OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)

[Edi]

Originally Posted by thejeff

I suspect atheists often assume the literalist position because many of the most extreme and the most vocal Christians are literalists, especially in the US and many places on the net.

I know that most Christians aren't literalists, but most of the ones I worry about are.

True. And the "part literal, part allegory" approach on the other hand provides all sorts of ammunition against a lot of things that even mainstream Christianity accepts as a matter of course. It comes to the "So, which is it?" question and sooner or later the religious arguments start contradicting themselves.

It's hard to give any respect to something that is so inconsistent and self-contradictory. Most of the good stuff associated with Christianity is not actually sourced in the Bible per se, but is universal to most ethical systems that aim to improve the lot of people. The Golden Rule being one of those.

Another problem Christianity has in the eyes of non-believers is refusal of moderates to outright condemn the whackjob fringe, thus silently enabling them to claim more supporters for their position than there really are. If someone on my side were sabotaging constructive efforts the same way they are, I'd let them have it with both barrels. And as long as the other side doesn't return the favor, I won't bother making any distinctions when talking about them as a group. If someone has a problem with it, they can speak up later. Not that the earlier silence will get a lot of sympathy.

[lch]

Originally Posted by Tifone

I know. Many people don't actually know the religious book, it's ok of course, but what surprises me are religious people which don't know what they really believe in.
Don't misunderstand me! I talk with many people about their religion, they say they believe in the Bible and for me it is really no problem, far from being a problem, let's be friends maybe 75% of my friends are catholic btw

The problem is people who take the words of the bible literally. As for me, I know that there are chapters in the bible that I don't accept as valid, same as I don't take what's in the Qur'an as valid information. Some parts in the bible are downright crazy. I acknowledge a lot of things in the old testament and since I'm a Protestant I accept what's in the evangelists books, but I don't acknowledge some of the shorter and crazier chapters of the bible. That is from other authors, and what they wrote is their own view on things.

[SlipperyJim]

So. Many. Responses! I'm going to skip over the political stuff, because politics is being talked to death these days....

Originally Posted by Tifone

Auch, excuse me but I think no one, NO ONE, could ask to an healthy, sane, person, to sacrifice (I know of course in a non literal way) the people he loves the most in his life, daughters, wives, parents, to a person claiming (you said it) to be God, a person never appeared to me, lived (if lived) 2000 years ago. Not even if they believe in something else than him.

If that person was able to prove that He was God, then you'd better believe I'd listen to Him. I'd be nuts to ignore Him!

Here's the main point: God must be first for those who claim to believe in Him. He gave us His life. We must give Him our lives.

Here's the other point: If my parents do not believe in Jesus as Lord, they will not experience eternal life. There will be no happy ending for them. When they die, they will suffer for eternity. That's bad. Under the circumstances, I would be a poor son indeed if I stood to the side and allowed my parents to go to Hell without making every effort to prevent it. I must be a witness to them. However, my witnessing will cause division between us, at least in the short term.

So what should I do? Should I stop witnessing to preserve short-term peace, while knowing that the long-term effects will be horrible beyond belief? Or should I risk some short-term conflict in order to influence my parents toward salvation?

Real-world analogy: If your parents were smoking six packs of cigarettes every day, would you try to get them to quit? What if your parents were already showing signs of poor health -- lung cancer, emphysema, asthma -- would that encourage you toward greater efforts on their behalf? But trying to get them to quit smoking will be tense! They might resent you for interfering in their lives. What now?

The dilemma is that I cannot witness to them if I allow our relationship to become completely estranged. Furthermore, the Bible tells me very clearly that I must honor my parents. So I must walk a middle ground. I try to maintain a cordial relationship with my parents (including frequent contact with my kids, their grandkids), but I also maintain my witness. It's not easy, but few worthwhile things are easy.

Originally Posted by Tifone

True, I'm sorry if it wasn't clear it was a Parable. But you should go further talking. The parable is something Jesus uses in that occasion to talk about the Reign of God, as it is said in that paragraph. The king is God, clearly, without any need of interpretation. You have read the chapter. "Kill whoever doesn't accept me", in the mouth of Jesus - who IS God himself - doesn't sound any better thinking at it as a parable and "not literal".

When you carry the parable into the Kingdom of God -- which is the valid interpretation -- you also pick up some other context. The new factor to consider is grace. God doesn't want you to perish. He wants to save you. In fact, He wants to save you so badly that He sent His Son to die for you.

He has also taken every step to make sure that you know the stakes. He has given us His Word. He has ordered His followers to tell you about Him. You cannot claim ignorance. In fact, since you seem to know more about Scripture than many believers, you especially cannot claim ignorance.

Given all of that, what then should God do with an unbeliever at the final judgment? Salvation can only be found in God. In other words, the only way to save you is to join you to Himself. Do you want Him to do that against your will? What kind of loving God would bind people to Himself for all eternity without their consent? That's not love, it's slavery. So He lets you go to destruction. He doesn't enjoy it -- and neither should His followers -- but there's no other way. You've chosen to separate yourself from God, so He honors your choice.

Sadly, separation from God is not the neverending party that unbelievers want to believe.

Originally Posted by Tifone

Well, maybe that is my main problem with the whole thing. Religion (not only yours) divides people (families! The Bible itself says so) of today's complex and ever-changing world, on world views that are at the best, what? 2000 years old.
You may say they are still valid. I read the Old Testament, or the Quran and I say no, the world is changed, the world MUST CONTINUE CHANGING to go far from these world views of DIVISION and HATRED, not to talk about lapidation and mass murder. Those words cannot have been inspired by a perfect and loving god for me. There must be a mistake, those are the words of a tyrant of cavemen. I just can't accept it.

A divided world was never part of God's plan. He created humanity to live in unity with Him and each other. But we screwed it up. When the Bible speaks about division and hatred, those aren't good things. Division and hatred are the consequences of human sin. The Bible is just being honest about them.

Even when the Bible commands division or hatred (for example, the conquest of the Promised Land), it's a reaction to sin. God commanded the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites because of the Caananites' appalling sins. He also wanted to protect the Israelites -- His chosen people -- from being led astray. Unfortunately, His people didn't obey Him as well as they should have, so they were led astray, and the consequences were disastrous.

Originally Posted by Tifone

Please, tell me how the light of Jesus can make you understand in a (as rational as possible) way, this (almost random quote):

"Now KILL ALL THE BOYS AMONG THE LITTLE ONES. And KILL EVERY WOMAN WHO AS SLEPT WITH A MAN, but SAVE FOR YOURSELF every GIRL OF YOUNG AGE who has never slept with a man." [Numbers 31:17-18]

It is Moses (one of the greater prophets of your religion) which says in the God-inspired Bible what to do to the prisoners of a war against a city, a war which is THE VENGEANCE OF GOD, Numbers 31:3
You talk about the lens of Jesus, my friend, but I fear no lens can let me accept those fearful, full of hate words, in the mouth of a God someone believes in. (Note, the WORDS, not the BELIEVER himself)

The pagan natives of the Promised Land were a very wicked people. The conquest of Israel was so thorough that we don't know too much about them, but we do know that they practiced human sacrifice. And that children were among the sacrifices. The full extent of their iniquities have been lost to history, but whatever they had done, it was so bad that God decided they couldn't be redeemed. They were too wicked to save. Just as a surgeon cuts out a tumor to heal a person, sometimes God destroys sin rather than allow it to spread.

Again, human sin was not part of God's original plan for us. And when He returns, we won't have to worry about it anymore. The lion will lie down with the lamb, and all suffering will be no more than a bad memory.

Originally Posted by Tifone

Still, of course, nothing against you. A hug and my best wishes.

Same here.

[SlipperyJim]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

This is the essential premise that must be laid down before leaders can develop a militant "us vs them" mentality. You call non-believers "fundamentally different", but between the two quotes provided here, and your rationale to support them, you mean that non-believers are "inferior". Beyond that, non-believers are not just inferior, but expendable, and perhaps worthy of direct and violent retribution for their disbelieving ways. To me it seems that this is a good example of scripture that you can interpret to your heart's delight, you can dress it up and sugar coat it all you want - and it's still just wrong, and no matter how you try to bury it, it is filled with malice and dischord.

I said we were fundamentally different, and that's what I meant. What have I said that would lead you to believe that I meant "inferior"?

Unbelievers are not inferior to believers, and no Christian should claim so. Jesus died to save the whole world, not just a chosen few. Each human being is worth the life of God's own Son. That's a lot of value....

In a sense, unbelievers may be worth even more than believers. If I die today, I'm going to heaven. If an unbeliever dies without accepting Christ, he goes ... somewhere else. Therefore, an unbeliever's earthly life is (in a sense) more important than mine, because it's the only chance he has.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

But the bible itself states that it is the word of god. It seems illogical to assume that an essentially infallible being would deposit its teachings into people who were so horribly flawed that they would contradict each other, and make such horrible and glaring errors as are seen. Hence, the basic disagreement between logic and faith ensues.

That's why Marcionism was rightly condemned as heresy. If God is God, then we must take His entire Word. We must interpret it correctly, but we must accept it. Picking apart the Bible will only lead a person astray. We can see the clear danger of picking apart the Scriptures in Christ's warning to the church of Laodicea:

"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

And again, it seems terribly illogical to claim that part of a religious scripture is directly literal, while another part is figurative. I find it amusing that when religious believers are confronted on certain points, they argue that the "word of god" must be taken literally word for word. Confronted on other points, and they will figuratively construe the message in whatever convoluted way necessary to support their own point of view. It is worth noting that this particular point of view may not mesh with many other factions of the religion, who will interpret that particular portion of the bible in a different way.

In one sense, you're mistaken. But in another sense, you're very correct.

It is a mistake to conclude that one cannot believe in the truth of Scripture without taking it literally word-for-word. Not all of Scripture is meant to be taken word-for-word. Scripture contains history, biography, poetry, and prophecy. Some of those events (such as Jesus's biographies, AKA the Gospels) are clearly meant to be understood as the literal truth. Other passages of Scripture are poetic, and they must be understood as metaphor. Much of Scripture works on multiple levels. The Song of Solomon is a good example of beautiful (erotic!) poetry that praises married love between a man and a woman, while it also gives us an analogy for the relationship between God and His church.

On the other hand, you're very correct to spot that there are some logical inconsistencies in Christians who want to dismiss the Old Testament as a mere fairy tale. Christ came to earth as the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. We cannot dimiss those prophecies without dismissing Christ Himself. The miracles in the Old Testament also point to Christ. If we dismiss those miracles, how can we maintain any consistency in our belief about Jesus?

For example, the parting of the Red Sea is frequently dismissed as a fable, even by modern Christians. But God's power over the elements is an integral part of His divinity. He made the waters, so He can certainly order them to part. Power over the elements was part of how Christ proved His own divinity, when He calmed the storm on the Sea of Galilee. More importantly, the parting of the Red Sea (and the entire Exodus) is a foreshadowing of how Christ saved us from sin. Just as the power of God created a passage in the Red Sea, so the power of God through Christ created a passage through sin and death.

There's another point to consider. The crowning miracle of Christianity is the Resurrection. Without the Resurrection, the entire faith falls apart. It seems to me that raising a dead man back to life is at least as big a "trick" as parting the sea. So why would I believe in the Resurrection, yet reject the rest of the miracles? If the parting of the Red Sea is too improbable for me to believe, then the Resurrection is also going to be a problem....

Finally, there's the credibility of God's Word, which comes back to the credibility of God Himself. Not all of Scripture is meant to be taken literally, but there is no sign that Exodus is meant to be understood in any other way. It's not poetry. It's not prophecy. Clearly, it's meant to be a literal history. If we don't believe it as such, then we're challenging God's honesty.

[SlipperyJim]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

Er, as a moderator I'm feeling a little nervous here. This thread is on the very edge of disaster.

JaghataiKhan, if you got banned from the Mount&Blade forums for being offensive in your vehement assaults on religion, please try to avoid repeating that here.

In any case, I am moving this to the Bar&Grill, as it has nothing to do with Dom3.

Belated apologies for dragging the thread even further off-topic than it already was....

[thejeff]

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

Here's the other point: If my parents do not believe in Jesus as Lord, they will not experience eternal life. There will be no happy ending for them. When they die, they will suffer for eternity. That's bad. Under the circumstances, I would be a poor son indeed if I stood to the side and allowed my parents to go to Hell without making every effort to prevent it. I must be a witness to them. However, my witnessing will cause division between us, at least in the short term.

(Much snipped to address one point.)
Witnessing to your parents is, as you suggest, a matter between you and them. But this very argument, that those who do not believe in Jesus as Lord will suffer for eternity has been used to justify so much horror throughout history, that I simply cannot accept it even in a mild form. The Inquisition, forcible conversion of other cultures, etc, etc. All for their own good, since nothing we do to them can compare with Hell. Even if these savages won't convert we can take their children and teach them God's Word.

I assume you wouldn't approve of this, but really why not? Once you assume an eternity of suffering, how is it not good to try to spare people that by any means necessary.



And to comment briefly on a few other points:
If God is all-powerful, how can an entire culture be beyond redemption? (And that's assuming the historical accuracy of a document written well after the fact by the victors, who might have some small motivation for making their enemies look worse.)

And why was the sacrifice of Jesus necessary at all? It seems a particularly messy way to bring about salvation. It makes perfect sense viewed through the culture of the time and place. The redemption through sacrifice concept makes sense in old Middle Eastern culture/theology, but not in the context of an all-powerful, all-loving god.

[SlipperyJim]

Originally Posted by thejeff

I suspect atheists often assume the literalist position because many of the most extreme and the most vocal Christians are literalists, especially in the US and many places on the net.

I know that most Christians aren't literalists, but most of the ones I worry about are.

We need to draw a very careful distinction between Truth and literalism. Fundamentalist Christians like me believe the Bible to be true. We believe that Scripture is the infallible and inspired Word of God. What does that mean?

"Infallible" means that the Word is never wrong on any subject that it addresses. The doctrine of infallibility does not claim that Scripture contains all knowledge. I work in IT, and I can tell you that Scripture is remarkably short on advice for properly configuring a virtual datacenter. However, when Scripture speaks on a subject, it is always correct.

The doctrine of infallibility also does not require us to always interpret Scripture in a literal, word-for-word sense. Some parts of Scripture are poetry, some are prophecy, and some are literal. We have to understand what we're reading. Of course, now we have the problem of determining which is which. Is the creation account from Genesis poetry or literal history? Christians are divided on this question. Personally, I'm undecided, but I'm leaning toward literal history.

A good rule of thumb for interpreting the Bible is: When the Word makes plain sense, seek no other sense. In other words, if the text makes sense from a literal view, then that's probably how it was meant to be understood. We shouldn't reach for a poetical or metaphorical understanding unless the plain meaning of the words can't possibly make sense....

"Inspired" simply means that the Bible came from God. Yes, it was written by human hands, but those people were all guided by God's Holy Spirit. In other words, the Bible has only one Author, but He gave a lot of dictation.

With those points in mind, I will refer you back to Agema's comment. Literal understanding of the Bible simply doesn't work, and Christians have known that for many years. I suspect that you actually don't know too many literalists. I am a member of a fundamentalist Christian church, and I don't know any literalists.

Most of the people who believe in a literal understanding of the Bible are straw men. Actual Christians -- including the fundamentalists -- know that literalism is both self-defeating and unnecessary to proclaim God's Word as truth.

[SlipperyJim]

Originally Posted by thejeff

(Much snipped to address one point.)
Witnessing to your parents is, as you suggest, a matter between you and them. But this very argument, that those who do not believe in Jesus as Lord will suffer for eternity has been used to justify so much horror throughout history, that I simply cannot accept it even in a mild form. The Inquisition, forcible conversion of other cultures, etc, etc. All for their own good, since nothing we do to them can compare with Hell. Even if these savages won't convert we can take their children and teach them God's Word.

I assume you wouldn't approve of this, but really why not? Once you assume an eternity of suffering, how is it not good to try to spare people that by any means necessary.

Conversion by force doesn't work. Jesus wants you to follow Him freely. He wants your heart, not merely your surface obedience. For example, see Amos 5.

If God was only interested in forced obedience, He would take it. Yet He has given us free will. If God Himself won't take away your free will, what right would I have to do the same thing?

The Inqusition and other examples of forced conversion are among the shames of the Church. We elevated ourselves above our stature and claimed a privilege that not even God Himself has claimed. God's Word tells us to be faithful witnesses. That's our mandate, and no more than that.

Originally Posted by thejeff

And to comment briefly on a few other points:
If God is all-powerful, how can an entire culture be beyond redemption? (And that's assuming the historical accuracy of a document written well after the fact by the victors, who might have some small motivation for making their enemies look worse.)

I don't know why the original inhabitants of the Promised Land were beyond redemption. I can hazard a guess that God calculated their likelihood of redemption was far less than the certainty that they would tempt the Israelites into destruction, so He had to destroy them as a threat to His chosen people. Again, we have to remember free will. God wouldn't force them to repent of their wickedness, because that would take away their free will. He had to convince them. Presumably, He gave them sufficient opportunity to prove to His own infallible judgment that they would never turn away from their wickedness....

But really, I don't know. I'm not God.

Originally Posted by thejeff

And why was the sacrifice of Jesus necessary at all? It seems a particularly messy way to bring about salvation. It makes perfect sense viewed through the culture of the time and place. The redemption through sacrifice concept makes sense in old Middle Eastern culture/theology, but not in the context of an all-powerful, all-loving god.

Christ's sacrifice was necessary to satisfy the demands of God's justice. We had sinned. Over and over. And we are going to continue sinning. Someone had to pay a price for all of that sin. As an act of supreme love, God paid that price Himself by sending His Son to die for us.

Remember: Jesus is also God. He is the second Person of the Holy Trinity. God didn't pick some random Jewish carpenter and use him as a scapegoat for the world. Instead, He satisfied His own justice by paying the price Himself.

How would you have done it?

[thejeff]

So God cannot forgive? The sins must be paid for? He is incapable of just forgiving them?

Why did someone have to pay a price for all of that sin?
If someones hurts me, then repents, I don't have to choose between beating them up and beating myself up, I can just forgive. But God can't. Someone must pay. So he hurts himself.
To me, this is nonsense.

In a ancient world view, where religion is all about sacrificing to propitiate the gods, it does make sense. In a comparative mythology kind of way, I can see where the idea comes from.

[Tifone]

Hello, me again here. Nice to see how this discussion is becoming interesting. I think all of us will learn something here, even from positions not shared, if we just keep open minded. Wow, lots of responses here around the time I was to university ^_^

I want to thank expecially SlipperyJim who is continuing to keep his position, and even giving attention to my rants, in a totally polite way. I don't share virtually any of his world views, but he is an excellent and interesting debater.

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

If that person was able to prove that He was God, then you'd better believe I'd listen to Him. I'd be nuts to ignore Him!

Ok, I would like to go to the lenghts here, but I'm really weak and tired after 8 hours of university. For that, really, I need to ask you to pardon the somewhat "rude" way I say = Prove it to me.

Please, of course, not quoting the Bible. I could just prove almost everything true with circular logic - God isn't real just because the Bible says so, as the Bible was written to prove this God to be real - just like the ancient Greek legends of Zeus' "miracles" were made to prove him real and still I don't believe them too.

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

For example, the parting of the Red Sea is frequently dismissed as a fable, even by modern Christians. But God's power over the elements is an integral part of His divinity. He made the waters, so He can certainly order them to part. Power over the elements was part of how Christ proved His own divinity, when He calmed the storm on the Sea of Galilee.

[...]

There's another point to consider. The crowning miracle of Christianity is the Resurrection. Without the Resurrection, the entire faith falls apart. It seems to me that raising a dead man back to life is at least as big a "trick" as parting the sea. So why would I believe in the Resurrection, yet reject the rest of the miracles?

It always confuses me how your God had no problem to do LOTS of HUGE miracles in the past, becoming so evident -resurrecting people, parting seas, casting flame storms on cities- not really leaving place to the free will to believe or not believe of the observers, and now that it would be easy for Him to prove wrong all today's sceptics doing ONE real miracle on CNN, He seems to have become shy (sorry, again, didn't want to sound rude, the words just came out in a somewhat ironic way )

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

Here's the other point: If my parents do not believe in Jesus as Lord, they will not experience eternal life. There will be no happy ending for them. When they die, they will suffer for eternity. That's bad.

If even you would prove that your God is real, and not one clearly created by man like Thor, Apollo, Zeus, Moloch, Chtulu, the FSM, which may or may not be have been worshipped now or in the past... and he is the only God, and not the Hindu ones i.e... Heck, even if He would appear in front of my face and being this way... Well sorry I wouldn't actually WORSHIP him. Not a God which consider the natural DOUBT (which he left leaving actually not even a REAL PROOF of him) so wicked that he sends billions of even GOOD people to BURN FOREVER just for this.

Also, excuse me, but I have to think if there is really a/some God/Goddess/Gods who have created all the billions of billions of stars and gigantic galaxies and the life forms from the lower bacteria to the most complex ones, I can't really see him/she/them in a so "little" and "wretched" activity like looking is every of his little creations' hearts, divide the ones who believe from the one who don't, and expect them do die to send the first ones in an all shiny and happy place and the other ones to SUFFER FOREVER. Period.

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

Sadly, separation from God is not the neverending party that unbelievers want to believe.

Ok, I really hope this was a mistake from you, because this is not be respectful at all. "Neverending party"? What are you talking about? People live their lives. They work, they suffer, they rejoice, they gain and lose precious people for them. All with the morals from their religion, Christian or not, or from their coscience. No "neverending party" for nobody (ok, only for those ducks of My Super Sweet Sixteen on MTV, may they really burn forever, no, joking again ^_^ ). Also, agnostic and atheists and buddhists don't see neverending parties anywhere, and surely not in any "afterlife".

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

A divided world was never part of God's plan.

[...]

Again, human sin was not part of God's original plan for us. And when He returns, we won't have to worry about it anymore. The lion will lie down with the lamb, and all suffering will be no more than a bad memory.

Man, you are negating that your God is omniscient, or what? He couldn't have made a PLAN without involving EVERYTHING in it if he actually KNOWED everything that was gonna happen.

Originally Posted by Agema

It is logically consistent to say that although God is perfect, any communication he could render to humans must be interpreted by imperfect human understanding.

You are saying God is ALL-POWERFUL but he |||CAN'T||| make a person understand him and write his words correctly, just because he is ancient and ineducated?? He wants to save humanity with his message and gives it in the hands of an almost-caveman WITHOUT TAKING THE LITTLE TIME AND ENERGY (for Him) to make him UNDERSTAND his words and WRITE THEM CORRECTLY, and thus CONDEMNING all the naturally doubtful to NEVERENDING PAIN?? Seems like blasphemy ^_^ Sorry, joke

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

Even when the Bible commands division or hatred (for example, the conquest of the Promised Land), it's a reaction to sin.

?

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do all these things." [Isaiah 45:7]

"Shall there be EVIL in a city, and the LORD hath not DONE it?" [Amos 3:6]

Best wishes to everybody