How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (3 Viewers)

[Zow]

I'd also like to talk about how the Bible is filled with miracles performed by prophets and by Jesus, but why you don't see anything like this happening in recent history?

Or why Jesus wouldn't have done something more substantial like tell people there was stuff in their drinking water that was causing them to die.

"Hey, don't build nuclear weapons. They're bad and can wipe out everything (you know, like my dad did before when he got mad)."

"There are people with different color skin in areas of this world you haven't seen yet. They're totally cool though. When you encounter them, don't enslave them."

"Just whatever you do in the future, don't become a Vikings fan. That level of masochism is a sin."

 

[Zow]

Guys, have none of you read Job? If you read that literally, that a god more or less made a wager "Trading Places" style with Satan and allowed Satan to so mess with Job's life including taking the lives of his family as if they were just knick-knacks that Job collected, then I don't see the reach that this god would be with scientific evidence to get his jollies keeping the real story of creation otherwise hidden from "earthly" or "human" knowledge. Now that god might exist, but it's not the God I would believe in. But if one wants to worship an god, then to each their own.

I've almost brought this story up a few times in these threads but, with no disrespect intended, thought it too low of hanging fruit. But, yeah, if the G/god from the Bible (particularly the OT version) truly does exist, he's a ****.

 

[Scoresman]

I'd also like to talk about how the Bible is filled with miracles performed by prophets and by Jesus, but why you don't see anything like this happening in recent history?

Or why Jesus wouldn't have done something more substantial like tell people there was stuff in their drinking water that was causing them to die.

"Hey, don't build nuclear weapons. They're bad and can wipe out everything (you know, like my dad did before when he got mad)."

"There people with different color skin in areas of this world you have seen yet. They're totally cool though. When you encounter them, don't enslave them."

"Just whatever you do in the future, don't become a Vikings fan. That level of masochism is a sin."

“And before you enslave them, make sure you stop to realize that my son, who I sent down as your messiah, was the same color as them.”

 

[-fish-]

Guys, have none of you read Job? If you read that literally, that a god more or less made a wager "Trading Places" style with Satan and allowed Satan to so mess with Job's life including taking the lives of his family as if they were just knick-knacks that Job collected, then I don't see the reach that this god would be with scientific evidence to get his jollies keeping the real story of creation otherwise hidden from "earthly" or "human" knowledge. Now that god might exist, but it's not the God I would believe in. But if one wants to worship an god, then to each their own.

I've almost brought this story up a few times in these threads but, with no disrespect intended, thought it too low of hanging fruit. But, yeah, if the G/god from the Bible (particularly the OT version) truly does exist, he's a ****.

What's funny is that most people think that the story of Job is problematic because of the tests that God would put to a believer--why would a just and loving God do that to a true believer? Nobody really focuses on the fact that this was a bet with the Devil. God engages in gambling in one of the first books of the Bible, but somehow it's a sin for the flawed humans he created in his own image? Do as I say, not as I do is one of the first lessons of the Bible. Hypocrisy is a fundamental tenant of the Judeo/Christian God.

But then again, this is a site founded on gambling.

 

[Captain Cranks]

"Just whatever you do in the future, don't become a Vikings fan. That level of masochism is a sin."

This hits hard. I didn't deserve that.

 

[Zow]

"Just whatever you do in the future, don't become a Vikings fan. That level of masochism is a sin."

This hits hard. I didn't deserve that.

Oh, I’m right there with you. That was self-deprecating.

 

[Paddington]

I have become much more comfortable admitting I don't know and asking questions rather than rushing to answers. On many things, I don't feel the need to have an opinion. And, strangely, as my doubts have increased over the years, I feel my faith has strengthened.

The bolded is precisely why religion isn’t important to me. I’m very comfortable not understanding why I’m here, or where I may go.

to explain our existence and purpose

That's a question everyone has to decide at some point. I actually believe every human who has the mental capacity has pondered it.

Not really. Random chance, without greater meaning suits me just fine.

But Jesus Christ answered all of those questions. And since he created everything and came from heaven and proved who he was by his death burial and resurrection and miracles maybe you should consider what he has to say.

 

[SWC]

I'd also like to talk about how the Bible is filled with miracles performed by prophets and by Jesus, but why you don't see anything like this happening in recent history?

Or why Jesus wouldn't have done something more substantial like tell people there was stuff in their drinking water that was causing them to die.

"Hey, don't build nuclear weapons. They're bad and can wipe out everything (you know, like my dad did before when he got mad)."

"There are people with different color skin in areas of this world you haven't seen yet. They're totally cool though. When you encounter them, don't enslave them."

"Just whatever you do in the future, don't become a Vikings fan. That level of masochism is a sin."

if there is one thing that all religions come together on it is that the vikings stink take that to the bank bromigos

 

[Zow]

I'd also like to talk about how the Bible is filled with miracles performed by prophets and by Jesus, but why you don't see anything like this happening in recent history?

Or why Jesus wouldn't have done something more substantial like tell people there was stuff in their drinking water that was causing them to die.

"Hey, don't build nuclear weapons. They're bad and can wipe out everything (you know, like my dad did before when he got mad)."

"There are people with different color skin in areas of this world you haven't seen yet. They're totally cool though. When you encounter them, don't enslave them."

"Just whatever you do in the future, don't become a Vikings fan. That level of masochism is a sin."

if there is one thing that all religions come together on it is that the vikings stink take that to the bank bromigos

Odin and Tyr disagree!

 

[Joe Bryant]

Hypocrisy is a fundamental tenant of the Judeo/Christian God.

But then again, this is a site founded on gambling.

I apologize for whatever experiences Christians have given you to make you think hypocrisy is a tenant of our faith. That's a bummer.

We absolutely struggle as a group in effectively living out our faith. I struggle with it too. It's discouraging to hear we've done so poorly as to make you think that but all I can do is try and be better.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the "but then again" and Footballguys.

We founded the site on Fantasy Football. And of course, many leagues have an entry fee to start and a prize paid out 4 months later at the end and that can be considered gambling. We've never shied away from that fact. Years after we were founded, Fantasy Football expanded to include DFS and now Sports Book betting in states where it's legal. We cover those areas as well but the community and friendships around the Home League have always been the focus and foundation of our company.

For what it's worth, I personally view gambling very much like alcohol. These are things that deserve respect and moderation as there is a danger of people misusing them.

I don't believe my faith prohibits me from drinking responsibly. Or from gambling responsibly. I think there's a responsibility for us that we are careful and respectful about how we talk about and promote gambling. I think we've always tried to be respectful there but if you see us not doing that, please let me know.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I apologize for whatever experiences Christians have given you to make you think hypocrisy is a tenant of our faith. That's a bummer.

FWIW, I don't think hypocrisy is a tenant of the faith. We're all hypocrites to a certain degree. I think some of us make the mistake of equating a religious person with someone without flaws and that's not fair.

 

[belljr]

So premarital sex can be done responsibility?

Or gay sex?

I don't understand how you can lump some in with others. I'm sure the bible doesn't address gambling....

So shouldn't "everything" be treated the same if done responsibly?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

For what it's worth, I personally view gambling very much like alcohol. These are things that deserve respect and moderation as there is a danger of people misusing them.

Pretty much the same for everything that gives us pleasure. If not done in moderation it can quickly be detrimental. Something I think the bible gets right in a few places.

I go to a "boring"* traditional church where there is corporate confession of sins. While the confession changes through-out the church seasons, those that say "we have sin against you by what we have done and what we have left undone" hit the hardest because, while I'm sure there will some disagreement, I think I'm pretty much okay on what I have done but need forgiveness for what has been left undone. For metaphorically crossing the street routinely to sidestep the man who was ambushed by robbers on the road to Jericho, choosing to prioritize my own well-being. I believe that the issue with gambling, and any other pleasurable activity such as posting here, is that when taken to excess, it no longer serves to nourish and rejuvenate us. Instead, it becomes an obstacle to fulfilling God's will and caring for each other. Leaves stuff undone.

I believe that being overly literal with the Bible can create obstacles that hinder God's plans for us. This is evident in Jesus's dealings with the Pharisees and in Paul's (and others') teachings in the epistles. The law was intended to liberate us as God's people, not to become a straitjacket that prevents the fulfillment of God's work.

I apologize for whatever experiences Christians have given you to make you think hypocrisy is a tenant of our faith. That's a bummer.

We are one in the Spirit
We are one in the Lord
:
And they'll know we are Christians by our ...

So sad that the word left out might not be obvious.

*The "boring" part is simply in respect of a friend who goes to a church that in his words takes it "up a notch". His church is fine and those that go there are great people, it is just not me. But we tease each other with the "boring" and "up a notch".

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I wish there was a way to easily communicate to non-believers that the Bible is not actually a list of approved and unapproved activities, as if you're just supposed to check the right boxes so you can pass some kind of exam when you die.

I mean, you can make a good argument that books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy are actually that sort of book, but the entire point of the New Testament is that things are different now. It's like people are imagining a version of Christianity in their minds that runs directly counter to the whole thrust of what makes Christianity distinct from Judaism. (And I don't what modern Jews think about this topic -- I would presume to speak for them.)

Edit: To elaborate a bit on what BSF just said, I don't think I would even know how to respond if somebody confronted me over the very minimal amount of gambling I do. I have so many moral failings that are so much more serious than playing a few hands of blackjack when I vacationed in Vegas. That's probably the least of God's concern. Good thing for grace.

 

[SWC]

I'd also like to talk about how the Bible is filled with miracles performed by prophets and by Jesus, but why you don't see anything like this happening in recent history?

Or why Jesus wouldn't have done something more substantial like tell people there was stuff in their drinking water that was causing them to die.

"Hey, don't build nuclear weapons. They're bad and can wipe out everything (you know, like my dad did before when he got mad)."

"There are people with different color skin in areas of this world you haven't seen yet. They're totally cool though. When you encounter them, don't enslave them."

"Just whatever you do in the future, don't become a Vikings fan. That level of masochism is a sin."

if there is one thing that all religions come together on it is that the vikings stink take that to the bank bromigos

Odin and Tyr disagree!

you just made it nerdy you nerd take that to the bank bronerdo

 

[Captain Cranks]

I wish there was a way to easily communicate to non-believers that the Bible is not actually a list of approved and unapproved activities, as if you're just supposed to check the right boxes so you can pass some kind of exam when you die.

I mean, you can make a good argument that books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy are actually that sort of book

Seems like you've figured out the crux of the issue.

 

[dkp993]

I wish there was a way to easily communicate to non-believers that the Bible is not actually a list of approved and unapproved activities, as if you're just supposed to check the right boxes so you can pass some kind of exam when you die.

I mean, you can make a good argument that books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy are actually that sort of book

Seems like you've figured out the crux of the issue.

That and the fact that many (most, I don’t know as I haven’t attended every single one) churches preach that they are.

Look, I don’t pretend to have all the answers and as I’ve said upstream I perfectly happy with whatever someone wants to believe, especially if it’s leading them on a path to trying to be the best person they can be. But it all seems pretty convenient to me that we get to pick and choose what is “real” and “true” (say the 10 commandments, or Jesus as the actual son of God for example) but disregard the parts that aren’t or don’t suit our current world view. The it’s up to you to interpret the truth and guidance angle makes no sense to me with a God that is going to hold us accountable.

I guess what I’m saying is I understand more the “fundamentalist” viewpoint than the “interpreters” even if I disagree with them.

 

[dgreen]

I wish there was a way to easily communicate to non-believers that the Bible is not actually a list of approved and unapproved activities, as if you're just supposed to check the right boxes so you can pass some kind of exam when you die.

I mean, you can make a good argument that books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy are actually that sort of book

Seems like you've figured out the crux of the issue.

That and the fact that many (most, I don’t know as I haven’t attended every single one) churches preach that they are.

Look, I don’t pretend to have all the answers and as I’ve said upstream I perfectly happy with whatever someone wants to believe, especially if it’s leading them on a path to trying to be the best person they can be. But it all seems pretty convenient to me that we get to pick and choose what is “real” and “true” (say the 10 commandments, or Jesus as the actual son of God for example) but disregard the parts that aren’t or don’t suit our current world view. The it’s up to you to interpret the truth and guidance angle makes no sense to me with a God that is going to hold us accountable.

I guess what I’m saying is I understand more the “fundamentalist” viewpoint than the “interpreters” even if I disagree with them.

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure I understand because I think there's no way around interpretation, but I could be using that word differently than you. I'd say even the "fundamentalist" is interpreting. They may claim they aren't, but they are, IMO.

 

[dkp993]

I wish there was a way to easily communicate to non-believers that the Bible is not actually a list of approved and unapproved activities, as if you're just supposed to check the right boxes so you can pass some kind of exam when you die.

I mean, you can make a good argument that books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy are actually that sort of book

Seems like you've figured out the crux of the issue.

That and the fact that many (most, I don’t know as I haven’t attended every single one) churches preach that they are.

Look, I don’t pretend to have all the answers and as I’ve said upstream I perfectly happy with whatever someone wants to believe, especially if it’s leading them on a path to trying to be the best person they can be. But it all seems pretty convenient to me that we get to pick and choose what is “real” and “true” (say the 10 commandments, or Jesus as the actual son of God for example) but disregard the parts that aren’t or don’t suit our current world view. The it’s up to you to interpret the truth and guidance angle makes no sense to me with a God that is going to hold us accountable.

I guess what I’m saying is I understand more the “fundamentalist” viewpoint than the “interpreters” even if I disagree with them.

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure I understand because I think there's no way around interpretation, but I could be using that word differently than you. I'd say even the "fundamentalist" is interpreting. They may claim they aren't, but they are, IMO.

Fair question. I guess in the simplest of terms I mean it in the sense of picking and choosing what’s “real” (ie Jesus is the literal Son of God) and what is not, is story for effect and what is no longer valid (burning bush, Noah and the ark, or stoning people for transgressions).

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I wish there was a way to easily communicate to non-believers that the Bible is not actually a list of approved and unapproved activities, as if you're just supposed to check the right boxes so you can pass some kind of exam when you die.

I mean, you can make a good argument that books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy are actually that sort of book

Seems like you've figured out the crux of the issue.

That and the fact that many (most, I don’t know as I haven’t attended every single one) churches preach that they are.

Look, I don’t pretend to have all the answers and as I’ve said upstream I perfectly happy with whatever someone wants to believe, especially if it’s leading them on a path to trying to be the best person they can be. But it all seems pretty convenient to me that we get to pick and choose what is “real” and “true” (say the 10 commandments, or Jesus as the actual son of God for example) but disregard the parts that aren’t or don’t suit our current world view. The it’s up to you to interpret the truth and guidance angle makes no sense to me with a God that is going to hold us accountable.

I guess what I’m saying is I understand more the “fundamentalist” viewpoint than the “interpreters” even if I disagree with them.

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure I understand because I think there's no way around interpretation, but I could be using that word differently than you. I'd say even the "fundamentalist" is interpreting. They may claim they aren't, but they are, IMO.

Fair question. I guess in the simplest of terms I mean it in the sense of picking and choosing what “real” (ie Jesus is the literal Son of God) and what is not, is story for effect and what is no longer valid (burning bush, Noah and the ark, or stoning people for transgressions).

We've discussed this exact issue over and over again for over 20 years. With respect, if a person on this forum genuinely does not understand why a Christian might read the book of Jonah metaphorically while taking Acts literally, I don't know what to tell you. Literally. There's nothing I can say that is going to make this click for you at this point. Neither of us is going to gain anything from this sidebar.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I guess what I’m saying is I understand more the “fundamentalist” viewpoint than the “interpreters” even if I disagree with them.

There's always going to be a new rationalization for disregarding parts of the Bible that are incongruent with modern day society. For example, 1 Timothy 2 where Paul writes, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." It's clearly outdated misogynist thinking so the Church is being forced to interpret it in a different way than it has for centuries prior.

 

[dkp993]

I wish there was a way to easily communicate to non-believers that the Bible is not actually a list of approved and unapproved activities, as if you're just supposed to check the right boxes so you can pass some kind of exam when you die.

I mean, you can make a good argument that books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy are actually that sort of book

Seems like you've figured out the crux of the issue.

That and the fact that many (most, I don’t know as I haven’t attended every single one) churches preach that they are.

Look, I don’t pretend to have all the answers and as I’ve said upstream I perfectly happy with whatever someone wants to believe, especially if it’s leading them on a path to trying to be the best person they can be. But it all seems pretty convenient to me that we get to pick and choose what is “real” and “true” (say the 10 commandments, or Jesus as the actual son of God for example) but disregard the parts that aren’t or don’t suit our current world view. The it’s up to you to interpret the truth and guidance angle makes no sense to me with a God that is going to hold us accountable.

I guess what I’m saying is I understand more the “fundamentalist” viewpoint than the “interpreters” even if I disagree with them.

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure I understand because I think there's no way around interpretation, but I could be using that word differently than you. I'd say even the "fundamentalist" is interpreting. They may claim they aren't, but they are, IMO.

Fair question. I guess in the simplest of terms I mean it in the sense of picking and choosing what “real” (ie Jesus is the literal Son of God) and what is not, is story for effect and what is no longer valid (burning bush, Noah and the ark, or stoning people for transgressions).

We've discussed this exact issue over and over again for over 20 years. With respect, if a person on this forum genuinely does not understand why a Christian might read the book of Jonah metaphorically while taking Acts literally, I don't know what to tell you. Literally. There's nothing I can say that is going to make this click for you at this point. Neither of us is going to gain anything from this sidebar.

So then why do you feel the need to interact IK? Is it only to condescend or is it you can’t possibly fathom I (or others) haven’t read every word you’ve wrote on this subject over the past 20yrs?

 

[dgreen]

I wish there was a way to easily communicate to non-believers that the Bible is not actually a list of approved and unapproved activities, as if you're just supposed to check the right boxes so you can pass some kind of exam when you die.

I mean, you can make a good argument that books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy are actually that sort of book

Seems like you've figured out the crux of the issue.

That and the fact that many (most, I don’t know as I haven’t attended every single one) churches preach that they are.

Look, I don’t pretend to have all the answers and as I’ve said upstream I perfectly happy with whatever someone wants to believe, especially if it’s leading them on a path to trying to be the best person they can be. But it all seems pretty convenient to me that we get to pick and choose what is “real” and “true” (say the 10 commandments, or Jesus as the actual son of God for example) but disregard the parts that aren’t or don’t suit our current world view. The it’s up to you to interpret the truth and guidance angle makes no sense to me with a God that is going to hold us accountable.

I guess what I’m saying is I understand more the “fundamentalist” viewpoint than the “interpreters” even if I disagree with them.

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure I understand because I think there's no way around interpretation, but I could be using that word differently than you. I'd say even the "fundamentalist" is interpreting. They may claim they aren't, but they are, IMO.

Fair question. I guess in the simplest of terms I mean it in the sense of picking and choosing what “real” (ie Jesus is the literal Son of God) and what is not, is story for effect and what is no longer valid (burning bush, Noah and the ark, or stoning people for transgressions).

Got it. I tried to speak towards this earlier in this thread.

I see no reason to read every verse of the Bible the same way. I think it clearly contains various genres and each one should be read according to the original author's literary intentions. I think this is very clear to everyone if we weren't talking about the Bible. For some reason we tend to lose our basic understanding of how literature works when we bring up the Bible. This happens with both believers and non-believers. Many on both sides make the same mistake of not recognizing genre. In How to Read a Book, Mortimer Adler said the first thing you must do when reading a book is determine what genre it is. Sci-Fi should be read differently than a science textbook. Poetry functions different than narrative. I don't know anyone who left Schindler's List complaining that it wasn't funny because everyone recognized that it's not intended to be a comedy.

Once someone accepts that the Bible has various genres, it still may not be easy to identify how to read it because the Bible is full of genres we aren't familiar with. Ancient literature isn't our literature. We can put a history genre label on a piece of ancient literature and that can look different than a piece of modern literature with the same label. They told history differently than we do. They also had cosmology and genealogy as a genre. They conveyed meaning through those genres. As another example, recent posts discussed legal texts in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. However, while not even close to an expert on this, my understanding is "law" communicates a distorted idea of what those texts are trying to do. "Law" means one thing to us and something else to them. Translations (which are interpretations) of ancient literature in a vastly different culture can lose their meaning if we just read it in our language and impose our culture.

Interpreting the Bible isn't easy work.

 

[dkp993]

Interpreting the Bible isn't easy work

Thanks for the response.

This part is speaking to my point. For a God that is holding us quite accountable one would think this wouldn’t be the case. Way too much margin of error.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Got it. I tried to speak towards this earlier in this thread.

I see no reason to read every verse of the Bible the same way. I think it clearly contains various genres and each one should be read according to the original author's literary intentions. I think this is very clear to everyone if we weren't talking about the Bible. For some reason we tend to lose our basic understanding of how literature works when we bring up the Bible. This happens with both believers and non-believers. Many on both sides make the same mistake of not recognizing genre. In How to Read a Book, Mortimer Adler said the first thing you must do when reading a book is determine what genre it is. Sci-Fi should be read differently than a science textbook. Poetry functions different than narrative. I don't know anyone who left Schindler's List complaining that it wasn't funny because everyone recognized that it's not intended to be a comedy.

Once someone accepts that the Bible has various genres, it still may not be easy to identify how to read it because the Bible is full of genres we aren't familiar with. Ancient literature isn't our literature. We can put a history genre label on a piece of ancient literature and that can look different than a piece of modern literature with the same label. They told history differently than we do. They also had cosmology and genealogy as a genre. They conveyed meaning through those genres. As another example, recent posts discussed legal texts in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. However, while not even close to an expert on this, my understanding is "law" communicates a distorted idea of what those texts are trying to do. "Law" means one thing to us and something else to them. Translations (which are interpretations) of ancient literature in a vastly different culture can lose their meaning if we just read it in our language and impose our culture.

Interpreting the Bible isn't easy work.

I agree with all of this but it's also why I don't think the Bible is the divinely inspired word of a deity. It's simply a collection of literature written by various authors with different thoughts and agendas. That's not to say it doesn't have value, though.

 

[dkp993]

Got it. I tried to speak towards this earlier in this thread.

I see no reason to read every verse of the Bible the same way. I think it clearly contains various genres and each one should be read according to the original author's literary intentions. I think this is very clear to everyone if we weren't talking about the Bible. For some reason we tend to lose our basic understanding of how literature works when we bring up the Bible. This happens with both believers and non-believers. Many on both sides make the same mistake of not recognizing genre. In How to Read a Book, Mortimer Adler said the first thing you must do when reading a book is determine what genre it is. Sci-Fi should be read differently than a science textbook. Poetry functions different than narrative. I don't know anyone who left Schindler's List complaining that it wasn't funny because everyone recognized that it's not intended to be a comedy.

Once someone accepts that the Bible has various genres, it still may not be easy to identify how to read it because the Bible is full of genres we aren't familiar with. Ancient literature isn't our literature. We can put a history genre label on a piece of ancient literature and that can look different than a piece of modern literature with the same label. They told history differently than we do. They also had cosmology and genealogy as a genre. They conveyed meaning through those genres. As another example, recent posts discussed legal texts in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. However, while not even close to an expert on this, my understanding is "law" communicates a distorted idea of what those texts are trying to do. "Law" means one thing to us and something else to them. Translations (which are interpretations) of ancient literature in a vastly different culture can lose their meaning if we just read it in our language and impose our culture.

Interpreting the Bible isn't easy work.

I agree with all of this but it's also why I don't think the Bible is the divinely inspired word of a deity. It's simply a collection of literature written by various authors with different thoughts and agendas. That's not to say it doesn't have value, though.

100%. I believe it to have incredible value, in the same vain as every other culture’s version of shared storytelling to teach lessons and pass along moral foundations.

 

[dgreen]

Interpreting the Bible isn't easy work

Thanks for the response.

This part is speaking to my point. For a God that is holding us quite accountable one would think this wouldn’t be the case. Way too much margin of error.

I don't see how it can be any other way. But, my view of God isn't that he's looking for ways to punish us. I'm ok with the idea that we have to work to get to know God. I think that was true for the Israelites and true for us today. I understand your earlier point that many churches have preached particular views of God. I think a lot of people have gotten many things wrong (which may actually support your point further), or at least have communicated poorly.

 

[dgreen]

Got it. I tried to speak towards this earlier in this thread.

I see no reason to read every verse of the Bible the same way. I think it clearly contains various genres and each one should be read according to the original author's literary intentions. I think this is very clear to everyone if we weren't talking about the Bible. For some reason we tend to lose our basic understanding of how literature works when we bring up the Bible. This happens with both believers and non-believers. Many on both sides make the same mistake of not recognizing genre. In How to Read a Book, Mortimer Adler said the first thing you must do when reading a book is determine what genre it is. Sci-Fi should be read differently than a science textbook. Poetry functions different than narrative. I don't know anyone who left Schindler's List complaining that it wasn't funny because everyone recognized that it's not intended to be a comedy.

Once someone accepts that the Bible has various genres, it still may not be easy to identify how to read it because the Bible is full of genres we aren't familiar with. Ancient literature isn't our literature. We can put a history genre label on a piece of ancient literature and that can look different than a piece of modern literature with the same label. They told history differently than we do. They also had cosmology and genealogy as a genre. They conveyed meaning through those genres. As another example, recent posts discussed legal texts in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. However, while not even close to an expert on this, my understanding is "law" communicates a distorted idea of what those texts are trying to do. "Law" means one thing to us and something else to them. Translations (which are interpretations) of ancient literature in a vastly different culture can lose their meaning if we just read it in our language and impose our culture.

Interpreting the Bible isn't easy work.

I agree with all of this but it's also why I don't think the Bible is the divinely inspired word of a deity. It's simply a collection of literature written by various authors with different thoughts and agendas. That's not to say it doesn't have value, though.

Yes, the idea that something can be both divine and human is an idea that is hard for most people to agree with. I think I was in that mindset until recently. However, I personally have no issues with the human aspect of the Bible. I don't think it invalidates its divinity at all. I will also admit my bias to simply accept inspiration. I don't really even know what I think that means, but I do accept it.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I wish there was a way to easily communicate to non-believers that the Bible is not actually a list of approved and unapproved activities, as if you're just supposed to check the right boxes so you can pass some kind of exam when you die.

I mean, you can make a good argument that books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy are actually that sort of book

Seems like you've figured out the crux of the issue.

That and the fact that many (most, I don’t know as I haven’t attended every single one) churches preach that they are.

Look, I don’t pretend to have all the answers and as I’ve said upstream I perfectly happy with whatever someone wants to believe, especially if it’s leading them on a path to trying to be the best person they can be. But it all seems pretty convenient to me that we get to pick and choose what is “real” and “true” (say the 10 commandments, or Jesus as the actual son of God for example) but disregard the parts that aren’t or don’t suit our current world view. The it’s up to you to interpret the truth and guidance angle makes no sense to me with a God that is going to hold us accountable.

I guess what I’m saying is I understand more the “fundamentalist” viewpoint than the “interpreters” even if I disagree with them.

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure I understand because I think there's no way around interpretation, but I could be using that word differently than you. I'd say even the "fundamentalist" is interpreting. They may claim they aren't, but they are, IMO.

Fair question. I guess in the simplest of terms I mean it in the sense of picking and choosing what “real” (ie Jesus is the literal Son of God) and what is not, is story for effect and what is no longer valid (burning bush, Noah and the ark, or stoning people for transgressions).

We've discussed this exact issue over and over again for over 20 years. With respect, if a person on this forum genuinely does not understand why a Christian might read the book of Jonah metaphorically while taking Acts literally, I don't know what to tell you. Literally. There's nothing I can say that is going to make this click for you at this point. Neither of us is going to gain anything from this sidebar.

So then why do you feel the need to interact IK? Is it only to condescend or is it you can’t possibly fathom I (or others) haven’t read every word you’ve wrote on this subject over the past 20yrs?

I genuinely can't fathom how a person gets to middle age and doesn't understand how other grown adults distinguish between literature and history. I've been a fairly avid reader all my life, and I can't recall a time when I was unable to do this -- I'm sure such a time existed, but it was prior to any of my recorded memories. When a person tells me that they are unable to make this kind of distinction, or that they need a rubric of some sort, it reminds me of people who say that they don't have an internal monologue. I believe them, but I also recognize that we have very little in common and our internal mental lives are wildly different from one another.

An alternative explanation is that everybody else is able to make these distinctions just fine, and this line of argument is being made in bad faith. If you spend a lot of time in religion threads, you'll notice that the Richard Dawkins types really want you to be a fundamentalist who takes the Bible very literally, because that's an easy view to refute. They hate it when you're not a literalist, because then they're reduced to the point-and-sputter tactic of complaining about "picking and choosing." Non-fundamentalist versions of Christianity still have their philosophical weak points of course, but you're not going to find them by quoting random Bible verses out of context.

So when a person says something like "Well, how you do know that the creation story is supposed to be a fable? How do you know that Job isn't supposed to be taken literally? How do you know that Jonah didn't literally live for three days in the belly of a whale?" I know that this is a conversation doomed to go nowhere because these questions have all been asked and answered. And at the end of the day, the Bible is available for free online. Read the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, and ask yourself whether the author sees himself as describing history or whether he's using metaphor to impart wisdom. I don't think you'll have any difficulty with that exercise. Or read Jonah -- it's very short. Ask yourself whether it even matters whether Jonah was a real person or not.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

I wish there was a way to easily communicate to non-believers that the Bible is not actually a list of approved and unapproved activities, as if you're just supposed to check the right boxes so you can pass some kind of exam when you die.

I mean, you can make a good argument that books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy are actually that sort of book

Seems like you've figured out the crux of the issue.

That and the fact that many (most, I don’t know as I haven’t attended every single one) churches preach that they are.

Look, I don’t pretend to have all the answers and as I’ve said upstream I perfectly happy with whatever someone wants to believe, especially if it’s leading them on a path to trying to be the best person they can be. But it all seems pretty convenient to me that we get to pick and choose what is “real” and “true” (say the 10 commandments, or Jesus as the actual son of God for example) but disregard the parts that aren’t or don’t suit our current world view. The it’s up to you to interpret the truth and guidance angle makes no sense to me with a God that is going to hold us accountable.

I guess what I’m saying is I understand more the “fundamentalist” viewpoint than the “interpreters” even if I disagree with them.

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure I understand because I think there's no way around interpretation, but I could be using that word differently than you. I'd say even the "fundamentalist" is interpreting. They may claim they aren't, but they are, IMO.

Fair question. I guess in the simplest of terms I mean it in the sense of picking and choosing what “real” (ie Jesus is the literal Son of God) and what is not, is story for effect and what is no longer valid (burning bush, Noah and the ark, or stoning people for transgressions).

We've discussed this exact issue over and over again for over 20 years. With respect, if a person on this forum genuinely does not understand why a Christian might read the book of Jonah metaphorically while taking Acts literally, I don't know what to tell you. Literally. There's nothing I can say that is going to make this click for you at this point. Neither of us is going to gain anything from this sidebar.

So then why do you feel the need to interact IK? Is it only to condescend or is it you can’t possibly fathom I (or others) haven’t read every word you’ve wrote on this subject over the past 20yrs?

I genuinely can't fathom how a person gets to middle age and doesn't understand how other grown adults distinguish between literature and history. I've been a fairly avid reader all my life, and I can't recall a time when I was unable to do this -- I'm sure such a time existed, but it was prior to any of my recorded memories. When a person tells me that they are unable to make this kind of distinction, or that they need a rubric of some sort, it reminds me of people who say that they don't have an internal monologue. I believe them, but I also recognize that we have very little in common and our internal mental lives are wildly different from one another.

An alternative explanation is that everybody else is able to make these distinctions just fine, and this line of argument is being made in bad faith. If you spend a lot of time in religion threads, you'll notice that the Richard Dawkins types really want you to be a fundamentalist who takes the Bible very literally, because that's an easy view to refute. They hate it when you're not a literalist, because then they're reduced to the point-and-sputter tactic of complaining about "picking and choosing." Non-fundamentalist versions of Christianity still have their philosophical weak points of course, but you're not going to find them by quoting random Bible verses out of context.

So when a person says something like "Well, how you do know that the creation story is supposed to be a fable? How do you know that Job isn't supposed to be taken literally? How do you know that Jonah didn't literally live for three days in the belly of a whale?" I know that this is a conversation doomed to go nowhere because these questions have all been asked and answered. And at the end of the day, the Bible is available for free online. Read the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, and ask yourself whether the author sees himself as describing history or whether he's using metaphor to impart wisdom. I don't think you'll have any difficulty with that exercise.

Couldn’t they just update the Bible and add a Fiction or Non-Fiction sub header under each book? Then there would be no more confusion

 

[Captain Cranks]

I genuinely can't fathom how a person gets to middle age and doesn't understand how other grown adults distinguish between literature and history. I've been a fairly avid reader all my life, and I can't recall a time when I was unable to do this -- I'm sure such a time existed, but it was prior to any of my recorded memories. When a person tells me that they are unable to make this kind of distinction, or that they need a rubric of some sort, it reminds me of people who say that they don't have an internal monologue. I believe them, but I also recognize that we have very little in common and our internal mental lives are wildly different from one another.

An alternative explanation is that everybody else is able to make these distinctions just fine, and this line of argument is being made in bad faith. If you spend a lot of time in religion threads, you'll notice that the Richard Dawkins types really want you to be a fundamentalist who takes the Bible very literally, because that's an easy view to refute. They hate it when you're not a literalist, because then they're reduced to the point-and-sputter tactic of complaining about "picking and choosing." Non-fundamentalist versions of Christianity still have their philosophical weak points of course, but you're not going to find them by quoting random Bible verses out of context.

So when a person says something like "Well, how you do know that the creation story is supposed to be a fable? How do you know that Job isn't supposed to be taken literally? How do you know that Jonah didn't literally live for three days in the belly of a whale?" I know that this is a conversation doomed to go nowhere because these questions have all been asked and answered. And at the end of the day, the Bible is available for free online. Read the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, and ask yourself whether the author sees himself as describing history or whether he's using metaphor to impart wisdom. I don't think you'll have any difficulty with that exercise. Or read Jonah -- it's very short. Ask yourself whether it even matters whether Jonah was a real person or not.

As usual, you've got it all figured out and we're just a bunch of dopes that need to catch up. Must be a frustrating life.

 

[dkp993]

I wish there was a way to easily communicate to non-believers that the Bible is not actually a list of approved and unapproved activities, as if you're just supposed to check the right boxes so you can pass some kind of exam when you die.

I mean, you can make a good argument that books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy are actually that sort of book

Seems like you've figured out the crux of the issue.

That and the fact that many (most, I don’t know as I haven’t attended every single one) churches preach that they are.

Look, I don’t pretend to have all the answers and as I’ve said upstream I perfectly happy with whatever someone wants to believe, especially if it’s leading them on a path to trying to be the best person they can be. But it all seems pretty convenient to me that we get to pick and choose what is “real” and “true” (say the 10 commandments, or Jesus as the actual son of God for example) but disregard the parts that aren’t or don’t suit our current world view. The it’s up to you to interpret the truth and guidance angle makes no sense to me with a God that is going to hold us accountable.

I guess what I’m saying is I understand more the “fundamentalist” viewpoint than the “interpreters” even if I disagree with them.

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure I understand because I think there's no way around interpretation, but I could be using that word differently than you. I'd say even the "fundamentalist" is interpreting. They may claim they aren't, but they are, IMO.

Fair question. I guess in the simplest of terms I mean it in the sense of picking and choosing what “real” (ie Jesus is the literal Son of God) and what is not, is story for effect and what is no longer valid (burning bush, Noah and the ark, or stoning people for transgressions).

We've discussed this exact issue over and over again for over 20 years. With respect, if a person on this forum genuinely does not understand why a Christian might read the book of Jonah metaphorically while taking Acts literally, I don't know what to tell you. Literally. There's nothing I can say that is going to make this click for you at this point. Neither of us is going to gain anything from this sidebar.

So then why do you feel the need to interact IK? Is it only to condescend or is it you can’t possibly fathom I (or others) haven’t read every word you’ve wrote on this subject over the past 20yrs?

I genuinely can't fathom how a person gets to middle age and doesn't understand how other grown adults distinguish between literature and history. I've been a fairly avid reader all my life, and I can't recall a time when I was unable to do this -- I'm sure such a time existed, but it was prior to any of my recorded memories. When a person tells me that they are unable to make this kind of distinction, or that they need a rubric of some sort, it reminds me of people who say that they don't have an internal monologue. I believe them, but I also recognize that we have very little in common and our internal mental lives are wildly different from one another.

An alternative explanation is that everybody else is able to make these distinctions just fine, and this line of argument is being made in bad faith. If you spend a lot of time in religion threads, you'll notice that the Richard Dawkins types really want you to be a fundamentalist who takes the Bible very literally, because that's an easy view to refute. They hate it when you're not a literalist, because then they're reduced to the point-and-sputter tactic of complaining about "picking and choosing." Non-fundamentalist versions of Christianity still have their philosophical weak points of course, but you're not going to find them by quoting random Bible verses out of context.

So when a person says something like "Well, how you do know that the creation story is supposed to be a fable? How do you know that Job isn't supposed to be taken literally? How do you know that Jonah didn't literally live for three days in the belly of a whale?" I know that this is a conversation doomed to go nowhere because these questions have all been asked and answered. And at the end of the day, the Bible is available for free online. Read the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, and ask yourself whether the author sees himself as describing history or whether he's using metaphor to impart wisdom. I don't think you'll have any difficulty with that exercise. Or read Jonah -- it's very short. Ask yourself whether it even matters whether Jonah was a real person or not.

In an attempt to move past your saying we have nothing to gain by this interaction (yet you continue to interact), as well as your continued condescension of my ability to understand, I’ll ask you a simple question that will help frame our conversation going forward. Do you believe Jesus was the literal Son of God? Or I’ll even expand on that, do you believe anything in the Bible is literal truth?

 

[Captain Cranks]

Poll on literalism of Bible

"In 2015, just under 60% of evangelical churches espoused a literal interpretation of Scripture, data from Pew Research showed. In 2019, Pew Research also noted that some 61% of Southern Baptists, who tend to express higher levels of religious commitment than Americans overall, accepted the Bible as the literal Word of God. This share exceeded the share of those who hold this belief among all U.S. adults—31%—and among other Evangelical Protestants, which had fallen to 53%.

The recent Gallup data shows that only 30% of Protestants say the Bible is literally true, while just 15% of Catholics do. Almost two-thirds of Catholics view the Bible as the inspired Word of God."

"Owen Strachan, senior fellow for the Family Research Council’s (FRC) Center for Biblical Worldview, cited the dangers of rejecting a literal interpretation of the Bible.

“Either the whole thing is God’s speech, God’s revelation, God’s testimony of Himself and His ways and His works and what He has done in history through His people, or else you’re just doing theological buffet, and you’re just slicing and dicing like Thomas Jefferson did hundreds of years ago,” Strachan observed. “You’re literally taking a pair of scissors and you’re snipping out the parts that you don’t like from the Bible and giving yourself your own understanding of the Bible as a product.”

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I wish there was a way to easily communicate to non-believers that the Bible is not actually a list of approved and unapproved activities, as if you're just supposed to check the right boxes so you can pass some kind of exam when you die.

I mean, you can make a good argument that books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy are actually that sort of book

Seems like you've figured out the crux of the issue.

That and the fact that many (most, I don’t know as I haven’t attended every single one) churches preach that they are.

Look, I don’t pretend to have all the answers and as I’ve said upstream I perfectly happy with whatever someone wants to believe, especially if it’s leading them on a path to trying to be the best person they can be. But it all seems pretty convenient to me that we get to pick and choose what is “real” and “true” (say the 10 commandments, or Jesus as the actual son of God for example) but disregard the parts that aren’t or don’t suit our current world view. The it’s up to you to interpret the truth and guidance angle makes no sense to me with a God that is going to hold us accountable.

I guess what I’m saying is I understand more the “fundamentalist” viewpoint than the “interpreters” even if I disagree with them.

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure I understand because I think there's no way around interpretation, but I could be using that word differently than you. I'd say even the "fundamentalist" is interpreting. They may claim they aren't, but they are, IMO.

Fair question. I guess in the simplest of terms I mean it in the sense of picking and choosing what “real” (ie Jesus is the literal Son of God) and what is not, is story for effect and what is no longer valid (burning bush, Noah and the ark, or stoning people for transgressions).

We've discussed this exact issue over and over again for over 20 years. With respect, if a person on this forum genuinely does not understand why a Christian might read the book of Jonah metaphorically while taking Acts literally, I don't know what to tell you. Literally. There's nothing I can say that is going to make this click for you at this point. Neither of us is going to gain anything from this sidebar.

So then why do you feel the need to interact IK? Is it only to condescend or is it you can’t possibly fathom I (or others) haven’t read every word you’ve wrote on this subject over the past 20yrs?

I genuinely can't fathom how a person gets to middle age and doesn't understand how other grown adults distinguish between literature and history. I've been a fairly avid reader all my life, and I can't recall a time when I was unable to do this -- I'm sure such a time existed, but it was prior to any of my recorded memories. When a person tells me that they are unable to make this kind of distinction, or that they need a rubric of some sort, it reminds me of people who say that they don't have an internal monologue. I believe them, but I also recognize that we have very little in common and our internal mental lives are wildly different from one another.

An alternative explanation is that everybody else is able to make these distinctions just fine, and this line of argument is being made in bad faith. If you spend a lot of time in religion threads, you'll notice that the Richard Dawkins types really want you to be a fundamentalist who takes the Bible very literally, because that's an easy view to refute. They hate it when you're not a literalist, because then they're reduced to the point-and-sputter tactic of complaining about "picking and choosing." Non-fundamentalist versions of Christianity still have their philosophical weak points of course, but you're not going to find them by quoting random Bible verses out of context.

So when a person says something like "Well, how you do know that the creation story is supposed to be a fable? How do you know that Job isn't supposed to be taken literally? How do you know that Jonah didn't literally live for three days in the belly of a whale?" I know that this is a conversation doomed to go nowhere because these questions have all been asked and answered. And at the end of the day, the Bible is available for free online. Read the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, and ask yourself whether the author sees himself as describing history or whether he's using metaphor to impart wisdom. I don't think you'll have any difficulty with that exercise. Or read Jonah -- it's very short. Ask yourself whether it even matters whether Jonah was a real person or not.

In an attempt to move past your saying we have nothing to gain by this interaction (yet you continue to interact), as well as your continued condescension of my ability to understand, I’ll ask you a simple question that will help frame our conversation going forward. Do you believe Jesus was the literal Son of God? Or I’ll even expand on that, do you believe anything in the Bible is literal truth?

Yep.

 

[Jayrod]

I've stayed away from here because arguing online about the Bible is a mostly fruitless and possibly counter-productive endeavor, so this may be it for me.

I wanted to just chime in on the crux of the book of Job because up thread on this page there seem to be some misunderstandings of the book and what I see as its purpose.

The central theme I've taken from it is that we are utterly clueless and specks in the eyes of God so to question him (especially in an accusatory way) seems pretty foolish.

Does it seem like he is playing with you? Does it seem like things are unfair? Does it seem like this world is a mess? What do you really know and/or understand?

God basically says "OK, if you think you have a right to question me about the large over-arching matters of the universe, explain how the basics of the physical world work". To put a modern spin on it, tell me exactly how big the universe is? How does the Quantum world work? Explain how life came from non-life? If you can't explain these things how can you understand a realm you can't see, hear or feel and (and here's the big one) how can you question the one who created it all and does know all of these answers?

The Bible gives VERY little insight into the spiritual realm honestly. How angels, demons, God and Satan interact is mostly unexplained. Job is one of the only books to give us any glimpse and it is also the second oldest book chronologically, taking place mid-Genesis. It's nuance is hard to grasp today, but I think the basic points are fairly universal.

Now there are a million steps beyond that for us to gain and understand in the Bible about humanity, God's relationship with us, Jesus (who/what he even is exactly) and what the point of all of this is. But as for Job, the point is we don't know squat so you might want to check yourself before you make accusations against the one who actually does know it all.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I genuinely can't fathom how a person gets to middle age and doesn't understand how other grown adults distinguish between literature and history. I've been a fairly avid reader all my life, and I can't recall a time when I was unable to do this -- I'm sure such a time existed, but it was prior to any of my recorded memories. When a person tells me that they are unable to make this kind of distinction, or that they need a rubric of some sort, it reminds me of people who say that they don't have an internal monologue. I believe them, but I also recognize that we have very little in common and our internal mental lives are wildly different from one another.

An alternative explanation is that everybody else is able to make these distinctions just fine, and this line of argument is being made in bad faith. If you spend a lot of time in religion threads, you'll notice that the Richard Dawkins types really want you to be a fundamentalist who takes the Bible very literally, because that's an easy view to refute. They hate it when you're not a literalist, because then they're reduced to the point-and-sputter tactic of complaining about "picking and choosing." Non-fundamentalist versions of Christianity still have their philosophical weak points of course, but you're not going to find them by quoting random Bible verses out of context.

So when a person says something like "Well, how you do know that the creation story is supposed to be a fable? How do you know that Job isn't supposed to be taken literally? How do you know that Jonah didn't literally live for three days in the belly of a whale?" I know that this is a conversation doomed to go nowhere because these questions have all been asked and answered. And at the end of the day, the Bible is available for free online. Read the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, and ask yourself whether the author sees himself as describing history or whether he's using metaphor to impart wisdom. I don't think you'll have any difficulty with that exercise. Or read Jonah -- it's very short. Ask yourself whether it even matters whether Jonah was a real person or not.

As usual, you've got it all figured out and we're just a bunch of dopes that need to catch up. Must be a frustrating life.

Every single contribution you've made to this thread has been an attempt to tell practicing Christians that you understand their religion better than they do. With all due respect, you can skip right past the "you've got it all figured out" canard.

Edit: Go read the WNBA thread, and pay attention to the people who parachute into that thread for the sole purpose of ****ting on women's sports. You're that guy.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I've stayed away from here because arguing online about the Bible is a mostly fruitless and possibly counter-productive endeavor, so this may be it for me.

I wanted to just chime in on the crux of the book of Job because up thread on this page there seem to be some misunderstandings of the book and what I see as its purpose.

The central theme I've taken from it is that we are utterly clueless and specks in the eyes of God so to question him (especially in an accusatory way) seems pretty foolish.

Does it seem like he is playing with you? Does it seem like things are unfair? Does it seem like this world is a mess? What do you really know and/or understand?

God basically says "OK, if you think you have a right to question me about the large over-arching matters of the universe, explain how the basics of the physical world work". To put a modern spin on it, tell me exactly how big the universe is? How does the Quantum world work? Explain how life came from non-life? If you can't explain these things how can you understand a realm you can't see, hear or feel and (and here's the big one) how can you question the one who created it all and does know all of these answers?

The Bible gives VERY little insight into the spiritual realm honestly. How angels, demons, God and Satan interact is mostly unexplained. Job is one of the only books to give us any glimpse and it is also the second oldest book chronologically, taking place mid-Genesis. It's nuance is hard to grasp today, but I think the basic points are fairly universal.

Now there are a million steps beyond that for us to gain and understand in the Bible about humanity, God's relationship with us, Jesus (who/what he even is exactly) and what the point of all of this is. But as for Job, the point is we don't know squat so you might want to check yourself before you make accusations against the one who actually does know it all.

Agreed.

To expand a little, I think it's interesting that whenever Jesus talks about the Kingdom of Heaven or the spiritual realm more generally, it's always always in the form of parable, and the overall message seems to be "You guy aren't capable of understanding this, so just try to trust me and be ready for a big surprise." I like how that method of teaching aligns with Job, which was written centuries before any of the gospels. And as you say, it really ought to help keep us humble even if we don't always succeed.

 

[dgreen]

Poll on literalism of Bible

"In 2015, just under 60% of evangelical churches espoused a literal interpretation of Scripture, data from Pew Research showed. In 2019, Pew Research also noted that some 61% of Southern Baptists, who tend to express higher levels of religious commitment than Americans overall, accepted the Bible as the literal Word of God. This share exceeded the share of those who hold this belief among all U.S. adults—31%—and among other Evangelical Protestants, which had fallen to 53%.

The recent Gallup data shows that only 30% of Protestants say the Bible is literally true, while just 15% of Catholics do. Almost two-thirds of Catholics view the Bible as the inspired Word of God."

"Owen Strachan, senior fellow for the Family Research Council’s (FRC) Center for Biblical Worldview, cited the dangers of rejecting a literal interpretation of the Bible.

“Either the whole thing is God’s speech, God’s revelation, God’s testimony of Himself and His ways and His works and what He has done in history through His people, or else you’re just doing theological buffet, and you’re just slicing and dicing like Thomas Jefferson did hundreds of years ago,” Strachan observed. “You’re literally taking a pair of scissors and you’re snipping out the parts that you don’t like from the Bible and giving yourself your own understanding of the Bible as a product.”

What are your take aways from this? What's the intention of posting this information?

 

[dkp993]

I wish there was a way to easily communicate to non-believers that the Bible is not actually a list of approved and unapproved activities, as if you're just supposed to check the right boxes so you can pass some kind of exam when you die.

I mean, you can make a good argument that books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy are actually that sort of book

Seems like you've figured out the crux of the issue.

That and the fact that many (most, I don’t know as I haven’t attended every single one) churches preach that they are.

Look, I don’t pretend to have all the answers and as I’ve said upstream I perfectly happy with whatever someone wants to believe, especially if it’s leading them on a path to trying to be the best person they can be. But it all seems pretty convenient to me that we get to pick and choose what is “real” and “true” (say the 10 commandments, or Jesus as the actual son of God for example) but disregard the parts that aren’t or don’t suit our current world view. The it’s up to you to interpret the truth and guidance angle makes no sense to me with a God that is going to hold us accountable.

I guess what I’m saying is I understand more the “fundamentalist” viewpoint than the “interpreters” even if I disagree with them.

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure I understand because I think there's no way around interpretation, but I could be using that word differently than you. I'd say even the "fundamentalist" is interpreting. They may claim they aren't, but they are, IMO.

Fair question. I guess in the simplest of terms I mean it in the sense of picking and choosing what “real” (ie Jesus is the literal Son of God) and what is not, is story for effect and what is no longer valid (burning bush, Noah and the ark, or stoning people for transgressions).

We've discussed this exact issue over and over again for over 20 years. With respect, if a person on this forum genuinely does not understand why a Christian might read the book of Jonah metaphorically while taking Acts literally, I don't know what to tell you. Literally. There's nothing I can say that is going to make this click for you at this point. Neither of us is going to gain anything from this sidebar.

So then why do you feel the need to interact IK? Is it only to condescend or is it you can’t possibly fathom I (or others) haven’t read every word you’ve wrote on this subject over the past 20yrs?

I genuinely can't fathom how a person gets to middle age and doesn't understand how other grown adults distinguish between literature and history. I've been a fairly avid reader all my life, and I can't recall a time when I was unable to do this -- I'm sure such a time existed, but it was prior to any of my recorded memories. When a person tells me that they are unable to make this kind of distinction, or that they need a rubric of some sort, it reminds me of people who say that they don't have an internal monologue. I believe them, but I also recognize that we have very little in common and our internal mental lives are wildly different from one another.

An alternative explanation is that everybody else is able to make these distinctions just fine, and this line of argument is being made in bad faith. If you spend a lot of time in religion threads, you'll notice that the Richard Dawkins types really want you to be a fundamentalist who takes the Bible very literally, because that's an easy view to refute. They hate it when you're not a literalist, because then they're reduced to the point-and-sputter tactic of complaining about "picking and choosing." Non-fundamentalist versions of Christianity still have their philosophical weak points of course, but you're not going to find them by quoting random Bible verses out of context.

So when a person says something like "Well, how you do know that the creation story is supposed to be a fable? How do you know that Job isn't supposed to be taken literally? How do you know that Jonah didn't literally live for three days in the belly of a whale?" I know that this is a conversation doomed to go nowhere because these questions have all been asked and answered. And at the end of the day, the Bible is available for free online. Read the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, and ask yourself whether the author sees himself as describing history or whether he's using metaphor to impart wisdom. I don't think you'll have any difficulty with that exercise. Or read Jonah -- it's very short. Ask yourself whether it even matters whether Jonah was a real person or not.

In an attempt to move past your saying we have nothing to gain by this interaction (yet you continue to interact), as well as your continued condescension of my ability to understand, I’ll ask you a simple question that will help frame our conversation going forward. Do you believe Jesus was the literal Son of God? Or I’ll even expand on that, do you believe anything in the Bible is literal truth?

Yep.

So with that said you really can’t fathom how someone like myself would wonder how individuals like your pick and choose what to believe is literal and what isn’t?

 

[Captain Cranks]

Every single contribution you've made to this thread has been an attempt to tell practicing Christians that you understand their religion better than they do. With all due respect, you can skip right past the "you've got it all figured out" canard.

It seems to me you need to tell practicing Christians that you understand the religion better than they do given the results of the poll I linked. I realize you have a difficult time seeing things outside your worldview, but there is a large swatch of practicing Christians who don't believe the same things you do. As much as you want to frame it as an atheist vs Christian or Fundamentalist vs. Christian debate, that simply doesn't cover the spectrum of thought on this topic.

 

[Captain Cranks]

What are your take aways from this? What's the intention of posting this information?

It was simply to point out that there's still a large portion of the Christian community that believes the Bible is the literal word of God.

 

[dgreen]

@dkp993 I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that you think someone should take every word of the Bible as literal or non-literal? That someone's interpretation shouldn't vary from one book/chapter/verse to another?

You asked Ivan if he takes anything in the Bible as literal. I assume that answer for everyone is yes. I'm not sure I've met anyone who claims that there's absolutely nothing in the Bible that's literal (I'm assuming by "literal" you mean something like "actually happened"). Are you saying you don't take anything in the Bible as literal?

 

[dgreen]

What are your take aways from this? What's the intention of posting this information?

It was simply to point out that there's still a large portion of the Christian community that believes the Bible is the literal word of God.

If I was asked that question on a poll, I'd probably answer yes. But, if I were to have a conversation about it, I'd ask, "What the heck do you mean by that?" I bet there are people who would answer that question yes and others no who have basically the same view of what it even means.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Hey Folks,

Please keep this friendly and chill with a focus on understanding those that maybe have a different opinion. I know that's a challenge with a topic like this but I've seen y'all do it.

 

[Captain Cranks]

If I was asked that question on a poll, I'd probably answer yes. But, if I were to have a conversation about it, I'd ask, "What the heck do you mean by that?" I bet there are people who would answer that question yes and others no who have basically the same view of what it even means.

It seems participants were given at least 3 options: Actual word of God, Inspired word of God, or "an ancient book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man.”

 

[dgreen]

If I was asked that question on a poll, I'd probably answer yes. But, if I were to have a conversation about it, I'd ask, "What the heck do you mean by that?" I bet there are people who would answer that question yes and others no who have basically the same view of what it even means.

It seems participants were given at least 3 options: Actual word of God, Inspired word of God, or "an ancient book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man.”

I'd probably answer yes to all three. If they rephrased "Actual word of God" to something like "God produced scrolls with all those words already on it" or "God audibly recited the words and someone wrote them down" then I'd say no, but I'm assuming that's not what they mean...leaving me not really knowing what they mean and allowing me to make up my own meaning.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So with that said you really can’t fathom how someone like myself would wonder how individuals like your pick and choose what to believe is literal and what isn’t?

Not speaking for anyone else, but I am not sure I have a real choice in the matter. I'd like to believe I'm being guided by the Holy Spirit, but I have to acknowledge it might very well just be a short circuit in my brain. Ultimately it doesn't make much a difference. But I also know that I cannot use any kind of logical explanation or argument to make someone else "get this". So my participation in these threads is along the line of focusing on the belief that this is a better world if everyone tried to take care of each other. I think that is what any god worth believing in would want, and I think it is in the best interest of believers and non-believers either way. Early Christianity thrived, on how the early Christians lived a life of community as much as any of the individual teachings. They made their part of the world better and people naturally wanted in. Believing in the faith was an end result, not an upfront requirement.

 

[dkp993]

@dkp993 I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that you think someone should take every word of the Bible as literal or non-literal? That someone's interpretation shouldn't vary from one book/chapter/verse to another?

You asked Ivan if he takes anything in the Bible as literal. I assume that answer for everyone is yes. I'm not sure I've met anyone who claims that there's absolutely nothing in the Bible that's literal (I'm assuming by "literal" you mean something like "actually happened"). Are you saying you don't take anything in the Bible as literal?

I’m not applying “should” to anything. Don’t feel that’s my place to tell someone what to do regarding their personal beliefs. What I am saying is I understand those that take it all (or overwhelmingly all) literal or those that only see it as a book of stories on morals better than those in the middle. And while I understand that the majority of believers fall into that middle category I just don’t understand how they can be fully convicted they are right in the certain things they chose to believe in and while picking and choosing what not to believe in. In other words for example…. Why is it they fully believe Jesus is the real son of God but not fully believe in the flood (for example) and say that’s a story to teach lessons.

 

[dgreen]

@dkp993 I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that you think someone should take every word of the Bible as literal or non-literal? That someone's interpretation shouldn't vary from one book/chapter/verse to another?

You asked Ivan if he takes anything in the Bible as literal. I assume that answer for everyone is yes. I'm not sure I've met anyone who claims that there's absolutely nothing in the Bible that's literal (I'm assuming by "literal" you mean something like "actually happened"). Are you saying you don't take anything in the Bible as literal?

I’m not applying “should” to anything. Don’t feel that’s my place to tell someone what to do regarding their personal beliefs. What I am saying is I understand those that take it all (or overwhelmingly all) literal or those that only see it as a book of stories on morals better than those in the middle. And while I understand that the majority of believers fall into that middle category I just don’t understand how they can be fully convicted they are right in the certain things they chose to believe in and while picking and choosing what not to believe in. In other words for example…. Why is it they fully believe Jesus is the real son of God but not fully believe in the flood (for example) and say that’s a story to teach lessons.

Thanks. I think I understand where you’re coming from now. I’ll reply later tonight when I have more time.

 

[Zow]

I'd also like to talk about how the Bible is filled with miracles performed by prophets and by Jesus, but why you don't see anything like this happening in recent history?

Or why Jesus wouldn't have done something more substantial like tell people there was stuff in their drinking water that was causing them to die.

"Hey, don't build nuclear weapons. They're bad and can wipe out everything (you know, like my dad did before when he got mad)."

"There are people with different color skin in areas of this world you haven't seen yet. They're totally cool though. When you encounter them, don't enslave them."

"Just whatever you do in the future, don't become a Vikings fan. That level of masochism is a sin."

if there is one thing that all religions come together on it is that the vikings stink take that to the bank bromigos

Odin and Tyr disagree!

you just made it nerdy you nerd take that to the bank bronerdo

My wife calls this the “nerd board” for a reason.