Mad Kally

Funny but I'm just now overcoming my anger and hate. I'm actually becoming more tolerant. Different strokes I guess..

Buffman

Gurdur

Loved your post. I, also, hope that widernesse will continue to contribute the thoughtful and insightful posts. However, I sincerely hope that someone will direct their thoughts to this post that I just copied-pasted from Tricia's string. Even if someone tears it to shreds, I would welcome the sound. They are merely my opinions that I have attempted to boil-down to the essential questions that I believe should be investigated before launching into the differences of theism, atheism, etc.

>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>

wildernesse

Admittedly, my example above isn’t perfect. But it comes as close as I can to my point (I’ll try to clarify, if needed). Why does the Bible have to be literal to have truth?

Perhaps you should be asking, "Why does truth(the verifiable facts) have to be divinely inspired?"

Or you could ask the "Big" question. "Which mortals decided which books were divinely inspired?"

For anyone to pass the enterance exam for "Christian" qualification, they must believe that Jesus was, in fact, resurrected. IMHO, everything else is merely 2,000 years of window dressing. Thus, carrying it one step further, only humans who believe in the supernatural are even capable of becoming Christians...or any other religious type of adherent.

So, we now arrive at the most fundamental issue of all. "Why do humans want/need to believe in the supernatural?" In order to answer that question, humans would need to know how their Body(genetic senses)-Brain(hard drive)-Mind(gigo) actually interface within their given environments.

IMHO, humans are very primitive reasoning organisms, although with a slightly superior ability when compared to all other currently existing ones. It is the one advantage we hold and, unfortunately, tend to waste on supernatural beliefs/solutions/discussions.

WWSD

True, there are many different interpretations of the bible outside of fundy land.

The problem arises when I personally am faced with someone who wants to argue existence or who wants me to convert. If I do not take some solid position on interpretation, than the debate cannot proceed in any sort of productive manner.

Thus:
The way I would interpret the bible, if I was a true believer, would have to be very close to fundamentalist, otherwise I'd have too many problems to resolve and well, that's part of my story.

So thus I stick to thinking about the bible in literal terms. I could never figure out why I should take resurrection literally, but not genesis or exodus or why god afforded some people insight but not me.

I'd say that I'm not telling someone how to interpret the bible so much as I'm telling them how I see it. I take a solid stance and I stick to it, otherwise there can be no solid base from which to argue a point. Once we start getting into someone's personal interpretation, I have no authority to refer to and things get confusing.

What it all boils down to is, if you want to go by the book to prove something, how can we agree if there is no common ground from which to work?

And how can you prove the something you want to prove without the book? One cannot argue a point from anecdotal evidence so we have to have something to reference. I just take the reference to mean literally what it says whereas someone else might think of it in allegories.

My feeling has always been that it is either all subjective or all objective and I could never justify a middle ground where I could pick what was true and what was allegory. But that is my own opinion.

What I'm not saying here is that you are wrong in whatever interpretation you choose.
I'm saying that if someone wants me to be a christian, they are going to have to pick one way or the other in thier attempt to convert. Each path, IMO, has its own pitfalls but I'm not going to try and expound upon that here.

Your interpretation, whatever it may be, as long as it helps you and does not harm anyone else, is the right interpretation.

I can't speak for anyone else, but that is how I see it. Hope it all makes sense!

Sephiroth

Is <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=45&t=000798" target="_blank">this</a> the thread in question?

I have to agree with WWSD. I certainly don't think liberal Christians should be made fun of but if you discount Genesis and believe there's no original sin then there's no need for Jesus (at least salvation-wise) and if you discount too much of the OT then why trust the Messianic prophecies? I agree that the Bible is vague and some parts of it are open to interpretation but, to many such as myself, there's a limit in just how much can be metaphor and I don't see anything wrong with that.

[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: Sephiroth ]</p>

southernhybrid

No we won't need to argue about it. I'm sure there will be areas where we agree and areas where we don't. I can accept that. There's no one universal value system that defines good character IMO. I was just making a point and I appreciate that you support that point.

wildernesse, Remember also that many who frequent these discussions, enjoy debate as a type of intellectual sport or outlet. So, try and consider the source and the emotions present in any discussion. You don't have to justify yourself or your individual interpretation of your religion to anyone. I hope you will find a better comfort level here and continue to join in the discussions.

Caverdude

Hey Wildernesse,
I think my beliefs may be somewhat along the same lines as yours. I consider myself a liberal Christian. I do not consider the Bible to be literal or inerrant since it is a collections of writings by fallible men. It is difficult to take this view since we do not have the cozy "all is perfect and correct" view of the bible, we must leave all things open to inquiry. My main personal beef is with aggressive and arrogant literalists and creationists who insist on bashing me over the head with their beliefs, or worse, try to worm their way into the schools to bash my children's heads. I joined this BB to have a place to vent and debate. It can be very interesting and even very funny (as long as you don't have a thin skin). And too, being in a strange middle ground (liberal, non-literalist Christian) I can get flamed from both theists and atheists. Hey, it is still fun and interesting, and if it gets tiresome, I will just do something else with my late hours time.

wildernesse

Hello everyone!

I appreciate all of your comments and thoughts—they’ve given me confidence to actually post a topic in misc. religious discussions one day. The reason why I posted this topic originally in RRP is because I expected some kind of bashing and being sent to RRP. Forgive me for being close-minded about you all.

Mad Kally: I really wasn’t describing you per se in my first post—just in general, atheists who seem to say that if your interpretation isn’t literal, then you’re not a real-life Christian—exactly what fundies claim. I think that some atheists who were previously fundie still operate from this belief, in regards to Christians. I don’t know what all of the different interpretations are—really only my church’s and what I make of my own. Sorry about my weird and confusing story earlier.

Rev. Joshua: When I looked up hermeneutic, I got “the study of the methodological principles of interpretation”. So you try to be consistent with your interpretation. I’d like to hear more about your standard sometime.

WWSD: I don't see myself really debating my faith, just offering my personal thoughts. I’m not trying to convert you or prove God to you or anyone else; I’m just explaining the way that I think and trying to tidy the dusty corners of my belief. I do appreciate opinions on my thoughts, but I reserve the right to disagree. I don’t have the difficulties many people seem to have with the Bible—just not big issues to me. Maybe I am capable of a high level of “cognitive dissonance”. Somehow I survive.

Caverdude: I’m glad that you are enjoying II—so am I. Intelligent, funny people are always nice to be around—even if you disagree.

--tiba

wildernesse

Buffman:
"Why does truth(the verifiable facts) have to be divinely inspired?"

If you are talking only about verifiable facts, it doesn’t. Was the Civil War divinely inspired? It’s a verifiable fact that there was a Civil War, but I don’t know if it was divinely inspired. I think that there are real “Truths” out there for humanity (what human nature really is, how best to interact with others). And I think that the Bible contains divinely inspired truths about humans, that have been conveyed through the writings of a people much different from present-day Western society.

Or you could ask the "Big" question. "Which mortals decided which books were divinely inspired?"

I think this is part of church history—and I don’t know a lot of church history. Were these people correct? How did they decide? How do I decide for myself what is the divinely inspired truth and what is man-made? These are good questions for me to learn more about. The basis of my personal decision is from the church doctrine I grew up with (Church of God, but I’m more of a Methodist now), conversations with my family and friends, and my studies of anthropology and the Bible.

Thus, carrying it one step further, only humans who believe in the supernatural are even capable of becoming Christians...or any other religious type of adherent.

I agree with this statement.

So, we now arrive at the most fundamental issue of all. "Why do humans want/need to believe in the supernatural?" In order to answer that question, humans would need to know how their Body(genetic senses)-Brain(hard drive)-Mind(gigo) actually interface within their given environments.

Because it’s real! Ha. I do think that it’s interesting that some people with epilepsy? have extreme religious feelings during or before seizures—as if there is a sensor in the brain for spirituality. My details may be confused about this. Dostoevsky suffered from this, I think. A neat something to think about.

--tiba

Gurdur

Please, you don't want to use Dostoevsky as a role-model here on this, trust me.

Dostoevsky suffered from epilepsy, with (pseudo-)spiritual experiences as part of the pre-epileptic attack onsets. Despite all of that, he sometimes played round with Nihilism Lite (TM), i.e. he wasn't all that coherent.

A number of other people have had much the same thing.
____________

Buffman,
please forgive me not answering you yet - I really shouldn't be posting here at all till the second week of August.
Sorry.
__________

Rev. Joshua

You're in trouble - thousands of very profound Christian scholars have attempted the same project you are attempting, and no-one has as yet succeeded.
The hardest book of all of the Bible for Christians to try fitting in into a relatively (religious) humanist viewpoint/interpretation is The Book Of Job; a stumbling-block for professional academic theologians of all kinds.

Still, while I am a hard-line atheist, I prefer to stick to concrete issues (practical consequences of specific beliefs), so I tend to stay away from discussions of the broader ideological picture.
It's a shame that most discussions on SecWeb get bogged down in hopelessly conflated broad ideological pictures.
In two weeks, maybe we can get a good, mutually satisfactory discussion going on concrete issues.

Buffman

My heart be still. Someone is talking to me.

I think that there are real “Truths” out there for humanity (what human nature really is, how best to interact with others). And I think that the Bible contains divinely inspired truths about humans, that have been conveyed through the writings of a people much different from present-day Western society.

Other than having my normal amount of definition problems with the word "truth," I agree with you. Aristotle said, "...we do not know a truth without knowing a cause." ("Metaphysics" Bk. 1, ch. 1, .9936b, line 22) Francis Bacon said, "If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin in doubts, he shall end in certainties." ("Advancement of Learning" Bk. 5, ch. 8)

Just a couple of quickies from George Seledes' "The Great Thoughts." However, they tend to make a point with which I agree. I believe the supernatural Gods are the creations of men's minds. Therefore, all those things that are attributed as God's Truths, are really no more than the collective experiences of humankind as it gained ever greater insights into what socially worked and didn't work to make life more positive and productive for the affiliated group. But how do you sell these observations/ experiences to the uneducated masses before they make the same negative and destructive mistakes with every new generation...before writing, reading and books became commonplace? "You don't have to believe me. It's God's word! His ultimate truths...and you know better than to mess with God." (Carrot and stick, mostly stick, education.)

Now both of the men I just quoted believed in a supernatural God. What they probably never could have dreamed was that they were also laying the philosophical groundwork that could one day knock the stuffings out of supernatural beliefs/authority. That's why I asked you why something had to be divinely inspired. If it proves to be right (advantage for survival, positive and constructive...the best choice or course of action in the majority of circumstances), why does it have to be divine? Why can't it simply be the right thing to do? Look what Thomas Jefferson wrote to his nephew, Peter Carr, on August 10, 1787: "Shake off all the servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of a blind faith."

Where you and I would tend to differ the most is your belief that the people of the Bible era are different from those of our era. Not when it comes to the way our genetic drives and bodies operate. That is one of the main reasons why there are so many items in the Bible, or in most sacred texts, that are just as applicable today as they were then...IMO. Accurate knowledge is what "should" differentiate us from those of millennia past.

How do I decide for myself what is the divinely inspired truth and what is man-made?

Your whole paragraph is wonderful. The only way I know is to study, learn, study and learn some more. Never stop questioning and you will never stop learning. Back to my three quotes. And here is the one that I love to keep repeating because it has served me so well during my life. From Robert A. Heinlein's "Time Enough for Love":

What are the facts? Again and again and again---what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history"---what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the Facts!

Because it’s real! Ha. I do think that it’s interesting that some people with epilepsy? have extreme religious feelings during or before seizures—as if there is a sensor in the brain for spirituality. My details may be confused about this. Dostoevsky suffered from this, I think. A neat something to think about.

Hmmmmmm? This would require a long explanation. Let's see if I can at least set you on the path to new discoveries.---Do you understand how our minds operate when denied accurate sensory input? It is very much like what happens every time you go to sleep. The mind never sleeps and is constantly searching the memory banks to make some order out of what has suddenly become chaotic. (Think about some nightmares you might have had...or some rather pleasant dreams that every male...and many females have.)--- Do all epileptics experience this? If not, why not? What about all the supposed out of body experiences (OBEs) when folks have actual, or near death experiences but don't really die? What could this be? Verification that there is an afterlife? Or that the human body undergoes chemical changes as it senses itself shutting down?--- Why have we become a nation of every manner of drug use? To fool our bodies/minds, perhaps? (To steal a little from an old Star Trek:Next Generation TV show, "Humans are just great bags of water" made up of chemicals and an electrical charge(Battery). When the battery dies, the bag bursts and the chemicals are released back into the universe. I know! I know! So what are brain waves (thoughts)? I don't have a ready answer for that. I do have a question though. Without a corporeal transmitting/receiving station, do brain waves have their own organized self-consciousness? Is "Me" still "Me?" I don't think so!

Thank you for the response.