My Problem With Biblical Literalism

[RecoveringKinkoid]

It matters because the Bible is what the vast majority of Christians point to in support of their claims about Jesus and/or God.

So why does that matter to you?

You're not a Christian, and that's fine. However, I'm curious to know why, in your opinion, that matters at all?

[Rapscallion]

I can't speak for Ghel.

For my part, and though I've backed off from it in recent years, I find it very disturbing that people are trying to put forward religious dogma as fact when it can be shown to be ... rather flawed.

Phelps and his gang are pretty much a single-issue set of lunatics, but they're following stuff that's actually in the christian bible.

I don't know how far it's gone, but there are religious elements trying to sieze control of school boards in Texas and thereby being able to dictate what is taught to children in school to further their own agenda. Here is one link I found. Another here. I've not really kept up with developments there, but when a religious side tries to take over how children are educated (and the ones involved aren't just political, but also religious) then you've got to accept that people with opposing viewpoints are going to want their say as well.

To me, the majority of religious messages are nicely wrapped, but the core involves the whole, "Do what the religious leader tells you or you're going to suffer later, though we can't prove it." It's fear-based mass control. From what I recall, the majority of religions tell the faithful to spread the word and bring others under the same umbrella.

I'd far prefer for people to be able to question the claims put forward to them, to be able to say that the claims are either valid or invalid, and that they either accept the religious claims after they've been proved right, or that they're able to reject them.

Rapscallion

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Well, being an Episcopalian from an extremely liberal church, we don't follow that mindset. We're very "live and let live. If what we believe is for you, welcome. If not, please find a place you can call home with our blessing."

I feel absolutely no obligation or urge to convert anyone to my way of thinking. So I'm always baffled when other people try and convert me to theirs (theirs being, usually, that I am wrong.) Bottom line is, I really don't care what other people believe, so why do they care what I believe?

If Phelps and his little band of (what, is it even as many as a hundred?) are Christian, as they claim, then they should be following the New Testament and what Jesus said. Which is essentially "be excellent to each other." They evidently missed that part. Nothing they are doing has anything to do with Christianity.

As for various sects trying to take over public works and government, that has less to do with what they believe and more to do with their being allowed to force their own personal agenda onto something that isn't theirs to control. It hardly matters what that agenda may be. What matters is that our laws need to be immune from that kind of attack.

[Ghel]

So why does that matter to you?

You're not a Christian, and that's fine. However, I'm curious to know why, in your opinion, that matters at all?

Partially, it's what Raps said. Also, at a more fundamental level, I'm interested in knowing the truth about the world I live in. I want to know if the things people tell me really are true, I want to learn a consistent way of figuring out whether the things I'm told are true, and I want to help other people figure out what's true so that they don't get suckered in by lies (whether repeated innocently or knowingly).

See, I have a conversion story, too. (Followed by a deconversion story.) Like several others mentioned on this thread, I had an illustrated children's Bible growing up. When I wasn't reading it, it shared a shelf with Grimm's fairy tales and other books of fairy tales and folk tales. Until I was 12, that's how I viewed it. Then one day, I realized that these stories were (supposed to be) real. I had a paradigm shift. For about 3 years, I was a hardcore believer. Already a geek, I started studying the Bible. I wanted to make sense of what I was reading. But the more I read it, the less sense it made. For a while, I accepted the apologetics that were given to me by my family and church. Then something happened in my personal life that made me realize that God wasn't the all-knowing, all-powerful, prayer-answering being that I was raised to believe he was. I started to question my faith. After about 5 more years of study of the Bible and critiques of the Bible, I finally came to call myself an atheist.

So you see, I feel I was lied to all of my childhood. Some of my family members still lie to me. For example my aunt frequently says things like, "God still loves you, even though you don't know him." I try to be nice about it, especially because her husband's a minister, but trite sayings like that aren't going to convince me. The only thing that will convince me a god exists, at this point, is solid, verifiable evidence. And I wish that other people were skeptical enough to require that kind of evidence, too.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Ghel, I'd be interested in knowing what denomination you were in before your conversion, if you don't mind my asking.

Some Christian denominations are perfectly okay with the contradictions and flat out weird things found in the bible because they have a very different view of what the Bible is. Some are not okay with that and have a real hard time not doing exactly what you just described, which frankly, I totally understand.

[Ghel]

Ghel, I'd be interested in knowing what denomination you were in before your conversion, if you don't mind my asking.

I don't mind at all. I was raised Catholic, but it's not quite that simple. My dad's family was very traditional Catholic. Whenever we visited my paternal grandmother, we went to her church, where mass was still partially in Latin. My mom's family is more liberal - a variety of protestant denominations. The aunt and uncle I referred to above are Lutheran. So there was quite a bit of influence from my mom regarding my religious upbringing.

Both sides of my family tried to explain away contradictions or inconsistencies as "mysteries." I wasn't supposed to understand God's intentions. But that wasn't very satisfying for me. I felt that if I could just research enough, or pray enough, that I would find the answers I wanted. I never did.

[HYHYBT]

Some of my family members still lie to me. For example my aunt frequently says things like, "God still loves you, even though you don't know him." I try to be nice about it, especially because her husband's a minister, but trite sayings like that aren't going to convince me. The only thing that will convince me a god exists, at this point, is solid, verifiable evidence. And I wish that other people were skeptical enough to require that kind of evidence, too.

Unless your aunt knows what she says to be false, then she's NOT lying to you.

Why should other people require the same sort of evidence you do?

But that wasn't very satisfying for me. I felt that if I could just research enough, or pray enough, that I would find the answers I wanted. I never did.

That it wasn't satisfying to you does not make it false, nor does it mean it shouldn't satisfy anyone else.

[Hyena Dandy]

Its not lying. Lying is a conscious act of disinformation. Unless she DOESN'T believe that, and wants to mess with your head, she is not lying. She could be wrong. I do not believe she is. Its not LYING to say something you do not know to be false, and in fact believe to be true. If I believed that the capital of Nevada was Las Vegas, and I told you "The capital of Nevada is Las Vegas," I would not be lying to you. Now if I knew that the capital was Carson City, and I told you the capital was Las Vegas, I would be lying.

And why do you wish other people were skeptical enough to require it? What should it matter to them?

But that wasn't very satisfying for me. I felt that if I could just research enough, or pray enough, that I would find the answers I wanted. I never did.

And maybe she did. Maybe she wanted different answers, or asked different questions. Why should it upset you that people believe something that's not true?

[Rapscallion]

And why do you wish other people were skeptical enough to require it? What should it matter to them?

And maybe she did. Maybe she wanted different answers, or asked different questions. Why should it upset you that people believe something that's not true?

Once again I cannot speak for Ghel.

Why should it matter to other people? Why should it be upsetting that they believe that which is false to be true?

911.

The crusades.

The inquisition.

The Holocaust.

There are many, many more examples.

Sure, in most cases the background is that there were political motivations involved, but the people who did the deeds in question - whether it be religiously based or racial superiority etc - they're the ones who believed what was said and that's why they did some pretty nasty shit.

There are many lower level examples of nasty shit going on. The evangelists who exhort donations from their congregation, mediums who cold read clients to get them to part with cash, and people such as Uri Geller who use standard illusions to make them appear to be extremely powerful. They take money from people. What else is money other than a measure of a person's time given up to allow an exchange of that time for their benefit?

They're taking other peoples' lives. Partly it's because these people are uninformed and haven't been allowed to think for themselves. Partly it's because they're stupid and not able to think for themselves. There have been people who have had hoaxes explained to them and then they're more than happy to continued believing it at all costs. If that's the case, then fine - as long as it hurts nobody else than I'd accept it. If they've not had the chance, then they're having parts of their lives stolen from them.

Rapscallion

[Ghel]

Unless your aunt knows what she says to be false, then she's NOT lying to you.

As I mentioned two posts ago, lies can either be repeated innocently or knowingly. But a falsehood repeated innocently is still a falsehood. As Abraham Lincoln once chided the editor of a Springfield, Illinois newspaper, "It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him."

Why should other people require the same sort of evidence you do?
That it wasn't satisfying to you does not make it false, nor does it mean it shouldn't satisfy anyone else.

I don't like to see people suffer. As Raps described, some of the greatest suffering in history has been perpetrated because of belief in false doctrines.

That it wasn't satisfying to you does not make it false, nor does it mean it shouldn't satisfy anyone else.

The reasons Christians give me for their belief usually fall into one of three categories: arguments from authority (including the Bible), first cause arguments, or arguments from personal experience. None of those should satisfy anyone.

And why do you wish other people were skeptical enough to require it? What should it matter to them?

People tend to be skeptical in most aspects of their lives. For some reason I can't fathom, they make an exception for their religion. I want to encourage people to eliminate that exception.

And maybe she did. Maybe she wanted different answers, or asked different questions. Why should it upset you that people believe something that's not true?

Perhaps my family did ask different questions - questions that presupposed the answer "goddidit." It's possible that they never asked the questions that led them to doubt their faith, like I did. But what answers they desired shouldn't make a difference. If they're honestly looking for the truth, they would follow where the evidence leads. They wouldn't ignore evidence that conflicted with their preconceived worldview. And it does bother me. I worry that, if my family gets taken in by one type of false beliefs, they might get taken in by others. I've heard of scams where the perp set himself up as one of the in-group, praying with the victims, attending church services, and the victims don't recognize the scam until the perp disappears with their money. I don't want to see that happen to anyone.

Granted, I will be more lenient with family or other people I have to deal with in real life. But in a debate (and I shouldn't have to remind anybody that fratching is a debate board), I expect others to hold to the same standards of evidence that I do. And I expect others to hold me to the same.

[Andara Bledin]

As I mentioned two posts ago, lies can either be repeated innocently or knowingly. But a falsehood repeated innocently is still a falsehood.

You keep claiming that you don't know, but then you keep making absolute statements as though you had all the facts at hand.

But you don't actually know that what she said was a falsehood. You believe very strongly that it is. She believes, just as strongly, that it isn't. Your position, ultimately, has no more support than her own.

I don't like to see people suffer. As Raps described, some of the greatest suffering in history has been perpetrated because of belief in false doctrines.

In this, religion is merely a scapegoat, a tool. If there was no religion, the atrocities wouldn't stop - it's all just tribalism of varying flavors, and we have plenty of that without religion. To think that religion is the root cause is naive.

People tend to be skeptical in most aspects of their lives. For some reason I can't fathom, they make an exception for their religion. I want to encourage people to eliminate that exception.

I prefer to encourage people to be less judgmental and kinder.

The idea that being a raging skeptic is appropriate for all people is, again, naive.

^-.-^

[radiocerk]

But in today's society, the two biggest "tribalisms" are nationality and religion. No one gets that worked up over nationality. I've never argued that anyone shouldn't have religion, only that they should be rational about it. And I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. Yes, it does mean your faith has to be able to change, to fit the circumstances. There are places in life where religion fits, but there are a lot more that require thought, evidence, reality.

[Rapscallion]

In this, religion is merely a scapegoat, a tool. If there was no religion, the atrocities wouldn't stop - it's all just tribalism of varying flavors, and we have plenty of that without religion. To think that religion is the root cause is naive.

It's not a scapegoat - it's a tool. The arseholes using it to commit acts of terror or genocide are mostly likely aware that it's probably not true. The ones who do most of the grunt work are usually those who believe every word.

The problem is that it's a tool that humans are regrettably susceptible to.

Rapscallion

[Ghel]

You keep claiming that you don't know, but then you keep making absolute statements as though you had all the facts at hand.

But you don't actually know that what she said was a falsehood. You believe very strongly that it is. She believes, just as strongly, that it isn't. Your position, ultimately, has no more support than her own.

To quote Isaac Asimov, "...when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." To put that in terms related to where this thread started, the view that the Bible is the work of humans without any supernatural influence is much better supported than the view that the Bible is the inspired word of an all-knowing, all-powerful, good God.

In this, religion is merely a scapegoat, a tool. If there was no religion, the atrocities wouldn't stop - it's all just tribalism of varying flavors, and we have plenty of that without religion. To think that religion is the root cause is naive.

Where in that quote did I say I was I talking just about religion? I was talking about any unfounded belief. I was talking just as much about the belief that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the Earth is hollow, or that one "race" is intrinsically superior to another, as I was about religion.

[Andara Bledin]

The problem is that it's a tool that humans are regrettably susceptible to.

It's still not the fault of the tool, it's a fault in the people.

If religion were gone tomorrow, they'd just turn to one of any number of other banners, such as politics, or they'd make up new ones to lead the willing to do their bidding. And there has never been any shortage of those.

^-.-^