My Problem With Biblical Literalism

[Greenday]

But which morals are you trying to pull from the book? Many of the lessons of the Bible, especially the Old Testament are violent and genocidal, and several lessons of the New Testament are misogynistic and hateful.

The ones that can actually apply to our time and which have morals/lessons that we know are good.

Are you suggesting we throw out everything that is negative and focus on the "positive lessons"? And if so, positive from who's point of view? The Religious Right and modern feminists would have differing opinions on what would constitute positive.

I'm suggesting that we just focus on relevant stories. Stories about helping others, standing up for your beliefs, doing the right thing when no one else will. Not lying, cheating, stealing, killing, etc. Things that are commonly good to everyone (who isn't some moron extremist).

[radiocerk]

So, why not just write a new book, without the outdated stuff? Why cling to this particular collection of Bronze Age myths?

[Greenday]

So, why not just write a new book, without the outdated stuff? Why cling to this particular collection of Bronze Age myths?

Because they work.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

So, why not just write a new book, without the outdated stuff? Why cling to this particular collection of Bronze Age myths?

Also most Christians would consider such acts blasphemous. There's a scripture (I believe in the Book of Revelation) that states something like: "No man shall ever add to or remove words from the holy book of the Lord."

"writing a new book" as you put it, would, in the minds of many Christians, go against this teaching.

There are many alternative Bible translations out there that do attempt to "update" Christian beliefs for a modern world, but few of these are widely accepted. An example of one that has gained acceptance is the Message, which is far more descriptive than the standard KJV or NIV.

The ones that are not as well accepted do things like make God gender neutral, provide for acceptance of homosexuality and such.

My conflict has always been this:

The Bible states that Man is imperfect and fallible. The words of the Bible were given by God to the men who wrote them, BUT the English bibles are translations of the original scripts. Translated by men, who we know are imperfect and fallible. Therefore how can I 100% trust the current English translations to be the undiluted, accurate word of God as He intended it to be read?

[Talon]

Following from that base, my logic further informs me that because he was the Son of God and came as our Savior, he was able to do things that most people cannot. Such as miracles. Such as curing the sick, raising the dead, healing the blind, the lame, the leper. It further follows that since he rose and ascended into heaven, and has a vested interest in us, it further follows that he can intercede on our behalf.

Do you claim to find this super-hero-worship productive?

That's exactly what you've made Christ into: a superhero. Superheroes with supernatural powers don't exist, except in comics and fairy tales. If the world is ever to be a better place, it'll be because of the aspirations of ordinary people. Mere flawed mortal men and women, not superheroes.

Even if, for the sake of argument, I accept that Christ did exist, and the rosier writings about him are objectively true, then he was still just a man. Perhaps he was even a great man. But he was not the son of god, not born of a virgin, and not a miracle worker. He was an ordinary man who aspired to extra-ordinary things.

[Andara Bledin]

Even if, for the sake of argument, I accept that Christ did exist, and the rosier writings about him are objectively true, then he was still just a man. Perhaps he was even a great man. But he was not the son of god, not born of a virgin, and not a miracle worker. He was an ordinary man who aspired to extra-ordinary things.

Christ said he was the son of man and pretty much stated that anyone could do the things he did. I figure the greatest difference between him and the rest of us is that while we believe based on faith, and have our own skepticisms, he knew and thus, just did what we all could if we had enough faith in ourselves.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

For 99% of it, does it really matter? If the point of the stories, whether true or false, are to teach the same morals, why does it matter?

It matters because the Bible is what the vast majority of Christians point to in support of their claims about Jesus and/or God. If the Bible is wrong about some things, how do you know it isn't wrong about all things? If the Bible is wrong about things we can verify, such as the size, shape, and age of the Earth, then why should we trust it about things we can't, such as the existence of God?

The ones that can actually apply to our time and which have morals/lessons that we know are good.

So you're saying that you know what's good before hand, and thus can judge (using your own brain) which lessons are good. So, again, I have to ask what makes the Bible so special? Why is it any better than a book of Aesop's fables?

There's a bit of a standing "You got something better? Show me the proof and I'll accept it" rule

Hey, that meshes quite well with my philosophy, too.

Also most Christians would consider such acts blasphemous. There's a scripture (I believe in the Book of Revelation) that states something like: "No man shall ever add to or remove words from the holy book of the Lord."

You must not know your Bible history very well. The Catholic Church has been the biggest editor of the Bible over the course of its history. In 382 CE, the Church gathered up the available manuscripts and picked among them the current cannon. If that's not enough of removing words from the holy book for you, there's also known instances of scribes adding, removing, or modifying words in texts they were transcribing.

The Bible states that Man is imperfect and fallible. The words of the Bible were given by God to the men who wrote them, BUT the English bibles are translations of the original scripts. Translated by men, who we know are imperfect and fallible. Therefore how can I 100% trust the current English translations to be the undiluted, accurate word of God as He intended it to be read?

To be more specific, English Bibles are translations of translations of translations (and there may be a few more iterations in there for some books) of oral tradition told and retold, sometimes over generations before they were written down. That you are doubt the alleged heavenly origins of the Bible is a good sign.

[Andara Bledin]

You must not know your Bible history very well. The Catholic Church has been the biggest editor of the Bible over the course of its history.

What "most Christians" may or may not believe (with Catholics making up notably less than half of all Christians, possibly as little as 25%) has no bearing on how well he knows his Bible history.

^-.-^

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

What "most Christians" may or may not believe (with Catholics making up notably less than half of all Christians, possibly as little as 25%) has no bearing on how well he knows his Bible history.

^-.-^

Very true.

I did some research and dug up the scripture I was referring to:

Revelation 18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

It looks like this particular warning is only in reference to adding or removing words from this particular book of the Bible, BUT I do know many people at my Church who believe the Bible is never to be added to or taken away from.

[Gravekeeper]

Very true.

I did some research and dug up the scripture I was referring to:

It looks like this particular warning is only in reference to adding or removing words from this particular book of the Bible, BUT I do know many people at my Church who believe the Bible is never to be added to or taken away from.

Revelation 22:18-19 to be specific, and yes its just referencing Revelations. Which is the biggest crack trip in the Bible to begin with, as it was written by some dude having "visions" in a time before we had appropriate medication. Or perhaps he was self medicating to begin with.

Adding it to the New Testament was actually really controversal even at the time. It got glued on as a grand finale so the New Testament would have an awesome ending I guess. ;p

[Greenday]

It matters because the Bible is what the vast majority of Christians point to in support of their claims about Jesus and/or God. If the Bible is wrong about some things, how do you know it isn't wrong about all things? If the Bible is wrong about things we can verify, such as the size, shape, and age of the Earth, then why should we trust it about things we can't, such as the existence of God?

Being wrong about one thing isn't automatic proof that it's wrong about everything else.

So you're saying that you know what's good before hand, and thus can judge (using your own brain) which lessons are good. So, again, I have to ask what makes the Bible so special? Why is it any better than a book of Aesop's fables?

It's the universal text used by Christians. That's what makes it special. You can't use different stories to unify one religion. That's like saying that it'd make sense to use different textbooks for a specific class nationwide that teach extremely different facts makes sense.

[Gravekeeper]

Being wrong about one thing isn't automatic proof that it's wrong about everything else.

No, but it is proof it is infalliable and thus cannot be the absolute truth. It makes it subject to reason and logic. Which is where it falls apart from a literal ( and divine ) stand point. The Bible is, like many similar works, a moral teaching tool of stories written by simple human beings based on other morality tales already passed down through generations of oral tradition. Many of which are still relevant, but also many of which are totally irrelevant in the modern world and should not be cited as any sort of fact or truth.

It's the universal text used by Christians. That's what makes it special. You can't use different stories to unify one religion. That's like saying that it'd make sense to use different textbooks for a specific class nationwide that teach extremely different facts makes sense.

The fascinating part about this, is that the Bible itself is not what you could call 100% Christian seeing as many of its tales are lifted from other sources to begin with. Even the story of Jesus's birth is pretty much a whole sale copy of previous stories that date back hundreds of years prior.

Christianity needed to sell itself in a highly competative market back then remember.

[Greenday]

I'm not saying to take the Bible literally word for word. When I entered this conversation, it was being questioned why the Bible is any good at all or whether there is even any truth to it. My point was that there's nothing wrong about the Bible if you don't take every story to be fact. That the majority of the stories can be used to help give people good moral guidance.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm not saying to take the Bible literally word for word. When I entered this conversation, it was being questioned why the Bible is any good at all or whether there is even any truth to it. My point was that there's nothing wrong about the Bible if you don't take every story to be fact. That the majority of the stories can be used to help give people good moral guidance.

There are certainly good lessons in it and they can serve a good purpose. Though I would not look to it as any sort of historical truth. I was more thinking out loud, sorry. The only things I remember from the Bible as I was taught as a child, are the stories that taught morality and they were taught to me as stories. Not as stuff that really happened or stuff I should follow literally.

My first Bible had pictures ( booyah~ ). Sadly no "Jesus riding a Raptor" though. That would have kicked ass. -.-

[Greenday]

My first Bible had pictures ( booyah~ ). Sadly no "Jesus riding a Raptor" though. That would have kicked ass. -.-

My children's version of the Bible is on my bookshelf back home. No raptors in it either