newtype_alpha

In terms of moral character, it is fairly solidly established in the text of the Bible that tolerance is the antithesis of holyness (this, according to any orthodox interpretation of the Bible). There is an extremely long list of things that god simply will not tolerate under any circuimstances, and usually the punishment for a person found conducting such behavior is death. In later Pauline interpretation of Christian theology, Jesus' purpose on Earth is, in fact, a method of overcoming gods intolerance and inflexibility, thus giving "sinners" a chance to go to heaven despite the pre-existing standard of righteousness that apparently nobody measures up to. :worried:

There are numerous passages in the Bible where a more lenient, open-minded system of worship and moral judgement is advocated, often by various individuals choosing to exercise mercy or compassion or even affection towards "the enemy," or generally just people of the wrong race, tribe, or religion. Sometimes it was even minor offenses, hardly misdomeaners by todays standards; in most cases the punishment for such was swift and severe. (See Numbers 15:32, Numbers 25:1-10, Deuteronomy 13:6-16, Deuteronomy 17:2-7 and Joshua 7 for examples).

Since the entire Christian faith is based on the roots of Judaism as defined by Moses and his immediate contemporaries, an examination of the moral and religious standards adhered to by Moses and the early prophets leaves much room for question as to just how much of their inspiration was divine and how much was political. On the other hand, despite the "lovey-dovey" presentation of the New Testemant, the warlike impulses of an expansionist Judeo-Christian-Islamic agenda have always been represented, despite the best efforts of apologists to distract critics. Actions like the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the Witch Trials, the Ottoman Wars, the Cavaliers and Conquistadors, the Rowanda genocide, the Ustashe massacres, even Islamic Jihad seem perfectly compatible with Biblical traditions and ethical standards.

I believe Jeremiah 48:10 says it best, "Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from bloodshed."

Here we agree on three points:
1) The Bible was written by men and can have errors
2) God did not write the Bible with his "literal hand" so to speak.
3) Out modern understanding can warp our mindset and bias our outlook

:bulb: You seem reluctant to take the extra logical step to a conclusion from this. If it was written by man, it is not the "word of God." If it was not written by God's "literal hand" then it is not the "word of God."

And if our modern understanding can warp our mindset and bias our outlook, is that or is that not an argument to take a less-modern outlook on the Bible and interpret it the way the ancients did? :huh: (in which case accepting the warlike, expansionist roots of Judaic and early Christian practice would be the next logical step)

seebs

Okay. Already, you've diverged substantially from what I understand to be mainstream understanding.

Capitalization does matter, because "word of God" is just a noun, but "Word of God" is a proper noun, and is a term of art in Christian belief for "Jesus". (See John 1:1-12 or so, and somewhere in Revelation.)

You should probably, then, be aware that exact teachings about what it means are much more varied than this. Verbal inspiration is not an unheard of belief, but it's far from the mainstream of Christian belief. You do get people who will say things like "the Bible is Jesus in written form", but you get a lot more who are making much less exuberant claims, but who still use the phrase "word of God".

PinkPanther_04

You have skin on your spectacles? Well that might explain why you haven't noticed the glaring contradictions in the bible.

Sorry, I just thought that was funny.

Anyways, this might keep you busy for awhile: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.co...a/by_name.html

Knurd

I've read somewhere (and I think this makes sense), that the once our human brains have found an answer (not necessarily the right or best answer), we tend to stop searching for new information. It's like we loose motivation to change. Our minds are working on new problems. So we tend to notice evidence that supports our position and ignore that which does not. It's mental inertia. And even when we become aware of contrary evidence we can withstand an amazing amount of cognitive dissonance before we take the effort to really examine our position.

I’m a pretty smart guy, but spent my youth immersed in a fervent Christian sect. My brain was imprinted with the fundamentalist view of the universe. For example, I spent time reading creationist books and uncritically (at least at first) accepted that viewpoint. Any secular biology book was read (if I couldn’t avoid it) with fear and a bit of loathing. (I have to admit that lurking in the back of my brain was an element of almost sinful pleasure reading those things.) You wouldn’t catch me reading the Book of Mormon, or considering that the Bible had errors. If I studied other religions it was to prove that my religion was the one true way and others were false.

And when we're raised in a largely theistic culture, it's almost amazing that atheists even exist. It's almost amazing that so many people have looked at the assumptions of culture and said to themselves, now, wait a minute....

However sometimes life does give us that motivation to look again. It might be an education that encourages new ways of thinking, or a crisis in life. Sometimes it's that still small voice that tells us, this just ain't right when the preacher claims something completely illogical, or when we read something in the bible that just doesn't work. Or maybe other things.

Some people find it easier to reexamine beliefs and assumptions while others latch onto the first thing that comes along and cannot change, it seems.
I think the atheist position is very strong, but I call myself agnostic. Why? I was mentally locked down in the theistic position for so many years and I'm afraid of being too rigid in my thinking again. For me, agnostic is a kind of shorthand, a reminder to take the effort to examine, permission to think freely. I actually get a delight when someone points out a real weakness in one of my statements (okay, I'm weird). But I'm upset when someone substitutes shouting for thinking, largely because I sometimes did that too.

Sven

This was not directed at me, but I really wondered about it:
So you would also argue that it isn't possible to say that "Alexander the great conquered Rome" is wrong?

Edited to add: Classical, you might be interested in the thread "My assume inerrancy" I started half a year ago. It unfortunately degenerated in some kind of TAG debate, but nevertheless contained interesting insights.

Classical

I'm very well aware of the variations within mainstream christianity on the phrase word of god. I went to several of the more liberal churches as I was deconverting and they opened the bible and called it the word of the lord, etc., but they did not preach intolerance, hellfire, etc. This is the sense in which you speak of the mainstream definition.

Where I beg to differ, is that the very rigid, literaly definition which I offered a few posts ago, is by no means only "known" by a few, it is held by a very powerful, wealthy army of evangelical fundamentalist christians and they are converting people in record numbers. I do not think many secularists or whatever we may call ourselves STILL realize how the fundamentalists' numbers have grown. I have family members from 20 years ago, who thought we were fanatics as teenagers, who now are part of these numbers.

Vivisector

A very good question you have there, Classical. I think there are almost as many reasons as there are Christians as to why they believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.

On the one hand, it's fairly easy to document how Christian writings that came to be known as the "New Testament" achieved that status (over time, and not without differences of opinion) - Metzger does this very well in Canon. On the other hand, I seriously question whether one Christian in a hundred is reasonably well-educated on the historical issues and events, let alone facts such as those discussed by Metzger (and others). All this brings us back to your original question.

I think some of the reasons include intellectual laziness, unquestioning nature, respect for authority (church leaders and/or parents), tradition, and other - similar - reasons. These are the people who just aren't programmed to ask the question, let alone seek out facts bearing on the question.

There seems to be another class of individuals who have the intellectual tools to think critically about the issue; indeed, they regularly apply these tools to other areas of their life. It seems that these people, though, consider their religious beliefs off-limits with regard to critical thought and logic, to say nothing of skepticism. I think some of these people have made a conscious decision to simply believe - they perhaps know there's more to the story than they hear from the pulpit, but they are most comfortable in an environment of relatively unquestioning acceptance. Why is this? I'm not sure, but maybe peer pressure plays a role, community values, family traditions, maybe the lack of a better alternative. I think it's all very heavily bound up in psychology; more specifically, the search for meaning and comfort, and they will read with approval the works of people such as Gish and Strobel as antidotes to cognitive dissonance.

The last group who come to mind are the popular fundamentalists (and their disciples) who murder legions of trees in the quest to prove creationism, the objective truth of the NT and other such causes. I'm less able to speculate on their "why," because I simply can't relate on any level to the mindset that must be driving their methods. However, it's people like this - bright, educated, articulate, well-dressed and presentable people - that give me the greatest cause for worry, because in league with Group Two and in the current climate, they could have the potential to make life difficult for people like me.

seebs

Oh, yeah. They're all over. But keep in mind, they also deconvert, or drift away, in record numbers. (In fact, this is one of the reasons I get involved with religious debates. I think these people will be much happier if they come to an understanding of the Bible a little closer to historical ones.)

Anyway... They're very common, but it's still incredibly shoddy theology, and fairly modern.

Classical

I think Vivisector has some excellent points in his post.

I think you really hit the nail on the head when you said a lot of intelligent, critical thinking types keep their religious beliefs off limits to their otherwise intellectual approach to things.

It has an enormous amount to do with comfort. In spite of all my reading and thinking since my deconversion, I still think to myself "how can this really be it?" Not that life isn't good - it's wonderful and I love it, but there is still a small part of me that believes in an afterlife - somehow, someway - and just thinking this is a possibility gives me a somewhat positive feeling, although I'm not counting on it for my happiness here and now.

I guess I have never heard an argument strong enough to sway me from agnosticism. I just don't see how we can know anything for sure other than what we can recognize as utter falsehoods, myths, etc. :huh:

seebs

Indeed. I try to keep them subject to the same basic rules as everything else; "this is a working hypothesis".

Uh-huh. Thus my role as a militant agnostic Christian. I remain a militant agnostic. I don't know, and you don't either.

But... Not knowing, I can make choices about how to live my life, and I have adopted a working hypothesis that helps me make choices. And, while I can't comment on the underlying truth claim, except to observe that it seems plausible enough to me, I can observe that the model is working. Good enough.