Biblical literalism

[mcgillcomposer]

Do such beliefs indicate a lack of intelligence?

Discuss...

[ramseytheii]

No, and I think it would be pointless to tell someone who believes in the literalness of the Bible that they are stupid, or not intelligent.

Rather it represents an abdication of responsibility, the responsibility to use your logic and reasoning as it was designed.  Salman Rushdie believes that the current trend towards fundamentalism, which we see equally in the Middle East, Amerika, and even in musical thought, is reflective of people being lost in a modern, ever-changing world, and clinging to the most familiar, traditional value system.

The problems with literalism as a philosophy, or creed, are multitude.  First of all, if the events depicted are true, such as the Exodus, it is the only surviving document which records them.  No archaeological evidence has been found, or any geological discovery to show such a thing took place.  The account of Exodus was written centuries after it was supposed to have happened.  So on a historical level, it is dysfunctional to claim Bible literalism.

Secondly, it is profoundly immoral to claim that the teachings of the Bible are true and universal.  In the Old Testament, one of the most revered characters is Abraham, who was so fanatical in his devotion he would gladly have de-boweled his son in order to appease the voices in his head.  Only in religious texts can such a thing be considered a "right, and a good and joyful thing" as the American Common Book of Prayer reads.  One must believe it was right for Moses to commit the greatest atrocities known to mankind, in order to gain land promised to him by voices in his head.  One must also believe that the Jews are the utmost evil on earth, who destroyed the one hope for mankind, and who will drown under his blood for all generations.  Of course we now know that Judaism is not a "race," and so the meaning of this is unclear for our modern knowledge. 

One must subscribe to heaven and hell, ethereal pleasures and eternal rewards for those that do right, and eternal punishment and torture for those that do wrong - or, don't do right enough.  One must believe that a woman is available as property for her husband, and that her bodily functions are inherently evil - it is sinful to conceive through copulation, as is written in the Psalms.  Indeed, being conceived in the womb is the first sin a man commits according to the Bible, and that is why Jesus was not conceived but "begotten of the Father;" he gains a free pass out of original sin.  One must believe that all men are condemned by the sins of Adam and Eve, no matter what religion they subscribe to, and that they can only be saved from eternal torment by confessing that they bear guilt for the death of a stranger more than 2,000 years ago.

I could go on and on, and there will surely be argument to this short creed, but let it be heard now: anyone who denies these things denies the very book they claim to be holy, and I can prove each and every one of them.  The greatest hypocrisy in this country right now belongs to those who claim the Bible is holy and pure, yet unconciously reject almost everything that is taught in it.  These are the same people who do not follow in the footsteps of their beloved Abraham, and put their faith to the test.  Who among them would confess what the Bible says about racism and slavery, and say that they reject it?  The chances are far greater, that they will say they accept it.  Who among them would dare to confess the vast multitudes who are doomed to eternal torture in Hell, as written in the Holy Scriptures - not by any judgment of their own, but by the clear standards laid out in the Gospel and the Epistles. 

It is useless to call a Bible literalist stupid, but far more useful, to find out if they are really telling the truth or not.

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.  For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household.  He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."

These are Biblical family values.

Walter Ramsey

[jlh]

That verse (along with many others) is a verse that is often quoted out of context and subject to misleading interpretations by those who are desperately trying to disprove the bible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_10:34


I could comment on your other points, but I don't see how that would solve anything.  Your mind is made up, and you're content in quoting values of the bible out of context and have no desire to find out what the bible really says. 

I think I'll sit this one out. 

[pianistimo]

'immoral' to teach that the bible is literally true?  hmmm.  whatever!

as i see it - if i can be admitted to grad school - i'm not stupid.  there is a multitude of written and archeological evidence FOR not only the bible - but incidents that have an exact placement in history (timeline), exact names (putting several together - and corroborating a story)...etc.  unless you live in the middle east - you might not be aware of things that are found daily (esp with the war in iraq) that seem to indicate a long trail of civilization - just as the bible says - from the area where eden used to be.  you can try to piece us together with chimps in africa - but the buck stops where God says it does.

i think what people do not want to accept is that they do not know everything - and may never.  the unexplained.  the paranormal (as it's called).  if you cannot explain it - does it mean it doesn't exist.  i've had experiences in which i could not explain what transpired in intelligent human brain language.   it can be as simple as a very fast answered prayer.  how can God hear something within seconds?  is this possible.  for me - yes.  can i prove it to you?  only if you have a prayer answered quickly.  how is this truly possible.  to have a mustard seed of faith.  just a little faith can get you big answers to big problems.

[jlh]

One must also believe that the Jews are the utmost evil on earth, who destroyed the one hope for mankind, and who will drown under his blood for all generations.  Of course we now know that Judaism is not a "race," and so the meaning of this is unclear for our modern knowledge. 

This is not to state my intention of continuing this discussion on religion, however I would like to make one point if I may.  Disregarding your deliberate inflammatory language in making your points, you have made an assumption about "Jews" that I would like to explore.

You said Judaism is not a "race", with which I would agree -- it is a religion; however, are you also saying that Jews are not a race or ethnic group?  Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh defends his categorization of Jews as a "race" in the context of both legal and practical analysis (while also noting that Jews could be equally labeled an "ethnicity," given the blurring of the two terms).

https://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_12_14.shtml#1103052774

This is a rabbit trail on my part.  I'm done talking about religion for awhile. 

[cmg]

Ah, this tired, old topic. 

Well, first, religion is a "belief system":  thought based on conditioned intelligence and not fact.

"Conditioned intellence" is information humans accept as being true without testing its validity themselves.  Racism, for one, is an example of conditioned intelligence:  i.e., it is assumed by racists, that people of darker skins are inferior to those of lighter skins.  Homosexuals are inferior to hetersexuals and on and on . . .   

Religion is faith.  In other words, a system of thought based on the acceptance of received information (conditioned intelligence) that is not challenged for its factual validity.  One subscribes to it to achieve an end (immortality, redemption).  Its provable truth is beside the point, unessential.  Faith means to believe regardless of the "scientific" evidence.  In fact, the religious regard faith as a virtue.  Provable truth is not the issue with faith.  Faith flourishes in the absence of proof.

But, ironically, highly intelligent people are among the faithful.  And highly intelligent people are among the doubters.  So, to equate intelligence with the literal interpretation of the Bible is problematical and ultimately pointless.

Tolerance, I humbly suggest, is the operative word here.

Just get back to your practicing, okay?

[prongated]

So, to equate intelligence with the literal interpretation of the Bible is problematical and ultimately pointless.

Just like...one plays Beethoven artistically, another plays Liszt con bravura. Who is the more accomplished musician?

[ramseytheii]

That verse (along with many others) is a verse that is often quoted out of context and subject to misleading interpretations by those who are desperately trying to disprove the bible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_10:34


I could comment on your other points, but I don't see how that would solve anything.  Your mind is made up, and you're content in quoting values of the bible out of context and have no desire to find out what the bible really says. 

I think I'll sit this one out. 

Perhaps this passage is misunderstood by those who advocate violence in the name of Jesus; they will come to bring the sword themselves.  However, the part I was highlighting was the family values: anyone who loves their family more than the Christ, cannot be his follower.  These are the family values of the Bible.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

unless you live in the middle east - you might not be aware of things that are found daily (esp with the war in iraq) that seem to indicate a long trail of civilization - just as the bible says - from the area where eden used to be

You're off on that point.  Recently a stone receipt was found which apparently "proved" the existence of a eunuch mentioned in passing in the book of Jeremiah.  The eunuch is totally inconsequential to the text, and to the religion, and in fact the receipt has a different name than the one recorded in the Bible, but it was all over the news.  Anytime anything is found which correlates, or seems to correlate, an event or person in the Bible, it is front-page news, because those who are struggling to convince themselves of its reality are so desperate for hard evidence, that anything, no matter how tenuous or inconsequential, is a matter of life-or-death importance.


Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

This is not to state my intention of continuing this discussion on religion, however I would like to make one point if I may.  Disregarding your deliberate inflammatory language in making your points, you have made an assumption about "Jews" that I would like to explore.

You said Judaism is not a "race", with which I would agree -- it is a religion; however, are you also saying that Jews are not a race or ethnic group?  Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh defends his categorization of Jews as a "race" in the context of both legal and practical analysis (while also noting that Jews could be equally labeled an "ethnicity," given the blurring of the two terms).

https://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_12_14.shtml#1103052774

This is a rabbit trail on my part.  I'm done talking about religion for awhile. 

Certain groups traditionally have a higher tendency of sharing gene pools, and I believe genetically speaking the "Jews" fall into this category.  However, there is no such thing as race.  There is not a race of black people and a race of white people, a race of Israelites and a race of Chinese.  There is only humanity, and we know this from genome science.  The authors of the Bible, enacting their wildest erotic fantasies of genocide and scapegoating of the Jews, believed there were actually different races of people, different species.  Let us finally be rid of this primitive, barbaric concept, and confess that we can no longer subscribe to the inherent and old-fashioned racism of the Holy Scrit.  Join with me in rejecting the genocide and brutality preached as the Word to end all Words.

Notice, that not one of the so-called Bible "literalists" has expressed an opinion on the issues I've risen above.  To reject them would be hypocrisy; to accept them is impossible for any normally decent person - the kind of person that cannot follow Christ as he would be followed.


Walter Ramsey

[thalbergmad]

Do such beliefs indicate a lack of intelligence?

I don't think so, but it does indicate someone who is incapable of thinking "outside the box" and someone that has a blinkered, inflexible and warped view of the World and its history.

To me it is beyond belief that people would hang onto every word of a book that was written by multiple unknown authors and has been subject to so many translations and editions, that the original message could be warped by some margin.

I believe that the Bible is a mixture of fact and fiction and to believe in every word is narrow minded in the extreme.

Thal

[counterpoint]

If you take the bible literally or not - there are so many things in it, that contradict common sense, that it doesn't make a big difference. The bible is thousands of years old, and if you try to make it a base of todays living, then you get into big troubles. The whole morality of the bible is based on an autocratic type of state, that means dictatorship.

[prometheus]

It sure indicates a lack of rational thinking. But even in normally rational thinking people irrationality can be very localized.

Bible literalists can be rational when it comes to a field of thought outside their faith. But they are able to turn it off completely when it comes to their faith. How that works I don't know. But surely intelligence will help.

It's like double think.

[sassafras]

Oh Boy, for joy for joy I could have fun putting my two cents worth on this one and use my doctorates in theology and psychology as well!

I cannot suffer going to my local church where they teach the earth was created 6000 years ago and women are to be silent. Of course, since they are literalist, they also do not have instrumental music; my father, grandfather and great grandfather were all ministers of the Church of Christ. I cannot believe how narrow minded some religions can be, whether it be Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or strains of Judaism.

For good discussions of literalism in the Bible, just follow the minimalist-maximalist controversies in the magazine Biblical Archaeology.

I spent too long studying history of science to believe in literal Biblical nonsense; of course, I didnot believe in it before I studied history of science....

[ramseytheii]

Oh Boy, for joy for joy I could have fun putting my two cents worth on this one and use my doctorates in theology and psychology as well!

I cannot suffer going to my local church where they teach the earth was created 6000 years ago and women are to be silent. Of course, since they are literalist, they also do not have instrumental music;

That's interesting, I'm curious to know where in the Bible it talks about instrumental music in worship.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

That verse (along with many others) is a verse that is often quoted out of context and subject to misleading interpretations by those who are desperately trying to disprove the bible.

My goal is not to disprove the Bible; in order to do that, one merely needs to read it.  The onus is not on me to disprove it, but the onus is on those who claim it to be fact to prove it. 

I derive much more pleasure trying to pinpoint the intensity of faith of those who claim to be literalists, because literalists come in all stripes.  I think there are basically two distinguishable kinds, but each vary in intensity.

Walter Ramsey

[sassafras]

"make music in your hearts"  -- literal interpretation is no instruments -- they ten to forget David and the lyres... Instrumental music is taboo in Church of Christ -- all a capella singing and it can be quite beautiful or awful, depending the congregation

I don't remember the cite but could figure it out if I pulled out a Bible...

[sassafras]

Reading the Bible does NOT disprove. There are too many things we as humans have yet to comprephend. Whether our beliefs are due to neuronal activity or environmental stimuli has yet to be proven; I suspect due to both.

I believe there is a "God" but as to whether I can comprehend what  or who God is and what I believe is a different matter. God may be  Hal out there billions and billions of light years away or a giant father or mother piano sitting on a needle in a gaseous sphere.

I believe in evolution and lots of mistakes in design and by humans in destroying life forms on earth.

"God" gave us humans the desire to create music -- and to destroy books...

[mcgillcomposer]

I would like to remind everyone that my questions was regarding biblical LITERALISM, not belief in the 'moral teachings' of the bible. For example, people who believe that the flood in Genesis ACTUALLY occurred.

Some very interesting answers...Walter especially.

Continue...

[counterpoint]

I would like to remind everyone that my questions was regarding biblical LITERALISM, not belief in the 'moral teachings' of the bible. For example, people who believe that the flood in Genesis ACTUALLY occurred.

If the Genesis happened as described, why should the flood not have happened?

[jakev2.0]

I'd say that people who take the bible literally are AT LEAST ignorant.

[thalberg]

So you want to know if we believe the flood occurred.

Well, what if there were a flood now?  The survivors would write about it or maybe even catch it on camcorder.  Then a few thousand years from now, people would say they were written lies, or it was camera tricks and it didn't really happen.

Same with any of the miracles the Bible reports.  If they happened now, people would find a way to make an account of them, and future generations would doubt they happened.

Personally, I don't have a problem believing that a big flood could happen. 

[jlh]

I would like to remind everyone that my questions was regarding biblical LITERALISM, not belief in the 'moral teachings' of the bible. For example, people who believe that the flood in Genesis ACTUALLY occurred.

One not need to look to the Bible to determine if such an event happened.  There are many historical sources -- many much older than the Bible -- that also make an account of a catestrophic flood.


https://www.genesisproclaimed.org/resources/news_print.asp?NewsID=15

The Historical Genesis Flood

Parallel accounts of the flood, some written hundreds of years before Genesis was written, support its historical basis. In his book, Noahs Ark and the Ziusudra Epic, Robert Best states: "Distinctive story elements and phrases that are common to two or more of these six stories indicate a common origin. Parallel quotations make it obvious that these six flood stories did not originate independently."

Certain words and phrases used in Genesis and parallel accounts such as heart, roof, cubits, seed, pitch, animals, fountain(s) of the deep, raven, dove, sweet savor, etc, make a compelling case for a common source for all the narratives and help corroborate a historical flood.

The flood texts are from Ziusudra (in Sumerian), Atrahasis (in Accadian), the eleventh tablet of Gilgamesh (written in four languages), Genesis 6-9, Berossus, and a version from Moses of Khoren.
.
"Side-wall ... pay attention" Ziusudra iv, 155
"Wall, listen to me." Atrahasis III,i,20
"Wall, pay attention" Gilgamesh XI,22

"when their heart led the great gods to produce the flood." Gilgamesh
"every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil." Genesis 6:5

"the decision that mankind is to be destroyed" Ziusudra iv,157-158
"The gods commanded total destruction" Atrahasis Il,viii,34

"The great gods decided to make a flood" Gilgamesh XI,14
"God ... decided to make an end of all flesh" Genesis 6:13

"Destroy your house, spurn property, save life" Atrahasis III,i,22
"Tear down house, abandon property, save life" Gilgamesh XI,24-26

"Enki...over the capitals the storm will sweep" Ziusudra iv, 156
"He [Enki] told him of the coming of the flood" Atrahasis III,i,37
"God said to Noah ...I will bring a flood" Genesis 6:13,17
"Kronos...said ...mankind would be destroyed by a flood" Berossus

"...the huge boat" Ziusudra v,207
"Build a ship" Atrahasis III,i,22
"Build a ship" Gilgamesh XI,24
"Make yourself an ark" Genesis 6:14
"build a boat" Berossus

"who protected the seed of mankind" Ziusudra vi,259
"Bring into the ship the seed of all life" Gilgamesh XI,27
"to keep their seed alive" Genesis 7:3

"Draw a design of it on the ground." Atrahasis
"The ship that thou shalt build" Gilgamesh XI
"And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of ..." Genesis 6:15

"Ten dozen cubits the height of each of her walls" Gilgamesh XI
"... three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits" Genesis 6:15

"Like the apsu you shall roof it" Atrahasis 111j,29
"Like the apsu you shall roof it" Gilgamesh XI,31
"Make a roof for the ark" Genesis 6:16

"coming of the flood on the seventh night" Atrahasis,lll,i,37
"after seven days the waters of the flood came" Genesis 7:10

"...and addressed the elders" Atrahasis 111,01
"I answer the city people and the elders" Gilgamesh XI,35

"I cannot live in (your city)" Atrahasis III,I,47
"I cannot live in (your city)" Gilgamesh XI, 44

"pitch I poured into the inside" Gilgamesh XI,66
"cover it inside and out with pitch" Genesis 6:14
"some people scrape pitch off the boat" Berossus

"your family, your relatives" Atrahasis DT,42(w),8
"he sent his family on board" Atrahasis III,ii,42
"into the ship all my family and relatives" Gilgamesh XI,84
"Go into the ark, you and all your household" Genesis 7:1
"he sent his wife and children and friends on board" Berossus

"animals which emerge from the earth" Ziusudra vi,253
"all the wild creatures of the steppe" Atrahasis DT,42(w),9
"The cattle of the field, the beast of the plain" Gilgamesh XI,85
"clean animals and of animals that are not clean" Genesis 7:8
"and put both birds and animals on board" Berossus

"Enter the boat and close the boat's door" Atrahasis DT,42(w),6
"Pitch was brought for him to close his door" Atrahasis III,ii,51
"I entered the boat and closed the door' Gilgamesh XI,93
"And they that entered ... and the Lord shut him in" Genesis 7:16

"Ninurta went forth making the dikes [overflow]" Atrahasis U rev, 14
"Ninurta went forth making the dikes overflow" Gilgamesh XI,102

"One person could [not] see another" Atrahasis III,iii,13
"One person could not see another" Gilgamesh XI,111

"the storm had swept ... for seven days and seven nights" Ziusudra
"For seven days and seven nights came the storm" Atrahasis III,iv,24
"Six days and seven nights the wind and storm" Gilgamesh XI,127
"rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights" Genesis 7:12

"consigned the peoples to destruction" Atrahasis III,iii,54
"All mankind was turned to clay" Gilgamesh XI,133
"And all flesh died ... and every man" Genesis 7:21

"Below the fountain of the deep was stopped" Atrahasis
"The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped"
Genesis 8:2

"Ziusudra made an opening in the large boat" Ziusudra vi,207
"I opened the window" Gilgamesh XI,135
"Noah opened the window of the ark" Genesis 8:6
"he pried open a portion of the boat" Berossus

"On Mount Nisir the boat grounded" Gilgamesh XI,140
"the ark came to rest upon the mountains" Genesis 8:4
"the boat had grounded upon a mountain" Berossus
"After Khsisuthros...landed ...a long mountain" Moses of Khoren

"The dove went out and returned" Gilgamesh XI,147
"sent forth the dove and the dove came back to him" Genesis 8:10
"let out the birds and they again returned to the ship" Berossus

"Then I sent forth and set free a raven" Gilgamesh XI
"And he sent forth a raven" Genesis 8:7

"The king slaughtered ... bulls and sheep" Ziusudra vi,211
"He offered [a sacrifice]" Atrahasis III,v,31
"And offered a sacrifice" Gilgamesh XI,155
"offered burnt offerings on the altar" Genesis 8:20
"built an altar and sacrificed to the gods" Berossus

"[The gods smelled] the savor' Atrahasis III,v,34
"The gods smelled the sweet savor" Gilgamesh XI,160
"And the Lord smelled the sweet savor..." Genesis 8:21

"the lapis around my neck" Atrahasis Ill,vi,2
"the lapis lazuli on my neck" Gilgamesh X1,164

"That I may remember it [every] day" Atrahasis III,vi,4
"I shall remember these days and never forget" Gilgamesh XI,165
"I shall remember my covenant ...I may remember' Genesis 9:15-16

"How did man survive the destruction?" Atrahasis III,vi,10
"No man was to survive the destruction" Gilgamesh XI,173

"[on the criminal] impose your penalty" Atrahasis III,vi,25
"On the criminal impose his crimes" Gilgamesh X1,180
"Who sheds the blood of man, by man his blood be shed" Genesis 9:6

"he touched our foreheads to bless us" Gilgamesh XI,192
"And God blessed Noah" Genesis 9:1
"elevated him to eternal life, like a god" Ziusudra vi,257
"they shall be like gods to us" Gilgamesh XI,194

"I lived in the temple of Ea, my lord" Atrahasis RS 22.421,7
"go down to dwell with my lord Ea" Gilgamesh XI,42
"he had gone to dwell with the gods" Berossus
"Noah walked with God." Genesis 6:9

[jlh]

Perhaps this passage is misunderstood by those who advocate violence in the name of Jesus; they will come to bring the sword themselves.  However, the part I was highlighting was the family values: anyone who loves their family more than the Christ, cannot be his follower.  These are the family values of the Bible.

Walter Ramsey

Again you are taking things out of context and misconstruing the meaning of the verse.  These are not "family values", this is a sad reality.  The passage speaks about the consequence of being obedient to the command of Jesus that we are to preach his message. Some will listen and accept it but many will reject it and react violently.  We will be hated for the message of repentance that we have to bring. We will be hated because we call people from evil to light and because this message exposes their evil deeds.

For many it will mean that even our own family will turn against us.

What kind of sword? It is the sword of division that God's word brings. It is the division of truth from error, and the reaction of the darkness against the light. The sword that Jesus brings, is the sword that his followers have to suffer, a sword that is applied to them, not a sword that they wield against others. 

Dang it! I'm still debating in this thread! lol

PEACE!
Josh

[ramseytheii]

Again you are taking things out of context and misconstruing the meaning of the verse.  These are not "family values", this is a sad reality.  The passage speaks about the consequence of being obedient to the command of Jesus that we are to preach his message. Some will listen and accept it but many will reject it and react violently.  We will be hated for the message of repentance that we have to bring. We will be hated because we call people from evil to light and because this message exposes their evil deeds.

For many it will mean that even our own family will turn against us.

Without question, those who adhere to the principles as Christ taught them will be ridiculed and hated, and usually not without reason.

You're taking a rather soft view of the passage from another standpoint.  "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me," means not that our own family will turn against us - but that we will, and must, turn against our own family.  If our family cannot accept the preachings of the Lord and Savior as we preach them, then it is us who should reject them, in order to be worthy of Jesus.  I think the meaning is rather plain, and if anyone wants context, let them read all of Chapter 10 and Chapter 11 - it won't change the meaning of these words.

As far as a moral standard, I find it greatly lacking.  Jesus famously rejected his mother, and many parents throughout this country reject their children, disowning them when they are discovered to be homosexuals, because they love Christ more than their children.   Bravo to them, for their integrity.

Walter Ramsey

[jlh]

Without question, those who adhere to the principles as Christ taught them will be ridiculed and hated, and usually not without reason.

You're taking a rather soft view of the passage from another standpoint.  "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me," means not that our own family will turn against us - but that we will, and must, turn against our own family.  If our family cannot accept the preachings of the Lord and Savior as we preach them, then it is us who should reject them, in order to be worthy of Jesus.  I think the meaning is rather plain, and if anyone wants context, let them read all of Chapter 10 and Chapter 11 - it won't change the meaning of these words.

As far as a moral standard, I find it greatly lacking.  Jesus famously rejected his mother, and many parents throughout this country reject their children, disowning them when they are discovered to be homosexuals, because they love Christ more than their children.   Bravo to them, for their integrity.

Walter Ramsey

I think you're coming at this the wrong way.   It does not say that we MUST reject our own family!  To think that requires one to read moire into that verse than is written.  The context, as I have stated before, is that we are to be witnesses for Jesus, and that will cause divisions among people.  When that happens, we should not reject Jesus in order for there to be "peace".  We should pray for them.

[jlh]

Does anyone actually know someone who takes EVERYTHING the Bible says to be literal and absolute?  In this I would have to agree with you, Walter.  I don't believe everything the Bible says is LITERAL truth for OUR day and age -- but since there is such a wide time gap between the writing of the Bible and the age we live in, it must be interpretated correctly.

There are a multitude of laws given in the old testament which literalists don't take literally:  food laws, laws about clothing, laws relating to nearly every detail of life in at the time the old testament was written.  But there are laws given in the new testament that almost no one takes literally any more. For example, Jesus forbids his followers from swearing oaths of any kind (Matt 5:34) and  Jesus instructed his followers to cut off their hand if it led them into sin (Matt 5:30).

But there are other passages of scripture which those who claim to believe that the Bible is literally true do not take literally.  For example, in Mark 16:16 Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned," yet most fundamentalist evangelicals hold to the position that baptism is not necessary for salvation and  I Cor 15:29 refers to baptism for the dead, a practice which is repudiated by most Biblical literalists.

So if these people don't really believe the Bible is literally true, why do they say they do?  What do they mean when they say the Bible is literally true?  There are several reasons people claim the Bible is literally true.

Most people who believe the Bible is literally true have never really thought about it to see if that is a sensible thing to believe or not.  A trusted pastor repeatedly claimed that the Bible is literally true and frequently condemned people who don't believe the Bible is literally true as tools of satan and unbelievers in danger of eternal damnation. These people know they don't want to be one of the infidels, so they agree that the Bible must be literally true.

A lot of people who say they believe the Bible is literally true have either not read the Bible or have not read the Bible critically examining each verse to determine if it can be taken literally.  Some of these people read the Bible through, cover to cover, every year, but reading the Bible through is not the same as critically examining each verse to determine if it can be taken literally.

They select certain verses and passages and believe those passages and stories are literal and ignore the rest.  This is "pick and choose literalism." (Walter has shown the folly of this many times already).   The parts of the Bible you agree with you take literally, the parts you disagree with must be interpreted symbolically or metaphorically. 

A lot of people don't have any idea what it means to believe that the Bible is literally true.  But there are a good many individuals who have read and studied the Bible carefully, who have semenary degrees, who can read the original languages, who know the history of the canon, who know something of archaeology and the culture and history of Bible times who still teach and preach that the Bible is literally true.  Why do these people keep saying it?

When someone says they believe the Bible is literally true, they mean you are not allowed to disagree with them or question their beliefs.  They use literalism as a defense, as a security blanket, to avoid having to think about or defend their beliefs.  Some individuals use Biblical literalism as a cudgel to keep their followers in line.  Their sermons that appeal to literalism imply that "if you disagree with me you are a tool of satan, an unbeliever in danger of eternal damnation."  In some cases this is simple demagoguery.  And I can assure you that persons who use the Bible for demagoguery will spend an eternity in the "W. A. Criswell Biblical Literalism Wing" of a literal burning hell.

For the Bible to be true it must be interpreted correctly.  Over the centuries, many horrific things have been done in the name of the Bible, spanish inquisition, crusades, slavery, repression of women, burning witches, etc.  The problem is not God, the problem is incorrect interpretation of scripture.

Literalists say, there is only one possible interpretation and that is the one I believe.

So whose interpretation are we supposed to accept?  How do you interpret the Bible correctly?

Only by much prayer, study, and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit

We never have had a complete or perfect understanding of God and God's laws.  So it is not surprising that things we used to think were wrong or right are now thought of differently.  Over the years our attitudes have changed dramatically toward things like mixed bathing, listening to the radio, dancing, alcohol consumption, divorce, slavery,  These changes don't mean that we are less moral or have abandoned God's laws, but rather that we have a better understanding of how God's laws apply in our lives today.  In addition it is reasonable to expect some things that are considered right today will be considered wrong in the future and that some things that are considered wrong today will be considered right at some time in the future.  It made good sense for there to be a law against eating pork in old testament times when most pork was infected with dangerous microorganisms.  But todays animal husbandry and food preparation techniques make that law irrelevant.

This sounds like "everybody does what is right in their own eyes"  It is not!!!  Gods laws are absolute, unchanging, eternal, and unfathomable.  However, the best we can ever hope for is a rough approximation to an understanding of Gods law.  Humans trying to understand and infinite God are like the blind men trying to understand an elephant.  At one point the elephant seems most like a snake, at another point it seems like a rope at another point it seems like a tree trunk.  But the elephant did not change.  The blind man's understanding of the elephant changed.  Similarly, our understanding of Gods will for our lives changes but His will does not.

[ramseytheii]

I think you're coming at this the wrong way.   It does not say that we MUST reject our own family! 

Look, his standard is clear.  If ever you have to choose between your family and Jesus, in order to be worthy of him and saved from eternal damnation, you must choose Jesus above your family.  You must choose him above your parents, your children, your siblings, and your friends.  Maybe this crisis won't arise.  But if it does, the choice is clear.  In this, Jesus proves the old adage, like father, like son.  We have distant echoes of the demand made of Abraham: choose God above your progeny.  Destroy your progeny in order to prove your faithfulness to God above all earthly and living things.

Jesus demands that we hold nothing dear or eternal except his teachings.  If something comes between them, such as material gain, or family crises, those things must be relinquished in order to be "worthy of his name."  Your objects and your family are transient when compared to the everlasting Glory and Holy Light of His Word.

The only possibility I see of "reading into it," is to soften the message, so that we convince ourselves that what is written, is not really meant.  But it is precisely this kind of gerry-mandering that I object to - either accept what is there, or reject it; but do not fall in between.

Walter Ramsey

[jlh]

Look, his standard is clear.  If ever you have to choose between your family and Jesus, in order to be worthy of him and saved from eternal damnation, you must choose Jesus above your family.  You must choose him above your parents, your children, your siblings, and your friends.  Maybe this crisis won't arise.  But if it does, the choice is clear.  In this, Jesus proves the old adage, like father, like son.  We have distant echoes of the demand made of Abraham: choose God above your progeny.  Destroy your progeny in order to prove your faithfulness to God above all earthly and living things.

Jesus demands that we hold nothing dear or eternal except his teachings.  If something comes between them, such as material gain, or family crises, those things must be relinquished in order to be "worthy of his name."  Your objects and your family are transient when compared to the everlasting Glory and Holy Light of His Word.

The only possibility I see of "reading into it," is to soften the message, so that we convince ourselves that what is written, is not really meant.  But it is precisely this kind of gerry-mandering that I object to - either accept what is there, or reject it; but do not fall in between.

Walter Ramsey

I must then conclude that you reject the Bible on the basis of Biblical literalism.

[rob47]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUDshT19j8Q

 

[thalbergmad]

One not need to look to the Bible to determine if such an event happened.  There are many historical sources -- many much older than the Bible -- that also make an account of a catestrophic flood.

Excellent post with all the examples.

Graham Hancock in his book "Fingerprints of the Gods" mentions 150 flood stories not including the Bible.

Virgin births and babies floating down rivers in baskets are not exactly unique either.

Thal

[pianistimo]

i appreciate the time that jlh has taken to explain how 'literalism' can literally be misinterpreted as disowning one's family.  or, as in the case that ramseytheii was suggesting - that one's family would reject a homosexual child or spouse, etc.  this, to me, is like the issue of stoning (which is often brought up in regards to children).  when was the last time that you heard a parent stone a child?  never!  probably even in biblical days - parents made sure the children had a little respect because no parent wants to see their child die (unless they are 'mental').  no parent truly cares in their heart about the 'sins' overcoming the parental 'mercy.'  i would say this would be a case of forgiving 70 x 70 for most parents.  of course, it works in reverse, too - the children often have to forgive parents for misdeeds and even disrespect at times.  we all have to learn to truly live with the Holy Spirit guiding our lives.  then, we can interpret the bible in the way it was meant to be interpreted (with love and compassion for others- and yet love for God). 

as i see it - before a person is baptized for remission of sins - they are not aware they are even sinning.  any sin is not a sin to THEM.  but, God says differently. so who is right?  our parents.  our children.  or God?  we do have to choose ultimately. and our choice will affect our future.  that is what the bible says.  so the best we can do is to at least tell our children what is in the bible.  they can read many many books and there are many out there for guidance.  but, the bible is generally the best all-around psychology book there is - and it uses *what do you know!  reward and punishment.  even for adults!  now - if it wasn't effective - God wouldn't have used it. perhaps He knows something that we don't! i feel that the amazing thing is - that with forgiveness and proximity to God through prayer - you have literally the 'world' at your fingertips.  if God made the world - He is capable of manipulating the finest detail to your true needs.  He is not a spoiler of persons - but, those who follow him always have their 'cup full.'  the things that we most need are love.  even psychologists will tell you that.  when you have God's love- it helps you to love others.

[thalbergmad]

parents made sure the children had a little respect because no parent wants to see their child die (unless they are 'mental'). 

Would you care to expand on that.

Thanks

Thal

[pianistimo]

ok.  do you ever watch 'bounty hunter?'  probably not, since it's an american show - but they go after teenage punks.  do their mother's willingly turn them in?  sometimes yes (but mostly no).  the mothers that do - probably think - if the system turns them around they will live if they survive the system.  the other mothers probably think 'i'm not turning them into the system - because they'll die from the system.'

yes.  it's complex.  but, generally the main concern of the mother is the survival of her child.  however, with children 1-4 - you have mallaeble (sp?) material.  they can learn respect, obedience, and kindness in a matter of minutes or days.  when it's habit - they don't have to learn 'the hard way.'  although, i think that many parents probably remember themselves in their own children.  their stubborness.  the times they thought noone was looking.  the deviousness of innocence. 

and, of course, not every child is going to end up being searched for on 'bounty hunter.'sometimes i think it is good to 'play act' all sorts of situations with children.  my son, in particular, always liked things liked to play hard and live dangerously.  within somewhat of reason.  boys, i think, need agressive role players to do fun things with because they are bored of the 'nice mom - get in the van - let's go to the park and play ball'  - they want to go to the shooting range.  although, probably because of me, my son neither likes to hunt or fish.  but, he does like gaming and plays this 'iraq for a day' kind of game where they climb in around and up walls to shoot other people.  ?  ok - not so christian of a game.  as i see it - he's not literally dying on this game - but i can tell when he just got shot.

[counterpoint]

although, i think that many parents probably remember themselves in their own children.  their stubborness.  the times they thought noone was looking.  the deviousness of innocence. 

Yes, that's exactly the point. Parents punish their children for what they (the parents) hate in themselves. They see (project)  their own faults in their children. Read Freud.

[prometheus]

Parents will often support their children if they are criminals or socially dysfunctional.


What will you do if your best friend, your sibling, partner or parent murders someone? Just out of the blue. They are still the same person, but they just murdered someone, for whatever strange reason. What will you do?

[thalberg]

Look, his standard is clear.  If ever you have to choose between your family and Jesus, in order to be worthy of him and saved from eternal damnation, you must choose Jesus above your family.  You must choose him above your parents, your children, your siblings, and your friends.  Maybe this crisis won't arise.  But if it does, the choice is clear.  In this, Jesus proves the old adage, like father, like son.  We have distant echoes of the demand made of Abraham: choose God above your progeny.  Destroy your progeny in order to prove your faithfulness to God above all earthly and living things.

Jesus demands that we hold nothing dear or eternal except his teachings.  If something comes between them, such as material gain, or family crises, those things must be relinquished in order to be "worthy of his name."  Your objects and your family are transient when compared to the everlasting Glory and Holy Light of His Word.

The only possibility I see of "reading into it," is to soften the message, so that we convince ourselves that what is written, is not really meant.  But it is precisely this kind of gerry-mandering that I object to - either accept what is there, or reject it; but do not fall in between.

Walter Ramsey

I heard about a young man in China who became a Christian.  The day he was baptized, he came home to find all his possessions on the front lawn.  His parents had disowned him and planned never to speak to him again.  I also heard about a young Muslim boy who became a Christian.  When he did so, his brothers took him out back and beat him severely.

[ramseytheii]

I heard about a young man in China who became a Christian.  The day he was baptized, he came home to find all his possessions on the front lawn.  His parents had disowned him and planned never to speak to him again.  I also heard about a young Muslim boy who became a Christian.  When he did so, his brothers took him out back and beat him severely.

In the last case, they did not do enough, because the Koran prescribes death to those who abandon the Muslim faith.

Walter Ramsey

[thalberg]

Wow, I did not know that. 

Walter, I'm curious.....have you ever spent much time with Bible-believing Christians?  I think if you were to perhaps visit a church, accept lunch invitation or two, and sit and talk with such people, it would alleviate your negative feelings about the Bible and about Christianity.

I think of a lesbian woman I met who was forced to work with a Christian man on a project at work.  She knew Christians belived homosexuality was wrong, and so she decided to treat him with the same contempt she imagined he must feel for her.  Yet he responded to her with nothing but kindness.  One day as she sat there, dreading his arrival, he opened the door with two large cups in his hand, explaining he had bought her some coffee on his way to work.  At that moment, she realized he had been nothing but kind to her, and that her feelings toward him were uncalled for. 

Christianity is the sort of thing where you have to see people live their faith to understand it.  Approaching it from an academic standpoint really can be misleading.

Walter, I bet if you were to spend a weekend at Pianistimo's house, you'd find her to be one of the kindest people you've ever met.  Just a guess.

[pianistimo]

thanks, thalberg.  i'd guess the same for you.  actually, i kind of lump everyone who plays the piano into this special category.  i've never really met a pianist who was a 'bad person.'        at least they wouldn't play the piano to prove it, would they?

[soliloquy]

Do such beliefs indicate a lack of intelligence?

Discuss...

Lack of intelligence?  Sometimes.  Lack of logic?  Usually.  Lack of fear?  Never.


People who believe that some boat floated around for over a month with two of every animal (billions and billions of species and sub-species of things, because after all, they don't believe in evolution so it's not like there were just two ants on that boat or something) are people who are obviously so terrified of God they'll believe something despite even the most basic and fundamental aspects of knowledge, logic and reason.  They're people in some sort of solipsist denial that due to the amount of farce and obviously impossible things that occurred in the bible, they simply force themselves to blindly believe it so they can still have their Heaven when they die.

Christianity is the sort of thing where you have to see people live their faith to understand it.

Some of the meanest and most self-conceited people I've met are Christians.  Just think back to all of the "Christians" in the past that have commited genocide.

[ramseytheii]

Wow, I did not know that. 

It is why life was doubly dangerous for Salman Rushdie in the days after the Satanic Verses.  The fatwa was not only for mocking the Prophet in print, which is apparently so horrific for Muslims that they feel entitled to murder citizens of other countries, but also for abandoning the Muslim faith.  The difference today between fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalists Christians is the Muslims take their holy book seriously, and the Christians do not - and they can't admit it.

Walter, I'm curious.....have you ever spent much time with Bible-believing Christians?  I think if you were to perhaps visit a church, accept lunch invitation or two, and sit and talk with such people, it would alleviate your negative feelings about the Bible and about Christianity.

I've spent time with many who say they believe in the Bible, yet cannot subscribe to some of the more shocking things that are in there.  The problem is they can neither believe, nor deny - to deny is to take the thumb of out the tiny hole in the dam, that will cause a flood.  That is why we so much semantical gerry-mandering and imposition of metaphor where none exists.  To deny a passage is to say, this is wrong; for a passage to be wrong, it is a negation of God as all-good and all-merciful; to negate that is to throw every other passage into question.

I've received many an email from those who do indeed believe in Hell, telling me in no uncertain terms I will be ending up there.  I'm glad that there are some who can still understand what the Bible tells us in clear, certain terms!

Christianity is the sort of thing where you have to see people live their faith to understand it.  Approaching it from an academic standpoint really can be misleading.

I don't approach it from the academic standpoint.  I think sometimes there are mis-translations, which someone has to investigate academically to prove whether it says this or that.  However, those don't nuance my point in any way.  The fact is, that what people read, what is being printed, and has been printed for hundreds of years, are the texts that they know, whether it was printed wrongly or not.  If a new Bible is printed with a hundred thousand corrections to mistranslations, and then disseminated throughout the Christian world, I'll start using that text instead.  Until then, we work with what we have.

Walter, I bet if you were to spend a weekend at Pianistimo's house, you'd find her to be one of the kindest people you've ever met.  Just a guess.

I don't think I ever said anything bad about her.  I'm sure she doesn't hold any grudge against me for my views, which after all are part of the fabric of our country, and also are predicted in the Gospels, where it says you can expect as a Christian to be ridiculed for your beliefs.  Why should I stop talking about it just because someone who is a professed Christian is nice?  That only proves she doesn't subscribe to the majority of the text in the Bible.  I still await the so-called "fundamentalists" to take a stand for morality, and say that the passages in the Bible preaching anti-Semitism are wrong, the passages where the Apostles, frothing at the lips, ecstatically await divine wrath upon the Jews.

Being a Bible fundamentalist usually ends up basing your life on a contradiction.  If you cannot accept a passage in the Bible as good and sanctioned by God, you have to deny it.  If you deny it, you have to deny God's word.  If you deny it once, why not again, and again, and again?  It is an impossible moral position, because you will never once see them stand up to say, this is wrong.  And so a million other excuses have to be made: well, it's a bad translation (should "Jews" read "Muslims" or perhaps just "infidels?") or, well, it's just a metaphor (meaning perhaps that "Jews" are a metaphor for all of evil in general?) or, well, that only applied to the time period in which it was written (meaning, anti-Semitism was morally acceptable in God's eyes 2000 years ago, but not today?), or a whole host of techniques designed to sweep the unfortunate bits under the rug.  As soon as the Christian comes along who preaches hell as much as he preaches heaven, and the like, I promise he will have much more respect from me than those that try and pretend it doesn't exist.

Walter Ramsey

[pianistimo]

ramseytheii, i don't think heaven exists either.  does that blow your mind?  i think Jesus preached 'the kingdom of God' on this very earth.  1000 year millenium.  i realize i am in a minority - but the apostles taught the same thing.  they basically repeated what Christ told them.  that the gospel WAS about the 'kingdom of God.'  that Jesus will be king.  He was born a king.  because we are used to democratic systems doesn't mean it can't go back to something else - because really - we are much smaller than God and we can think that the bible is wrong about many things ... because socially we are taught that there is no order to society.  that children can be first, parents second, and that women can rule over men.  but, the bible is very specific and counters a lot of what our general culture teaches.  and yes - muslim society may take their koran much more seriously and there is a general respect for the holiness of women.  when a woman is covered - there is really nothing bad a man can say about her.  i think sometimes (and it really depends upon the circumstance - as i'm not saying you can't wear swimwear at the beach) - the christianity - or muslimity - is proven by what you abide to according to your 'book.' 

'fundamentalist' is only a word.  action proves whether you are learning the book.  and, it is probably a lifetime thing.  unless our whole society were to adhere to holiness - there is nothing attractive about it that meets the eye at first.  we are used to glamour and eye appeal.  but, what if there is attractiveness in things that seem common?  what if our eyes actually beheld nature as it was in eden.  there was nothing (excepting maybe the peacocks) that was attracting attention to only itself.  there was a harmony there - that all existed in peace.  is this so wrong.  to long for good.  to hope for a future for the world without war.  to hope for everlasting life with Jesus.  what is good about the world right now?  nothing.  everything attractive seems to lead nowhere.  it's like a path strewn with dead flowers. 

[thalberg]

I've spent time with many who say they believe in the Bible, yet cannot subscribe to some of the more shocking things that are in there. 

This makes me very curious.  What shocking things do you speak of? 

[thalberg]

Some of the meanest and most self-conceited people I've met are Christians.  Just think back to all of the "Christians" in the past that have commited genocide.

You have met these genicidal Christians?  No...I don't think so.  Sure Christians have done bad things, but so have Americans.  How would you like it if you went to the middle east and everyone held you responsible for the actions of the Americans who tortured middle eastern prisoners?  You'd probably say, 'hey, that's not what America stands for.  Those people were going against the rules while waving our flag.'  Same thing.

As far as mean and 'self-conceited,' was this in middle school or something?  I haven't met a lot of those types.....oh, wait, I keep forgetting you're in Alabama.  It's a whole other ballpark down there.  I probably would not be able to disagree with you if I came for a visit.  Christians elsewhere are a lot nicer because for them it's really a faith rather than some country-club-social-base designed for looking down on others.  I'm really sorry for your experience.  Try to choose an out of state college.

[prometheus]

Have you met any genocidal creatures?

[jlh]

Some of the meanest and most self-conceited people I've met are Christians.  Just think back to all of the "Christians" in the past that have commited genocide.

There's some mud over on the bench you missed... would you like to throw that too?

Let's not forget that genocide is not something the Christian faith is about. 

Many Islamic believers take the verse from the Qur'an out of context that commands them to kill the infidel and that has resulted in the current terrorist threat from the middle east, because they believe that the infidel must die.  Remember the Turkish genocide against the Armenians in last century?  1.5 million people died in that act of ethnic genocide.  99% of Turkish citizens are Islamic.  What was the Turkish motto: "Kill all Christians" - "Turkey for the Turks".

[pianistimo]

prometheus,  the only genocidal creatures i can think of are lemmings.  but, they do it to themselves, oddly enough.  not other lemmings.  of course, there are animals that are carnivorous - but they don't eat entire packs of other animals.  maybe humans need to learn from how animals get along - although it's sad because we have the intellect to know that we control the world and can't really get a grip on how to do it.  the bible gave adam the command to rule over the beasts and birds of the air.  in other words, imo, to be an environmentalist and make sure that they were cared for in some way or other.  to watch the 'balance' of nature.

i notice that in pennsylvania - it is routine to plant 5-6 trees in your yard.  if you don't do thi s- you are not a true pennsylvanian yet.  and, i was pondering all this and read somewhere's that a huge percentage of the earths oxygen is developed by trees and forests and that if there is any way to fight atmospheric pollution - it is probably by planting more trees.  also, animals tend to flock where there is shade.

[ramseytheii]

You have met these genicidal Christians?  No...I don't think so.  Sure Christians have done bad things, but so have Americans.  How would you like it if you went to the middle east and everyone held you responsible for the actions of the Americans who tortured middle eastern prisoners?  You'd probably say, 'hey, that's not what America stands for.  Those people were going against the rules while waving our flag.'  Same thing.

I forget who had this insightful quote, and I must paraphrase because I don't have the exact wording: "Good people will do good things; bad people will do bad things; but if you want good people to do bad things, you need religion."

I think that no matter how many times the words grace, mercy, redemption, confession, charity, or humility are mentioned in the Bible, there is so much which is negative and of an unbelievably fabulous (in the words of Thomas Paine) morality, that those things are part and parcel of the faith.  In other words, if for centuries American preachers justify slavery by using the Bible, you can't say, "Christianity is not 'about' that."  It is there in black and white, and if you want to believe the good things to be true, you must also believe the bad things - or denounce them, which I guarantee you will not see happen.  Instead, a host of denial techniques will come into play in order to sweep these things into sight unseen.

If hundreds of people in the Middle East are moved into suicidal destruction, and this is all done in the name of religion, this is a problem endemic to the religion, not to the individuals.  If millions of Christians in Amerika desire the power to legislate people's private lives in a whole host of issues, this is a problem endemic to the religion, not to the individuals.

Chances are, if someone is committing atrocities in the name of God, justification can be found in their holy books for what they are doing.  Please stop blaming the individuals, and let us all take out our razor blades, and excise the passages from the Bible which give support to such monstrosity.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

ramseytheii, i don't think heaven exists either.  does that blow your mind?  i think Jesus preached 'the kingdom of God' on this very earth.  1000 year millenium.  i realize i am in a minority - but the apostles taught the same thing.  they basically repeated what Christ told them.  that the gospel WAS about the 'kingdom of God.'  that Jesus will be king.  He was born a king. 

Interesting!  If Jesus came to preach eternal life, and there is no heaven, then the eternal life must be on earth.  Where did Jesus ascend to, and where is Jerry Falwell?

Walter Ramsey