Reclaiming The Bible For A Non Religious World

Sindri

Just something from a priest.

John Shelby Spong wrote:

The Bible is both a reservoir of spiritual insight and a cultural icon to which lip service is still paid in the Western world. Yet when the Bible is talked about in public by both believers and critics, it becomes clear that misconceptions abound.

To me, three misconceptions stand out and serve to make the Bible hard to comprehend.

First, people assume the Bible accurately reflects history. That is absolutely not so, and every biblical scholar recognizes it.

The facts are that Abraham, the biblically acknowledged founding father of the Jewish people, whose story forms the earliest content of the Bible, died about 900 years before the first story of Abraham was written in the Old Testament.

The rest here

ShooterSF

Moses, the religious genius who put his stamp on the religion of the Old Testament more powerfully than any other figure, died about 300 years before the first story of Moses entered the written form we call Holy Scripture.

This means that everything we know about Moses in the Bible had to have passed orally through about 15 generations before achieving written form.

Hey priesty, eh didn't people live like for hundreds of years back then? Sure Noah lived to 950.

georgieporgy

Sindri wrote: »

Just something from a priest.

describing John Shelby Spong as a priest is a tad misleading.

robindch

georgieporgy wrote: »

describing John Shelby Spong as a priest is a tad misleading.

Well, can we agree to call him a "retired christian cleric"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong

georgieporgy

Let's just be accurate and call him an athiest. Certainly not a christian by his own admission. (catchy photos dressed in clerical collar notwithstanding)

Ellis Dee

Anyone with any sense knows the credibility of the Bible, as good a read as it is, lies somewhere between that of the Lord of the Rings and the Beano. Yet there are millions of people who believe every word in it is founded in unequivocal fact.:rolleyes:

However, few people in the western developed countries have any need these days to wallow in such ignorance. They can easily inform themselves about the advances that science has been making for centuries and the doubts that research (just look at the Discovery Channel, to take just one example) cast on the accuracy and dependability of what the Bible says.:)

However, there will always be those who try to convince us that the story is essentially true, but we just have to accept that it has been told in such and such a roundabout way and we have to interpret it ... yadda, yadda, yadda.

All those god-botherers are doing is what a scarecrow does when he is trying to ****. They are clutching at straws.:D

RichieC

There are much better books out there. Though the wrath and violence is pretty sweet the narrative and character building leaves a lot to be desired. The author must have been schizophrenic.

philologos

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Anyone with any sense knows the credibility of the Bible, as good a read as it is, lies somewhere between that of the Lord of the Rings and the Beano. Yet there are millions of people who believe every word in it is founded in unequivocal fact.:rolleyes:

Even the most skeptical Bible scholars will accept that there is much truth in the New Testament, and that it is written in a style that no other Greek fiction was written in prior to that point.

I accept it as truth, because I believe it is likely to be true.

Ellis Dee wrote: »

However, few people in the western developed countries have any need these days to wallow in such ignorance. They can easily inform themselves about the advances that science has been making for centuries and the doubts that research (just look at the Discovery Channel, to take just one example) cast on the accuracy and dependability of what the Bible says.:)

Here I am in a Western developed country, with third-level education. I've seen nothing in natural science that would contradict the Bible, many scientists agree.

Simply put science isn't the handmaiden of atheism as much as many atheists may want it to be.

Ellis Dee wrote: »

However, there will always be those who try to convince us that the story is essentially true, but we just have to accept that it has been told in such and such a roundabout way and we have to interpret it ... yadda, yadda, yadda.

All those god-botherers are doing is what a scarecrow does when he is trying to ****. They are clutching at straws.:D

Simple rhetoric, I could have written something similar about atheism if I wanted to. Most of the new-atheist position is built on mere rhetoric without substance. Other older forms of atheism actually brought something to the table.

Spong seems to be a Christian atheist, unfortunately it is quite common in some spheres of Anglicanism.

Galvasean

philologos wrote: »

Here I am in a Western developed country, with third-level education. I've seen nothing in natural science that would contradict the Bible,

Look harder. That flooding of the entire planet bit is one of teh more obvious examples.

philologos wrote: »

many scientists agree.

And many more scientists would strongly disagree with such a statement. If you are going to try and appeal to authority it would be wise not to choose such an authority that can easily be turned against your point.

philologos

I believe that Noah's flood was regional, and there's evidence to suggest that a major flood occurred in that region at that time period.

As for CIS, I don't see how a reputable organisation which represents peer-reviewed scientists across the UK and Ireland could be used against my position.

Galvasean

philologos wrote: »

As for CIS, I don't see how a reputable organisation which represents peer-reviewed scientists across the UK and Ireland could be used against my position.

By saying 'many scientists agree' you leave yourself open to someone (like me for example) pointing out that even more scientists would disagree with your position.

Helix

you cant argue with a lot of the sentiment in the new testament to be fair. some of the ideas and stuff are very basic cop on, the problem with it is when agendas are pushed and it contradicts its message of love one another and let people do their own thing, with threats and hatred towards people or groups

but in general, the alleged teachings of jesus are a fairly decent way for anyone to live their lives - the only real thing is that you shouldn't be needing a jewish zombie to tell you what's basic cop on

RichieC

It fills me with unease that I share a planet with a bunch of psychopaths who need an old myth to keep them on the straight and narrow.

What happens if God is proven wrong? Rape and anarchy on the streets?

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

I believe that Noah's flood was regional, and there's evidence to suggest that a major flood occurred in that region at that time period.

As for CIS, I don't see how a reputable organisation which represents peer-reviewed scientists across the UK and Ireland could be used against my position.

So god mistook a local flooding for a global one and a boat with every species on earth for a skif with a few goats?

does the bible exagerate anything else, I wonder....

philologos

God didn't mistake anything. The Hebrew word used in Genesis 6 - 8 eretz means land. It's perfectly compatible with the idea of a regional flood.

Also - if I'm a psychopath in your opinion, sobeit. I don't care

RichieC

I never called you a psychopath. I'm mearly suggesting that folks who require religion to be good people are.

philologos

That depends on what you mean by good. If you believe morals are relative, that precludes you from postulating an objective good.

Doctor DooM

philologos wrote: »

That depends on what you mean by good. If you believe morals are relative, that precludes you from postulating an objective good.

How does this change the fact that people who require religion to keep them in check are psychos or not?

Or would you, mayhaps, be using words to dodge the point?

philologos

I don't believe that claiming that there is an objective moral source makes you a psychopath. I don't believe that claiming that God is fundamental to reality makes you a psychopath.

Then again, that's because both of those statements apply to me directly. I think lazy and arguably intolerant rhetoric about other people is unhelpful.

Asides from this the point was that if people required religion to be a good person, they are a psychopath. That depends entirely on what good is, is it an objective or a subjective principle. If it is a subjective principle, is it true that all people could have a different conception of "good".

18AD

The obvious implication is that if they had no religion to keep them behaving good (in check), they would be psychopaths. By those standards we should hope that they stay religious. But they are also psychopaths for accepting it. :pac:

Logical Fallacy

philologos wrote: »

I believe that Noah's flood was regional, and there's evidence to suggest that a major flood occurred in that region at that time period.

Indeed, never before has a natural event been given mythic status within a man made religion.

philologos

I don't believe that something natural precludes God's involvement of necessity. Nor do I believe that God has no place in His Creation. If the universe has no ultimate cause, I'd be happy to accept your conclusion. The problem is in thinking the universe could have no ultimate cause.

Your comment is no more remarkable than saying that if God doesn't exist, the idea of his action would be absurd. I agree, it would be if God doesn't exist, which I think is absurd for a number of reasons.

Sarky

philologos wrote: »

I agree, it would be if God doesn't exist, which I think is absurd for a number of reasons.

None of which you ever go into. Could you do that, some time? Without a response like "That isn't relevant to this specific discussion", or "It seems logical to me".

philologos

I've done so several times in my posting history. I've even posted quite recently as to what some of them are. When I get some time, I'm going to try and reformulise my reasons as to why I believe in God. I posted some a few years ago, and they need a bit of work. Some I feel weren't as strong as I believed them to be. There are many in there that do warrant consideration, but I found many were fobbed off when I tried to bring them to consideration here. I now find that I left some reasons out as well.

smcgiff

Galvasean wrote: »

Look harder. That flooding of the entire planet bit is one of teh more obvious examples.

Pharaoh putting Joseph in charge of all the land of Egypt is right up there. The bible writers really didn't think that one through, what with the Egyptians being pretty good at documenting even mundane events.

That's up there with the Myth as to how the Giant's Causeway was created.

Galvasean

smcgiff wrote: »

Pharaoh putting Joseph in charge of all the land of Egypt is right up there. The bible writers really didn't think that one through, what with the Egyptians being pretty good at documenting even mundane events.

That's up there with the Myth as to how the Giant's Causeway was created.

Wasn't there something in there too about plants being created before the sun? Bit of a doozey.

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe that claiming that there is an objective moral source makes you a psychopath. I don't believe that claiming that God is fundamental to reality makes you a psychopath.

Then again, that's because both of those statements apply to me directly. I think lazy and arguably intolerant rhetoric about other people is unhelpful.

Asides from this the point was that if people required religion to be a good person, they are a psychopath. That depends entirely on what good is, is it an objective or a subjective principle. If it is a subjective principle, is it true that all people could have a different conception of "good".

Youre intentionally complicating my point in order to avoid it.

philologos

No, it's perfectly valid. A good person, what do you mean by a good person? Good by whose standards?

I don't believe I'm a good person on my own behalf, but rather I'm good only in so far as Jesus died in my place to take away my sin, so I could restore my relationship with God. In short, I subscribe to the idea of penal substitution.

To be a good person, ones moral aims should be aligned with God's as far as I see it. Others may disagree.

If you believe that morality is subjective, then you can't speak of people being good or evil because there is no objective standard of good or evil.

RichieC

It is just you who seems to have a problem differentiating good and bad without religion. To me it is obvious.

philologos

What is this "good" you speak of? What is its source?

Is it subjective or objective?

Again, it's a valid question and a very important one if you're to demonstrate the logic behind calling someone a "good person".

Also, I believe that one doesn't have to believe in God to be good, but the mechanics of morality aren't particularly clear without an objective moral source. In relative moral systems, anything could be good if the person believes it is good.

JimiTime

philologos wrote: »

What is this "good" you speak of? What is its source?

Is it subjective or objective?

Again, it's a valid question and a very important one if you're to demonstrate the logic behind calling someone a "good person".

Also, I believe that one doesn't have to believe in God to be good, but the mechanics of morality aren't particularly clear without an objective moral source. In relative moral systems, anything could be good if the person believes it is good.

I often see, based on strawmen, lack of understanding or just plain ignorance, the accusation of cognitive dissonance levelled at Christians. This issue of atheists calling on some kind of 'good' IMO, is the most blatant example of cognitive dissonance if indeed such a theory has real merit.

RichieC

Ridiculous... The bible did not creat morals. It coopted the most logical. dont steal..obvious. Dont kill. Wow, really, we need the bible to tell us thats wrong? .

Sorry phil. Just becausr you buy into religion it doesnt give you a monopoly on whats good and moral.

philologos

RichieC wrote: »

Ridiculous... The bible did not creat morals. It coopted the most logical. dont steal..obvious. Dont kill. Wow, really, we need the bible to tell us thats wrong? .

Sorry phil. Just becausr you buy into religion it doesnt give you a monopoly on whats good and moral.

I never said that one couldn't be moral without believing in God. However, I do believe that people do what is right because God has given them a conscience. People do what is wrong when they suppress their conscience. God sets the standard for what is good and what is evil as far as Christians are concerned.

You've not answered my question. What is "good"? Where do you get this standard from. If you don't have a standard for what is good, anyone could say that they are good.

RichieC

The difference between good and bad is common sense. Even tribes in the world who never saw the bible know the difference.

philologos

RichieC wrote: »

The difference between good and bad is common sense. Even tribes in the world who never saw the bible know the difference.

Clearly you don't understand what I'm saying. I'll say it again.

I'm not saying that people need to believe in God to be able to do what is ethically right.

What I am saying is that the way that ethics works, is largely God given.

What I am saying is that it is impossible to claim that something is objectively "good" or objectively "evil" without an absolute standard. In the absence of an absolute standard how can you determine what is good from what is evil. If morality is subjective, anyone can have their own version of "good" or "evil". What could be "good" to one person could be "evil" to another if there is no objective standard of ethical behaviour.

When you are wronged, you don't say that you were subjectively wronged, and that the other person may have thought they did what was right. Rather what you do is claim that the other wronged you in a way that anyone could understand, and you appeal to them on the notion that it isn't acceptable to act that way. Acceptable under what standard?

Where do these rules of fair-play come from?

Sarky

You don't think they could arise from millenia of humans being human at each other?

philologos

Sarky wrote: »

You don't think they could arise from millenia of humans being human at each other?

The mechanics of morality which seem to work on the basis of objective rights and wrongs couldn't have.

The idea that morality was constructed would lead to moral relativism rather than moral objectivism.

Sarky

philologos wrote: »

The mechanics of morality which seem to work on the basis of objective rights and wrongs couldn't here.

The idea that morality was constructed would lead to moral relativism rather than moral objectivism.

And moral relativity is exactly what you see in the world. There are tribes where the coming-of-age ceremony for boys involves a man having sex with them. Reprehensible to most of us here, perhaps, but they don't think so. There are others where for a girl, the women pluck every single hair off her head. This is good and proper for them. Do you really think that a group of people who murdered and raped when they felt like it would be tolerated by other groups? They tend not to survive, or they get educated by others.

Thousands of years of tribes absorbing others, discarding and adopting traditions or taboos, leads to a reasonably homogenous set of rules throughout that society seen as right and proper.

And now, here we are, with societies that span continents, and reasonably homogenous sets of what constitutes right and wrong in each, with relativistic slidey-scales all over. You see it in the age of consent, the age limits on drinking and voting and driving, you see it in every prison sentence handed out in every court in the world.

It's not terribly far-fetched. And it doesn't require divine intervention. Why you seem to think God is required for it, I have no idea. Perhaps you just like that idea.

smcgiff

LOL at morality being invented by the Jewish/Christian bible. Most of the laws are bat **** crazy for starters.

To think any of the "good concepts" that Christians like to cherry pick from the bible were unique to the bible is ludicrous.

philologos

Where did I say that morality was invented by the Bible? Just curious? - You might want to focus on what I said, rather than what you wanted me to say.

Sarky: Think of this with me. If someone was out human-fieldshooting as a Sunday morning activity and felt that this was a perfectly acceptable thing for him to do, would he not be "right" to do so under his own moral compass. Indeed, how can you be so sure that your moral compass would be any better than his in the absence of an objective standard for determining what was right and wrong. Simply put, in the absence of this, if you were to claim that he was wrong, how could you confirm that your notion of ethics was any "better" than his was?

This is the problem I had with moral relativism when I was looking at it in philosophy class. It's inconsistent. Human behaviour contradicts its thesis at every juncture.

Sonics2k

philologos wrote: »

What I am saying is that the way that ethics works, is largely God given.

Sorry Phil, but I can't buy into any of this.

Ethics would be things like not stoning women because they dare to drive a car, or not raping women in africa to "cure" them of homosexuality. Both of these things are done in the name of "God".

God in these cases don't seem to be doing a good job of ethics. But the people who commit these acts would claim it's perfectly ethical in the eyes of them and God.

No, you learnt your ethics and whats good or bad from where you grew up and your environment. We both know that killing someone because they wanted to drive to the shop for a Mars bar isn't exactly Ethical.

philologos

Sonics2ks: If we're going to get into a discussion about religious institutions. I agree with you, many of them have gone the wrong way. I don't defend such institutions. If we go down this line, you're not engaging with what I'm saying, and secondly I'm going to agree with you. Human organisations in general tend to be corrupt - this is true of secular organisations as well as faith based ones.

God is a different subject. My point is that an objective concept of "good" cannot exist without a standard to determine what is "good" and what is "evil". If one is a moral relativist, one has to abandon the use of such concepts as one can't demonstrate objectively what is "good" and what is "evil". The only option would be to say that nobody knows what is good and what is evil. The problem with this is that actually, we do know what is good and what is evil. Why is this?

I don't believe that I learned my ethics from anywhere. I was given a conscience, and that conscience was refined in a number of ways throughout my life. At some junctures, I became very good at suppressing it even though I knew deep down that someway, somehow I was doing something wrong. I became better at understanding it the more and more I came to understand about it's source.

smcgiff

philologos wrote: »

God sets the standard for what is good and what is evil as far as Christians are concerned.

How does god set the standard, isn't it through the Christian bible, but forgive me if you mean you are hearing voices. Are you hearing voices?

philologos

Through our conscience (Romans 2), and through giving us guidance in His word as far as Christians are concerned.

It is because God informs our consciences that I can be confident in saying that non-believers can do what is ethical. My point was that God does it, the Bible on its own is just a book if you ignore who is behind it.

RichieC

To think.. This god who set out morals is the same one prayed to in mecca :pac:

smcgiff

philologos wrote: »

Through our conscience (Romans 2), and through giving us guidance in His word as far as Christians are concerned.

It is because God informs our consciences that I can be confident in saying that non-believers can do what is ethical. My point was that God does it, the Bible on its own is just a book if you ignore who is behind it.

So you are hearing voices but isn't Romans in the bible, which brings us back to my point re the contents of the bible.

philologos

RichieC wrote: »

To think.. This god who set out morals is the same one prayed to in mecca :pac:

Do you want to chat, or do we just want to constantly troll? One would be more productive than the other.

Even if the objective standard was the Islamic concept of God, your use of "good" as an objective concept is still questionable.

philologos

smcgiff wrote: »

So you are hearing voices but isn't Romans in the bible, which brings us back to my point re the contents of the bible.

Romans 2 discusses the conscience.

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

You're confusing God and the Bible. I'm arguing that God created the conscience and as a result He's the Moral Law giver. He's the true way I can say something is good and something else is evil. The objective standard behind it all.

However, in the absence of an objective standard, one can't really say anything is "good" or "evil" in an objective sense. What basis would one have for saying something was "good" over someone else claiming something completely contradictory was "good"?

In a sense in a Christian view - if a non-Christian acts according to God's standard, that's good, if even only for that juncture which they do what's right. Indeed, if a Christian does what is wrong in God's standard, that's nonetheless wrong.

This is one of the issues I have with atheism in that it makes people inconsistent when it comes to referring to what is good and what is evil.

Sonics2k

philologos wrote: »

Sonics2ks: If we're going to get into a discussion about religious institutions. I agree with you, many of them have gone the wrong way. I don't defend such institutions. If we go down this line, you're not engaging with what I'm saying, and secondly I'm going to agree with you. Human organisations in general tend to be corrupt - this is true of secular organisations as well as faith based ones.

God is a different subject. My point is that an objective concept of "good" cannot exist without a standard to determine what is "good" and what is "evil". If one is a moral relativist, one has to abandon the use of such concepts as one can't demonstrate objectively what is "good" and what is "evil". The only option would be to say that nobody knows what is good and what is evil. The problem with this is that actually, we do know what is good and what is evil. Why is this?

I don't believe that I learned my ethics from anywhere. I was given a conscience, and that conscience was refined in a number of ways throughout my life. At some junctures, I became very good at suppressing it even though I knew deep down that someway, somehow I was doing something wrong. I became better at understanding it the more and more I came to understand about it's source.

Well actually, God and the Bible play a huge part in it.
We both know for example, that sending in an army of soldiers to wipe out a village, kill the men and take the women and children as Slaves is morally and ethically wrong. We know this from observation of history and our own culture.
However, the Old Testament clearly states this is okay for "Gods People" to do, as they are doing it to sinners.

I'd give more, but that is a fine example, and frankly I'm enjoying a few drinks for NYE.

/offtopic a moment
You are obviously an intelligent man Phil, and I actually quite like reading your posts as they are well thought out (unlike other posters who post nonsense on the Creationism thread), and cause some quite good debate, and though I don't always agree with you, it's mostly very nice to see your posts.

philologos

I never said that God and the Bible didn't play a huge part in it. He plays a huge part in my life, I have my ups and downs like everyone else. My point was to distinguish God from your other objections to some faith based institutions.

I suggest that you put some passages on the table, and we'll have a chat about them.

I don't know about the intelligence - I work with the humble amount that God's given me :pac:

Sarky

philologos wrote: »

Sarky: Think of this with me. If someone was out human-fieldshooting as a Sunday morning activity and felt that this was a perfectly acceptable thing for him to do, would he not be "right" to do so under his own moral compass. Indeed, how can you be so sure that your moral compass would be any better than his in the absence of an objective standard for determining what was right and wrong. Simply put, in the absence of this, if you were to claim that he was wrong, how could you confirm that your notion of ethics was any "better" than his was?

This is the problem I had with moral relativism when I was looking at it in philosophy class. It's inconsistent. Human behaviour contradicts its thesis at every juncture.

You arrived at the conclusion that there is no moral absolute, then shied away from the answer. So close.


As for your casual murderer, you're taking someone with one set of morals and dumping him all alone in a society with opposing morals. That's only going to end one way. You're thinking too locally. Too personally. Make it a few hundred thousand Sunday murderers. Now they're a society. Anything less gets swept aside by opposition or existing rules of societies that didn't like being shot at.

These things do not become law because they're "right". They become law because they provide a skeleton around which a society can grow. You won't get a society with morals like your Sunday shooter, because they do not result in a stable society. And your murderer will not last long in most stable societies, even if God Almighty came to him and told him he IS right to shoot people on sundays.

It has nothing to do with God. If it did, we would still be stoning people to death for such terrible crimes as shouting "Jehova" in a rude manner. From what you said above, I think you know this but don't want to admit it.