The Bible Thread: Help Fight Redundancy

I don't think you believe that, and I certainly don't. But you can't really pick and choose with a Book like the bible. It says what it says, and that's that.

No, that's just mistaken. Whe you read other books, you often look into underlying meanings and investigate further. You shouldn't take what Scripture says at face value. The authors weren't that basic, and neither are we.

 

That's very true.


Okay first, I think we need to clear something up. What are we talking about? Give me an example of something from the Bible that Fundies say is literal, but you say is allegory.

 

No examples?

 

Genesis

i cannot tell you how many fundies argue that because God exists outside of our understanding of time, that it is a fact, an absolute infallible truth, that the Earth was created in, literally, 6 days! that's 144 hours to make the whole thing... dinosaur bones and all...

The Unspoken Bible

//excerpt from the website:

How Long is a Day?

Genesis 1:5 defines a day as having an evening and a morning. Genesis 1:14 distinguishes days from years. Genesis 1:16 says the sun rules the day and the moon rules the night. It couldn't be more clear that a day is defined as a 24 hour period.

5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,

16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night;

Elsewhere in the Bible we find the definition of a day as a thousand years. But even if a day can be stretched to a thousand years, the Bible is nowhere close to millions and billions of years in real time.

4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night. (Psalms 90:4)

8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (2 Peter 3:8)

No one had any idea how old earth is until 1630 BCE, when Irish archbishop James Ussher announced 4004 BCE as the date of creation. That date was accepted by large numbers of Christians. The Jewish calendar goes back to the 10th century. It fixes the date of Creation at 3760 BCE (they are still in print today). It is fair to say that the Bible was once regarded as an historical document. Its time of creation, of around 4000 BCE, was widely accepted by Jewish and Christian authorities.

It wasn't until the beginning of the 19th century, when archeologists found the ancient Egyptian civilization?almost as old as creation itself?when the Bible lost its credibility as an historical document. Without the aid of any religious sources, scientists estimate the age of earth to be about 4.5 billion years.

In recent decades, many of those who defend the creationist view have been backpedaling with the argument that a day means millions of years or some indefinite period of time. The oxymoronic term "creation science" came into vogue in a vain attempt to give religion scientific credibility.

a day in biblespeak could be stretched to a thousand years in astrological time. But given what was discussed above, a day of creation is 24 hours.

//end excerpt

 

Sorry, wasn't able to get back you.

The above example is an obvious one, and I'll just settle for that right now.

I think it's foolish not to look deeply into the context and times of Scripture to understand the meaning of the words.

 

The above example is an obvious one, and I'll just settle for that right now.

i don't know if you meant for that comment to come across as condescending, but it did to me...

 

I meant that it was a good example of things being allegorical and not literal. By "obvious" I meant that it was more than sufficient for the question earlier, and that I didn't need to go searching for more.

I don't see how it could come across as condescending.

 

"I don't see how it could come across as condescending."

obviously. i'll just settle for that clarification.



at any rate, it is clear that it was a misunderstanding - i saw it as condescending, but, since you have clarified your position it is as water under the bridge...

move along. move along...

edit: uugghh

 

I always think you should keep in mind how many people were there to witness an event when deciding whether it's likely to be true.

For instance, I once got into a discussion with a biblical literalist friend of mind about Genesis.
I said 'In the beginning of Genesis, the only 'person' around is God. So how would the person who wrote Genesis know what God thought and said?'
and she told me that Moses wrote the first five books of the bible - God dictated them to him on Mt Sinai.
I had to smile at the thought of Moses having to chisel out all that stuff on stones - I think my friend had an image of Moses writing it down on paper with a pen, or maybe typing it up on his laptop.

There's lots of similar occasions in the gospels ... where the only people present are Mary/Gabriel, Jesus/Satan, and one in the Garden where it is just Jesus alone. I'd be more likely to take those situations with a pinch of urban-legend, rather than a situation like the sermon on the mount, where there were hundreds of witnesses around.

 

Here's an interesting contradiction in Paul's letters:

"God So Loved the world, he gave his son".

Later on, Paul states:

"Any one who loves the world is an enemy of God"

God is his own enemy?

 

"God So Loved the world, he gave his son".

Later on, Paul states:

"Any one who loves the world is an enemy of God"

God is his own enemy?


"Loving the world," in terms of humans, is basically synonymous with living a life of sin. If you "love the world," you are an enemy of God. God, however, loves the world - in a different sense. He loves His creation, and His people.

 

Here's an interesting contradiction in Paul's letters:

"God So Loved the world, he gave his son".

Later on, Paul states:

"Any one who loves the world is an enemy of God"

God is his own enemy?

Chris, when you read Scripture, do you try to look deeper into the meanings and context, or do you simply take the words at face value?

 

Call me an elitist or whatever, but I truly find it strange that people *still* believe in the Bible the way it was intepreted in the Medieaval Ages.
Will the human race ever advance when we're constantly kept back by so many naive, primitive beings still worshipping gods as if they were anything else but visitors from other places? How indoctrinated is it possible to be? As indoctrinated as me? Hope this post is provoking, but please don't send me all these angry PMs. If there is one group of people who know how to write angry PMs, its Christians heh lol

 

Funny how depending on what you find in the Bible, fundamentalists will tell you at times to take everything literally, and then other times not to... More interestingly, the meanings always seem to change depending on what point of debate they're trying to support at the moment.

 

Call me an elitist or whatever, but I truly find it strange that people *still* believe in the Bible the way it was intepreted in the Medieaval Ages.

The Medieval ages have nothing to do with it. The early Christians took it as literal and many died for it.


Will the human race ever advance when we're constantly kept back by so many naive, primitive beings still worshipping gods as if they were anything else but visitors from other places? How indoctrinated is it possible to be? As indoctrinated as me?

Er....


Hope this post is provoking

I hope that's a joke.


but please don't send me all these angry PMs. If there is one group of people who know how to write angry PMs, its Christians heh lol

Really? So you've received loads of angry PMs from Christians? Would you mind posting a couple of them for us to see, as I fear that maybe some people might not believe you.

 

Religion is important-believing in something allows for us to control ourselves. If we had no religion and only government, there would be a lot more bad stuff going on in the world.
The central message of Christianity is to love others(and especially God) above all else. If we didn't believe that message, almost everybody would be completely selfish(The bible warns repeatedly about the dangers of lust for money, posessions, food & sex).Granted, religions *can* be twisted for the wrong purposes, or taken out of context. People such as Bin Laden, David Koresh, Jim Jones and Hitler used religion as a psychological weapon to control others. But it can do extraordinary good, as well.

 

Religion is important-believing in something allows for us to control ourselves.

Ok, so lets see... I'm only in control of myself when I force myself towards the side of complete piety as an answer to the other extreme of complete greed... I can't learn moderation any other way? Wow, there must be absolutely no good, law-abiding, decent, non-drug-addicted/non-alcoholic atheists in the world.

Believing in something else allows us to control ourselves?! I can't begin to say how many things are wrong with this statement. Let's see... I'm already in control of and accountable for myself and my destiny, but I need to involve a third party to guide me to have more control over myself? To me, this indirect approach is about as useful as a fish learning how to ride bike.

If we had no religion and only government, there would be a lot more bad stuff going on in the world.

Re-read history of Western civilization sometime... most of the bloodshed and "bad stuff" that happened throughout Western history has been caused by religious institutions (particularly Christian ones) at the helm of government.

Killing for peace is like screwing for chastity.

The central message of Christianity is to love others(and especially God) above all else. If we didn't believe that message, almost everybody would be completely selfish...

It certainly hasn't stopped Jerry Falwell, Jim Bakker, David Koresh, Osama bin Laden, Yasser Arafat, George Bush and other religiously "devout" individuals from being completely selfish.

I don't believe in Christianity's message... I am a Hindu... does that mean I'm automatically selfish simply by virtue of what "club" I join? Wow, I didn't know all one had to do to wipe away centuries of religious intolerance, hatred, racism, bigotry, and other such misdeeds was to give their allegiance to the same instrument by which most of these problems proliferated throughout the western world. And the PMRC thinks Ozzy Osbourne is insane...

(The bible warns repeatedly about the dangers of lust for money, posessions, food & sex).

And other scriptures don't?

 

"The Medieval ages have nothing to do with it. The early Christians took it as literal and many died for it. "

The early Christians were so eager to become martyrs that it sickened many Romans. Alot of their deaths were their own faults for wanting to become martyrs. it wasnt just ROman Persecution, it was a sick desire to be martyred that we are seeing in islam today.

 

If we had no religion and only government, there would be a lot more bad stuff going on in the world

What if we had no organized religion and no government? Then there would be chaos!! Just look at tribalists... they're blood-thirsty savages.

 

"Lose it?! I didn't lose it! It's not like, "Whoops! Where'd my job go?" I quit! Someone pass the asparagus."
- Kevin Spacey as Lester Burnham in American Beauty

PS: Let me break it down... (Subtitled for white people: "Deconstruct it to the most elementary level"*)... It's not like Tribals are stupid... they live that way because it works for them. Just like Christianity works for some other people, despite the broader knowledge base that exists in the world which would tell them maybe there's more to know about God than exists in the Bible.

The basic crux of the Lester Burnham moment I'm trying to get across is that there is no one right way to live, and people don't always walk away from the system out of failure or frustration... it's often a conscious choice to not participate in the status quo just because someone thinks it might be a better way for you to live (a'la Conquistadors and Missionaries).


* Loose Robin Williams standup comedy reference...

 

anyway, these so called blood thirsty savges have nothing on some of the monsters who have committed genocide or other heinous crimes in the name of religion or govt. While i am not advocating getting completely rid of these instittutions(they have their usefullness) i am merely saying that the savages probably lead better lives than people in civilized countries which are more akin to our hunter gatherer pasts. But if you want to talk about blood thirsty ness, that occurs in every society on the globe, whether they are tribal warriors or civilized armies of the Free world

 

sleazo, if you've read any of my previous posts, you would know I was being facetious, ironic, and sarcastic with my above message (hence the " " emoticon) I agree with your statement that they "probably lead better lives more akin to how humans should act than any of us".

 

sorry, i dont always read the name next to the post,,
i sincerely apologize, erasing last post
feels ashamed

 

No, don't erase it! Just re-word it. You made some very salient points.

 

Still, many religious laws have defined our modern morality. Certainly the laws in many countries have been inspired by religiously inspired doctrines such as The Code Of Hammurabi, The Ten Commandments, The Seven Deadly Sins and various other doctrines.