The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Personally, I will never agree with you that "the Bible is the infallible, totally inspired Word of God and thus the Source of All Truth." However, if you say that it is, I will not engage you.

Yeah: this can be heart-breaking--I had to call off a couple of engagements over it.

I agree that the Bible is not infallible indisputable authority on all things: a loving God would not do that to his people.

If I've already seen a movie, but am watching it again with someone I love, I keep quiet about what's coming up so as not to spoil the surprising plot twists. Isn't it annoying to have someone who's allready seen the movie telling you what's coming up? A loving God would not annoy his people with a book about the movie they're watching while they're watching it.

And if its not a movie, but a play, and his people are the cast.. well, memorizing a bunch of lines from a script is not near as much fun as ad lib.

But, imho, our movie is not over; the play is underway, we're all actors, and there is no script, so we must ad lib, and that's the way The Director wants it; because, if I was made in his Image, then he must be both lazy and curious, and it is more interesting and there's less work required to see what kind of finale the cast comes up with on their own, than to force them to have to act in anything shown on the Hallmark channel.

I'm always wary of saying the Bible is infallible. A few scribal errors have been identified; Some differences in eye-witness accounts can't all be correct. As so much of the Bible is historical, many things have to be seen in the context of the times & places which we may not be familiar with. Figures of speech like hyperbole, parables, cannot be taken literally. Many prophecies likewise cannot be taken literally. For instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oholah_and_Oholibah are aptly referred to as 'pejorative personifications' and many other non-literal examples exist.

I would say that the Bible has a message of truth. It is plain and clear in many places, it definitely requires work in others. Prophesying about the time of the end, Jesus said: Matthew 24:45-47

Which indicates that God would have servants at the time of the end, and that they would benefit from instruction through the Scriptures.

Originally Posted by slac-in-the-box I agree that the Bible is not infallible indisputable authority on all things: a loving God would not do that to his people.

I have to wonder about the Christian Bible in relation to any description of "a loving God". It seems to me there is a huge difference between God described in the Old Testament compared to the New Testament, which seems to be quite common among more primitive civilizations. Most of those older concepts of Gods are angry, petulant, vindictive and even narcissistic. No human I know expects to be worshipped by ants or bacteria and while we might kill ants if they invade our homes or our picnic, we don't torture them in the process and certainly not for any unimaginably long period of time. Granted my POV is human, but isn't that exactly the point? How else should I, could I be?

Originally Posted by mrmazda You misunderstand her meaning of "Church", which was God's people, not any of the many religious institutions that exist, such as the Church of England, from which the Puritans were escaping to reach the new land. Individual people comprise the government, therefore as such people go at God's direction, so should be going the government. God can't be separated from His people. The constitutional authors never conceived that it wouldn't be His people making up the majority of the new government that they based in huge part upon Biblical principles.

Thank you mrmazda for that considered response. I am aware that I have some difficulties in grasping religious thinking. However, the reason I asked if you are familiar with The Jefferson Bible is because most of the US Founding Fathers were Deists. The Jefferson Bible is a cut 'n paste compilation in a handful of languages in which all of the spiritual, superstition, prophesy and miracles passages missed the paste. His Bible is entirely pragmatic, stripped of all but what it has to say about how to live and treat each other. Regrettably, I haven't read it. Apparently it is somewhat rare, almost didn't get preserved because some found it offensive for some reason(s).

Regardless, the Founding Fathers not only included separation of Church and State in our Constitution, it is literally at the top of the list. I don't consider that an oddity since the first Europeans here were fleeing religious persecution and the literate among them were painfully aware how government could be corrupted by self-righteous sanctimony and easily slip into Tyranny.

Do we agree that should be avoided?

Originally Posted by enorbet I have to wonder about the Christian Bible in relation to any description of "a loving God". It seems to me there is a huge difference between God described in the Old Testament compared to the New Testament, which seems to be quite common among more primitive civilizations. Most of those older concepts of Gods are angry, petulant, vindictive and even narcissistic. No human I know expects to be worshipped by ants or bacteria and while we might kill ants if they invade our homes or our picnic, we don't torture them in the process and certainly not for any unimaginably long period of time. Granted my POV is human, but isn't that exactly the point? How else should I, could I be?

Our family's bible is a "red letter" edition, in which all the words spoken by Jesus are in red letters. There's much contrast between those letters and the rest of the book.

Here is a type of question, that a thinking Christian can contemplate:

What if Saul, faked his blindness and lied about seeing Jesus on the road to damascus, in order to fake his miraculous recovery and obtain apostle paul status and stature in the emerging church? The red letters warn that promoting the doctrine of man as if the doctrine of God is unforgiveable: could this be what they are warning us about? What if Satan, the Devil and fallen angel, master of light and disguises, deceived his way into The Bible? Saul was a persecuter of Christians and not practicing the red letters at all, and then suddenly he is writing letters that shape church doctrine. When I look at the red letters only, doctrine itself doesn't seem to rank very highly.

Paul seems more like the saducees, worried about whether your following the rules and practicing the doctrine right--very judaic, like protecting the major rules of the torah with a heaps of rules in the talmud, such that by practicing the talmud one doesn't risk breaking one of the major torah rules... rules, rules, rules...Jesus didn't make a rule against women speaking at church, or for circumcision, or the like.

I concur, @enorbet, the Old testament God was not always loving: go and kill your son for me... nah, just kidding, I just wanted to see if you would... ha ha... that's more like those greek gods messing around with our lives for their entertainment...

Ironically, the central christ figure, and who and what one would think the entirity of the religion would be about, delivers a message quite contrary to the rest of the religion, and his message was too anti-doctrinal for me to believe that Jesus would approve of a infallible indisputable authoritive book, because such a book creates doctrine, and doctrine creates all those posers praying in public having peity contests, rebuking one another for every breach... Throughout the red letters, Jesus slams such posers, so I don't see why he would aprove of a book that's just gonna create a whole new batch of them.

Nevertheless, the logic of those red letters lead a man to allow himself to be slain rather than to ursurp any kind of power or practice any kind of violence.

And even, if the entire story was only a myth, the logic of those red letters remain, and are interesting and help one contemplate the same fate. As I've mentioned before, but redundancy is good in computer forums, regardless of faith or religion or existence of Big Kuanahs, martyrdom is a valid tactic in this twenty-first century battlefield... and the logic of these red letters is something to consider independently from the rest of the religion that kind of stains that message by centuries and centuries of not getting it.

It bears repeating that "the Bible" is a compilation of books that were written over the course of many centuries – and that some of them were first passed from one generation to the next orally.

There were many words for "God." Most translators adopted a consistent system – for example, one word became "The LORD," and so on. But it also seems quite clear – I am speculating now – that we are not talking about "just one, consistent deity." Throughout many of the early chronological books, "God" was clearly the Hebrew's war god. If they were victorious, it was because "God was with them." And, if they got their asses wiped it was because "they had sinned in the eyes of the Lord." Is this actually "the God of Abraham?" "The God of Moses?" I have a number of interesting books on subjects like these, sitting on the bookshelves of my 100% television-free home.

Personally, I take this book in the same way that I take all the others: "it is what it is, warts and all." Don't let it be "stuffed and mounted," put on a pedestal and worshipped. Just read it. Yes, it has glaring inconsistencies, but you should expect this when two (or more) different authors, writing at different places and times about the same recalled events, never knew about each other.

I recently re-reviewed the Q'Oran, which of course talks about some of the same key characters and events. It is quite striking how different the two accounts are, when they are describing the same historical (or legendary) thing. The feel of it quite different.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs it has glaring inconsistencies

Reconcilable by those with enough understanding.

I've written all that I want to write about the authority of the Bible and I'm not going to go over it again. Life's too short for that, especially when you get to my age. Here's a link to it; there's four parts and I've linked them together for convenience.

You mentioned God's name. "LORD" = JHVH/YHWH in the original languages. The witnesses researched it in depth. Hebrew was consonantal, i.e. only the consonants were written. In the 2nd/3rd century use of the name died out. It was transliterated into Greek, but what was read aloud was unknown. Later, vowel markings were added to the Greek, but the vowel markings were EOA, for Eloha, the majestic plural of God - hence Jehovah. Any name that is translated is changed, which is why we use Jehovah today.

I don't believe the Hebrew/Greek Bible was ever passed on orally. Everyone from Moses onwards was instructed to write their messages down. Moses was literate, being educated in Phaoroh's court. Dictation was given to scribes in the cases of those prophets who could not write. In addition, other records were referenced that are not part of Scripture (e.g. Court records, book of Jashar, etc).

A gap between events and their recording is, in fact a hallmark of forgery, or false inspiration. I would mention the Aramaic Targums which were traditional Aramaic versions of the Hebrew books. But they are not Canonical, i.e. not viewed as inspired. If some Hebrew translation is uncertain, translators might consult other translations (Samaritan pentateuch, Syriac pershitta, & Greek Septuagint). But they are not translated from. The original languages are translated.

It is plainly said in Scripture and widely held that what appears as nonsense to nonbeliever can be correctly interpreted under guidance and with God's spirit. God has used various channels at various times, and he is using one today. We may differ over what it is, but you can fairly quickly eliminate what the channel isn't.

But for the majority of athiests/agnostics here, it's OK if you think poorly of the Bible. It doesn't matter, really. Just don't think your opinion is the only thing that matters, or force it down anyone's throat. It's all actually much bigger than that.

Originally Posted by mrmazda Reconcilable by those with enough understanding.

And, "a problem" only to those who find the need to 'reconcile' them. Which I personally do not.

There were never any "error-correcting codes" in the "data transmission" which we now have. It is many thousands of years old. What do you reasonably expect? When I say that the compilation has "glaring inconsistencies," I consider them to be perfectly normal and unremarkable.

Originally Posted by business_kid I don't believe the Hebrew/Greek Bible was ever passed on orally. Everyone from Moses onwards was instructed to write their messages down. Moses was literate, being educated in Phaoroh's court. Dictation was given to scribes in the cases of those prophets who could not write. In addition, other records were referenced that are not part of Scripture (e.g. Court records, book of Jashar, etc).

When I speak of "passed on orally," I'm looking (for example) all the way back to "the first chapters of Genesis." These stories are, indeed, legends, and myths. If "writing" existed at that time, none of those writings now exist. But the stories were nonetheless "passed down," to eventually arrive in our Bibles in their present form.

But also – even though "Moses was literate," the official Egyptian records did not survive. The only thing that survived was stories about them.

"Very well, then ... here we are now. Let's try to move forward with what we've still got."

Also note – as I have said here before, both in this thread and in another of my own making, my use of the terms legend and myth are not pejorative. I simply intend them to be descriptive. These are "accepted stories" whose provenance, and indeed their true origins, can never be objectively verified. "And that is that."

In my opinion, it is pointless to "argue" this point. "It is what it is," and "it's okay." These foundations are made of sand: the "facts" that we all desire no longer exist. So, don't bother trying to build a house there. It is a waste of time. When there are other, far more interesting, topics to discuss.

If you insist that "a source is" what it objectively cannot possibly be, then that position must be coming from you, not from the sources. And that, to me, is just a pointless waste of time. Accept the sources for what they are (and aren't ...), and just move along.

Originally Posted by hazel I've written all that I want to write about the authority of the Bible and I'm not going to go over it again. Life's too short for that, especially when you get to my age. Here's a link to it; there's four parts and I've linked them together for convenience.

@Hazel: nice read, and the Library perspective is wonderful. Wrestling for one's own interpretation is wonderful too. I certainly take to heart all the caution and dangers of allowing others to be interpretive authorities, since that can enable heretic charlatanism. But I did not find any actual defense of the absolute authority of the Bible, other than God would not provide more than one authority, so clearly the Pope's not it, and this book is. But although I can interpret the book as the authority for the Christian religion, why should I interpret it as authoritive word of God valid for all contexts universally?

In other words, where is the defense for the authority of the Christian religion?

I don't think there is such a defense; I believe this religion is guilty of trying to claim a monopoly on love!

In order for me to interpret the Bible, and rely on my own authority of interpretation rather than some pamphlet, I have to have some internal authority / criteria for such interpretations, and that authority doesn't come from the book. This internal criteria isn't authority at all, unless understood as who was the author of the interpretation. That's not the same kind of authority as a power authority whose interpretation supposedly has more authority than yours by virtue of power status--I think we are both clear in distinguishing the difference between power and authority, and that authority does not come from power. In fact, I'm not sure I'm the author of "my" thoughts at all so I am not even willing to accept the authority of authorship of interpretation.

Like Luther, I believe I have a right to interpret, and when I do, and am not following other interpretations but feeling it for myself.

It is the source of this feeling rather than the Bible that becomes the authority.

My feeling about the source of this feeling is that it should never be doctrinized in any way. People like fencing off regions and putting their flag on it--my moon.... and imho, religions are trying to do that with this authoritative interpretive feeling; but just because we put our flag on it, doesn't make the moon ours, and the same goes for this feeling of inspired interpretation.

That's how I interpreted your four part series on Bible reading: that we, the interpreter are the authority... which still leaves the Bible fallible and without authority whatsoever. Yes you acknowledge that we might make mistakes when interpreting. We all know authorities make mistakes, and we are no exception, and thus we have the freedom to reinterpret...

But it doesn't leave us with a "higher authority" to go to to resolve friction over contrary interpretations, so we are still in the same boat (probably why we don't have peace yet).

An observation that I would like to make about your thoughtful descriptions of the dangers of letting others do your interpreting of religious texts for you, and how this can enable charlatans to sieze power by getting followers who don't interpret for themselves: I just want to point out that this is true of all interpretation and not just religious texts. What about scientific texts? How many of you out there have handed over your interpretive reigns to scientists who know more science than you can understand, so you will have to just have faith and follow along? How many scientists silence their own dissenting voices and accept authoritative interpretations of more distinguished scientists? Which one is the GNAT Pope, Dr. Fauci?

Sorry @enorbet for slamming science: just like there can be a pure, authentic, spiritual journey for individuals, I believe there too can be a pure, authentic, honest science--and if anyone's gonna practice that, you are--but both religion and science get tainted by the pecking disorder of power and politics trying to own it all, and so fail to achieve the authenticity advertised. They're not all as honest as you and willing to take a moral stand let the chips fall where may--although some, like Dr. Hoffe, stick their necks out; many will silence themselves to save their necks and stipend.

Unfortunately, both science and religion suffer from enough internal corruption that it is folly to follow either's "authority" blindly (or any authority for that matter).

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs When I speak of "passed on orally," I'm looking (for example) all the way back to "the first chapters of Genesis." These stories are, indeed, legends, and myths. If "writing" existed at that time, none of those writings now exist. But the stories were nonetheless "passed down," to eventually arrive in our Bibles in their present form.

Interesting that. You're so slow to believe anything I say, even with evidence to back it up. But you're prepared to believe the above, without any real evidence to back it up.

You're right about records not existing, the best we have is copies of copies. It seems likely that Adam knew how to write, the same way he knew how to speak. The first writings were indentations in clay tablets. It seems they were short documents. Given the detail of the contents, likely Adam wrote the first two. Jewish tradition holds that Noah took 11 such into the Ark with him. Hebrew documents were terminated with a 'colophon,' = gobbledygook for a title. You can probably spot the two: Genesis 2:4; & Genesis 5:2. Genealogy of 10 generations was written before the Flood. This was not a population census, but tracing the line of descent of the Patriarchal head of the human family, who had extra responsibility as a sort of tribal chieftan. Record making would have been the patriarch's job to organise or do.

Egyptian records were probably papyrus. Of course they don't survive. Look at the careful control (light, humidity, temperature) in any Bible museum. In fact, it's a miracle that the Bible survived all the attempts to destroy it, corrupt it and prevent it's translation. That's enough reason for any who research the subject to believe in God in itself.

You're welcome to believe what you like about the Bible. But for someone who believes so little of it, you seem very exercised if others choose to express faith in it.

@slac-in-the-box: Nice post. Re interpreting the Bible: don't listen to hypocritical sources - that's a start. If they teach it, do they do it? Do people preaching peace and love support wars once their country is involved? That gets a lot of them. With a few broad brush strokes like that you can discount the majority of faiths. Concentrate on the rest.

Originally Posted by business_kid But for the majority of athiests/agnostics here, it's OK if you think poorly of the Bible. It doesn't matter, really. Just don't think your opinion is the only thing that matters, or force it down anyone's throat.

Speaking only for myself as an atheist I don't think poorly of any scripture. The situation isn't binary. Total acceptance and total rejection are not the only options, especially for any critical thinker. The various authors were of their time and behaved an wrote accordingly. Much of it is beautiful almost poetry. Many concepts on behavior were unusual and profound for the time. Much of it is true and withstood the test of time, 2000 years of it. Some of it is manufactured and some is just flat out mistaken. Recognizing that range is by no means rejection let alone "thinking poorly".

It is quite literally impossible to force anything with mere text as in any message board. Force by definition is physical. Anyone that feels threatened with coercion by an idea should probably consider strength of evidence supporting their opinions and possibly their level of paranoid victim mindset.

Agreed, force is usually physical. 'Browbeat' might have been a better term.

You only have to find one fulfilled prophecy to realise the Bible is a special collection of books. There actually a great number of fulfilled prophecies - history written in advance. To me, it takes a higher authority to devalue history written in advance. A higher authority is hard to find. So believers question their interpetations in the case of apparent contradictions. I don't accept that the early chapters of Genesis are anything other than fact. We would need an account of the beginning of mankind. The word 'day' we take to be a period of time, like we might say 'in my father's day...' without meaning any 24 hour period. The Hebrew word (for 'day') used means that. Genesis 3:15 is one of the pivotal verses in that early saga, which gives insight into so much of what's going wrong today.

There are other views than mine held by believers. Modernism, for instance allows people to reject some, or large parts of Scripture. In one British sitcom "Yes, Minister" it was once described this way

Originally Posted by Humphrey "Modernism is a device to allow atheists remain within the Church."

Witnesses don't have Modernists, btw. Curiously enough, the Bible even seemed to indicate there would be a lack of faith while speaking of the Last Days. Here's just one example:

https://biblehub.com/luke/18-8.htm