jdawg2

hey, I have a better idea of what his omnipotence should've done...how about maybe teaching those folks about the whole concept of germs causing diseases? How about getting rid of germs? hehe...Sure, a human during that time would write something like "just don't eat it" because they had limited knowledge...so if God really wanted to impress some folks and help them out, why didn't he go a bit more in depth?

It's like when you're a kid, and your parents give you some rule "cuz I said so, and that's that" Sure, that works when you're 5 years old, but wouldn't it be helpful to know the reason why certain things are?

That would've been a better solution to the problem than just saying "that's bad, don't eat it, now shutup and worship me", lol...

An eternal, omnipotent god can't think of long term solutions to problems? Then again, we are "children" of god so I guess that's why his book is like that...It would've been quite impressive to see the holy bible go into detail of bacteria causing diseases.

(I have a strange feeling someone will quote a vague bible verse about how "invisible demons" are really bacteria or something like that)

Captain Pedantic

There's quite a lot of evidence that the parts of the Bible concerning homosexuality have been mistranslated. Go <a href="http://www.truluck.com" target="_blank">here</a> for more info.

Other than that, though, I agree. If you can't follow your whole religion, it means one or both of two things:

1)Your religion sucks.
2)You suck at following your religion.

HelenM

Samhain you're on the right track in that, that is how Christians decide what applies to them today and what doesn't. I.e. they look at the reasons for each law. Everything to do with the sacrificial system is considered to be done away with because Jesus' death fulfilled/superceded it. See Acts 15, Hebrews for info in the Bible about rules not applying to the church, that did apply to Jews.

The dietary laws and specific civic laws were given to the Jews, not the church.

Various principles behind the laws are considered timeless and still applicable to the church.

The 'sex only within marriage' is considered to be a one of those.

If you do a thorough study of the exact reasoning behind why Christians see some rules as applying to them and some not I think you could argue that subjectivity does come in in places . For one thing, Christians don't entirely agree with each other on what applies and what doesn't. So it can't be that clear, it seems to me...

Captain Pedantic I think it's very unlikely that the Old Testament ever meant anything other than: homosexual behavior is an abomination, punishable by death. In fact I think it's unlikely that the New Testament doesn't condemn homosexual behavior.

So I don't think that's a very tenable way to deal with the Bible passages about it...just my opinion...

love
Helen

Rational Ag

Personally I would have a really hard time following a "pick-and choose" type of religion as contemporary Christianity does. I have a lot more respect for a true biblical fundamentalist than I do for liberal Christians for following the parts of the bible fit their worldview and ignoring those parts they don't like. They are both delusional, but at least the biblical fundamentalist isn't making up his/her own religion and living with cognitive dissonance.

I really don't think there are any real "biblical fundamentalists", not that I would ever want to meet any. To truly do that, they would have to adhere to all of the laws and ideas set forth in the bible, and I don't want to meet anyone who stones their children for disobedience or any of the other favorites from Leviticus, etc. With all of the conflicting ideas and doctrines set forth in the bible, one would be hard pressed to follow them all, as it could probably be pointed out that they were violating another in many instances.

BLoggins02

Hey Rational Ag. I just wanted to say one thing to you:

WHOOP!!

Rational Ag

Whoop '99!

Gig em.

Doug

I second that WHOOP!

Godless Dave

With or without melted butter?

Godless Dave

I actually have less respect for fundamentalists than more moderate religious people. The idea that the Bible is the inerrant word of God is just downright ridiculous. The idea that God exists, and that the Bible was written by people who were thinking about God and how their culture relates to He/She/It, and that studying it can help you understand God - well it doesn't make much sense to us atheists but it's not as blatantly ludicrous. Granted most moderate Christians don't make the effort to think of it that way.

A common fallacy I see in religious thinking is that knowledge passed down from the past is more credible than knowledge acquired in the present. Fundamentalists take that to an extreme, that the bible is inerrant and unquestionable. Moderate Christians seem to think that the bible has important things to say, but is not the last word on everything, and only applies to faith, not biology, astronomy, etc. They accept the bible as a guide, maybe even a divinely inspired guide, but not a concrete framework for legalistic thinking. If it was inspired by God, these inspirations still had to go through fallible human writers.

Rational Ag

I wasn't trying to say that I like fundamentalists or their beliefs. I was just stating that they are at least being intellectually honest, which is something that is important to me.

Moderate Christians adjust what they think the bible says to their worldview by downplaying, rationalizing, or downright ignoring the parts they don't like. Although I tend to like moderate Christians a lot better, and they tend to have their heads screwed on a lot straighter, their position isn't exactly logical.

When people start using their brains and deciding which parts of the bible to ignore, they do so according to a worldview and society in which they have adjusted to. The question then is: which parts are literal and which parts are figurative? Can anyone please grab me the correct version of the bible, get out a highlighter, and let me know which verses God meant literally and which ones were just figures of speech? Why is anyone's interpretation any more correct than anyone else’s?

I think this is problematic because most Christians feel like they have it "right", and then use that viewpoint as grounds for judgment of people and the society in which they live. At least there isn't any confusion on the part of the true fundamentalist. The fundamentalist is a much scarier person, but they are at least being honest with themselves and true to a belief system. When a book like the bible is opened up to interpretation, where certain things are allowed to be figurative, and certain other things are the basis of fundamental doctrine, just about any attitude or worldview can be justified with the "word of God".

-Rational Ag