Christians: simple question about the bible

[saizai]

One thing that genuinely puzzles me about how people frame their belief of the bible.

It seems that you can either accept the bible as infallible literal truth in its entirety, or a sort of morality play story that requires interpretation to apply.

If the former, how do you answer the various contradicitions within it? Seems difficult to claim it is *all* literal truth.

If the latter, how do you explain the various pointless lists of begattings of people who never are mentioned again? Seems out of place for an Aesopian book.

If on the gripping hand, you choose to claim that some parts are literal truth whereas other parts are metaphorical, on what basis do you choose? How, without recourse to some non-biblical source, do you have any justification for this choice?


Please apply your answer specifically to:
* morality and ethics in re. the various repulsive commandments in the bible (e.g. if you reject slavery, rape, pillage, and/or genocide as immoral, on what basis do you do so given that God and Jesus encourage them?)
* creationism 'vs' evolution (why choose that particular story as 'literal truth'?)

 

[geni]

If the latter, how do you explain the various pointless lists of begattings of people who never are mentioned again? Seems out of place for an Aesopian book.

However it is pretty common in the style of writeing epics. Thang the figher was the son of robin the cross dresser and the grandsom zog the genocidal maniac. It ties things together an gives the characters you are going to use some kind relationship with the previous lot. It is also a convient way to ilustraight the passing of time since dateing systems around at that point were a bit irregular for anthing longer than a few years and your average person was unlikely to think in terms of decades. They could think in terms of generations though.

 

[ReFLeX]

They also prove direct descendence from Abraham, I think?

 

[Darat]

One thing that genuinely puzzles me about how people frame their belief of the bible.

It seems that you can either accept the bible as infallible literal truth in its entirety, or a sort of morality play story that requires interpretation to apply.

Or a combination of both.

If the former, how do you answer the various contradicitions within it? Seems difficult to claim it is *all* literal truth.

You are wrong it is very simple to claim it is all the literal truth, I'm not being facetious with my correction. What I suspect you mean is that it would seem hard given the evidence around us and using logic and reason to accept that it is literal. But don't forget the people that say it is literal are not using evidence, logic nor reason to make that claim - their claim is just a statement of faith. Therefore it is much simpler and easier to accept it as literal then to accept it as a work that may need interpretation and so on - one requires no work the other requires at least some work.

If the latter, how do you explain the various pointless lists of begattings of people who never are mentioned again? Seems out of place for an Aesopian book.

Presumably whoever added that section felt it was important.

If on the gripping hand, you choose to claim that some parts are literal truth whereas other parts are metaphorical, on what basis do you choose? How, without recourse to some non-biblical source, do you have any justification for this choice?

I would say this is often a criticism by people who seem not to understand most forms of Christianity that have survived to modern day. Christianity is not just the Bible - Christianity is a religion, and like all other religions I am familiar with has many sources for its beliefs. For example the largest Christian denomination - the Roman Catholics - have (to simplify it for the sake of ease of discussion) a very clear view that any interpretation of the Bible is the responsibility of the Church itself - so its Priests, Bishops and finally the Pope determine what is doctrine, what are the beliefs of the religion. Indeed it is really not going too far to say that a good Roman Catholic never even needs to read the Bible to be a good Christian. So for most Christians it is not possible to consider and understand their beliefs "without recourse to some non-biblical source".

Please apply your answer specifically to:
* morality and ethics in re. the various repulsive commandments in the bible (e.g. if you reject slavery, rape, pillage, and/or genocide as immoral, on what basis do you do so given that God and Jesus encourage them?)
...snip...

Again for most Christians it is the Church that decides what is moral so the various contradictions in the Bible are pretty much irrelevant for their chosen moral or ethical code. A good example of this is the RCC doctrine regarding contraception - there is no where in the Bible for example that says "no contraception" but the Church has interpreted the Bible to formulate that doctrine. Another classic example is the idea of "just war" - despite the fact that the Bible clearly conjures up a pacifist Christ, Christians have still engaged in war.

 

[saizai]

Or a combination of both.

That's addressed in my third option.

You are wrong it is very simple to claim it is all the literal truth, I'm not being facetious with my correction. What I suspect you mean is that it would seem hard given the evidence around us and using logic and reason to accept that it is literal. But don't forget the people that say it is literal are not using evidence, logic nor reason to make that claim - their claim is just a statement of faith. Therefore it is much simpler and easier to accept it as literal then to accept it as a work that may need interpretation and so on - one requires no work the other requires at least some work.

If you claim it is all literal you arrive at multiple purely factual, internal contradictions even without reference to any outside claims about the world or contesting the claim on any other grounds.

Presumably whoever added that section felt it was important.

Not a very satisfying response...

I would say this is often a criticism by people who seem not to understand most forms of Christianity that have survived to modern day. Christianity is not just the Bible - Christianity is a religion, and like all other religions I am familiar with has many sources for its beliefs. For example the largest Christian denomination - the Roman Catholics - have (to simplify it for the sake of ease of discussion) a very clear view that any interpretation of the Bible is the responsibility of the Church itself - so its Priests, Bishops and finally the Pope determine what is doctrine, what are the beliefs of the religion. Indeed it is really not going too far to say that a good Roman Catholic never even needs to read the Bible to be a good Christian. So for most Christians it is not possible to consider and understand their beliefs "without recourse to some non-biblical source".

Sure, they outsource the interpretation. But that's only okay insofar as it's all viewed as needing interpretation. I am posing the question of what justification there is for viewing some as literally factual and some as metaphor, and how one is to determine between them.

Again for most Christians it is the Church that decides what is moral so the various contradictions in the Bible are pretty much irrelevant for their chosen moral or ethical code. A good example of this is the RCC doctrine regarding contraception - there is no where in the Bible for example that says "no contraception" but the Church has interpreted the Bible to formulate that doctrine. Another classic example is the idea of "just war" - despite the fact that the Bible clearly conjures up a pacifist Christ, Christians have still engaged in war.

"Clearly" a pacifist Christ? You must not have read the same bible as me. I remember a pretty bloodthirsty one - albeit in somewhat odd ways.

Saying it's the church, anyway, only makes a homonculus. What moral basis does the church have to decide the question? If the bible is god's word then one must follow what it says. If some parts are ignorable, then all of it is also, and that seems rather much an act of hubris for a theist to do.

 

[Darat]

...snip...
If you claim it is all literal you arrive at multiple purely factual, internal contradictions even without reference to any outside claims about the world or contesting the claim on any other grounds.

Yes. But that's a matter of "so what?" if your belief in it being literal stems from faith.

Not a very satisfying response...

I agree but unless someone uncovers some editorial notes then all we can do is speculate - extensive genealogies are not unusual in ancient texts, not surprising given the importance of inheritance. We can speculate that they are included to provide authenticity to various prophecies, to show that David or Jesus or whoever is a direct descendant of X - but as I said unless we find some evidence that is all speculation. (Such evidence may exist but cant recall that from the various books etc. I've read regarding the Bible.)

Sure, they outsource the interpretation. But that's only okay insofar as it's all viewed as needing interpretation. I am posing the question of what justification there is for viewing some as literally factual and some as metaphor, and how one is to determine between them.

Because they are Christians and they have faith that their Church represents the truth (normally with a capital T).

"Clearly" a pacifist Christ? You must not have read the same bible as me. I remember a pretty bloodthirsty one - albeit in somewhat odd ways.

Re-read the NT and the words directly attributed to Jesus; that Jesus is a pacifist.

Saying it's the church, anyway, only makes a homonculus. What moral basis does the church have to decide the question? If the bible is god's word then one must follow what it says. If some parts are ignorable, then all of it is also, and that seems rather much an act of hubris for a theist to do.

You are confusing faith and reason.

 

[saizai]

Yes. But that's a matter of "so what?" if your belief in it being literal stems from faith.

Because it says in various places X and not X. They can't both be true. Thus if it says both are true, something's amiss.

I don't think faith is generally incompatible with logic, but on this point it is.

Because they are Christians and they have faith that their Church represents the truth (normally with a capital T).

Not all Christians do. E.g. Protestants at least in theory ought to be reading their own damn bibles. That's what the printing press was made for after all. (Well, that and porn. )

 

[Darat]

Because it says in various places X and not X. They can't both be true. Thus if it says both are true, something's amiss.

Not at all - are you aware of the two different views of how a believer in the Christian God can answer the question "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?" - one view adopts logic and says that the question is a logical impossibility and therefore is a meaningless question or that God can only do what is logically possible, the other view answers it with a resounding "yes" because they do not accept that God is bound by logic. (Personally I side with the "yes" group since to me being omnipotent means being unbound by anything including logic.)

I don't think faith is generally incompatible with logic, but on this point it is.

To your comment "..I don't think faith is generally incompatible with logic.." if it isn't generally incompatible then that is just a happy coincidence. Faith has nothing to do with reason, evidence or logic. After all if you believe something because of evidence, reasoning or logic then it is not faith.

(Note many Christian theologians do hold that you can come to their God via reason - but that is a different point.)

Not all Christians do. E.g. Protestants at least in theory ought to be reading their own damn bibles. That's what the printing press was made for after all. (Well, that and porn. )

Oh I agree and we could probably find some denominations that don't even have preachers just readers of the Bible BUT I do think in these types of conversations using the Roman Catholic Church is a good example since they represent (by far) the majority of people who identify themselves as Christian and have a rather long history (of course we could use the Eastern Orthodox Church as another example and even some of the Protestant denominations as they also have their own non-Biblical doctrines and authorities on what the religion is).

My main point is that you are going to be faced with what I bet you will will consider circular and illogical reasoning if you want to understand why and how Christians approach the Bible.

 

[MG1962]

Well two observations. The old Testement is a mixture of 'facts' and instructions. Example the Book Of Numbers is a sort of census. The bible is as much the history of the Hebrew people as anything.

The new Testement is the province of Christians. In general it is a book of instructions on how to live a Christian life. Sure there is a bit of begatting going on, and wandering around. But at the core it is like "Being Good For Dummies"

 

[saizai]

Not at all - are you aware of the two different views of how a believer in the Christian God can answer the question "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?" - one view adopts logic and says that the question is a logical impossibility and therefore is a meaningless question or that God can only do what is logically possible, the other view answers it with a resounding "yes" because they do not accept that God is bound by logic. (Personally I side with the "yes" group since to me being omnipotent means being unbound by anything including logic.)

That (latter view) only seems to me to be viable if you are willing to also suppose that, in creating this unliftable rock, god is in effect creating a bound upon its own omnipotency.

Which means that after this act it is no longer totally omnipotent.

To your comment "..I don't think faith is generally incompatible with logic.." if it isn't generally incompatible then that is just a happy coincidence.

Basically, yup. A matter of accepting certain propositions for which there is no evidence, but which are nevertheless at least consistent.

Oh I agree and we could probably find some denominations that don't even have preachers just readers of the Bible BUT I do think in these types of conversations using the Roman Catholic Church is a good example since they represent (by far) the majority of people who identify themselves as Christian and have a rather long history (of course we could use the Eastern Orthodox Church as another example and even some of the Protestant denominations as they also have their own non-Biblical doctrines and authorities on what the religion is).

I'm mainly directing at the Protestant version, since they at least only purport that their preacher is guiding them in reading the bible, which itself is the only real source of their faith.

My main point is that you are going to be faced with what I bet you will will consider circular and illogical reasoning if you want to understand why and how Christians approach the Bible.

I think that's not absolutely necessary. Frequent, no doubt. But I do know some intelligent people who are nevertheless Christian. As I said above, I think it's possible (for some interpretations).

 

[saizai]

Well two observations. The old Testement is a mixture of 'facts' and instructions. Example the Book Of Numbers is a sort of census. The bible is as much the history of the Hebrew people as anything.

The new Testement is the province of Christians. In general it is a book of instructions on how to live a Christian life. Sure there is a bit of begatting going on, and wandering around. But at the core it is like "Being Good For Dummies"

Oh, sure.

The part that really confuses me is how one can claim that some of those instructions are the Literal Truth TM! and others are maybe not so absolute really after all 'cause they're kinda bloody and immoral and we're not like that anymore honest ossifer.

It seems to me that if you genuinely accept the bible as a moral code, you MUST accept its various instructions like e.g. death penalty for idolators, insubordinate children, adulterers, etc; slavery is good and just; you are obliged to marry your brother's widow and your rape victims; etc. And not just as what 'ought to' be, but what God says you, yes you are obliged to carry out.

If you don't then you are implicitly asserting there is some external moral code... which makes the bible poof into irrelevancy as the source of morality at least.

 

[Darat]

That (latter view) only seems to me to be viable if you are willing to also suppose that, in creating this unliftable rock, god is in effect creating a bound upon its own omnipotency.

Which means that after this act it is no longer totally omnipotent.

I'm not surprised that you only accept the first view and I can see that because you attempt to use logic to address the second view. That will always fail - the only answer is "yes" - that you say "but logically he can't do both" is a limitation (people who hold such a view of God would say) in your ability to understand God - not an inability of God to do something you consider logically impossible.

I'm mainly directing at the Protestant version, since they at least only purport that their preacher is guiding them in reading the bible, which itself is the only real source of their faith.

Again I suggest you need to research a little into even the general views of Protestant Christians and their religion (I'm not being patronising but if we want to argue and discuss something about what people believe in we have to discuss what it is that they believe in not just our interpretation of that.) For instance there are many Protestant churches that have non-Biblical doctrine (the Anglican Church is one of them).

I think that's not absolutely necessary. Frequent, no doubt. But I do know some intelligent people who are nevertheless Christian. As I said above, I think it's possible (for some interpretations).

Intelligent people can have faith beliefs. I never mistake someone having a faith as meaning they are not intelligent or haven't thought about their faith. Indeed I would say it is the intelligent believers that do not attempt to support their faith with reason.

 

[kurious_kathy]

Again for most Christians it is the Church that decides what is moral so the various contradictions in the Bible are pretty much irrelevant for their chosen moral or ethical code. A good example of this is the RCC doctrine regarding contraception - there is no where in the Bible for example that says "no contraception" but the Church has interpreted the Bible to formulate that doctrine. Another classic example is the idea of "just war" - despite the fact that the Bible clearly conjures up a pacifist Christ, Christians have still engaged in war.

The only denomination that I know of that teaches on contraception is Catholocism. Of course I don't go to a denominational church so maybe I'm not up on some of the other Christian denominations teaching on this. I got my tubes tied after my fourth child and I don't think that was a sin.

 

[Paulhoff]

I got my tubes tied after my fourth child and I don't think that was a sin.

There it is again, they cherry-pick what they think is a sin to their idea of god, how the hell can you lose.

Paul



Just find the church that fits you.

 

[saizai]

Here's a relatively simple way to cast the question:

Do you reject any of the following as immoral:
* slavery
* death sentence for disobedience to parents, proselytizing religions other than christianity, etc etc
* etc various repulsive things condoned in the bible

If no, then you're okay (though I consider your morality rather repulsive).

If yes, then on what basis do you reject these when god itself (or its prophets, or jesus) commands it so in the bible? Particularly, on what basis can you choose which parts to reject or tone down, and which to keep?

 

[Huntster]

....Just find the church that fits you.

Did you?

 

[wollery]

Did you?

 

[Paulhoff]

No god, no church, daaaaaaaaa.

Paul

 

[Skiltch]

"Do you reject any of the following as immoral:
* slavery
* death sentence for disobedience to parents, proselytizing religions other than christianity, etc etc
* etc various repulsive things condoned in the bible
"

I'm fairly certain that all Christians (nowadays) reject them, mostly from the "Let he who is without sin" verses.

 

[saizai]

Skiltch - How is that a rejection?

"Let he who is without sin" is only an admonishment against judging and punishing others for it. But god / disciples / jesus say it's OK to have slaves and beat them (just don't kill 'em or knock out their teeth or eyes, IIRC) etc etc etc.

If you consider this immoral, then you can't also consistently say that the bible is the source of your Objective Moral Code (tm).