Vinnie

Because he said "the Bible is a moral standard" not "the Gospel of John is a moral standard." If you want to take one holy text and build a religion off of it, go ahead. I'd pick the gospel of Thomas myself and was even thinking of building a religion called Thomasine Panentheism off of it at one time. But the context of this thread is "biblical inspiration" and under Biblical inspiration The picture of Jesus in John cannot be accepted while simply ignoring the other gospels. Surely you agree with that.

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

Sure, if someone claims to accept the whole Bible but "simply ignores" large swaths of it, there is a problem.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

The term "Bible" itself already assumes a canonical dimension to the diverse works--an unjustifiable one, but its there none-the-less. My comment stems on the fact that Bible believing Christians have a tendency to accept the Jesus of John and ignore the finer points found in the gospels such as the one I mentioned. Though not explicit yet, we are going to end up with a clear case of this here and its inevitable since the outlooks are inconsistent to begin with. But then again I am not the one making statements "for the whole Bible" such as "the whole bible doesn't support slavery" and this means John, Job, Isaiah, Genesis and so on. When you mention the "Bible" you are speaking for all the works collectively so it does not good to ignore some and accept others or make silly claims like "that was binding yesterday but my cult leader who instills secret nowledge learned in prayer that is not found in the text said it isn't today". He/she issued the charge, he/she has to deal with the consequences.

Vinnie

Toto

Could you point out the verses in the Bible that advocate freedom of expression, basic human rights, intelligent thought, and/or the search for truth?

Feel free to start a new thread.

TrueMyth

Hello all! Sorry I'm a bit behind. My fiancee just came over to visit this week.

What are my criteria for determining the veracity of something in the Bible? I've thought about this a lot, and here is the closest I can get to an answer:

Use your God-given reason.

Obvious, I know, but perhaps not. I mentioned earlier that once you let one chink in the armor of absolute certainty, it seems dizzyingly hard to avoid absolute relativism. For this reason, I believe many Christians simply give up on either the Bible or the religion when their (usually fundamentalist) absolute certainty is shaken. This is not the correct approach-- the Bible itself begs us to "test and approve" all things: Rom 12:2 (By the way, Toto, this is a verse for intellectual honesty and the pursuit of truth).

Having been vague, let me now be specific.

Vinnie's suggestions are entirely right, and I suspect he is much more learned in Biblical criticism than I am, so I offer his ideas as not mine, but endorsed by me.

*****Jesus = God incarnate. If Jesus said it we can place extreme measures of confidence on it as we are in no poisition to become questioning our Lord and Savior on doctrinal issues.

Plurality = Any recurring themes in the bible must be accurate. A single passage on something is not that strong but anything occurring over and over should be treated as God's message to us. *****

I would also add the effect of God's revelation throughout history. This is myriad and complex, but consider general revelation (through Nature and the world in general) and special revelation (the Bible and tradition/church authority) and personal revelation (Here's where it really gets tricky)

As much as I like to stay in the domain of rational thought and calculating logic, and as safe as it is there, I have been told by God that I need to learn to venture out into the dangerous and frightening waters of the individual work of the Holy Spirit in each person's life, even when I radically disagree with thier claims on this score. Keep in mind, I am not stating that personal intuition (via the Holy Spirit) is infallible, b/c that would be radically logically unsound. Rather, I am stating that I must conclude that while X is certainly not what the Bible reveals to me as right, perhaps God is speaking to so-and-so differently than He is to me. Oswald Chambers stated, "Never make a principle out of your own experience-- let God be as creative with other people as He is with you."

Regarding criteria of error, I defer again to Vinnie's excellent formulations:
*****Violates modern science or known history or is contradictory or is inchoherent, looks archaic and primitve, is no longer meaningful, appears morally questionable (e.g. killing modern wiccans), etc.*****

Although, I would challenge the "looks archaic and primitive" one-- let's not be chronological snobs. The more important point is "no longer meaningful"

Overall, let me state my position on the Bible: it itself states that "All Scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness" 2 Tim. 3:16. This tells me that the Bible is meant to be used as, and is useful for: teaching (in the ancient sense, was extremely holistic), rebuking (something one friend does to another), correcting (which I interpret as doctrine, but in a negative sense only-- basically, stating not what God is, but what He is not), and training in righteousness (living life well and as God created us for). I believe that it might contain errors, but they are not of any of the above kinds. Regarding how the Bible was written, I believe that God did not inspire word for word what the authors were to write; rather, He acted much as He does in our lives today: He "oversaw" the writing of the Scriptures, guiding gently and whispering, suggesting. If there are errors in the Bible, He has no problem with them being there, for reasons which I (and anyone else) are in no epistemological position to challenge. I believe that there are few total errors in the Bible, and in all it is the final word in matters mentioned above, and trustworthy overall on other matters, much the same way as any other well-attested to ancient text might be.

This is probably clear as mud, and not any help at all. You've all given me a lot to think about: thanks!

Toto

OK, that's understandable <wink wink>

Good start!

Romans 12

1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual[a] act of worship. 2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Vinnie is quite learned in Biblical Criticism. He learned enough to become an atheist.

This is actually quite nice. It makes your view of the Bible part of your personal religious practice. But it becomes a very individual practice. Is God's plan for me that I be an atheist?

Here is the most charitable interpretation of Biblical inspiration that I have come accross, which you might want to ponder: Fundamentalism by Rabbi Linda Bertenthal (part of a panel discussion at a recent conference in Los Angeles on Theocracy):

TrueMyth

Yes, my religious practice is very individualized. This is one of many reasons I don't attempt to shove my religion down others' throats. I get onto forums like this to compete in the "arena of ideas", and to "test and approve" (by the way, did you have a problem with that verse? I'm confused why you posted it, but it's nice to have it there for all to see! ). For one thing, I would be very afraid that I was shoving MY interpretation of God down their throats, while denying them their own personal interpretation of God. Very bad form. For another, I find that on the whole, I am a complete tool. I've got the freakin' Titanic in my eye, so why should I go after anything in anyone else's, whether it be a speck or a log? I also have a tendency to be very self-satisfied and think that it was me who showed someone a truth, not God. Bad idea-- run away.

Can I make universal statemtents, realizing that my religious practice is very individualized? Of course. I just can't believe that I can't be wrong. I leave the final judging to God, and suggest what I THINK that will be here on earth. If I'm wrong, so much the better. God knows better than me anyway.

TrueMyth

Toto: Thanks so much for the link, by the way! Don't worry-- inerrantists (which is necessary, but not sufficient for fundamentalism) have tried to reconcile each and every one of those potential contradictions. I have seen huge encyclopedias on Christian book shelves dedicated to the subject.

I found it particularly interesting that she mentioned idolatry as part of a literalist interpretation. When I was growing up in the inerrantist camp, I felt it to be odd that we revered the physical book of the Bible so much, and wondered which version was really inerrant and inspired: KJV? NIV? NLT? The Message? ASB? (etc, etc). John Milton sure thought that a literalist interpretion was idolatry, and that was a common theme during the Reformation. Good stuff.

TrueMyth

You know, maybe you're right.

Keep in mind that I did not say that the Bible abolished slavery, but rather that people under the inspiration of the Biblical commands abolished it. I also do not believe the Bible supports slavery. It is interesting that Paul has a lot to say about women and men and slaves and masters, all dealing with suboordination and submission and all that. However, he invokes the created order with regard to men and women, but not with slaves and masters. It seems Paul thought that it was built into the fabric of the world and the natural way of things for women to be subordinate to men (whatever that might mean-- I'll leave that off for the time being), but that this was not the case for slaves and masters. In fact, he refers to the created order AGAINST slavery, in the verse you provided above. I like your word: "regulated". There are numerous instances wherein a situation which is less than ideal is regualted and/or allowed-- divorce and slavery are two of them. Paul realized the reality of his culture and decided to work within it as much as he could, while making the distinction that all are equal in God's sight and in his creation

Perhaps you're right. I might be doing this. Let me look some more.

Thank you very much!

TrueMyth

As you have requested, I direct you to a new thread:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...78#post2617278

I look forward to hearing from you!