My Problem With Biblical Literalism

[Andara Bledin]

It's interesting to see corruption in an organization that claims to make its members moral.

It's inevitable. To think that they could somehow avoid being human is ridiculous. It just seems sadder because of who they are; one would think they would try harder to be otherwise. But the people who rise to power are still the same people who rise to power in every organization, so they face the same trials as regards corruption, greed, and self-interest.

^-.-^

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I'll speak for myself. Like many denominations and individuals, I DON'T believe the Bible is a hundred percent accurate in all it's details. It was written by a bunch of humans, with all their agendas and failures and cultural foibles. The value is not in the details. It's in the message.

Using Aesop's Fables as an example...is it important that a fox tried to eat some grapes or not, or is it important that a foible of the human condition was illustrated and considered?

I consider the Bible to be mostly background, and historical and cultural context. If I am a Christian, then I should be focusing on the teachings of Jesus. So to me, one of the most important part of the Bible is Jesus's Sermon On The Mount.

He used an awful lot of stories and hypothetical anecdotes to make his points. It does not matter how true they are. Just that the point was made.

Why do I not give the Old Testament as much importance? Well, I'm going with what Jesus said, and he said it wasn't all that relevant anymore. Not to say they're aren't good lessons and food for thought there, too. But if something is at odds with the teaching "treat people the way you want to be treated", then I feel like I have The Teacher's blessing to disregard whatever it is that counters that.

Disrespect people by telling them their own spirituality is wrong vs "Treat people the way you want to be treated".....well, I got to go with "Treat people the way you want to be treated"

Walk around judging gay people vs "Treat people the way you want to be treated" Got to stick with "Treat people the way you want to be treated".

Refusing to associate with people because their lifestyle is not "acceptable" vs "Treat people the way you want to be treated"....well, you get the point I'm trying to make.

That little directive covers a LOT of ground.

[HYHYBT]

And if I feel myself getting really angry over it, I just remind myself that it's not supposed to be easy. That was never promised.

I do seem to remember something like "My yoke is easy and my burden light," but still...

If one does not consider the Bible to be 100% accurate, how does one determine which passages are accurate and which passages are false?

Setting aside "false" a bit... more or less the same as for anything else unverifiable. Look for consistencies and overall meaning, try to figure out what the authors intended, leave a healthy dose of not worrying too much over the more bizarre parts (Ezekiel, Revelation, that sort of thing.) One easy example: you can tell Leviticus doesn't apply to us today because it SAYS it's "the law for the Israelites." We are not Israelites; therefore it's not for us. Part of it depends on assumptions: I see no reason whatsoever to assume God does not exist, nor any reason to assume, *if* he does and made the universe we live in, that he *cannot* make exceptions to what we see as the laws of nature if and when he wants. Naturally, if you insist on the opposite then there's not enough left to bother with... but given those rather basic assumptions, it becomes much harder to dismiss the whole thing out of hand. And it makes "is this scientifically possible" mostly irrelevant in deciding whether to believe any particular story on face value. But there's NOT a simple and short answer, nor is the reason going to be the same for everybody... nor is there any reason to expect there to be, or to assume that the lack of a simple answer means the whole thing is false, should be assumed to be false, or must be taken whole or not at all.

If one believes that some portions of the Bible no longer apply in a modern age, why should one believe that any portions of the Bible still apply?

Put that the other way around: why would one part's not applying *automatically* mean none of the rest does? It's a standard you wouldn't likely try applying everywhere. For example (and I know it's not a great one) you'll sometimes see lists of old laws which are still on the books, but are obsolete and would never be enforced; more than that, cannot be. If someone arrested you for not hiring someone to walk in front of your car waving a lantern and warning people to get out of the way, the judge would not be amused, but it's still on the books *somewhere.* Or take hand signals for turning and stopping. I don't think I've *ever* seen them used in real life. Modern cars not only don't need them, but also *block* those who would need to see them from doing so, and a lot of people wouldn't know what they meant (certainly not in time) if they saw them. They're obsolete, not because the rule has changed, but because times have changed and situations that call for them don't come up anymore. But again, most of what falls into the category of Biblical rules that don't apply was specifically and explicitly for a certain people, and we're not them.

Since some portions of the Bible are demonstrably false, why should we trust it on the portions which cannot be proved or disproved?

It's not a matter of black-and-white, true or false in the first place, nor is the Bible a single work. Different parts have different purposes (and, for that matter, different levels of importance). Why, then, *should* they all be treated otherwise? Why, for example, would all evidence pointing to the nonexistence of a universal flood mean the book of Acts is fiction?

[RecoveringKinkoid]

"Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you." 1 John 3:13

I do seem to remember something like "My yoke is easy and my burden light," but still...

A yoke is still a yoke.

[Ghel]

...I see no reason whatsoever to assume God does not exist...

Do you think, if you didn't presuppose that God exists, that you would still be able to come to the conclusion that God exists? Do you think you can take the circular part out of this circular argument?

If we cannot get past this one point, the rest of the discussion is moot.

It's not a matter of black-and-white, true or false in the first place, nor is the Bible a single work. Different parts have different purposes (and, for that matter, different levels of importance). Why, then, *should* they all be treated otherwise? Why, for example, would all evidence pointing to the nonexistence of a universal flood mean the book of Acts is fiction?

That some parts of the Bible are clearly false (including, but not limited to, Noah's flood, as you mention) casts doubt on the rest of the Bible. Why would a being worthy of being called "God" tell us such false and often destructive things?

I consider the Bible to be mostly background, and historical and cultural context. If I am a Christian, then I should be focusing on the teachings of Jesus. So to me, one of the most important part of the Bible is Jesus's Sermon On The Mount.

I could do a whole thread just on the Sermon on the Mount. It has some good advice, sure, but it also has a lot of bad advice. The good advice that it contains isn't anything better than was already known at the time. Certainly nothing that would suggest it came from a being worthy of being called God.

He used an awful lot of stories and hypothetical anecdotes to make his points. It does not matter how true they are. Just that the point was made.

Does it matter to you whether Jesus actually existed? Does it matter whether Jesus was the son of God (or was God)?

The reason I ask is because these things can't be demonstrated by the Bible alone. One would need to have extra-Biblical evidence of a God's existence in order to be able to demonstrate his existence.

...well, I got to go with "Treat people the way you want to be treated"

That's really interesting, considering that the concept of the Golden Rule predates the story of Jesus by at least 6 centuries, and did not originate with either Christianity or Judaism.

[HYHYBT]

Do you think, if you didn't presuppose that God exists, that you would still be able to come to the conclusion that God exists? Do you think you can take the circular part out of this circular argument?

There is a difference between presupposing God exists and *not* presupposing that he does not exist.

[Gravekeeper]

That some parts of the Bible are clearly false (including, but not limited to, Noah's flood, as you mention) casts doubt on the rest of the Bible.

Ehh, minor point here. But you keep arguing as if the Bible is a singular whole. Remember its a collection of different accounts by different authors that was compiled into a singular volume. I'm not saying its gospel truth or anything, only that you can't accept nor dismiss the whole like that. Something false would cast doubt on the rest of the work by that particular author, not the body of work itself. You'd have to examine it author by author. Which is actually where things get interesting, as different authors obviously had differing views on the same events if not outright disagreed with each other.

Its obvious they had different opinions on who and even what Jesus was for example.

[Hyena Dandy]

as different authors obviously had differing views on the same events if not outright disagreed with each other.

And in one case, a book switches from Hebrew to Aramaic halfway through. What does that mean?

No fucking clue. But its good to bring up if someone argues the Bible is all one single work.

[Gravekeeper]

And in one case, a book switches from Hebrew to Aramaic halfway through. What does that mean?

That someone ended up face down in a ditch over an argument in the fanfic community. >.>

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I am so going to hell for laughing as hard as I did over that.

[Ghel]

There is a difference between presupposing God exists and *not* presupposing that he does not exist.

The double negative is hurting my brain. What does it mean to presuppose that a thing does not exist? Further, what does it mean to *not* presuppose that a thing does not exist?

The default position when someone claims that something exists is skepticism, i.e. "Prove it." That doesn't mean the listener is presupposing that the thing does not exist.

Ehh, minor point here. But you keep arguing as if the Bible is a singular whole. Remember its a collection of different accounts by different authors that was compiled into a singular volume. I'm not saying its gospel truth or anything, only that you can't accept nor dismiss the whole like that. Something false would cast doubt on the rest of the work by that particular author, not the body of work itself. You'd have to examine it author by author. Which is actually where things get interesting, as different authors obviously had differing views on the same events if not outright disagreed with each other.

Its obvious they had different opinions on who and even what Jesus was for example.

That would be a valid point, except that Christians tend to say that the Bible is (at minimum) inspired by a very knowlegable, very powerful God. If God has the ability to create the universe, why can he not create an error-free document that explains his instructions in a way that every human being that can understand them? (Or even modify the existing documents to correct such errors and update them for modern society?) I've mentioned before (though maybe not on this thread) that if there really were a being worthy of being called God, I would expect every person who read the Bible to reach the same conclusions, to interpret it the same way, to believe the same things. This is clearly not the case, which means that either the Christian God doesn't exist or he's incompetent.

However, you're right that if we're looking at the Bible as we would any other historical document, with the understanding that it was written by humans without any divine intervention, that we would expect to see errors and contradictions.

[Andara Bledin]

I am so going to hell for laughing as hard as I did over that.

You and me both, Rk.

The double negative is hurting my brain. What does it mean to presuppose that a thing does not exist? Further, what does it mean to *not* presuppose that a thing does not exist?

It means precisely what it sounds like it means.

Hy is stating that there is a difference between assuming A is true and not assuming A is false.

That would be a valid point, except that Christians tend to say that the Bible is (at minimum) inspired by a very knowlegable, very powerful God.

*sigh*

It's the same answer today as it was yesterday and last week and last month, and will be the same answer the next time it gets asked: Free will.

Freedom comes with a lot of responsibility and leaves a lot of ways for people to screw up. The other alternative is a life in chains, and when it comes to that, what the fuck's the point?

However, you're right that if we're looking at the Bible as we would any other historical document, with the understanding that it was written by humans without any divine intervention, that we would expect to see errors and contradictions.

Divine intervention is irrelevant the moment you introduce humans. You can't handwave humanity into perfection just because someone at the beginning of the telephone chain wasn't the same.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

I am so going to hell for laughing as hard as I did over that.

Yeah, make room in that handbasket for me. :P

The double negative is hurting my brain. What does it mean to presuppose that a thing does not exist? Further, what does it mean to *not* presuppose that a thing does not exist?

To presuppose that a thing does not exist means to come to the dance, as it were, assuming its true and demanding to be proven wrong.

To not presuppose that a thing does not exist means to not come thinking it DOESN'T. As opposed to coming thinking it does, or that it doesn't. To come 'neutrally' as it were.

[HYHYBT]

How then, Ghel, would *you* describe a default position of "maybe?" Neither belief nor active disbelief (what you call "skepticism"?), but remaining open, in the absence of hard evidence either way, to the possibility that either way might be correct? A NEUTRAL default position?

[Gravekeeper]

That would be a valid point, except that Christians tend to say that the Bible is (at minimum) inspired by a very knowlegable, very powerful God.

I'm not Christian though so I view it as a historical document written by grubby, falliable humans. >.>

This is clearly not the case, which means that either the Christian God doesn't exist or he's incompetent.

The former is more likely ( though I would say the Christian viewpoint on "God" rather than "Christian God" ). A being of that level would not be incompenent. Else we'd have never made it to this point after he accidently bumped us into Jupiter when he was getting a beer out of the fridge.

I do not believe it is possible to form a complete viewpoint using a singular religion or belief system. The very nature of humanity dicates this is impossible. No one's view of divinity or the universe is correct, but nor is anyone's completely wrong either. If something indeed exists, and on some level, humans have sensed or percieved it now or in the past, then a 1000 people would walk away with 1000 different opinions of what it is. That's simply how we work.

If indeed nothing exists, than humanity's biological predisposition towards believing something does is a rather ironic joke of evolution.

It's the same answer today as it was yesterday and last week and last month, and will be the same answer the next time it gets asked: Free will.

I can see why Ghel would see that answer as insufficient. Because it is, frankly. If you're saying that the viewpoint that the Bible is divinely inspired, but simply fucked up by people as we have free will and are dicks, that does not answer the question of why there hasn't been rumedial classes. It is illogical for a being on the level of the Christian God, with the Christian God's motivations to just go "You know what? Fuck it" and walk away from the table.

Especially after trying to lay down some ground rules for a bunch of unwashed monkeys in a time period where communications technology was limited to quill and paper ( if you were lucky ). Nevermind the fact it was a period in history when countries and cultures really didn't give a rats ass about talking with or playing nice with others either.

That would be incompetent.