As Above, So Below - the religion thread (formerly: People of California, beware)

Kudos keky.

I agree that the NT certainly is an improvement from the gore and absurdity of the OT, but I've encountered plenty of unjust and absurd verses in the NT as well. There are rationalizations for practically everything though, and people manage to twist the verses into whatever they prefer them to say.

I also agree that they both contain beautiful poetry as well, and they certainly give a fascinating insight into these ancient cultures. At the last funeral I was at, the priest read from 1 Corinthians 13, and I thought those verses were absolutely beautiful and moving.

It was worse at my grandmother's funeral though, where the priest read passages about how non-believers are going to Hell to roast. I can laugh at it now, but at the time I found it very disrespectful and inappropriate.

That said, I can somewhat understand how you can remain a christian if you've been raised to accept that the texts were written by fallible humans and therefore will contain errors, injustice and superstition, because it makes you better prepared to deal with the difficult verses. The people I mostly had in mind in my former post are people who've been brought up to believe that the Bible is the Truth and the perfect word of God. I think this latter teaching sets the whole thing up for FAIL. Either they will be believers completely out of touch with reality, or they'll be horrified when they read the Bible, and will end up abandoning the religion entirely.

Peter

Many Catholics do for sure, the NON-literalness (is that a word?) of all Bible is often reminded.

Jon Stewart brilliantly rips into the Pope:

http://tv.gawker.com/5512126/jon-stewar … h-rolls-on

Yet there are many many Christians (especially in the Southern U.S.) who believe the Bible to be inerrant and have read the whole thing.

I for one believe the Bible to be true as fas as it's translated correctly. That said, I must admit that I haven't read every single word, but I've read almost all of it (there are still some chapters in Job and 1, 2 Chronicles I haven't read). I've read the entire N.T. 3 or 4 times I think, and many books of the OT as many. I think some of the OT stories have lost some important details over the millennia, but I'd say the vast majority of the OT is great. I don't see much to be "horrified" with in the Bible. There are some weirdo stories in there, and granted there are some that don't seem to serve much purpose, but do remember that it is a history and if that's how things went down, then that's how it's recorded. Some of the less savory stories are purposely designed to prove a point, and I think they do so very well. Take Judah, for example. In Genesis there are some chapters about the sexual shenanigans of Judah and his sons. At first glance you may wonder why that's even in there. But it comes in direct contrast to Joseph who remains completely chaste in the midst of serious temptation. When you put Judah and Joseph's stories back to back like that it really highlights Joseph's goodness. I believe that's a literary device called a foil. That's one example where what someone might find really strange ends up teaching a lesson.

As far as whether I believe the Bible to be literal or figurative - it really depends on the author. It's really clear that some authors were being figurative (Hosea being a great example of that, Ecclessiastes is also very figurative), but I think most of the actual stories are meant to be taken literally.

Maybe this has all been hashed out on this board before, but I'm new to the religion thread, so I thought I'd give my two cents on this Bible talk since it was brought up. I realize that being Christian (or maybe I should say being religious at all) I'm probably in the minority on this board. I respect everyone's right to believe whatever they choose. If you think I'm crazy for being religious, I can see where you're coming from, but I won't apologize.

Incidentally, as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also called Mormons), I also believe in a couple other volumes of scripture. Anyone here ever read the Book of Mormon? It's awesome!

Just out of curiosity, how old do you believe the earth is?



You can fill books about the horrors of the Bible. In fact, they do... it's called the Bible! Finding the message of good in many of the Bible's story is akin to finding the silver lining to a mushroom cloud.



If I'm brutally honest, yes I do think it's crazy to take the Bible literally in any way, especially in this day and age. But I certainly wouldn't expect you to apologise for those beliefs! Only the actions that one might take because of those beliefs: a person who flies a plane into a building because he thinks he will be rewarded in the afterlife has as much to apologise for as someone who flies a plane into a building because he felt like it. A person who stones a woman for adultery because his religion teaches him to has just as much to answer for as someone who stones a woman simply because he enjoys it. It's the action, not the belief - although unfortunately, in many cases, action inherently follows belief. (Not that I'm accusing you of taking actions that need apologising for, especially not those I gave as examples, but rather merely illuminating my point there.)

You're welcome!



I guess I'm not sure if you're arguing that there's no historical validity or usefulness to the Bible or if you're saying that a historical record was never the purpose of its authors. I disagree with the first, and mostly agree with the second.

I do agree that the Bible's stories are designed to teach a specific thing, and I must admit that there are few other historical records that attest to most of the stories in the Bible (though there are some). There are few historical records that date back that far at all, though. In the absence of corroborating records it is hard to assert the stories of the Bible as factual, but in the absence of contradictory records, it's hard to discount them. There are man stories in the Bible that are probably as much history as anything else we've got from that time period of the world. One thing the Bible does very well is keep track of family lines. You can look at it as a geneological record. For example, there are probably no extra-Biblical stories about Ruth. Does that mean she didn't exist, or that her story is not as it is recorded in the Bible? No. But if you're looking at this from a perfectly academic perspective you would have to say there's a possibility that she's a legend and never did live.

If I learned anything getting a BA degree in history it's this: history is not something that can be nailed down as "this happened like this and everyone knows it." There is a "true history" of the world, but I'm afraid nobody on earth knows it. All we've got are the records that have been kept, all of which were influenced by their authors to present history the way they experienced it. I for one believe there is history presented in the Bible, though I will admit that keeping a history was not the primary motive of most of its authors.


I don't know. I'd say reeeeeaaaaalllly old. Like millions and millions of years old. But I don't know. And I'm afraid science can't be much more specific.


I'd say you're being very hyberbolic. The way you talk one would expect to find nothing but horrible stuff in the Bible. I think the stories that you speak of as "horrors" are no where near as common as you think they are. There are some stories in there that do puzzle me, though.

As to the rest of your post Steven, I think it is atrocious when people do terrible things to each other in the name of God. Those who do that are the worst kinds of people. I think that's less a statement against religion, though, and more against religious fanaticism -which usually doesn't bear much similarity to the teachings those fanatics claim to espouse. I've noticed recently that a lot of Jihadi sentiment these days has less and less to do with Islam than it used to. I think a lot of bad people aren't trying to disguise their atrocities behind a cloak of religious piety anymore (don't get me wrong - a LOT of people are still doing that, but it is interesting to me to see the shift).

Well, I have to admit I'm relieved to hear you say that it's older than a few thousand years. But a little thrown back by that latter statement: we know it to be 4.5 billion years old, thanks to carbon dating and various other dating techniques.



This is the old "no true Scotsman" fallacy that Martijn mentioned above. Religious fanatics are following what their religion teaches in a very LITERAL sense. If you can derive that it's a good idea to blow a bus full of people up purely from what a religion teaches (and it's very easy to if your religion happens to be Islam), then that should be reason enough to scrutinize and critisise the religion, not just the people who act out from those beliefs. It really is their beliefs, religious beliefs, that cause them to do terrible acts. The root of the problem is religion, not just political. Unfortunately ideas are harder to eradicate than just a bunch of bad people who do bad things - that's why the "war on terror" is a horribly unfortunate misnomer... it's a war of ideas!

Islamic beliefs in particular bear much similarity to Islamic fanaticism; it really does teach that anyone who doesn't believe in 'Allah' should really be killed. And the vast majority of Muslims who choose not to take that part literally are simply using their own sense of ethics to either ignore it or take it as a metaphorical teaching (although I'm not quite sure what the metaphor could be) and tend to focus on what they perceive to be 'good' teachings. Religious moderation in a nutshell.



Do you mean have I read the Bible in its entirety? No. I've read plenty about the Bible though, good and bad, to be able to get a good sense of what it's all about. I'll put it this way: Even if there was just ONE inconsistency, even if there was just ONE story about killing homosexuals (for being homosexual no less!), then that alone would set off a few alarm bells as to the veracity of its holy claims (not least the fact that it has nothing to say about geology, evolution, astronomy and science in general that a person from the time it was written couldn't have known. As a book supposedly written by God, either through man or directly, I'd be more convinced of its genuineness if it had mentioned something about the earth being 4.5 billion years old, or perhaps something about biological reasons for human diseases).

I'm pretty sure there has been some geological evidence for some major floods all over the known world (i.e. Asia Minor and part of Africa) simultaneously, but I'm going by memory here. Let me see if I can find some evidence. To be continued.

Obviously a global flood as such (such as when the Earth was actually being formed) of course never happened during the reign of Man. When I said worldwide I rather overstated the case.

I'll grant you that the records of Egypt have nothing to say about the Hebrews, but I don't think that makes it at all "verifiably historical nonsense." Are you going to trust the veracity of Egypt's ancient records more than Israel's? Both deal heavily in the supernatural. It seems quite a double standard to say you won't accept the Bible as historically valid because parts of it are fantasical while comparing it with Egypt's history which you'll believe as factual despite the fact that parts of it are fantasical. Besides, dynasties have a way of keeping history in a way that shows them in the most positive light. Both Egypt and China have had massive historical re-writings with the change of dynasties. Dynastic "selective" history may be especially prevalent for a society that believes their ruler to be a God. Would the rulers of Egypt want to record a history of a slave nation successfully breaking the will of their nation and spoiling the nation on their way out? Does Egyptian history mention Israel? No. Does that invalidate Biblical claims of the origin of Israel? Not at all.


Really? You can't see how the Bible is historically useful? At all? This is one of (if not the) most impactful books ever written. Believe it or don't, but don't say it hasn't been impactful. In that event, history cannot ignore the Bible. Even if you don't believe the origins or the Jews or of Christianity that are presented therein, the fact remains that those groups DO, and that those records have enormous significance to hundreds of millions of people the world over. With entire fields of history dedicated to Israel, the Jews, and Christianity, and with the impact of those religions on the rest of the world (for good or bad), the Bible is not only useful but critical for historians to understand how the world has come to be what it is.


Science says you can't take anything as fact until it either proven or disproven. I think it's VERY scientific to withold judgment on the Bible's stories. Take Methuselah's age, for example. The Bible says he lived to nearly 1000 years old. Is there any other ancient record that says he wasn't? No. So do I think the Bible proves anything simply by its existence? Not at all. But you can't disprove it. So it's "physically impossible" for someone to live that long? Today, true. But what scientific evidence do we have of how long people lived 5000-6000 years ago? I'm not trying to convince you to believe the Bible, and if you think the idea of people living to be 800 years old is ridiculous I don't blame you. But scientists need to remember that absence of proof does not make something false. Scientists (true scientists) will withold judgment until something is proved or disproved, and as wild as 800 year old people sounds today, I would argue that science shouldn't discount that until they can carbon date how old people were when they died, and then find everyone who ever died and carbon date them. I'm being a little ridiculous here, but you can see how scientifically it's very hard to conclusively disprove the Bible.



We are 100% agreed on all of these points.

I started a comment, but quickly realized it would end up an essay, and I'm just too tired now.
So again: to be continued.

I'd like to say a few things about the claim that there's little bad stuff in the Bible. First of all, I'm not a biblical scholar, so feel free to correct me if I get something wrong. I'd like to be as fair as possible, since I realize that arguments against the Bible can be unfair and based on a poor understanding of the context and the translations the books have gone through, and it annoys me when poor arguments are made (for instance the "The Bible says pi equals 3" argument, which is very popular among atheists, and which I find a rather crappy argument). That said, I've noticed that christians who defend the Bible tend to dismiss claims with poor understanding of the Bible as well, "out of context" being a favourite of many, and it's often said automatically whenever a verse they don't like is brought up.

To say the truth, I'm not fond of these debates, because there are so many possible apologetics arguments, that the verses can be twisted into just about anything. My biggest problem is that modern christians are so used to hearing of the horrific events of the Bible, and so used to making excuses for them, that they seem to consider them beautiful and poignant, without even appearing to realize how horrific many of them they truly are. For instance the whole myth of the Great Flood, where God drowned nearly everything on the planet. Forget about the 2004 tsunami, this monstrous supernatural being supposedly did something a million times worse, and people call it a beautiful lesson without even seeming to realize how sickening this story of mass-genocide is... The story about Job is ridiculous as well, where God basically makes a bet or gets challenged by Satan, and then kills his entire family etc. What kind of prideful and sadistic creature is this, to do something like that over a bet?

With regards to the NT, we're talking about writings that were written down several decades after the events in question were supposed to have happened. There used to be an much wider spread in christian thinking that we find today, and the various early sects competing with and killing each others over interpretations and doctrines, combined with the political battles concerning the Council of Nicaea who fought over which christian texts should be included in the Bible. There was no printing press in the far past, so the texts have been transcribed and translated numerous times, many of them evidently slanted towards specific agendas. Basically we're dealing with a process of "History is written by the winners" and most christians today seem blissfully unaware of the dirty and homicidal past that made the Bible what it is today.

With modern moral glasses, there are so many writing in the Bible so obviously arcaic and just plainly wrong. The OT seems to have no problem with slavery, it practically condones it. It says that you can beat your slave without punishment, if he gets up in a day or two. The NT discusses slavery as well, even Jesus himself, but nowhere is there any condemnation of it. This to me, makes both the old-, the new testament and Jesus himself clearly immoral. Sure, the Jesus character was ahead of his time, but to think of him as an infallible human being, or an infallible god is clearly shown wrong by the things he's supposed to have said.

In the OT, God not only condones genocide, he orders it (the canaanites being one example). It scares me when I hear otherwise modern and sane christians make excuses for the genocides of the OT, saying that it was a different time or that it was for the greater good. I can't think of a better example of the harm religion can do than when I see modern and otherwise sane christians suddenly saying that genocide can used for good when they're trying to defend their religious beliefs.

All this said, there's plenty of immorality to be found outside of the OT. Basically modern christianity is centered around two ideas I find morally reprehensible, 1.Ancestral sin (the idea that you can inherit the sins of your ancestors) 2.Substitutionary atonement (the idea than someone innocent can be killed to atone for the guilty). Both these ideas are archaic (we find them only in old stories, like greek tragedies) and they are obviously unjust and senseless.

On top of these complaints, there are countless ridiculous and unjust verses found throughout the Bible that it boggles the mind that anyone can take them seriously today. For instance, if a woman's husband is in a fight with another man, and the wife tries to break up the fight and accidentally touches the other man's penis, then the wife's hand must be cut off without mercy. This is actually in the Bible! It sounds so funny and weird today, but these these old texts are brimming with these taliban like commands. I truly don't understand how anyone today can read them, and not feel disguested.

Peter

I remember well that any time when Christians protest against a movie (Da Vinci Code, etc.) the first question they get is "Have you actually seen it?" If they say they haven't they tell them "Go and see it first". That's apply to your attitude to the Bible as well, I think. To read only about something you so vehemently "protest" against is not fair enough.
I suggest you begin with the Gospel of John (my personal favourite) then some other book of the New Testament. I assure you, you will not find a single verse there that would suggest to kill anybody because for homosexuality or anything else. You may find strict words against some sins but not a hint of suggestion of destroying or killing anybody.
You may find more rude things in the Old Testament but since the basis of Christianity is the New Testament which made God's intention clear for us in the person and teachings of Jesus, those rude OT rules are not in game anymore. (Just one example: read the story of the adulteress woman in Gospel of John 8, 1-11)
One more thing: you expect scientific and historical stuff from the Bible, it seems. We have thousands of books for that. The Bible is - to put it simply - the continuous story of God's redemption of humanity. That's how it should be looked at.

This is a huge post, sorry...

Peter, I won’t go point for point through your posts in the interest of time. I disagree with much of what you’ve said, but these kinds of discussions often turn into arguments where one poster will skim through the other’s post, only looking for things he can disagree with and then respond only to those things. I don’t think there’s any value in that kind of argument.

Let’s not debate. Let’s just discuss. Religion all comes down to faith, right? That’s a concept I have no doubt that you find dangerous. I think it’s essential to understanding scripture. My faith in God is based on my own life experiences, so I don’t expect you to share it, but I do want you to know that I have felt things that convince me that there is a God, that He loves His children, and that He doesn’t do anything unless it is for their benefit.

Now, you’ve brought up a number of instances where the Bible talks about God killing people. I completely understand how you’re not okay with this. My faith in God leads me to believe that the God has perfectly good reasons for doing what He does, and sometimes my faith requires me to postpone judgment on one thing or another because I do not yet fully understand why God would do something like that (The story of Job is such a case. I have a hard time believing that it was simply God making a bet with Satan. I think there’s more to this, but until I know the rest of the story I’ll use it to learn about how to live a good life even when life is very hard, which I think is the point of the book). That said, I don’t worry about it, because I know God is good.

The preceding paragraph will seem to you FULL of naiveté, and I understand why. I hope that you will not think me closed-minded or a slave to my beliefs. My position is not based on thoughtlessness, but on the knowledge that I have of God’s goodness. I am sure of that, and so I know that someday He will teach me the answers. I will be patient until then.

That said, I do think there are good answers to many of the points you bring up. My perspective will be pretty different than most other Christians you’ve talked with, though. Mormons have a unique view of a lot of things, brought on by other scripture that we believe and by explanations given by modern men we believe to be prophets. I could give you my thoughts on a number of issues that you brought up, but I only want to do so if you’d like me to, because it would take a really long time to address everything you’ve brought up. If you’re interested, though, I could give you my take on the flood, how the New Testament came to be, Biblical slavery, the “genocide” of the Canaanites, Ancestral sin (which belief I do not find support for in the Bible, by the way), obscure commandments in the law of Moses, God sending “himself” down in the form of His son (I disagree with common Christian interpretation of the nature of God), the extent to which I believe the OT is “rather benign”, Mathew 5:17-19, and the ten commandments.

I will address one of your points if I may. The doctrine of atonement is central to Christianity and one about which my feelings are particularly strong. I can understand that it is a ridiculous idea if you don’t believe in God, and I don’t blame you for asking why God would require it and not just forgive everyone without it.

For purposes of this discussion, let’s assume that there is a God, and that He is perfect (I know you don’t believe this, which is why you don’t believe in atonement, but I do believe in it, so here are some underlying assumptions that must be true for atonement to be possible and necessary). If God is perfect, then He must also be perfectly just, and perfectly merciful. Those are two attributes that contradict. If justice says that people get what they deserve and mercy says that they don’t, how can you have both in perfection? That’s where atonement comes in. Because all of us do wrong things, we become unworthy to live in God’s presence after we die (which He would really like us all to be able to do). Justice demands that a price be paid for every wrong act we commit. Let us say then, that when we sin, we take on a debt, and that God is our creditor. God, knowing that we would break eternal commandments, and not wanting us to have to suffer for that, created a plan whereby all of his children could pay that impossible debt and avoid the punishment for their own sins. He sent his son, Jesus, to earth to be a mediator. He would suffer the penalty for everyone else’s misdeeds, assuming our debts himself. As our new creditor, Jesus sets new terms for us to repay Him, that do not include the kind suffering that He had to experience for us. Now what he asks is that we repent. Is this arrangement fair? Technically yes, since Jesus did this willingly out of love for us. Clearly he was suffering for things he did not deserve, so that we can be punished less than we deserve, but this was the only way to have justice and mercy extended to us. If we don’t accept the price paid by Jesus and the new conditions of the debt we owe, then we will have to pay the price for our own sins in the afterlife. That’s how I see the atonement. I know that you will disagree with a lot of this, but does it make a little sense?

You’re right that there is a relationships between the sacrifices offered in the Old Testament and Jesus’ atonement. I don’t think, though, that God delights in the smell of blood as you say. I think that scriptures that say that sacrifice produces a “sweet savor to God” are more symbolic. Sure cooking meat smells good (who doesn’t think that?), but here I think that God is more pleased with the act of sacrifice as something that points toward a great and last sacrifice. The purpose of sacrifice was to help humankind learn and think more about the sacrifice of Christ.



True. Peter (the apostle) said that no scripture is of private interpretation, but everyone has their own interpretation of scripture. I believe that the true interpretation of the Bible was lost almost immediately after it was written. I think that the only way to know the intent of its authors is for modern day prophets and other books of scriptures to nail it down. Mormons believe that true original Christianity was lost with the deaths of the apostles and that it has been restored in the latter days.

Your frequent visiting of religious websites and your comments here make me wonder if the only interest you have in faith is to destroy it in whomever you can. I think that’s sad. I’m not out to destroy your beliefs. I do appreciate you being willing to express them, but I find your self-appointed quest to save Christians from themselves a little sad. If your purpose here is simply to argue, I don’t want to get into it. If you would like to know more about my religion, though, I would be happy to share with you some of its basic tenets. Then we could discuss my beliefs in a systematic way rather than arguing point by point through the Bible.