What parts of the bible do you perceive to be literally true?

magma69

Hey all.

It's a question probably asked already but I do not frequent this forum too often. But what particular parts of the bible do you consider to be true and what parts do you consider to be metaphorical.

As an agnostic/atheist myself, I just find it strange how some Christians can see parts of it to be undoubtedly true but perceive other parts to be taken in the metaphorical sense. This to me is flawed because if they can accept parts of it did not literally happen, then how come they can't perceive it all in the metaphorical sense. What reason is there to believe parts are literal truth whilst others are not?

Thanks to those who reply.

KamiKazi

None.

magma69

KamiKazi wrote: »

None.

Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

Fanny Cradock

No, he considers himself to be a troll. Give that this is your second attempt to cause trouble in the last couple of hours, I suggest that you lay off the quips.

KamiKazi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, he considers himself to be a troll. Give that this is your second attempt to cause trouble in the last couple of hours, I suggest that you lay off the quips.

He asked a question, I answered.

thierrym

Personally I think the bible is a legend or a fairy tale and none of it is true. I hope i am not upsetting anyone in saying that. it is my opinion.

Fanny Cradock

I'm going to try a different approach. Listen, given you past history here the intent of your post is clear.

So I'm going to ask you nicely to be nice. OK?

Max Power1

KamiKazi wrote: »

None.

+1

also how can one part of a document be "totally and factually accurate" and others not?

tuxy

How can any record of something that has happened in the past be totally factual? History is written by men and then it's only that persons perception of events.

Fanny Cradock

magma69, are you looking for the opinions of Christians or atheists? If it's the latter might I suggest the A&A forum (though I suspect there wont be much variation in the opinions expressed).

magma69

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

magma69, are you looking for the opinions of Christians or atheists? If it's the latter might I suggest the A&A forum (though I suspect there wont be much variation in the opinions expressed).

From Christians, that is why I posted in here. I'm not trying to stir **** or be disrespectful.

I would imagine most Christians on here are not creationists and I'd just like to discuss how they interpret the bible? If atheists jump in with snide comments. That is surely not my fault.

Fanny Cradock

magma69 wrote: »

From Christians, that is why I posted in here. I'm not trying to stir **** or be disrespectful.

I would imagine most Christians on here are not creationists and I'd just like to discuss how they interpret the bible? If atheists jump in with snide comments. That is surely not my fault.

No, it's not your fault. Didn't mean to imply that it was.

OK, folks, we now have the grounds for the discussion. Let's stick to it.

krudler

For me its always been the main reason I'm a non believer, how some are the absolute truth, the resurrection, virgin birth, all that stuff. But the noahs ark, talking snake stuff, ask a lot of christians and they'll tell you thats only a moral story and not to be taken literally. well why is all the other stuff supposed to? it was written sometimes hundreds of years after the fact (in the loosest sense of the word) so why is outrageous tale #1 true and outrageous tale #2 just a story?

JimiTime

magma69 wrote: »

Hey all.

It's a question probably asked already but I do not frequent this forum too often. But what particular parts of the bible do you consider to be true and what parts do you consider to be metaphorical.

The 'Bible' is not one continuous book. It is a collection of books and letters from a multitude of authors. Some of the accounts are clearly intented to be historical narrative (Twelve tribes of Israel etc), and others are clearly methephor (Revelation).

Sometimes, its not so clear. Our duty as Christians in such rare circumstances is to be honest in our analysis and use our discernment.

As an agnostic/atheist myself, I just find it strange how some Christians can see parts of it to be undoubtedly true but perceive other parts to be taken in the metaphorical sense.

Compare the account of Jacob, to the book of Revelation. Is it still confusing that one is historical narrative, and the other metephorical prophetic language?

Its confusing that anyone would think that the bible has to be either one or the other.

This to me is flawed because if they can accept parts of it did not literally happen, then how come they can't perceive it all in the metaphorical sense. What reason is there to believe parts are literal truth whilst others are not?

Simple answer is, some of the books use methephor, and some use simple narrative. Its self explainitory in most cases. A simple rule of thumb is, 'What was the writer communicating?'.

This whole idea of it should be one or the other is a faulty premise. Even books that have only one author with only one story can use narrative and metephor.

antiskeptic

magma69 wrote: »

Hey all.

It's a question probably asked already but I do not frequent this forum too often. But what particular parts of the bible do you consider to be true and what parts do you consider to be metaphorical.

As an agnostic/atheist myself, I just find it strange how some Christians can see parts of it to be undoubtedly true but perceive other parts to be taken in the metaphorical sense. This to me is flawed because if they can accept parts of it did not literally happen, then how come they can't perceive it all in the metaphorical sense. What reason is there to believe parts are literal truth whilst others are not?

Thanks to those who reply.

Supposing I were to give you account of a recent visit to my sisters during which time I told my niece and nephew a bedtime story. You would, no doubt be able to tell the bits of the account that were literal ("I arrived up at my sisters at 3 o'clock in the afternoon") and which parts were not ("...once upon a time...")

The way in which you decide which bits are literal and which not are derived from the context of the account. And so we can tell that Jesus doesn't mean he is a literal lightbulb when he says "I am the light".

For myself, the Bible takes on the format of a jigsaw puzzle - with certain segments assembled and clear and joined in places to other segments which too as assembled and clear. What is literal/methaphorical can be decided upon (at least provisionally) by examining how well this new piece fits into the existing puzzle. If, for example, one finds a literal Flood fits the overall scheme better than a metaphorical one then a literal take is to be preferred - quite aside from what the current view of science might be.

krudler

antiskeptic wrote: »

Supposing I were to give you account of a recent visit to my sisters during which time I told my niece and nephew a bedtime story. You would, no doubt be able to tell the bits of the account that were literal ("I arrived up at my sisters at 3 o'clock in the afternoon") and which parts were not ("...once upon a time...")

The way in which you decide which bits are literal and which not are derived from the context of the account. And so we can tell that Jesus doesn't mean he is a literal lightbulb when he says "I am the light".

so when it says the world was created in a week, thats literally what happened? if not then why not write "over the course of a few billlion years the world was created into what we know now" not "god worked for 6 days then rested, union regulations"

antiskeptic

krudler wrote: »

so when it says the world was created in a week, thats literally what happened?

Why not? I see no particular requirement to harmonise the Bible with what science says is the case. If that were so, I'd have to suppose all the trouble in the world a result of all the reasons the sciences say there is so much trouble in the world - rather than why the Bible says there is so much trouble in the world (sin).

Fanny Cradock

Magma69, there isn't an easy answer to your question. You have to remember that as a series of text (texts of text even) any analysis of the intention of the may not be immediately apparent to a contemporary audience. 3000 years is a long time and meaning (even in what would have been rather self evident colloquial terms) can often not obvious to us here and now.

By way of answering your overall question, you might find this talk from Revd Dr Ernest Lucas interesting as to why many Christians view an often contentious part of the Bible - Genesis creation accounts (Gen 1 - 3) - as a metaphorical account rather than a scientific explanation.

You can tease this analysis out over other areas of the bible to try and determine what where the author's intentions. The disciplines of exegesis and hermeneutics are useful in trying to address these questions.

mdebets

antiskeptic wrote: »

The way in which you decide which bits are literal and which not are derived from the context of the account.

Not only that, but also in the context of who wrote it and for whom.
That's always important to keep in mind when trying to decide what is a historic narrative and what is not. The Bible wasn't written for 21st century Western European people, but for Bronze/Iron Age people in the Middle East. So you cant really apply modern standards to these texts.

dlofnep

I'm an atheist, but I believe that alot of what was written occured, and alot of it was total nonsense. I believe a man called Jesus existed, and that he was a good man - and that many of the tales of his travels were probably true. But as an atheist, I obviously cannot take some of the more extravagant stories to be true.

antiskeptic

mdebets wrote: »

Not only that, but also in the context of who wrote it and for whom.
That's always important to keep in mind when trying to decide what is a historic narrative and what is not. The Bible wasn't written for 21st century Western European people, but for Bronze/Iron Age people in the Middle East. So you cant really apply modern standards to these texts.

This needn't be strictly true (although I take your point).

If it is the case that the Bible is God's word and intended to be understood primarily by God's people at all times then those in the modern era who are of God's people would be in a better position to discern than those in the era in which a particular book of the Bible was written.

For example: many folk 2000 years ago would have as much trouble accepting as true the (then contemporary) accounts of Jesus' miracles, as many people would today.

antiskeptic

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm an atheist, but I believe that alot of what was written occured, and alot of it was total nonsense. I believe a man called Jesus existed, and that he was a good man - and that many of the tales of his travels were probably true. But as an atheist, I obviously cannot take some of the more extravagant stories to be true.

What's extravagant about God turning water into wine?

mdebets

krudler wrote: »

so when it says the world was created in a week, thats literally what happened?

That's depend on how you define a week.

krudler wrote: »

if not then why not write "over the course of a few billlion years the world was created into what we know now" not "god worked for 6 days then rested, union regulations"

Because the original audience would not have understand this. Instead it was phrased in a language they could understand and comprehend.
I would see it similar to ways you try to explain things today to children, or to people who are not experts in a field. If you try to explain gravity for example to someone who doesn't know anything about physics, you propably wouldn't start talking about Geeneral Relativity or Quantum Mehcanics, instead you would talk about that objects with mass atract each other.

Said all that, if you look at the 6 day accounts and compare it with what science has detected about the order from creation of the sun and earth to the appearance of man, the order of both seems to fit very well, with the 6 day account obvious being a very dumped down version.

dlofnep

antiskeptic wrote: »

What's extravagant about God turning water into wine?

Nothing, if such an entity existed.

I don't believe one exists.

Fanny Cradock

antiskeptic, I would be interested in hearing what you think of the talk I linked to above. While Wolfsbane was unimpressed, I was quite enthused by the whole thing.

mdebets

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

antiskeptic, I would be interested in hearing what you think of the talk I linked to above. While Wolfsbane was unimpressed, I was quite enthused by the whole thing.

I would be interested in hearing it, but I don't really have the time at the moment. Is there a summary somewhere or a transcript?

KamiKazi

antiskeptic wrote: »

What's extravagant about God turning water into wine?

The whole zombie Jesus episode is a bit of a stretch though.

mdebets

antiskeptic wrote: »

This needn't be strictly true (although I take your point).

If it is the case that the Bible is God's word and intended to be understood primarily by God's people at all times then those in the modern era who are of God's people would be in a better position to discern than those in the era in which a particular book of the Bible was written.

But even that would mean that you need to interpret the text. You need to know the context of original writer and reader and then apply this to your current situation. Otherwise, you could not incorporate new developments that weren't mentioned in the Bible (e.g. is downloading a film from the internet morally ok, as it doesn't say in the Bible "Thou shall not downloading films from the Internet without paying" or is it not ok, as it is a form of stealing).

antiskeptic wrote: »

For example: many folk 2000 years ago would have as much trouble accepting as true the (then contemporary) accounts of Jesus' miracles, as many people would today.

That's a different problem, which is even harder to investigate what people in the past really thought.

Fanny Cradock

mdebets wrote: »

I would be interested in hearing it, but I don't really have the time at the moment. Is there a summary somewhere or a transcript?

Yeah. It goes as following: "I'm right and creationists are wrong." Boom Boom!

I can't find any synopsis - all I can find is this transcript from a previous talk on the same topic and perhaps this article (I haven't read it myself). If you are looking for more you can always read his book Can We Believe Genesis Today?. I'm awaiting delivery, so perhaps I'll write a brief review if I get around to it.

Fanny Cradock

KamiKazi wrote: »

The whole zombie Jesus episode is a bit of a stretch though.

You got your wish. For consistent trolling and ignoring a request to stop messing you get banned for a week.

PDN

magma69 wrote: »

As an agnostic/atheist myself, I just find it strange how some Christians can see parts of it to be undoubtedly true but perceive other parts to be taken in the metaphorical sense. This to me is flawed because if they can accept parts of it did not literally happen, then how come they can't perceive it all in the metaphorical sense. What reason is there to believe parts are literal truth whilst others are not?

Thanks to those who reply.

Sorry, I couldn't answer this earlier, but I went out to lunch with my family and the drive to the restaurant took longer than expected because it was raining cats and dogs. Nevertheless, we decided to persevere since we hadn't had a meal altogether like that since my uncle kicked the bucket last year.

The food was excellent. I had Chicken Alfredo. But I think my eyes were bigger than my belly, so now I'm going to have to put my feet up for a while.

Now, you probably read the above two paragraphs and instantly recognised that some phrases were meant to be taken literally while others were meant to be taken metaphorically.

For example, I ate a literal lunch with my literal family. And it was literally raining. Also, the Chicken Alfredo was certainly literal.

However, cats and dogs were not literally falling from the sky. Nor are my eyes literally bigger than my belly (me being rather rotund, that would be a big set of eyes indeed). And, I hope you guessed, my uncle didn't actually kick a literal bucket - he just plain died.

In fact, the only phrase in my wee story that you might be in doubt about would be my reference to putting my feet up. Is that literal, or just an expression that means taking a rest. But if I were to give you a little bit of personal information, such as the fact that I own a very comfortable leather electronic recliner, then you'll probaly understand that i really do have me feet 'up'.

Now, if you were one of the more humorless and pedantic atheists, you might accuse me of not speaking clearly because I used the odd metaphor there. But, I give you credit for being intelligent enough to be able to put one foot in front of the other while you're walking - so you're probably also intelligent enough to discern my metaphors from my literalness.

In fact, my job demands that I have to be a bit picturesque in my speech. After all, every Sunday I get paid to talk for 30 minutes+ to a crowd of 800 people without any of them dropping off (you do understand that 'dropping off' is a metaphor for falling asleep - don't you?)

So, we all live comfortablty every day with the process of both giving and receiving communication in language that mixes both metaphor and literal speech.

Now imagine you were living 2000 years in the future, but still had some knowledge of what Ireland was like in 2010. Imagine you also speak another European language and so need my two paragraphs to be translated into your own language (the kind of cultural, chronological and linguistic distance that separates us from the Gospel writers). You would probably still discern most of the metaphors.

But now imagine you are living 3500 years in the future, in a vastly different culture, and with a language from another linguistic group altogether. The Ireland of 2010, from the little you know of it, seems like a strange and frightening place. Now you read my two paragraphs and, even with the help of a translation, it is much harder to discern what is metaphor and what isn't. That is the kind of cultural, chronological, and linguistic distance that lies between us and the guys who wrote Genesis.

And that is why we generally read the New Testament and instantly understand the difference between Christ's commands and His parables (unless, of course, we are one of those atheist trolls who tries to pretend that Christ ordered His disciples to chop people into pieces).

However, when we read the Old Testament, particularly the early books, we have a much greater need for scholars with a knowledge of Semitic language and ANE culture who can help us discern the original intent of the authors.

8kvscdpglqnyr4

It seems easier to me to talk about the Old Testament and say parts of it are metaphorical. What about the NT?
For exampl, just wondering if Christians here take Matthew 27:52-53 to be literal?

"The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people."

If it is literal and did happen, then surely the other authors should have mentioned it? It seems strange that they'd leave out such an event!

PDN

Greta Numerous Bed wrote: »

It seems easier to me to talk about the Old Testament and say parts of it are metaphorical. What about the NT?
For exampl, just wondering if Christians here take Matthew 27:52-53 to be literal?

"The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people."

If it is literal and did happen, then surely the other authors should have mentioned it? It seems strange that they'd leave out such an event!

Our knowledge of how people used language would indicate very strongly that the author of Matthew intended us to take that literally.

If all four Gospels contained exactly the same material then there would only be one of them, not four of them. Each Gospel writer selected those events that would be especially significant for his intended audience. Matthew was writing to Jews, so people being raised from the dead would communicate to them very effectively the fact that Jesus was the promised Messiah. However, such an event would have no such import to the Romans (Mark's audience) or to a Gentile called Theophilus (Luke's audience).

8kvscdpglqnyr4

Thanks for the information PDN - I appreciate it! I don't want to go off topic as to why the other gospels didn't include the passage so I'll end that discussion now.

So back on topic - what parts of the bible do you perceive to be literally true?

PDN wrote: »

Our knowledge of how people used language would indicate very strongly that the author of Matthew intended us to take that literally.

So the author of Matthew intends us to take it literally. PDN, do you take it literally?

Also, do other Christian posters here take it literally?

PDN

Greta Numerous Bed wrote: »

Thanks for the information PDN - I appreciate it! I don't want to go off topic as to why the other gospels didn't include the passage so I'll end that discussion now.

So back on topic - what parts of the bible do you perceive to be literally true?

Now you're asking two distinct questions (or at least you should be!)

The first question should be, "Which parts of the Bible did the original authors intend their readers to understand literally?". This is what we call 'exegesis' and we need to try to be as objective as possible - not just choosing those interpretations that suit our beliefs the best. Of course total objectivity is virtually impossible, all of us tend to be subjective to at least some degree, but that doesn't excuse us from trying.

The next question is, "Once I see what the intent of the authors was - how should I interpret that today?" This is what we call 'hermeneutics'.

At the risk of over-simplifying this, exegesis is about what the Bible meant 'there and then' - whereas hermeneutics is what it means 'here and now'. So, exegesis tells me that the Israelites were expected to help their neighbour if his donkey fell in a pit. Hermeneutics tells me that translates into my terms by telling me that I should help my neighbour if I see him trying to push-start his broken down car again.

My rough rule of thumb is that if the biblical authors intended something to be understood literally, then I should probably interpret it literally too.

So the author of Matthew intends us to take it literally. PDN, do you take it literally?

The bit about people getting out of their graves and walking about? Yes, I take it literally. To treat it as a metaphor would be to do violence to everything I know of the Greek language and of forms of literature in the First Century.

Also, do other Christian posters here take it literally?

I can't answer that on their behalf. We tend to be an independent minded bunch round here - a bit like herding cats sometimes.

Memnoch

Here's the problem I have...

Over the course of time, the parts of the bible that are meant to be taken literally and the parts that are "open to interpretation" have changed. These changes seem to be in line with prevailing public sentiment, and when it seems that the Church's power or position in the general public's opinion is at risk.

History clearly outlines these struggles that continually take place as our knowledge and understanding of the universe grow and conflict with established dogma.

The Earth was the centre of the universe. People we're severely punished, even murdered for challenging this assumption. It was contrary to the divine word of god. Now we have people trying to re-write history and somehow pretend that actually the Church never took such a stance to begin with. Which falls perfectly in line with the pattern of disingenious actions of the church and denials of past wrong doings (Clerical child abuse is also a great example of this.)

Eventually the weight of scientific evidence became so overwhelming that the church would look idiotic if it stuck to it's motto.

Then there was the little hulabloo over the Earth being a sphere, and not flat as the bible believed it to be.

Today, the same arguments are taking place, this time, over homosexuality. As homosexuality gains support in society and becomes more acceptable and tolerated, the Church once again finds its doctrine at odds with public opinion, so it has to chose, either adapt, and change what IT declared to be the infallible word of god YET AGAIN, or lose followers. So the battle is waged, there are splits, and eventually the modernists within the Christianity will triumph.

100 years from now, maybe sooner, people will look back at Christianity's stance on homosexuality the same way we look at the issue of the Earth being the centre of the universe.

Maybe there is a god, and maybe he created the universe and us along with it, but the Church's own actions and repeated backtracking over what it considers the "INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD" is ample enough evidence to me that the Bible is wholly man made.

When you think logically about it, it's quite obvious. When they wrote the bible, they thought they earth WAS flat, and it WAS the centre of the universe. This was perfectly in line with the limited scientific opinion of the day. There's a reason that there's NOTHING in the bible about smoking cigarettes filled with tar (they didn't exist back then and weren't known to cause cancer).

The text of the bible itself is ultimate proof of it's human origin.

The "pure" christians, or what we refer to as "bible bashers" know this. To them the bible is the word of god, and if god is omniscient he cannot be shown to be wrong about a single thing. Which is why they insist that carbon dating is flawed and the flood really happened and the moon landings are a hoax and that evolution doesn't really make sense etc. etc. etc.

While the intelligent and practicalists have done what they've always done, adapt, deny, move on and pretend it never happened.

Makes you wonder who the true Christians are and who redefine faith in order to suit themselves.

krudler

mdebets wrote: »

Not only that, but also in the context of who wrote it and for whom.
That's always important to keep in mind when trying to decide what is a historic narrative and what is not. The Bible wasn't written for 21st century Western European people, but for Bronze/Iron Age people in the Middle East. So you cant really apply modern standards to these texts.

Bingo, making it irrevelant to modern culture, we dont live in huts afraid of the sun and thinking a vengeful god will smite our shenanigans (well most of us dont) it was written for simpler people in simpler times, we've evolved in our thinking to know the majority of whats in there is baloney, but the nice get out clause where it can be reinterpreted to modern thinking is just a copout imo.

" 6 days didnt literally mean 6 days, it was cos people were stupider back then" is just a cop out answer, if its gods word then god should have either:

A. explained it in simple,rational terms that didnt leave room for petty arguing and new interpretations 2000 years after it was written.
or
B. Made us smarter to begin with instead of sitting back and chuckling while we feared the unknown and used this book of moral tales to blunder our way through history until we discovered a few things for ourselves.


The Life of Brian really nailed this aspect of the bible, "blessed are the cheesemakers?!"

krudler

100 years from now, maybe sooner, people will look back at Christianity's stance on homosexuality the same way we look at the issue of the Earth being the centre of the universe.

Indeed, the same way we know that there isnt a god called Atlas holding up the world, and that Poseidon doesnt cause tidal waves.

PDN

Memnoch wrote: »

Eventually the weight of scientific evidence became so overwhelming that the church would look idiotic if it stuck to it's motto.

Then there was the little hulabloo over the Earth being a sphere, and not flat as the bible believed it to be.

It strikes me that there's more than a hint here of "damned if we do and damned if we don't". If Christians don't adapt to what they perceive to be true in other areas then they are accused of being anti-scientific. If they do adapt then we get this kind of criticism.

The fact is, in any area of life, we interpret the same events differently according to our worldview. And, as that view changes, our interpretation is bound to change.

Before Einstein, scientists interpreted physical phenomena largely according to a Newtownian model. Then they adopted a new model, so their interpretations of those phenomena changed. They were not being dishonest - nor had the phenomena themselves changed - but we all try to interpret stuff in a way that is internally consistent and coherent (at least, we do so unless we're hopelessly lost in postmodern subjectivity where we happ[ily believe contradictions).

We do the same thing in how we interpret relationships. If you see your girlfriend kissing another guy and she tells you that he's her step-brother who she forgot to mention before - your interpretation will vary depending on your existing knowledge of your girlfriend and how long you have known her etc. And, in time, as your knowledge of her changes then your interpretation of that kiss might well change too!

I think it entirely reasonable that Christians should seek to understand their faith, and that includes their interpretation of the Bible, in ways that make sense to them.

Today, the same arguments are taking place, this time, over homosexuality. As homosexuality gains support in society and becomes more acceptable and tolerated, the Church once again finds its doctrine at odds with public opinion, so it has to chose, either adapt, and change what IT declared to be the infallible word of god YET AGAIN, or lose followers. So the battle is waged, there are splits, and eventually the modernists within the Christianity will triumph.

The big difference here is that the opposite is happening. Churches that reaffirm the New Testament teaching on homosexuality tend to be the ones that are experiencing massive growth, whereas those that have changed that position appear to be in terminal decline.

Maybe there is a god, and maybe he created the universe and us along with it, but the Church's own actions and repeated backtracking over what it considers the "INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD" is ample enough evidence to me that the Bible is wholly man made.

When you think logically about it,

I'm afraid you're not thinking logically about it.

In logical terms, the fact that people change their opinion about what X actually means does not alter the inherent truthfulness or not of X.

Damned logic, eh? Gets you every time.

Memnoch

krudler wrote: »

Indeed, the same way we know that there isnt a god called Atlas holding up the world, and that Poseidon doesnt cause tidal waves.

Well, I think more relevantly, look at the whole thing of child abuse. Right now, in Ireland, it DEFINES how many people see Christianity. Because of the scale and obvious horror of it.

But if we look back at times where Heretics were excommunicated and burnt at the stake, and the literal witch hunts, do we feel the same sense of horror or revulsion? No. It is merely another footnote in history. Just events that happened and that we shouldn't hold against the modern church of today. We seem to find them silly or amusing.

How people fail to see the pattern repeating itself time and time again of a corrupt and power hungry political organisation really astounds me.

In 50 years time, will the world talk about clerical child abuse the same way? Sure it was a few bad eggs. Sure they didn't know any better. I don't think we will in Ireland, it will take much longer to forget here.

But the necessity of faith will bury it in time, just as it has done every other scandal and dark deed of the Church's past. Why else do people continue to take the word of an organisation that has been discredited time and time again?

JimiTime

Memnoch wrote: »

Here's the problem I have...

Over the course of time, the parts of the bible that are meant to be taken literally and the parts that are "open to interpretation" have changed. These changes seem to be in line with prevailing public sentiment, and when it seems that the Church's power or position in the general public's opinion is at risk.

History clearly outlines these struggles that continually take place as our knowledge and understanding of the universe grow and conflict with established dogma.

The Earth was the centre of the universe. People we're severely punished, even murdered for challenging this assumption. It was contrary to the divine word of god. Now we have people trying to re-write history and somehow pretend that actually the Church never took such a stance to begin with. Which falls perfectly in line with the pattern of disingenious actions of the church and denials of past wrong doings (Clerical child abuse is also a great example of this.)

Eventually the weight of scientific evidence became so overwhelming that the church would look idiotic if it stuck to it's motto.

Then there was the little hulabloo over the Earth being a sphere, and not flat as the bible believed it to be.

Today, the same arguments are taking place, this time, over homosexuality. As homosexuality gains support in society and becomes more acceptable and tolerated, the Church once again finds its doctrine at odds with public opinion, so it has to chose, either adapt, and change what IT declared to be the infallible word of god YET AGAIN, or lose followers. So the battle is waged, there are splits, and eventually the modernists within the Christianity will triumph.

100 years from now, maybe sooner, people will look back at Christianity's stance on homosexuality the same way we look at the issue of the Earth being the centre of the universe.

Maybe there is a god, and maybe he created the universe and us along with it, but the Church's own actions and repeated backtracking over what it considers the "INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD" is ample enough evidence to me that the Bible is wholly man made.

When you think logically about it, it's quite obvious. When they wrote the bible, they thought they earth WAS flat, and it WAS the centre of the universe. This was perfectly in line with the limited scientific opinion of the day. There's a reason that there's NOTHING in the bible about smoking cigarettes filled with tar (they didn't exist back then and weren't known to cause cancer).

The text of the bible itself is ultimate proof of it's human origin.

The "pure" christians, or what we refer to as "bible bashers" know this. To them the bible is the word of god, and if god is omniscient he cannot be shown to be wrong about a single thing. Which is why they insist that carbon dating is flawed and the flood really happened and the moon landings are a hoax and that evolution doesn't really make sense etc. etc. etc.

While the intelligent and practicalists have done what they've always done, adapt, deny, move on and pretend it never happened.

Makes you wonder who the true Christians are and who redefine faith in order to suit themselves.

You speak with words like 'logically', and 'it becmes clear' etc, so you are obviously learned in the subject matter. Following this, could you show me where the bible says the world is flat?

Also, could you also point out where the bible says its not of human origin?

All I seem to really observe, is 'religion' i.e. the man made institutions based on the witness of the scriptures and the witnesses themselves, making dogmatic pronouncements, then finding out on the odd occasion that maybe it wasn't so written in stone afterall. The only two incidents of dispute I can think of are The Flood and the creation account. Both from one book of the scriptures. All of a sudden there are declarations of 'God was up a mountain, then when man climbed the mountain, he was in the clouds, when man reached the clouds he went to space etc etc.' Like so much atheistic nonsense, its snappy, gives a great short soundbyte, and sounds accurate on first hearing. It gives a bit of an 'oh yeah', moment. Problem is, like most of the snappy sound bytes, its got little in the way of depth.

PDN

Memnoch wrote: »

But the necessity of faith will bury it in time, just as it has done every other scandal and dark deed of the Church's past. Why else do people continue to take the word of an organisation that has been discredited time and time again?

Yes, because none of us ever remember such secret hidden events as the Crusades, the Inquisition, or witch hunts, do we?

Heck, if you really want to see what is remembered about the church's terrible past then read any Church history textbook. Nobody, as far as I can see, talks more about the dark things done in Christendom than do Christians themselves. Some of us even make a living teaching clasrooms of students about the various atrocities that have stained the Church's past.

Memnoch

PDN wrote: »

It strikes me that there's more than a hint here of "damned if we do and damned if we don't". If Christians don't adapt to what they perceive to be true in other areas then they are accused of being anti-scientific. If they do adapt then we get this kind of criticism.

The fact is, in any area of life, we interpret the same events differently according to our worldview. And, as that view changes, our interpretation is bound to change.


Before Einstein, scientists interpreted physical phenomena largely according to a Newtownian model. Then they adopted a new model, so their interpretations of those phenomena changed. They were not being dishonest - nor had the phenomena themselves changed - but we all try to interpret stuff in a way that is internally consistent and coherent (at least, we do so unless we're hopelessly lost in postmodern subjectivity where we happ[ily believe contradictions).

We do the same thing in how we interpret relationships. If you see your girlfriend kissing another guy and she tells you that he's her step-brother who she forgot to mention before - your interpretation will vary depending on your existing knowledge of your girlfriend and how long you have known her etc. And, in time, as your knowledge of her changes then your interpretation of that kiss might well change too!

I think it entirely reasonable that Christians should seek to understand their faith, and that includes their interpretation of the Bible, in ways that make sense to them.

1. It is disingenuous and misleading to compare changes in interpretation based on empirical evidence to changes in interpretation that is based on faith.

That is the difference between religious dogma and science. Science doesn't HAVE to be right all the time. We accept the best POSSIBLE theory, based on the evidence that we have. When new evidence comes to light that suggests previous conclusions as erroneous or new avenues for thought open up, we have no problem embracing them. Because that is the scientific method. It is based on EVIDENCE.

The bible however is not. Unless I'm missing something, there is zero empirical evidence to back up its claims. It's all about faith and choosing to believe what it says because... well... you want to. There is no best possible theory with the bible, it's the word of god. But now modern christians are cleverly hiding behind the cloak of "interpretation," because what they claimed was the word of god has been shown to be wrong on so many occasions. The thing is, you don't need to interpret the bible.

Here's a hypothesis. If we take the bible, FOR A MOMENT, as a creation of man, 2000 years or so ago. Then there are NONE of the scientific contradictions we have today. The bible is literally true, there are no errors and therefore no need for interpretation.

I'm afraid you're not thinking logically about it.

Please don't tell me I'm not thinking logically, that is a personal insult, and an attack on the poster and not the post.

In logical terms, the fact that people change their opinion about what X actually means does not alter the inherent truthfulness or not of X.

Okay, lets ignore everything else I've said up to now and just focus on this one little point.

Let's take X as the bible. I will now add another variable, which you seem to have ignored. Organisation Y, which is the church.

So lets talk about the inherent truthfulness of X, or the bible? How do we accept things to be inherently truthful? Because we have evidence. Empirical, testable evidence. Like the theory of gravity which allows us to land spacecraft on the moon or mars. Or the theory of evolution which is the basis for much of modern biology and much else.

So now answer me this... where is the evidence for the truthfulness of X, i.e. the bible?

You cannot say that the bible says it is truthful therefore it must be so. That would be a circular argument.

So how did we get this idea? Who told us that the bible is true? Who told us that the bible is the word of God? Who is the main proponent of this idea today? The Church or organisation Y. Then there is organisation B, Islamic institution, which makes the SAME CLAIM about the Holy Quran. And Organisation C, Hinduism, which makes the SAME CLAIM about the Bhagavad Gita and Ramayna.

What do all of the above have in common? Zero empirical evidence.

But let's just focus on Organisation Y for now, the Church/

The FACT is, we have nothing other than THEIR word for the "truthfulness," of the bible. Or for the "truthfulness," of the claim that it is the word of god, since the CHURCH delivered this word.

And yet the Church has been shown to be wrong, repeatedly and consistantly. On what basis and credability does it word count for anything then?

Let's return to scientific principle. We once believed that the Earth was flat, which had many implications, such as you could not keep sailing in a certain direction as you would fall off the edge, etc.

When we realised that this was wrong through stronger evidence, we discarded that notion and also correctly discarded the houses that were BUILT upon THAT FOUNDATION as also unsafe and unstable.

Since the organisation that gave us the bible and that CLAIMED the bible to be the word of god has been wrong about it's own claims, time and time again, it stands to reason that we do not simply continue to accept their word. That the bible IS the word of god.

Again, if you take the bible as written by man 2000 years ago, then none of these problems occur.

Or to put it another way. EVEN if we accept that it is ALL about interpretation. Since those who've been doing the interpretation have been shown to be so utterly useless at it, why should we continue to put our FAITH in them?

The big difference here is that the opposite is happening. Churches that reaffirm the New Testament teaching on homosexuality tend to be the ones that are experiencing massive growth, whereas those that have changed that position appear to be in terminal decline.

The opposite isn't happening. It's the same pattern. First there was no doubt what the Church or Christianity's stance on homosexuality was. Now, as there growing acceptable of homosexuality around the world, there are calls for tolerance and a VISIBLE softening in the stance of the church. This battle will continue to be waged but as homosexuality becomes more and more accepted around the world, homophobic views will become more marginalised and on the fringes of society and eventually the church will abandon it's current stance entirely. Just a matter of time, as it was with every other example of Church doctrine that has been discussed thus far.

Memnoch

JimiTime wrote: »

You speak with words like 'logically', and 'it becmes clear' etc, so you are obviously learned in the subject matter. Following this, could you show me where the bible says the world is flat?

Also, could you also point out where the bible says its not of human origin?

All I seem to really observe, is 'religion' i.e. the man made institutions based on the witness of the scriptures and the witnesses themselves, making dogmatic pronouncements, then finding out on the odd occasion that maybe it wasn't so written in stone afterall. The only two incidents of dispute I can think of are The Flood and the creation account. Both from one book of the scriptures. All of a sudden there are declarations of 'God was up a mountain, then when man climbed the mountain, he was in the clouds, when man reached the clouds he went to space etc etc.' Like so much atheistic nonsense, its snappy, gives a great short soundbyte, and sounds accurate on first hearing. It gives a bit of an 'oh yeah', moment. Problem is, like most of the snappy sound bytes, its got little in the way of depth.

Okay, fine... just answer this one question...

On what BASIS, do you take the bible as being the word of god? On whose authority, or what authority?

Memnoch

PDN wrote: »

Yes, because none of us ever remember such secret hidden events as the Crusades, the Inquisition, or witch hunts, do we?

Heck, if you really want to see what is remembered about the church's terrible past then read any Church history textbook. Nobody, as far as I can see, talks more about the dark things done in Christendom than do Christians themselves. Some of us even make a living teaching clasrooms of students about the various atrocities that have stained the Church's past.

We clearly don't remember these events as well as we should. How else can you explain how we tolerate the organisation that was responsible for these events, when on the evidence of TODAY, it appears that they haven't really changed in their ways at all.

mdebets

krudler wrote: »

Bingo, making it irrevelant to modern culture, we dont live in huts afraid of the sun and thinking a vengeful god will smite our shenanigans (well most of us dont) it was written for simpler people in simpler times, we've evolved in our thinking to know the majority of whats in there is baloney, but the nice get out clause where it can be reinterpreted to modern thinking is just a copout imo.

No, you're getting it totally wrong, just because the Bible was written over 2000 years ago doesn't make it irrelevant fo rtoday. It just means you can't read it like a book today, but you have to interpret it to todays times (see PDN's earlier example of the donkey and the car).

krudler wrote: »

" 6 days didnt literally mean 6 days, it was cos people were stupider back then" is just a cop out answer, if its gods word then god should have either:

A. explained it in simple,rational terms that didnt leave room for petty arguing and new interpretations 2000 years after it was written.
or
B. Made us smarter to begin with instead of sitting back and chuckling while we feared the unknown and used this book of moral tales to blunder our way through history until we discovered a few things for ourselves.

A. is exactly what you find in the Bible:
Day 1: The Sun is created
Day 2: The Earth is created
Day 3: Oceans start forming
Day 4: That's a bit of a problem, if it means the start of the rotation of the Earth, it should be befor Day 3, but it could also mean that the varpor is reduced and that day and nights and seasons are notable on the earth
Day 5: Life starts in the Oceans
Day 6: Life moves to the land and then humans develop
Day 7: Humans develop Trade Unions

That sounds very near to my understanding of how the Solar System and Earth Evolved over time (based on Wikipedia reading, so it could be totally wrong).

JimiTime

Memnoch wrote: »

Okay, fine... just answer this one question...

On what BASIS, do you take the bible as being the word of god? On whose authority, or what authority?

I don't refer to the bible as 'The Word of God'. In fact, that title is reserved for Christ.

Memnoch

mdebets wrote: »

A. is exactly what you find in the Bible:
Day 1: The Sun is created
Day 2: The Earth is created
Day 3: Oceans start forming
Day 4: That's a bit of a problem, if it means the start of the rotation of the Earth, it should be befor Day 3, but it could also mean that the varpor is reduced and that day and nights and seasons are notable on the earth
Day 5: Life starts in the Oceans
Day 6: Life moves to the land and then humans develop
Day 7: Humans develop Trade Unions

That sounds very near to my understanding of how the Solar System and Earth Evolved over time (based on Wikipedia reading, so it could be totally wrong).

Did they not have days then? Did they not have months, or years? What about numbers? Did they not have those?

If they had all these things, why didn't they just put down the information more accuratly?

That it took many millions of years for X to happen. Or even MANY MANY years?

But you're right, we should look at the bible as it was written. Because 2,000 years ago, there was no evidence to contradict the theory that the world was created in 7 days. So the bible was 100% right.

Since we now know that was wrong, we need to "re-interpret," what was written to continue to justify faith in the bible's teachings.

Memnoch

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't refer to the bible as 'The Word of God'. In fact, that title is reserved for Christ.

Don't play around with semantics, you're dodging my point, when I'm sure you know exactly what I was trying to say.

Again, on what authority/whose authority do you take the bible to be correct/truthful?

JimiTime

Memnoch wrote: »

Don't play around with semantics, you're dodging my point, when I'm sure you know exactly what I was trying to say

I simply pointed out your faulty assumption, though I do understand why you would assume it.

Again, on what authority/whose authority do you take the bible to be correct/truthful?

TBH, I'm still waiting on you to point out your logical path etc from the post I originally answered.

Memnoch

JimiTime wrote: »

I simply pointed out your faulty assumption, though I do understand why you would assume it.


TBH, I'm still waiting on you to point out your logical path etc from the post I originally answered.

I don't see the religion of Christianity as separate/independent of the bible. The two are interlinked. Only CHRISTIANS believe the bible to be true, and it is through that BELIEF that christianity exists. Since Christians have been wrong about so much else, I don't see why they can't be wrong about the bible.

You said in your post that this is not the case. The problem was with religion, not with the bible, which is (according to you) independent of religion.

So now I ask you, on what basis do you accept the teachings of the bible? When it was also written by men (who CLAIM Jesus told them to write it), yet other claims by these men have been demonstrated as false, and continue to be so till today.

Again, the key question arises. On whose authority/what authority do you take the bible to be correct/truthful?