Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

[ironduck]

In your current state of intellectual development, you may as well be a creationist.

Instead of flaming people perhaps you should explain why it's so horrible to consider the bible largely (if not completely since there are obvious historical references) fictional? If religions are not fictional because people hold strong enough beliefs in them then all fiction can end up as being 'religion' and thereby no longer be considered fiction. Including scientology.

Plenty of fiction contains snippets of facts as well as plenty of morals. In no way does this mean that it's no longer fiction. That's like saying James Bond isn't fiction because it contains cars and tuxedos and the cold war. Or that a fairy tale isn't fiction because it contains oodles of morals.

 

[ironduck]

I know this was answered, but I'll add my two cents. It's like a loving parent who would punish their child if they did something wrong. Now, true, a parent doesn't give their kid a plague or something, but on the scale of nations, that's what has to be done to get leaders (and people) to notice. If you notice, atleast in modern society, disasters tend to bring people closer together, and more religious as a result (typically in the short term until selective amnesia takes over again). Egypt was also the enemy of Israel, too.

So it's ok that god orders his 'chosen people' to unleash violence upon others, including innocent children? Because the OT is full of that.

Of course it's supposed to be pre-monotheism! God wanted his people to obey his commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.". True, in the modern society, we don't go around breaking things (note - Fundies love lines like what you just quoted and they take it to the extreme). One thing you have to remember is, this was back in the Old Testament (back around 1500BC or so). And yes, Christians do feel their religion is the only true religion (or faith - Catholics especially). After all, if they didn't, why would they even be Christians?


Think of it this way....

Religion is like a discipline. If you took away one rule every X years, soon you'll be left with no rules. No discipline.

I can't get this to make sense.. in the OT that was quoted people are ordered to go around and break sacred things that belong to people of other faiths. Why should they be ordered to break them then, but not now? What has changed? Or are you simply saying that it didn't actually happen and it's just a parabel?

 

[ironduck]

Israel was a chosen people, in the sense that God would use them to carry out His plans on earth. But to do that they had to be faithful to Him. Living in a land full of "pagan" religions with more . . . interesting religious rituals, there was always a temptation to abandon God and go with the other religions. Thus God had to be quite forceful to keep their attention on Him.

But that is not the situation now. There is no reason for Christians, or modern Jews for that matter, to be fearful or mistrusting of polytheistic religions such as Hinduism. (I know, polytheism isn't quite the right word, but it is from a Christian perspective.) Thus there is no excuse for religious intolerance - there is no danger of the entire nation of believers falling away from God. Sadly, this fact has been lost on some Christians.

Um.. you are saying that there aren't people these days that have 'interesting' rituals? Surely you can't be serious. And even if you think that way, does it mean that god would once again ask people to go about their destructive rampage if people came up with 'interesting religious rituals'?

 

[warpus]

Then you failed in your point; fiction still requires a strong consistency else it fails in its goal. Just because something isn't consistent doesn't make it fiction, and just because something is fiction doesn't make it inconsistent.

EDIT: I feel the need to add following: the idea that the bible is fiction is just as laughable as the idea that the bible should be taken literally. We have plenty of external evidence that many of the events detailed in the bible (the Captivity, Maccabees, travels of Pauls, etc.) did occur. The events did take place. Now, I know your thinking is that 'oh it's about religion, so it has to be fiction', but that's a wrong belief to have. To use a non-biblical example, Constantine may or may have not seen a Cross before battle; it doesn't matter though because he legalized Christianity regardless. God may not exist; it doesn't mean the Jews didn't flee from Egypt or get conquered. There's a reason colleges offer a course on the bible as a historical document. In your current state of intellectual development, you may as well be a creationist.

A lot of fiction isn't internally consistent though. Take Star Trek - it is a huge mess of movies, series, comics, etc. The internal Star Trek universe is constantly argued over by Trekkies, much like the inconsistencies of the Bible are argued over by various Christian sects and Jews.

If everything in the Bible was 100% accurate then we wouldn't have inconsistencies in the first place - which is why I suggest that it's fictional in nature - this would explain the inconsistencies.

And of course fiction is based on true events.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Um.. you are saying that there aren't people these days that have 'interesting' rituals? Surely you can't be serious. And even if you think that way, does it mean that god would once again ask people to go about their destructive rampage if people came up with 'interesting religious rituals'?

That was a euphemism for child sacrifice and temple orgies. And God only intervened in this specific case - only Palestinian religions that could draw Israel away from the true God. He didn't bother about such practices elsewhere in the world or in other eras. And in fact, after the time of the judges, the Bible only speaks of shrines and other things being destroyed within Israel itself - the Philistines and Moabites and so forth could continue worshiping as they had.

And I wouldn't classify fairy tales as mere fiction, either, as they do have a moral and all and many have roots in earlier myths.

 

[Elrohir]

Since everything the Bible has to say about homosexuality is in the OT, and thus as you say is a command to a certain group, in a certain time, to those of the Judaistic faith, in the OT that should not be put above the NT, then why is homosexuality still a sin for Christians?

Nice try, but no. Your assertion that "everything the Bible has to say about homosexuality is in the OT" is factually innacurate. (Read: Dead wrong)

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

The New Testament calls homosexual activity "shameful", "unnatural", "indecent" and "[a] perversion". It's quite clear here. (And please, don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that perhaps "unnatural" or "perversion" aren't negative - I've had people argue that the Old Testament reference, that as an "abomination" really wasn't condemnation )

 

[Homie]

Since everything the Bible has to say about homosexuality is in the OT, and thus as you say is a command to a certain group, in a certain time, to those of the Judaistic faith, in the OT that should not be put above the NT, then why is homosexuality still a sin for Christians?

Are you really curious or do you just want to be a nuisance. Why do you people always have to bring this up, what is your problem?

If you honestly don't know about the obvious references to homosxuality in the NT then you should read some more before you ask.

 

[Sidhe]

Are you really curious or do you just want to be a nuisance. Why do you people always have to bring this up, what is your problem?

If you honestly don't know about the obvious references to homosxuality in the NT then you should read some more before you ask.

It's way OT but frankly the references in the New testament are vague and refer again to Jews/christians, anyone else doesn't have to follow them at all so that's about 80% of the world anyway,and anyway their dead and those they were meant for don't follow them either. It's only small minded biggots, who pull them up on internet forums as if somehow God's continually reiterating his loathing of homosexuals, when in fact it's the individual condoning his disgust at homosexual practice through a dead set of laws, it's antiquated irrelevant and totally without logical merit basically. That aside can we get back on topic and leave this stuff for the gay marriage thread

 

[Truronian]

I suppose this would be a bad time to bring up the fact that the New Testemant also condones slavery...

 

[ironduck]

That was a euphemism for child sacrifice and temple orgies. And God only intervened in this specific case - only Palestinian religions that could draw Israel away from the true God. He didn't bother about such practices elsewhere in the world or in other eras. And in fact, after the time of the judges, the Bible only speaks of shrines and other things being destroyed within Israel itself - the Philistines and Moabites and so forth could continue worshiping as they had.

How does that change my point? If people in Israel today began having orgies in temples, would that mean god might turn 'his chosen people' on a rampage against them? I know you disagree with the thunder and lightning god of the OT in general so I'm not really following you here, it seems rather inconsistent. Jesus isn't telling people to go on rampages against the 'sinners', but that's exactly what god does in the OT, including the part you responded to here..

And I wouldn't classify fairy tales as mere fiction, either, as they do have a moral and all and many have roots in earlier myths.

Why is it not fiction if it has morals? I can write you a story right now with a moral. How does something being an earlier myth make it less fictional? Is a myth not fictional? Just as plenty of fiction is based on real events and contains morals, so do myths (although most of them are not based on particularly real events as far as I can tell..)

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I suppose this would be a bad time to bring up the fact that the New Testemant also condones slavery...

From what I could tell it is not that Paul condoned slavery but that he didn't want Christians to overthrow it. He said that there were no bond or free in Christ, all were equal, and in the meantime it would be better just to keep the existing social order as long as masters treated their slaves well. (Which he also urged.)

 

[Elrohir]

It's way OT but frankly the references in the New testament are vague and refer again to Jews/christians, anyone else doesn't have to follow them at all so that's about 80% of the world anyway,and anyway their dead and those they were meant for don't follow them either. It's only small minded biggots who pull them up on internet forums as if somehow God's continually reiterating his loathing of homosexuals, when in fact it's the individual condoning his disgust at homosexual practice through a dead set of laws, it's antiquated irrelevant and totally hypocritical basically. That aside can we get back on topic and leave this stuff for the gay marriage thread

Sorry, but it's not referring to just Jews and Christians:

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Does that sound like he's talking about Christians and Jews? It certainly doesn't to me.

First, because something is old, does not mean it is wrong. You say this is "antiquated", but that does not mean it is incorrect. I believe you are falling prey to what's called a "Chronological fallacy", namely that you believe someone is wrong simply because it is old. As for it being "hypocritical", I'm afraid I don't know what you mean.

I'm reporting your post for calling me a "small minded biggot"; I hope in the future you can debate without namecalling.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Whoah, that part must have been written during Christianitys 'ratings sweep' period.

 

[Masquerouge]

Are you really curious or do you just want to be a nuisance. Why do you people always have to bring this up, what is your problem?

Well I've never had a clear answer on how the Christians should consider what is said in the OT: should everything in it be upheld by Christians? If no how do you decide what you will respect and what you will discard? When is it okay for a Christian to use the OT as a guideline?

If you honestly don't know about the obvious references to homosxuality in the NT then you should read some more before you ask.

That's fair But
1. I've heard Christians quoting the OT so many times for matters of moral laws that I was a bit amazed by Elrohir's answer on the status of OT.
2. Are the references against homosexuality made by Jesus himself? Or can something that's written by someone else also become a moral law as long as it is in the NT?

So that's what my "problem" is.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Whoah, that part must have been written during Christianitys 'ratings sweep' period

It is also the only mention of female homosexuality in the Bible, and one of very few in the ancient era that i have been able to find. Not that I have been looking that hard . . .

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

That's fair But
1. I've heard Christians quoting the OT so many times for matters of moral laws that I was a bit amazed by Elrohir's answer on the status of OT.
2. Are the references against homosexuality made by Jesus himself? Or can something that's written by someone else also become a moral law as long as it is in the NT?

So that's what my "problem" is.

The question of what parts of the Bible, the OT in particular, to be considered relevant and which not, is I think a problematic one and shows the difficulty in using the Bible as the only source of moral law. However, the prohibitions against homosexuality in the NT were written by Paul, who is generally considered to have had authority in these matters, as with other moral or doctrinal issues, as he was an apostle.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

It is also the only mention of female homosexuality in the Bible, and one of very few in the ancient era that i have been able to find. Not that I have been looking that hard . . .

I think thats the closest many generations of human beings ever came to hard core porn. I'll have to remember that for my next 'History of Self Abuse' thread.

 

[Sidhe]

Sorry, but it's not referring to just Jews and Christians:


Does that sound like he's talking about Christians and Jews? It certainly doesn't to me.

First, because something is old, does not mean it is wrong. You say this is "antiquated", but that does not mean it is incorrect. I believe you are falling prey to what's called a "Chronological fallacy", namely that you believe someone is wrong simply because it is old. As for it being "hypocritical", I'm afraid I don't know what you mean.

I'm reporting your post for calling me a "small minded biggot"; I hope in the future you can debate without namecalling.

Actually I believe I'm falling pray to being cynical about all the biggotry that the bible has fostered. For a start I in no way think God ever told anyone to hate homosexuals we are just programmed naturally to find the behaviour somewhat distasteful and we manifest this in laws.

The fact is that what God says in the bible to me is pure and simply what man says, so I don't really have to take any of it seriously as you do, if I did though I certainly wouldn't trot out chronological fallacy, these are patently laws for another time, if you want to keep them burning in your heart for eternity do so that is your right, but don't expect the rest of the non christian world to follow.

I never called you a small minded biggot actually, I called people who troll threads with God's so called message biggots, as far as I know I've never seen you post the actual wording until now, most people don't bother because none but the devout fundementalist take it that seriously, and it goes down like a lead balloon normally, so please if your going to report someone do it for the right reason, not for an imagined slight, that doesn't exist, thankyou very much.

And anyway I quoted Homie if anyone should be offended it's him and it wasn't directed at him either

EDIT: of course Islamics don't have to follow Christian laws, or Hindus or Budhists? I'm not talking about who it's meant to represent, I'm talking about who is meant to follow these edicts, allbeit it's my opinion it's no one.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I think thats the closest many generations of human beings ever came to hard core porn. I'll have to remember that for my next 'History of Self Abuse' thread.

That, and Song of Solomon. Reading it in a modern translation (instead of the KJV I am used to) made it obvious how racy it was.

 

[Markus6]

A lot of fiction isn't internally consistent though. Take Star Trek - it is a huge mess of movies, series, comics, etc. The internal Star Trek universe is constantly argued over by Trekkies, much like the inconsistencies of the Bible are argued over by various Christian sects and Jews.

If everything in the Bible was 100% accurate then we wouldn't have inconsistencies in the first place - which is why I suggest that it's fictional in nature - this would explain the inconsistencies.

And of course fiction is based on true events.

Fiction isn't written by accident. The writers of Star Trek and Bond and ALL other fiction knew they were making stories up. The writers of the bible thought they were writing the truth, wether they were right or not. However, if you do think the bible was written just as an entertaining story (I guess the Council of Nicea decided to take out the "once upon a time" beginning to increase the power of the Catholic church), then you should probably let us know. Otherwise comparing the bible to Star Trek just seems like trolling to me.