Arrowman

Here's a thought that has occured to me from time to time, and I'd like the thoughts of others.

- Given that the Bible is the only "real" evidence of Jesus and God which is even close to contemporary - and everything else (churches, doctrine, dogma etc) is the invention of humans
- Granting that there is some doubt over the accuracy of Biblical translations, and
- Granting that the Bible is at best ambiguous in a lot of areas (including for example which bits of Leviticus Jesus cancelled, and which he didn't)

Then I'd have to think that if there is any truth to the Judeao-Christian religion(s) at all, it lies only in the Bible.
- Homosexual acts are a sin
- The Sabbath is the seventh day (Saturday) (OK, it doesn't say Saturday specifically in the Bible, but Jewish tradition has it as such)
- etc, etc.

Of course, that doesn't make up for the enormous logical, philosophical etc problems with the Bibleand its inconsistencies, but I'd almost have to say

- If I were a Christian, I'd have to be a Biblical fundamentalist

ManM

An infallible book is nothing without an infallible interpreter. Now, where do we get an infallible interpreter? Would it be the Pope? Well, I think there is plenty of evidence against that. Are we all infallible interpreters? If this were the case, there wouldn't be tens of thousands of differing denominations.

Also, how is the bible not the invention of humans? It is a set of letters written by humans, compiled by humans, and preserved by humans.

-MM

Kosh

Indeed.

"Scratch the skin of a Fundie, and you'll find
an Athiest. Scratch the skin of an Atheist, and
you'll find a Fundie"

Read that somewhere in the SecWeb lib, don't
ask me where...

sidewinder

I read an article years back that expressed this same idea and I agree with it. Christians (especially Evangelicals who base all authority on the Bible) have to be Bible fundamentalists. How can they arbitrarily disregard some parts of it? How do they determine which parts are still applicable? How do they determine which writings to take literally?

An example? Most Christians do not follow the commands of Jesus to live their lives as lowly servants. They don't follow his command to not judge others, they don't turn the other cheek when struck, they don't share their wealth with the poor, etc.

ManM

Sidewinder,
Fundamentalists don't have a historical leg to stand on. Who decided that the bible was to be taken completely literally?

St Isaac the Syrian wrote, "Very often many things are said by the Holy Scriptures and in it many names are used not in a literal sense... those who have a mind understand this..." (Homily 83).

St. Isaac was 7th century, far before fundamentalism, and far closer in history and culture to those who determined which books made up the bible in the first place. How could they interpret the bible this way? Who knows, but they did. And so if anyone wants to get back to what the earlier Christians believed, they will not take the bible literally, but instead will search for how it was interpreted to begin with.

sidewinder

Man: I agree with you. I have read and studied the Bible, and I think I have a good understanding of the different types of writing within it. I don't think it was meant to be taken literally in all parts either. However, there are many commands in the OT & NT which are meant to be taken literally but yet Christians arbitrarily decide which ones to follow and which ones to disregard. There is serious disagreement among Christians over this. Either you are a fundie with regard to all these commands or you somehow show that there is a standard system of determining which ones are to be followed and which are to be disregarded by Christians. None exists. Christians say Jesus abolished the Law, (contrary to his own alleged words in Matthew.)
Yet, they still seem to follow certain teachings of the OT, which includes the Law.

Godless Dave

Right. Homosexuality is wrong, because Leviticus says it's an abomination. But it's OK to eat shellfish, even though Leviticus says it's an abomination.

butswana

Dave, have you ever tasted a dick? It don't taste like lobster, pal!

FreeToThink

[Homer Simpson]

mmmm, Lobster

[/Homer Simpson]

Samhain

Reasons for homosexuality being an abomination in the Bible:
This answer of course is easy. With everything that's being said in Genesis, the idea is that a man and a woman must work together in order to procreate, and any form of deviance on this part is viewed as an abomination. Why? Procreation was essential for the good of the community in the time which the OT was written. For the all around "good" of the social network which had been established at that time.

Reasons why eating shellfish is an abomination in the Bible:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this was due to the inability and lack of knowledge concerned with preparing shellfish so that it would not give people food poisoning. For some reason this is what I remember, but I'll welcome anyone's answer who knows more specifically why. But if what is being said before is true, this would also be for the greater "good" of the social network established at that time.

I think you can see the pattern.
Now if what I suggested about eating shellfish is true, then these two things would coincide for what was the "good" of the community at that time, and since we do not live in that community 2000 years ago, and since we can not eat shellfish without the fear that they had, why should either of these apply to us now?

I welcome any ideas that either side has to offer, especially if I'm wrong in my assumption.