My Views on God

I go to a baptist church (yuck, I know. but mine I have been to many and this is nothing like the others I have been to! not typical) and I don't understand why someone would say they believe the Bible but don't take it literally. The idea that each person is just going to be able to "divine" what each verse (which I take literally) means is silly to me.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

But the Bible says a lot of things. If you took it completely literally you wouldn't be able to wear clothing that's made of two different types of fabric.

 

I don't understand why someone would say they believe the Bible but don't take it literally

A literal interpretation of scripture is not valid in light of the Science. The earth is not young, created in six days or covered by a global flood.

Modern Science which is superior in understanding the physical world does not agree with a literal interpretation of scripture.

Those that subscribe to a literal interpretation of scripture believe in false doctrine and are apostates.

 

The earth is not young, created in six days or covered by a global flood.

Recent underwater studies of the Black Sea have revealed several remnants of a civilization on the seafloor that dates roughly to the time
when the flood was said to occur. These findings lead credence to a flood that, although it might have not covered the earth, was still substantial.

 

These findings lead credence to a flood that, although it might have not covered the earth, was still substantial.

It was local flood in the Black Sea area caused by water overflowing from the Bosporous at the end of the last ice age. This event certainly does not support the literal interpretation of the bible describing a global flood. Geologist's have found no evidence that the Earth was ever covered in a global flood.

However, some scholars have speculated that this event may have been the inspiration for story of Noah's Flood.

 

gwa- That's the only example people who question the Bible's literacy can come up with. Realize that the Jewish laws in the Old Testament were mostly for health reasons. When Jesus came, he basically set forth the really important laws. Things like burning your house if it gets mildew is no longer needed, nor was it by Jesus' time.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

That's the only example? I could provide verses which show that a person can survive for 3 days without oxygen, a woman's only sexual role is to please her husband, a woman wearing pants is an abomination, adulterers should get the death penalty, vegetarians are weak heathens, and God has commanded people to eat their own children.

 

About "Literalism"...well, keep in mind that parts of the bible are intended to be symbolic or metaphorical. Take REVELATION as the biggest example, or the parables. I believe it's even stated in the scriptures that God is using symbolism in prophecy instead of blatantly telling them outright-especially true of end-time prophecies(Which make references to Dragons, beasts, and wacky prostitues quite frequently!). The messiac prophecies are a little bit clearer.

 

gwa- of course there are miracles like Jonah and the whale! Yes, I take those literally. I find it sad to believe in a god who can not perform such miracles. I have witnessed miracles of my own, as well, so don't tell me they are impossible. Nothing is impossible with God!

As for those other verses, I think you (like many others) are taking them completely the wrong way or out of context, or you just don't think they can be true because they compromise your thinking of what's 'logical' (like miracles do).

And of course Jesus told parables, but he made sure the followers knew they were parables. I believe the other things he taught and that the Bible said he did are true.

To say that you believe Christ rose from the grave to save you, but to reject the thought that God could have created the worl in 6 days or saved Jonah from the whale is nonsensicle. I believe that you take it all, or leave it all. And like I said, what's the point of a god who can't do anything, but is simply a block of wood?

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

Well being a former religious person, I can say that religion has one major flaw.

LACK OF FACT! Because religion in all of its forms is based around one thing. Faith. And while it is true that we use the ideal faith in our daily lives, being religious or not, it doesn't change the main point. Because that in order for a religion to be "true" they have to have a certain amount of building blocks that have a portion of truth in them. For instance, Jesus Christ. Is it possible that there was a person that came to earth and taught people on morals and beliefs? Yes it is. Then the ideal of faith comes into hand. Is it AS LIKELY that this man was actually the son of God? No. Is it AS LIKELY that his mother had not known a mans touch before he was born? No. So you base major belief's off of partial truths.

Also, Religion also brings in an interesting point of view. Because one of the biggest things in common that Religion has is the belief in an afterlife. IMO this is wy so many people are drawn to various religions. Because people do not want to accept the fact that their loved ones are gone forever, and they will never be able to talk to them again. So if they believe that they will see their loved ones again, then there is another reason to join religion.

Furthermore, the reason for which I am so anti-organized religion is because I believe that organized religion destroys who we are. I believe that religion inhibits our actions, and our decsisions, because we have a fear of some kind of intangable parent or hero figure that we haven't even met! It seems so pointless to devote ones life to an organization whos whole basis of belief's are made off of half-truths.

Moving on, I would like to point out that I do not HATE organized religion. I just have ill feelings toward it because of pastimes. That said, I will continue. As I was saying, religion is based off of faith. We either choose to believe that we were created by some benevolent Figure in the vastness of space, or choose to believe that we were not created at all. Rather that we were progressed to the state that we are in now.

In conclusion I would like to state that I believe religion to be nothing more than a comforter or a pillow to those who fear death, and life itself.

I APPOLOGIZE TO THOSE THAT I MIGHT HAVE OFFENEDED BY MY COMMENTS. THIS IS A PLACE WHERE WE CAN STATE OUR BELIEF'S OR LACK THERE OF. AGAIN, I APPOLOGIZE.

 

Realize that the Jewish laws in the Old Testament were mostly for health reasons.

People who may have never really studied the Jewish interpretation of the laws often make this misguided assumption. While there are rules about lepers and people with 'sores' and 'issues' of all kinds, these are very few. And, by the way, many are still valid. For instance, just because we are all modern and have cures for the clap and syphillis doesn't mean it's ok to have sex while you're infectious. These laws are based on the 'keep it to yourself' idea. Stil quite valid, indeed. And while we don't worry about mildew taking over our homes doesn't mean we strike the info from the OT. And believe me, rabbi's can find some way to interpret and apply these laws even to modern life if they try hard enough.

The main body of laws that modern Jews follow, those that 'make them Jewish', so to speak, revolve around the Sabbath, keeping kosher, and what is called 'family purity', which involves when it is considered the best times for married couples to have sex, revolving around a woman's menstrual cycle. NONE of these laws are health related in the sense that modern science has overruled them or made them obsolete. They are holiness related, meaning they are meant to separate the everyday, the 'profane' from the special, or 'holy'. There is also the separation of life from death issue, but that would involve much more detailed explanation, so I'll leave it unless anyone askes for more info.

gwaernardel, I'm curious about your post about finding passages in the bible where it commands people to eat their own children. What are you referring to with that? Human sacrifice alone is considered an evil abomination, much less canibalism.

 

I was thinking more about your 'health laws' statement while on my way to work, solojones, and I am simply curious where you would get this idea. I got to remembering where we are right now in the weekly process of reading the Torah: Deuteronomy. This book covers a mind-boggling myriad of laws concerning such things as war, marriage, divorce, relationships with one's neighbors, charity, and justice for dozens of things such as murder, theft and personal injury. These are all still valid everyday conerns that the laws apply to. If Jewish law were merely about health, we'd be the most robust and long-lived people on earth.

gwaernadel, I was looking at some of the other statements you made and just wanted to give my .02 cents along the same idea that rock-solid literal interpretation of the vast majority of the OT is impossible, as it's left quite wide open for differing views. The question is, was this on purpose. Here's some interps I've learned:

a woman's only sexual role is to please her husband

First, what's so bad about pleasing one's husband? I like to think all women make a point of doing so regardless of such a narrowly interpreted biblical passage. Second, there are also passages that state the role is not only reciprocal, it is even more demanded of the man to please his wife. Makes sense...it's much easier for a man to just 'get his jollies' in a few minutes than it is for a women. Anyway, it is perfectly legal in the Jewish interpretation for a woman to divorce a man who does not fulfill this obligation.

a woman wearing pants is an abomination

Very narrow interpretation followed only by the very Orthodox in both Judasim and some denominations of Christianity. The passage actually merely says that "a woman shall not wear men's clothing and a man shall not wear women's clothing". What clothing? Did people even wear pants in biblical times? Does it mean only underwear or does it include outerwear? Even if you interpret it to mean pants, how often are men's and women's jeans able to be worn by the opposite sex..they aren't cut to fit even if you wanted to. Did we make shirts button up on different sides for the different sexes to get around this law? Probably, but I don't know shirt button history well enough to vouch for it.
Additionally, the commentary in my bible on this passage is that it may have applied at the time to the practice of pagans interchanging their clothes. Because the practices of pagans such as orgiastic fertility rites and human sacrifice were considered abomination, even the simple act of exchanging clothes was believed to be the first step to sinking to the same level. Therefore it was forbidden.

adulterers should get the death penalty

Well, I wanted to kill MY ex-husband when I found he'd been sticking it where he shouldn't be. The key word you used here, appropriately, is 'should'. It doesn't mean they did. However if my ex had, he wouldn't have gone on to cheat on even more women, as I know he has, and this is the reasoning behind such punishment: to rid the world of such uncaring malicious people.
But anyway, much of what seems like harsh and barbaric punishment in the OT was in actuallity rarely, if ever, carried out. Even the 'kind for kind' (eye for an eye) laws were simply a way of saying the punishment should fit the crime, and the restitution should fit the loss, not to actually gouge out eyes or knock out teeth.

vegetarians are weak heathens

You stumped me here...where is this? God's initial design was that we BE vegetarians, and it is still something to strive towards. The allowance for eating meat is made to Noah in the understanding that people simply have a craving for meat and that it sometimes cannot be denied and God would not hold it against us as an unforgiveable sin, knowing he himself created us this way. But if one wants to eat meat, it must be done under strict rules. This is where the laws of ritual slaughter and kashrut come into play. Bas

 

Why is it not possible to simply agree with the teachings of Christ, or Buddha, or Mohammed or Krishna, or anyone else for that matter? Why is it necessary to resign one's self rigidly to one dogma in order to believe something?

I believe in many things... regardless of which prophet or avatar or demigod said them. I believe in the golden rule, even though it's been paraphrased by virtually every major religion. I believe in universal truths, and don't resign myself to dogma.

And anything in particular I do believe, I don't expect anyone or ask anyone to follow my path... especially if I don't know where they're coming from. I know how to get from Denver to Minneapolis, but I can't give a person directions to Denver if I don't know where they're from and what roads are taken to get to Denver from where they are.

 

If the bible is to be taken literally, why then are there so many different interpretations of it?
Could it be that it should be taken as allegory, and as such have an even higher meaning than simply believeing "my god can do everything". These allegories are meant to convey higher meanings upon those who understand them.



Oh and SnowDog- if more people thought like you there would be a lot less suffering in this world.

 

TeeBee- not being Jewish myself, I can't comment on how things inside that religion work. I have read almost all of the OT now, and I wanted to say that, laws about not wearing things of more than two types of thread... seem, well, stupid. For Christians, when Jesus came, he gave us more important things to think about.

Snowdog- you say you believe that some of the teachings of Jesus are good. That's great. You believe he was a good person? Well, why would someone who is a good person, and who teaches things that are right, lie about who he is? Wouldn't that destroy the validity of his teachings?

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

Why is it so wrong to believe what Jesus said and not take the rest of the Bible literally? If Jesus had written the entire Bible, I would have no problem with it. I would love that book. I would live every second of my life by it. But he didn't.

 

About "Lack of fact"

Well, the bible does have certain factual and historical verification. If you can, pick up or catch Mysteries Of The Bible: The Bible's Greatest Stories. It's an A & E documentary.
Also, check out www.christiananswers.net and www.tektonics.org. These are decent apologist sites which point to the data which may verify the validity of the bible.

Then again, so does the Illiad and the Odyssey


BTW there are many biblical passages which can often be misinterpeted and shown to condone genocide or hate. But often this is not the case--the passages are either:

(A) Taken out of context
(B) Mistranslated
(C) Had a different meaning in their time than they did today.
(D) In the case of the gospels, they have a parrarel passage in another Gospel which more clearly reflects the meaning of the passage(For instance, many of the Gospel and epistle notions regarding family)

 

I have read almost all of the OT now, and I wanted to say that, laws about not wearing things of more than two types of thread... seem, well, stupid.

I'll agree with you there. That is certainly an example of one of the odder laws, and I don't think anyone has ever been able to fully explain why one should not wear flax (was that it?) and wool together. But in rabbinical Judaism, we try to ponder out every possiblilty. I don't know how this law really applies to modern life, as I don't believe anyone in my congregation checks the 'ingredients of their clothing', but that doesn't mean some of the more Orthodox ones don't, and that's their perogative.

For Christians, when Jesus came, he gave us more important things to think about.

I agree with you there too. The gist I get from Jesus's teachings is don't obsess over the law to the point where you forget about humanity. He reiterates the most important ideas, such as the Golden Rule, and rails against injustice. I don't know of any Jews who have a problem with that. I certainly don't.

 

Here's some of the passages people frequently have a problem with:


When Jesus' parents begin the long trip back to Nazareth, the twelve year old Jesus stays behind, without even asking for their permission. Mary and Joseph search for him for three days and when they finally find him, Jesus doesn't apologize. Rather, he blames them for not knowing that he was doing his real father's business. 2:43-49
Peter and his partners (James and John) abandon their wives and children to follow Jesus. 5:11
Jesus, when told that his mother and brothers want to see him, ignores and insults them by saying that his mother and brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it. 8:20-21
Jesus won't even let his followers bury their dead parents or say farewell to their families before abandoning them. 9:59-62
Jesus prophesies that families will be divided because of him and his teachings. Sadly, this is one prophecy that has been fulfilled. 12:53
Jesus says that his disciples must hate their families (mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, children) and themselves. 14:26
If you want to be a disciple of Jesus, you must abandon everything, including your family. 14:26
Abandon your wife and family for Jesus and he'll give you a big reward. 18:29-30
Jesus says that everyone in heaven is single. Does that mean that married people can't go there, that they must get a divorce once they arrive, or what? 20:35

 

That's good, TeeBee I support the Jewish people fully, as well.

gwa- Jesus himself said that he was God. And God said that the whole Bible was perfect, every word was his. That he just used the apostles to write down what he wanted them to say. So transitively, the Bible does state that it was written by Jesus/God.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

Well, why would someone who is a good person, and who teaches things that are right, lie about who he is? Wouldn't that destroy the validity of his teachings?

Who cares who he is. When did I ever say he lied about who he is, for that matter? I don't care if Ed Sullivan first uttered the golden rule... it in and of itself makes sense.

Gandhi did many things as selflessly as Jesus... and I believe in his philosophy...

And what does Jesus being whoever he claims himself to be have to do with the validity of his teachings? Would the same words be less valid had they come from anyone else?

 

The bible is attributed mainly to the following authors, apparentally guided by the Holy Spirit:

Paul has the largest number of 'books' with his fourteen epistles(Although some of them may have been done by other authors-mainly Ephesians and Hebrews). There is a small number of Christians who don't follow Paul's philosophy and think he was hogging the religion all for himself, especially since he wasn't one of the disciples of Jesus. Reality check: Neither were the writers of the OT!
I believe John and Moses are tied with five books each. Although Moses's authorship of the Penteuch is in question(Since he refers to himself in the third person, and also it mentions his death) and Revelation may have been written by a seperate John.
Following them it's commonly believed that Solomon authored a chunk of the old testament, mainly Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song Of Solomon. However this remains rather sketchy.
Then there's Peter and Luke, who have two books to their credit. Peter composed two epistles, while Luke composed both his Gospel and the follow-up to the Gospels, Acts.

 

"gwa- Jesus himself said that he was God. And God said that the whole Bible was perfect, every word was his. That he just used the apostles to write down what he wanted them to say. So transitively, the Bible does state that it was written by Jesus/God.

"


Actually there are some who attribute the sayings of jesus to mean that he is god, we all are god. That there is no difference between the living and god. Check out Gnostic Christians or the writing of the Cathars(another group oppressed by the Church who had a different idea of christianity)

 

About Jesus being God-well, that's sort of a "Yes and No". It's obvious from the gospels that Jesus refers to God seperately-for instance, Jesus speaks to God several times in the Gospels(Also "The Father"-during his brief appearences in the Gospel-states that Jesus is his son to the baptist and the disciples) refers to him as a seperate entity. Also, Jesus refers to himself coming back on the 'right hand' of the father...which would be awfully difficult if they were the same person.

Generally, Christians believe that Jesus is an aspect of God, just as the father/Jehovah/Yahweh is also another aspect of God. The third aspect is 'the holy spirit', apparentally God's presence which links with man, and often gives him spiritual gifts, mostly in the form of a person's works or supernatural gifts, such as seeing the future or healing.(But of course, these can be faked, and have been by greedy televangilests)

 

I just have to say that I think that religion hurts a lot more than it helps. Wars have been started over differences in religion. I think they take good idea's, and good moral standards and then ruin them by turning them into belief's. And the worst part is that a lot of religious people don't even know what they are supposed to "believe"