate, I wasn't aware that such a system could actually work with human greed as it is. I think such a system could indeed be a better way of life, if only the average person could be trusted to act fairly under it.

But jesus clearly was talking about the world ending soon, and that was his justification for the teachings. So if some of it happens to work long term, I see that rather as a coincidence than any wisdom on his part.

And with rhetorics, we have the problem if what is literal and what is not? Who has the authority to say? Certainly no man could proclaim it true, unless he presumes to speak for god. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but we are still left confused.

---

Also we have the problem that jesus is god, who is a mass murderer among many other things. Why should we listen to him?

[Michael]

A couple of things there I'd throw in.

On the 'end of the world', for temple Jerusalem that pretty much came with the sack of Jerusalem and the temple in AD70. That was the end of the era of temple sacrifice. But it was also the start of Rabbinic Judaism which some might say was the start of a more thoughtful and reflective form of Judaism.

On determining what is rhetorical and what is not, some say that is why the Church is necessary, as an authoritative interpreter of scripture. That's probably what I should say. But it's not really what I believe. For me I find access to tradition and the thought of Christians over the centuries really useful and important. But ultimately what matters most to me is how the scriptures challenge me; they are a catalyst. The thinking through, and the praying through, the scriptures is what matters most to me. Some describe this by saying that the scriptures are more about formation than information. 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. There are times though I just don't know what is literal and what is not but, as odd as it sounds, it frequently doesn't seem to matter.

Now, the war narratives are certainly challenging. Or at least I find them challenging. That's probably a large topic on itself but I'm happy to go there if you want. I probably fall foul of my more 'evangelical' brothers and sisters there as I'm open to the idea that what the bible presents may well be what people thought God was saying to them rather than what God was saying to them. So I see the bible as a progressive unfolding of man's understanding of God; and that understanding may not have always been particularly good.

You know, there's a book whose title could almost have been written for you; it is "Reading the Bible Again For the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously But Not Literally" by Marcus Borg. I can't say I agree with all Borg's thoughts (in essence I'm rather more 'orthodox' than he is), but he presents a good case for taking the bible seriously without reading it as a literal or perfect history. Borg certainly breaks down any simple black and white ideas of the bible either being an inerrant account of history or being of no use to man nor beast. He explores some of the area between those poles, and so tends to aggravate both more 'fundamentalist' Christians and firm atheists alike, poor chap.

[Mudhammam]

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.

What is it that you find in faith to entail some risk, Michael? I'd be curious to hear more about this because from my perspective, as an atheist who was once a Christian, I find my current position far more risky than I would were I able to somehow throw myself back onto faith... but I imagine, as we probably both believe we're following our conscience, being honest with the evidence that we have been provided in our individual life experiences, we're also willing to embrace that risk with an air of confidence. No matter what happens at the end of this life, our sincerity ought to count for something, aye?

[Michael]

Pickup

Yes, I think sincerity is really important. After all, if you can fake that you've got it made :-)

But more seriously, Cardinal John Henry Newman brought the conscience right back into mainstream Catholic thought. He was famous for saying "I toast the Pope, but to conscience first". Like Newman, I have a high view of conscience but, also like Newman, I think the conscience must also be allowed to be formed and then listened to.

On risk, for me the risk of Christianity was committing to something I can't be 100% intellectually sure of. In a way the 'safest' option, I think, is to be agnostic to the point of not committing oneself to Christianity (or much else besides), but then so much can be missed by not taking a risk. Kierkegaard called this commitment in the absence of any certainty, the 'leap to faith', usually rather wrongly remembered as the 'leap of faith'. I can relate to Kierkegaard's thoughts on this.

[ShaMan]

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

Agreed. And that is why it's so dangerous - It's subjective. Tomorrow the 'community' can decide that witch trials are once again a good thing. Just look at what churches are trying to do to gays. I bet there are still plenty of congregations that would readily go out on fag burning crusades. The whole thing is Human inspired whim that never fails to patronize its own preferences.

[Drich]

In the bible their are a series of promises that God makes to us. If we do X,Y, Z He will do 1,2,3. The full fillment of his promises are the reason we take the bible as the 'gospel' truth.

[Tobie]

In the bible their are a series of promises that God makes to us. If we do X,Y, Z He will do 1,2,3. The full fillment of his promises are the reason we take the bible as the 'gospel' truth.

Despite people believing in what the bible says for millenia, I have yet to see evidence of any fulfillment of promises.

[Michael]

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

Agreed. And that is why it's so dangerous - It's subjective. Tomorrow the 'community' can decide that witch trials are once again a good thing. Just look at what churches are trying to do to gays. I bet there are still plenty of congregations that would readily go out on fag burning crusades. The whole thing is Human inspired whim that never fails to patronize its own preferences.

It's interesting that you mention subjectivity, because for Kierkegaard the existential crisis that promoted his 'leap to faith' occurred when he realised subjectivity is ultimately all we have (everything I know, even reading a scientific gauge, comes to me subjectively); we can never strip out subjectivity. The risk we accept then is grounded on the understanding that we need to embrace subjectivity. The alternative is to stare into nihilism. It seems that Nietzsche and Kierkegaard seemed to reach a common point; but then they each went different ways. I'm with Kierkegaard (natch) whereas others may be with Nietzsche.

[naimless]

cause the burning bush man

the burning bush

[ShaMan]

Agreed. And that is why it's so dangerous - It's subjective.

It's interesting that you mention subjectivity, because for Kierkegaard the existential crises that promoted his 'leap to faith' occurred when he realised subjectivity is ultimately all we have (everything I know, even reading a scientific gauge, comes to me subjectively); we can never strip out subjectivity.

Yes, but the church dares to impose its subjective position onto others as if that position were the only currently valid one, and one to which those others must comply. That's the dangerous part.