Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

[Markus6]

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.

I think it's fair to say all the biblical authors believed what they were writing. The Old Testament authors were Jews. It was their religion and their culture. If you believe that they were conciously writing down things they didn't think were true then the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise I think it's a fair assumption to say they believed what they were writing.

You, and most people on this forum, obviously don't believe the bible is fully fact. However, to call it fiction, and then compare it to James Bond, or Star Trek, or call them fairy stories, is kind of insulting. If someone today wrote a history book that was later found to be incorrect in some parts would you call it a work of fiction? For me you probably need to find a different word between fact and fiction for the bible.

 

[El_Machinae]

What would you call the holy text of Odinism? Fact or fiction? Something else?

 

[Homie]

Ironduck, people's coscience can be twarted, God's word cannot. People throughout history have done lots of bad, thinking that they did the right thing.

 

[Homie]

El Machinae, is there such a book? I've never heard of it.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

What would you call the holy text of Odinism? Fact or fiction? Something else?

I would call it something else. It can be considered scripture if it is considered holy by anyone, regardless of its veracity. Mythology is not in my mind the same as fiction even if it is not literally true. The same would go for the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, etc. But not Dianetics.

 

[Elrohir]

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.

Because conscience is largely based on guilt. You don't do something, because you have a feeling that you'll regret it, or be guilty later - or you're sorry you did something, and won't do it against because you're feeling guiltly. Sometimes this is true, but sometimes it's not, because you can have "false guilt"; feeling guilty isn't always an accurate indicator of actual guilt or innocence.

For example: After someone you know and love dies, many people feel guilty about it. Most often they had nothing to do with getting them, certainly not in a direct way - but the yfeel guilty nonetheless. Also, you can be told that something is wrong, again and again, and if you can be made to believe it, when you violate that rule you will feel guilty, whether it's actually a sin or not. For example, I've heard of couples raised Catholic, who were raised in such a chaste enviroment so strongly against pre-marital sex that even when they married, and when no one would say they were sinning by having sex - they still felt guilty.

Guilt can be wrong; God's Word cannot be. That is why God and His Word is the Ultimate Authority on morality.

I would call it something else. It can be considered scripture if it is considered holy by anyone, regardless of its veracity. Mythology is not in my mind the same as fiction even if it is not literally true. The same would go for the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, etc. But not Dianetics.

If I could jump in here: I would mostly agree with you. I believe fiction in what is written by someone, knowing that it is false. Something that is written as part of a religion is something else, even if it's not true, as it is (Presumably) believed by the author and the followers. Thus, calling the Koran fiction wouldn't be completely accurate; scripture might be a better term. I would differentiate between that "scripture" and Holy Scripture, what I believe to be the actual Word of God, though.

 

[warpus]

You could call the Bible a book of myths and legends.. but that's pretty much saying that it's fiction, so..

 

[El_Machinae]

It also has fables and parables, and those have moral value.

But so does Anne Rand's writings!

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

You could call the Bible a book of myths and legends.. but that's pretty much saying that it's fiction, so..

Again, I would not call every factually untrue thing ever written "fiction". That may be a matter of opinion, however. But at the very least, I think that it is extremely unlikely that nothing in the Bible is factually true. There are also things like poetry and wisdom literature that don't really fall under the "fiction/nonfiction" heading.

 

[bigfatron]

You could call the Bible a book of myths and legends.. but that's pretty much saying that it's fiction, so..

Interpreting the Bible as a collection of tribal history, myth, law and literature is a perfectly valid approach to its analysis. It throws up its own areas of interest and problems of interpretation, and leads me, at least, to some interesting if tentative conclusions about the nature of society and our relationship with the unknown.

Clearly this interpretation is incompatible with that of those people who believe the Bible to be God's word. The fact that this basis for analysis is uncomfortable for believers doesn't invalidate it or make conclusions from it less meaningful.

Stick to your guns, Warpus!

 

[shadow2k]

Guilt can be wrong; God's Word cannot be. That is why God and His Word is the Ultimate Authority on morality.

Guilt is determined by conscience, not the other way around. You've got it backwards. There conscience tells them something is wrong, therefore, they feel guilty.

What has always been disturbing to me is the way God can suddenly override what you know is wrong, just by saying so. And it's not wrong to you anymore, simply because God said so. Think back to Abraham. Murder your son. And he would have.

Why is our alleged creator infallible anyway? Because he says so? Seems to me that a God with such an admittedly huge ego (jealous god, etc...) could easily not be perfect, and merely be telling you so in order to further his own agenda (worship me!).

If anything, I'd say this world alone is proof enough that any and all Gods are quite far from perfect.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

One thing that is always overlooked in the whole Abraham/Isaac sacrifice incident is Isaac's age. He was not a child, he was an adult by then. He must have been willing to go along, and agree or disagree with that decision, you at least have to admit that it is quite different to be willing to lay down your own life than to take someone else's.

 

[MrCynical]

One thing that is always overlooked in the whole Abraham/Isaac sacrifice incident is Isaac's age. He was not a child, he was an adult by then. He must have been willing to go along, and agree or disagree with that decision, you at least have to admit that it is quite different to be willing to lay down your own life than to take someone else's.

But it doesn't change the fact that no God worthy of worship would demand human sacrifice. While in the Bible "God" does not permit Abraham to actually carry out the act, the asking of it, and the suffering it would have put to Abraham, are almost as despicable as if the act had been completed. As I have pointed out on innumerable occasions, a single act of such sin would be enough to condemn the being referred to as "God" in the Old Testament as being no genuine deity worthy of worship. Unfortunately the Abraham/Isaac sacrifice incident is a relatively trivial sin compared to the vast atrocities attributed to the being referred to as "God" elsewhere in the Old Testament.

To be worthy of worship a deity would have to demonstrate supreme moral excellence for its entire existence. A thorough read of the Old Testament reveals a being that is referred to as "God", but demonstrates far more sinful behaviour than most humans.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

By our standards, it might seem bad. But I really don't think you can judge a higher being by human standards. He didn't really want Isaac as a sacrifice, He just wanted to see how much Abraham trusted Him. he allows us to undergo suffering all the time; the reason is that it helps make us stronger.

 

[bigfatron]

Guilt can be wrong; God's Word cannot be. That is why God and His Word is the Ultimate Authority on morality.

In essence this is what scares non-believers - your assumption throughout is that the morality you interpret from your holy scripture is that of an all-wise God.

However, there has to exist a possibility - one you would probably characterise as minimal but I would characterise as pretty significant - that you are simply interpreting the words of another individual, from an archaic culture, as they describe their own morals, and putting that interpretation before the urgings of your own conscience.

If, as I suspect, God's word is simply the two thousand year-old thoughts of some semi-literate pastoral settlers, it would seem to be very foolish, to put it at its most modest, to let it over-ride the results of two thousand years' civilisation and cultural/moral development.

 

[bigfatron]

By our standards, it might seem bad. But I really don't think you can judge a higher being by human standards. He didn't really want Isaac as a sacrifice, He just wanted to see how much Abraham trusted Him. he allows us to undergo suffering all the time; the reason is that it helps make us stronger.

Why shouldn't you judge God by our standards? What other standards have we got? Wouldn't a higher being expect to be judged by higher standards, not lower? We judge children less harshly than adults, not more so. We expect animals to act as beasts, but condemn the bestial in humans.

The god of the Old Testament is immoral and often downright evil - I can't honestly see how anyone can argue otherwise. No wonder some heretical offshoots of christianity considered the Bible to be referring to two different deities in the two testaments.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

No, we can't judge God by our standards if He really is higher than us. A teenager can't really judge his parents by his standards either; what seems like being needlessly restrictive will in retrospect often make more sense. If God really has access to more information than we have, then that means that not all of the decisions He makes will make sense to us, but that doesn't mean they are wrong.

 

[Mathilda]

he allows us to undergo suffering all the time; the reason is that it helps make us stronger.

Sometimes suffering makes us stronger, sometimes it breaks* us.
Depends on the person and the amount of suffering.

* meaning leads to alcholism, drugs, mental illness, suicide, abandonment...

 

[shadow2k]

No, we can't judge God by our standards if He really is higher than us. A teenager can't really judge his parents by his standards either; what seems like being needlessly restrictive will in retrospect often make more sense. If God really has access to more information than we have, then that means that not all of the decisions He makes will make sense to us, but that doesn't mean they are wrong.

Why is he infallible? Why is a higher being automatically worthy of worship?

If God himself flew down from the heavens and told me to do something that I felt was morally wrong...you know, like killing my son...I'd tell him to shove it where the sun don't shine and let the chips fall where they may. To me, the person who does that is FAR more worthy of my respect than any God I'll ever read about.

 

[Elrohir]

Guilt is determined by conscience, not the other way around. You've got it backwards. There conscience tells them something is wrong, therefore, they feel guilty.

True. But do you not agree that there is such a thing as "false guilt"? Or every time you feel guilty, have you committed a sin?

I imagine if you taught a child growing up that eating peanut butter on waffles was a mortal sin against God, he wouldn't like the idea of eating peanut butter on waffles, and if convinced to do it, would likely feel very guilty over it. But does that mean eating peanut butter on waffles is a win? Of course not. It may not be the healthiest meal ever thought up - but that hardly makes it immoral, or guilt over eating it necessarily valid.

What has always been disturbing to me is the way God can suddenly override what you know is wrong, just by saying so. And it's not wrong to you anymore, simply because God said so. Think back to Abraham. Murder your son. And he would have.

He can do that because He is perfect, and Perfectly Just. What God says is True is True, and isn't subjective. Complaining that God get's to override what we think on moral matters is like complaining about a scale overriding your opinion on how heavy something is. It just doesn't make sense.

Why is our alleged creator infallible anyway? Because he says so? Seems to me that a God with such an admittedly huge ego (jealous god, etc...) could easily not be perfect, and merely be telling you so in order to further his own agenda (worship me!).

He isn't perfect because He says so, He's perfect because He is.

What you call God's "huge ego" would be arrogance for a finite human being - but God is so far beyond us, that He isn't being arrogant when He asks for our love and obedience - He's just pointing out how things actually should be.