Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

[Sidhe]

You said "It's only small minded biggots, who pull them [Bible verses condemning homosexuality] up on internet forums....." That is clearly saying that if you put those verses up, then you are a "small minded bigot", which I resent.


Because it sounded to me as if you were insulting me, and it still does.

Ok this is a misconception and I really don't want it to become an issue.

Who I meant was people when an issue comes up say something like: because in passage A it tells us that we must do B and chatise homosexuals accordingly according to the devout message in the bible, literalists.

Instead of arguing along with the thread they dive in say God said and dive out leaving no relavancy to the thread and having no means to back up their claims. You know who I mean, it isn't you it isn't Mob Boss it isn't Civ General it isn't Homie it isn't anyone who might post on this or other well drawn out and argued threads, it's the simpletons who literally base there entire argument around a set of archaic laws and refuse to think beyond the words in the bible.

I never intended to insult you and never meant to, if I did I humbly apologise.

It's your right to have your own opinion. Everyone can, and will make up their own minds; but don't expect Christians to stop trying to convince you. You should be flattered, in our minds we are trying to save you from a terrible fate; in your position, I would be most insulted if Christians didn't try.

Of course I'm flattered, I just don't agree that I'm somehow going to hell, because I know at heart I'm a good person, and I try hard to follow the tennants of Jesus, and fail miserbaly often, I don't have to be religous to see the inherent simplicity and perfection in his words. I don't have to be religous to understand the beauty that comes from looking within with Budhism or the inherent wordliness and spirituality with the Hindu faith. Or the obvious laws of the taoist or the infinite compassion and peaceful sentiment of the Muslims. Or the humerous but wise mesages of the African beliefs, or the deep routed animism and transcendental states of the original American faiths or the wonderous scope of the agnostic/atheistic philosophical texts on morality. I can find my own path without being told, I apreciate being told, it makes me more complete but I certainly don't apreciate being told I can't find my way to being a decent human being without faith and worse that I have to go to hell for being a decent human being and not accepting any one faith.

 

[Elrohir]

Ok this is a misconception and I really don't want it to become an issue.

Who I meant was people when an issue comes up say something like: because in passage A it tells us that we must do B and chatise homosexuals accordingly according to the devout message in the bible, literalists.

Instead of arguing along with the thread they dive in say God said and dive out leaveing no relavancy to the thread and having no means to back up their claims. You know who I mean, it isn't you it isn't Mob Boss it isn't Civ General it isn't Homie it isn't anyone who might post on this or other well drawn out and argued threads, it's the simpletons who literally base there entire argument around a set of archaic laws and refuse to think beyond the words in the bible.

So what, exactly, is the problem? If you believe the Bible is the Word of God, should you not obey it? I understand that you don't believe it is, but I'm honestly puzzled as to what you are trying to ssay here.

I never intended to insult you and never meant to, if I did I humbly apologise.

Apology accepted, and I apologize if I misunderstood you.

Of course I'm flattered, I just don't agree that I'm somehow going to hell, because I know at heart I'm a good person, and I try hard to follow the tennants of Jesus, and fail miserbaly often, I don't have to be religous to see the inherent simplicity and perfection in his words. I don't have to be religous to understand the beauty that comes form looking within with Budhism or the inherent wordliness and spirituality with the Hindu faith. Or the obvious laws of the taoist or the infinite compassion and peaceful sentiment of the Muslims. Or the humerous mesages of the African belieifs, or the deep routed animism of the original American faiths or the wonderous scope of the agnostic/atheistic philosophical texts on morality. I can find my own path without being told, I apreciate being told, it makes me more complete but I certainly don't apreciate being told I can't find my way to being a decent human being without faith.

You really think you are, deep down, a good person? That's interesting; you're the first I've met.

To be fair, you raise a good point: There are messages of beauty and truth in other religions. I don't believe they are complete, as Christianity is, and may be utterly wrong in other areas. But there are bits of truth scattered here and there, and I do find it sad that many Christians can't admit this.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You really think you are, deep down, a good person? That's interesting; you're the first I've met.

You should get out more. There are lots of people who think that they are "good person". And, I'm sure you'll be surprsed to learn, there are people who are genuinely "good people". I guess you've been hanging out with too many christians. I bet if you spent more time with athists and believers of other religons you would find lots of good people.

 

[Quasar1011]

You should get out more. There are lots of people who think that they are "good person". And, I'm sure you'll be surprsed to learn, there are people who are genuinely "good people". I guess you've been hanging out with too many christians. I bet if you spent more time with athists and believers of other religons you would find lots of good people.

Nice sentiment there, Birdjaguar. Unfortunately, it's not true.

Mark 10:18
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone."

 

[Birdjaguar]

Nice sentiment there, Birdjaguar. Unfortunately, it's not true.

Mark 10:18
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone."

So that this does not turn into a "who can find the best bible quote" contest, I will merely say that since god alone is, you are correct.

 

[Markus6]

How do you know? Did you ask them?

No. I get the feeling your shifting the burden of proof. Do you honestly think any of the biblical authors were intentionally lying?

Also, would you say that is true for all other religious texts?

Yes (though I guess there maybe some very obscure ones that were just written as a joke). I just don't think the authors (to varying degrees) were right.

I'm a christian but I do believe that man is in essence good. We were created by God, perfectly, in his image. Granted mankind made some bad choices and turned away from God but we can't completely change what we were created to be. Humans know the difference between good and evil, and generally try to do good (with obvious exceptions). We just have an innate ability to mess things up every once in a while. IMHO the concept of original sin can be taken too far.

 

[Sidhe]

So what, exactly, is the problem? If you believe the Bible is the Word of God, should you not obey it? I understand that you don't believe it is, but I'm honestly puzzled as to what you are trying to ssay here.

I'm trying to say that I distrust any person who's entire moral code comes from a text, who is so brainwashed by the book he is incapable of thinking for himself, who's raison d'etre is to espouse text as a justification for every act in life and not think beyond that. I wish I could find that quote again about Jesus' word about scripture it sums up beautifully what I think about the bible. If God is anywhere he is in life in living in nature and all around not burried in musty old ever unchanging text. It is mankind that has placed limitations on God, assuming that When God supposedly spoke his words were a code to be followed for all eternity(ten commandments aside) In other words I think the bible falls short of being a good guide to modern living because it isn't meant to be, the morals messages are good and just as apt to day as they were then, the Jewish laws aren't, there not meant for people living today, why people think they are and cherry pick them accordingly is because it suits the Church to make people think it is so, at least up until the 20th century where it relaxed it's position on many things. In conclusion if someone quotes text at me and then when I ask about it refuses to justify it or put it in context, then I dismiss their beliefs like it was confetti in the wind. They obviously are incapable of looking beyond the text to the age in which such things were born, or unwilling. cherry picking is hypocrisy in my eyes. Follow them all or follow none it's quite simple.

I am a good person at heart, it's my brain that causes all the problems, of course I'm not a pure or perfect person, that's not what I meant, although there are people who were considered to have found the state of perfection on Earth, but they got crucified, or dissappeared to take a place on God's right hand. To be honest I think though the tally of enlightened prophets though is rather small.

 

[Elrohir]

I'm trying to say that I distrust any person who's entire moral code comes from a text, who is so brainwashed by the book he is incapable of thinking for himself, who's raison d'etre is to espouse text as a justification for every act in life and not think beyond that. I wish I could find that quote again about Jesus' word about scripture it sums up beautifully what I think about the bible. If God is anywhere he is in life in living in nature and all around not burried in musty old ever unchanging text. It is mankind that has placed limitations on God, assuming that When God supposedly spoke his words were a code to be followed for all eternity(ten commandments aside) In other words I think the bible falls short of being a good guide to modern living because it isn't meant to be, the morals messages are good and just as apt to day as they were then, the Jewish laws aren't, there not meant for people living today, why people think they are and cherry pick them accordingly is because it suits the Church to make people think it is so, at least up until the 20th century where it relaxed it's position on many things. In conclusion if someone quotes text at me and then when I ask about it refuses to justify it or put it in context, then I dismiss their beliefs like it was confetti in the wind. They obviously are incapable of looking beyond the text to the age in which such things were born, or unwilling. cherry picking is hypocrisy in my eyes. Follow them all or follow none it's quite simple.

Why? Look, if you believed that the Bible truly was inspired and written by God's direction - that it was literally the Word of God - would you believe it, and follow it? If God says something, and you believed that He really said it, wouldn't you obey? I would. I think the problem here is that you don't believe the Bible is God's Word, if you did, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have any problems with people basing their moral code off of it.

Why can't the Bible be used today? I think it's very limiting to say that God could tell the people of the past how to act - but when it comes to us, He doesn't get a say.

By the way, I think the verse you are thinking of is this one:

9"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

I am a good person at heart, it's my brain that causes all the problems, of course I'm not a pure or perfect person, that's not what I meant, although there are people who were considered to have found the state of perfection on Earth, but they got crucified, or dissappeared to take a place on God's right hand. To be honest I think though the tally of enlightened prophets though is rather small.

The list of enlightened prophets is small; the list of Perfect Beings is much smaller - limited to one.

 

[Sidhe]

I think the broader moral issues will always be true and should if your Christian be followed religously(particularly Jesus' messages) But Pauls ideas of what considered proper Roman/ Jewish values is probably not meant to be taken beyond the time and society in which it was written, of course the admonishments against theives are still around now and various other sex crimes he also mentions, but then some things are unlikley to change, rape will always be rape, I hope I don't see a day when it's condoned, personally I've just looked into the homosexuality clauses for example and it does very much seem to be an example of the considered imorality of the day rather than a message from God, I think these messages are not intended to be represented as God's divine will, but are clearly a set of rules for a Jewish society which is coming to Christianity, a new code of behaviour for a new set of Gentiles. Equally I belive the quotes from Leviticus are also man's law not divinely begotten law, if it was I suspect it would have been carved on the tablets along with though shalt not steal.

 

[ironduck]

No. I get the feeling your shifting the burden of proof. Do you honestly think any of the biblical authors were intentionally lying?

I don't consider making up stories (writing fiction) lying. As long as one acknowledges that it's just a story. What happens with myths and legends is that they are eventually considered as true by some people, who then feel they are being truthful in passing them on (such as the bible).

For instance, consider the Norse creation myth - where do you think they learnt about a cow being shaped by ice through fire, which then gave birth to the first god? Do you think the first people who started telling that story had a revelation that it was definitely what happened? Or do you think that perhaps it was a dramatic story that could be told to entertain and to convey a symbolic message?

I obviously think the latter, and that also goes for the bible. It has a lot of authors and many of the stories run deep back into various myths and legends. Through this process some people end up putting so much weight on it that they decide it must be the truth.

So you see, I'm not shifting any burden of proof - I'm simply noting that you cannot know whether the creators of the original stories believed in them or not, but odds are that they didn't emerge as 'the word of god', but rather as stories for entertainment and a way of conveying things that were important at the time.

Oh, and Elrohir and others: I'm a good person. I know several other people who are good persons.

 

[King Flevance]

FLIPPIN' SWEET IDEA FOR A THREAD!

I just wanted to pop in and say that. I may pull it up from time to time as well on some things. Kind of like an online bible study group. lol

 

[civ2]

Hi!
I think the Esau-Jacob "incident" wasn't explained enough.
"I'm about to die" didn't mean Esau being starving - he was just told by Jacob about the fact that the firstborn were to serve God.
Esau was "a man of hunt/fields(blood)" - basically a common bandit.
He was absolutely unfit for serving God.
Jacob saw this clearly and tried to explain the future role to Esau.
Esau was scared that he can die due to his definite unfitness - and that's why he agreed to "sell" his birthright.
He simply got rid of it!
Esau realised that he got rid of something really worthy only when Jacob got "Esau's" blessing from their father.
But this also was not a mistake - Jacob was the one who continued Abraham's and Isaac's way of living - not Esau.
Esau acted like one that has a huge stone and is bothered by it - not knowing what it is.
Then someone buys it from him and he readily takes ANY price since he thinks the stone being worthless for HIM.
But it was nothing less then a huge brick of gold!
If he "studied" his stone more carefully he would find this out - but he had no time for this for he was always "busy" doing basically nothing.
If Esau delved deeper into his father's teachings he would know WHAT he was selling - but he was too "busy" - committing murder and frivolty.
And afterwards he was NOT right to claim Jacob outsmarted him - Jacob simply knew what he was speaking about and Esau neglected his duty.

 

[Markus6]

What happens with myths and legends is that they are eventually considered as true by some people, who then feel they are being truthful in passing them on (such as the bible).

It's probably best if we stop considering the bible as one book. The whole of the new testament is safe from this explanation as there just wasn't time from the events to their writing for them to become myths and legends. In the old testament I think it's fair to say that most of the characters are real. One of the old testament writers had a penchant for geneologies, that I think can probably be trusted back to King David at least. Obviously it would break down somewhere but whole stories can't be dismissed as legend and myth. The Jews probably did spend time in Eygpt and were exiled to Babylon. If you think some of the old testament miracles were inflated until everyone believed them and were then written down, then fine, but that's a long way off saying, "the bible is fiction".

But the point remains, the biblical authors thought they were writing the truth. They may have been wrong but that does not make their books a work of fiction.

 

[ironduck]

It's probably best if we stop considering the bible as one book. The whole of the new testament is safe from this explanation as there just wasn't time from the events to their writing for them to become myths and legends.

Really? I would say that myths and legends can happen within a single generation. There are plenty of examples of that going around today. Events and capabilities are ascribed to people who are alive that have no or little basis in reality. Once they're dead it only grows from there. And the less information that can be verified the easier it is to grow a legend, which was certainly the case 2000 years ago. Ss for written stories, consider that the scientology texts are considered the truth by thousands of followers, even though Hubbard knew that he was writing fiction.

In the old testament I think it's fair to say that most of the characters are real. One of the old testament writers had a penchant for geneologies, that I think can probably be trusted back to King David at least.

Really? I would like to see some documentation for this. It's my impression that most characters in the old testament cannot be verified as real. Some yes, but most? Which genealogy do you think can be trusted? In the NT the lineage of Joseph varies rather strongly from Luke to Matthew.

Regardless, even if all characters in the bible were historical people it wouldn't necessarily make it non-fiction. Plenty of fictional stories are written with real characters to lend authenticity to a story. Both contemporary (political thrillers) and historical (historical fiction, for instance popular books about Ramesses II).

Obviously it would break down somewhere but whole stories can't be dismissed as legend and myth. The Jews probably did spend time in Eygpt and were exiled to Babylon. If you think some of the old testament miracles were inflated until everyone believed them and were then written down, then fine, but that's a long way off saying, "the bible is fiction".

That's what I was talking about giving the example of James Bond, though. Is James Bond not fiction? And yet we have the proper countries, the proper political system, proper government agencies, proper technology (for the most part, save 'miraculous stuff'), and proper political conflicts. In the same way, the Jewish tribe was propably persecuted, and there were pharaohs in egypt at the time, so we have some historical basis. Then we add a story of Moses and god and miracles and wrap it all up nicely in a tale. That is fiction unless Moses and god and the miracles and all that happened. To say something isn't fiction because people believe strike me as rather odd. If it isn't true then it certainly isn't fact. Once again, I'm not saying anyone is lying, I'm simply saying it's probably fiction.

But the point remains, the biblical authors thought they were writing the truth. They may have been wrong but that does not make their books a work of fiction.

Once again, why are you so sure the authors thought they were writing the truth? Why do you find it so inconceivable that at least some of the stories were known to be legends when they were finally written down, but they were seen as part of the tradition and therefore important despite knowing they probably weren't true? And even if they believed everything they wrote, why does that change its status from fiction? It may not be their own fiction, but perhaps their wives' fiction or their uncles' fiction or someone else's fiction.

 

[Elrohir]

I think the broader moral issues will always be true and should if your Christian be followed religously(particularly Jesus' messages) But Pauls ideas of what considered proper Roman/ Jewish values is probably not meant to be taken beyond the time and society in which it was written, of course the admonishments against theives are still around now and various other sex crimes he also mentions, but then some things are unlikley to change, rape will always be rape, I hope I don't see a day when it's condoned, personally I've just looked into the homosexuality clauses for example and it does very much seem to be an example of the considered imorality of the day rather than a message from God, I think these messages are not intended to be represented as God's divine will, but are clearly a set of rules for a Jewish society which is coming to Christianity, a new code of behaviour for a new set of Gentiles. Equally I belive the quotes from Leviticus are also man's law not divinely begotten law, if it was I suspect it would have been carved on the tablets along with though shalt not steal.

So basically, you're saying the moral ideas you feel like keeping are from God, while the ones you don't like aren't, just because you don't like them? I don't think that's how it works. If God, as the Ultimate Authority in the universe says "This is wrong", then it's wrong whether we feel like keeping that particular commandment or not.

 

[ironduck]

Elrohir, can you not see in your own heart what is right and wrong?

 

[Sidhe]

So basically, you're saying the moral ideas you feel like keeping are from God, while the ones you don't like aren't, just because you don't like them? I don't think that's how it works. If God, as the Ultimate Authority in the universe says "This is wrong", then it's wrong whether we feel like keeping that particular commandment or not.

Not at all, just that we should be more carefull about the ones that aren't straight from the mouth of Jesus, his message is timeless, the other messages are subject to anachronism. As I said barring the ten commandments, which again are purported to be direct from God's hammer and chisel, rather than by way of an interpreter.

Covenants are less subject to personal and societal interpritation than laws for a people at a given time, given by men, particularly Pauls laws. Not all of them make sense in a modern world, it's the same with OT laws, I'm sure you can see that, with the shellfish and the wearing of two threads and the stoning of blasphemers. You know what I'm talking about better than I no doubt.

 

[Homie]

Another question Aneeshm, or do you have the Bible covered by now. If so, thats pretty impressive

 

[Elrohir]

Elrohir, can you not see in your own heart what is right and wrong?

I have a conscience, if that's what you mean. Or are you talking about opinion? I believe what God says trumps any personal opinion that I might have.

Not at all, just that we should be more carefull about the ones that aren't straight from the mouth of Jesus, his message is timeless, the other messages are subject to anachronism. As I said barring the ten commandments, which again are purported to be direct from God's hammer and chisel, rather than by way of an interpreter.

Covenants are less subject to personal and societal interpritation than laws for a people at a given time, given by men, particularly Pauls laws. Not all of them make sense in a modern world, it's the same with OT laws, I'm sure you can see that, with the shellfish and the wearing of two threads and the stoning of blasphemers. You know what I'm talking about better than I no doubt.

Wait a minute: Why do you assume that the rest of the Bible, besides what came from the mouth of Christ or the Ten Commandments may, or may not be true based upon the time period? Don't you think God cares enough about how we act to make One Law about morality? Don't you think he cares enough to make sure we get it right?

 

[ironduck]

I have a conscience, if that's what you mean. Or are you talking about opinion? I believe what God says trumps any personal opinion that I might have.

This is the part I will probably never understand. If your conscience tells you something, how can you say that god is above it? Either you know something in your heart or you don't.