Asha'man

Here is my take on this: I think the fundamentalists are actually correct about one thing: if the Bible isn’t the inspired word of God, then it’s theologically worthless.

By definition, we cannot observe the supernatural. To know anything about it, we must be told by a supernatural source, via revelation. Anything that does not flow from revelation is not knowledge. It is, at best, speculation, at worst, lies and manipulations.

The Bible is chock full of all the errors that we would expect if it was written entirely by man. It demonstrates, time and time again, mistakes that we would not expect from a supernatural source. It is confusing and contradictory. If a supernatural source actually wanted to tell us something, the Bible cannot possibly be the book that would have been produced. Therefore, I conclude that it has no supernatural revelation behind it.

If it really was written entirely by man, what good is it? Well, it does contain some nice poetry. There is also some words of wisdom about how to live in a society. But most good books contain such things, we certainly aren’t going around building religions on the writings of Homer or Mark Twain. Why should this book be any different, why base a religion on it? If it lacks true supernatural authority, then it’s just another book.

By turning the writings into a religion, you get stuck with tons of problems. First of all, your religion is based on a lie, and that is morally unacceptable to me. Second, people tend to interpret things in a damaging way, and you get everything from crusades to bigotry to the inquisition. There is no simple method for separating the good from the bad, everybody can find justification for any evil behavior that they want to.

Yep, I had that same problem. Clearly, something important happened. I finally read some books with both a skeptical and a historical perspective, and I came to a simple conclusion. What happened was that a new religion was invented by men. They did an exceedingly good job, managing to harness some of the strongest traits of human nature. That religion then evolved to become even stronger, adding new stories and material that countered objections, and changing it’s core philosophy to better target the audience it found.

CX

This post belongs in GRD...

BioBeing

Hmmm - I guess I'm a cherry picker too. I just cherry picked that absurd notion of a God right out of that book. And that Jesus fellow - how ridiculous! Turning water into wine, feeding multitudes from a single sardine? I kinda like the notion of being nice to other people though. I kept that one. Does that make me a Christian?

What EXACTLY do you believe, Rational BAC? Explain the rationality of your decisions (assuming from your nic you think your beliefs are rational). Explain why this makes you a Christian, and not some random deist (other than pure tradition). Are you really not just expounding a kind of "I don't believe that this is all there is to life, so I chose to believe in a creator"?

Marduk

I like the Cherry Pickers. They understand that to keep religion relevant it must change with the times. What made sense to Bronze Age goat herders and warriors will not do anything for 21st century engineers and accountants. Spirituality or piece of mind, be nice to your neighbors, blessed are the peacemakers, share your toys etc. are all things relevant to any time period. So they edit out the War God/blood sacrifice, racist stuff. Sounds like this was what Jesus was trying to get rid of anyway till Paul and the Church came along. Back to the letter of the law "I’m more righteous then you ...are nyah nyah nyah" type stuff.
Nothing wrong with using the Bible as a metaphor IMHO

AJ113

In order to be a Christian you have to believe that you need the salvation that comes from Christ.

If you are admitting that the NT is probably mostly garbage then you must include in that garbage one of the more fantastic stories in the NT, specifically the talking snake and the "fall" of Adam and mankind.

If the talking snake story is garbage then you do not need salvation, and if you do not need salvation then you do not need Christ.

Therefore calling the Bible errant clearly IS unchristian.

Ricomise

Rational BAC

As a former "cherry picker," I understand your frustration to some extent. I was brought up in the Episcopal Church in a quite open-minded diocese. My parents are still of that faith and are some of the nicest people you could meet. In fact, I never really had anything but positive experiences in the church. I had the service memorized by the time I was in high school, read scripture during services, and taught Sunday School.

I say this to attempt to give you an explanation of why I am not a christian and have some frustration with all the nice people I know who are. I understand the idea that if "we just take the good things," what's the problem? Here's the problem:

You don't need to believe in a creator to take the good things from the philosophy of Christianity. The ideas of loving your neighbor as yourself and beating your swords into ploughshears don't require God. I'm not sure I ever believed in the Bible as the "word of God" except in the most indirect sense. It was taught to me more as a historical text that contained lessons. I gradually discovered that the "history" in the Bible isn't very good, and that there are thoudands of (at least) of other legends and folk tales and stories that contain the accumulated wisdom (and folly) of generations upon generations of human experience.

All well and good, so what's the harm in believing in God? It's the bad parts of the Bible. Most of them do require God. No, I'm not saying that humans can't do terrible things all by themselves without any help. I'm saying that the killing, the rape, the persecution of others, the restrictions on liberty, the totally irrational parts, by and large, are all justified (if not directly ordered) by God. And even if the people professing the belief are good people, the belief itself has a grounding in irrationality and inability to explain why people (and nature) behave the way they do. Human beings don't need God to cover for us, to take credit for our virtues and blame for our sins. What we need is to examine our relationships with each other, and figure out a way to live with each other here on Earth with the parameters that form our reality. We don't need a supernatural messiah to save us, (though the metaphor of giving something to the community may be well taken) we need to save ourselves.

Unfortunately, the fact that a majority hang on to the belief that we need a God gives aid, comfort, and ammunition to those who would use such belief to continue the worst excesses of the biblical stories.

I apologize for the lengthy post, and I hope you take no offense to this assesment, as none was intended, but I wanted to do justice to your original question.

Thanks for your attention.


P.S. Ever hang out at Red Dog on Bay to Bay in Tampa?

Starboy

It is fine with me. It is interesting to note that by picking on the bible you are being critical of the bible by excluding parts for whatever reason. I am curious; if you are willing to pick what you like from the bible why not pick the best fruit of all religions and philosophy? Why not make yourself a lovely fruit salad instead of just a bowl of cherries?

Starboy

DBrant

What if the number 5 stood up and yelled, "For the umpteenth zillionth time -- I'm not an integer!"

You have yet to justify your circular reasoning: you say that Jesus guides you in cherrypicking from the Bible, and yet it's the Bible that tells you about Jesus in the first place.

Why is it that you've decided to pick more cherries from the NT than the old?

Bree

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, here - but most cherrypickers say that the OT represents the "old covenant" with God's chosen people, and when Jesus died he did away with the "old covenant" (symbolised by the tearing of the huge Temple curtain into two pieces). Supposedly this is why we're not supposed to take much stock in the OT, however, a lot of Christians who profess to believe this still read Leviticus and hold it to some high esteem.

Rational BAC

Too many questions for one night. Am very tired. Just got back into town. Still a very interesting discussion.

Have to shut computer down and hope it will actually restart.

Later guys.------------------

PS -----------I think I am right on this one.--------