I used to be a biblical literalist, so this video hits home:
One of my favorite anecdotes about absolute truth and biblical literalism is by Delos McKown:
[Norman] Geisler had trouble staying on the general topic, focusing rather on abortion, in the most grisly terms. Humanists, he tells, are right in there with the Nazis in disregard of human life. Their despicable deeds are made likely, if not inevitable, by their moral relativism. How much firmer is the ground under Christians, who stand on moral absolutes!
During rebuttal, I said that my favorite moral absolute in scripture was in Luke 6:30 where Jesus is reported to have said, “Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.” I then turned to the Rev. Dr. Geisler and asked him for his money. Since it was not forthcoming, I knelt on one knee and begged for it, trying to cover all spiritual bases.
With a pale look about his gills, he finally pulled out a dollar bill and waved it wanly at me to which I said, “No, not a dollar; I want all of your money. But I’m not mean; I won’t keep your wallet or credit cards.” Geisler did not, in fact, comply with the moral absolute in Luke 6:30 (also see Matthew 5:42 and Luke 6:35). If he had given me his money, I would have taken it and kept it. Thus, we would both have been blessed, I with extra cash and he with a clear conscience for having met the challenge of obeying a moral absolute of his lord. I fear his conscience still troubles him over this episode, something I would gladly have spared him by keeping his money.
Bibliolaters are so fond of moral absolutes that I believe the rest of us should oblige them by giving them every opportunity to act thereupon. When you next hear a Christian extolling the rock of moral absolutes upon which he or she stands, go for the cash. It has a sobering effect that may in the long run be beneficial.
I have never understood how people justify a literalist view. Doesn’t Jesus expressly state that he uses parables to teach? Doesn’t that mean that Jesus’ words should not be taken literally? And also how does a literalist choose which account of an event is true? Matthew or Luke? Jonh or Mark? In some instances the details are so different thay can’t both be true. Perhaps you can give me an insight on how this used to work for you Daniel.
Great post Daniel!
I used to attend a large (about 30,000 members) church that was “literal” in its interpretation of the bible. I would ask questions about confusing inconsistencies and things that were just illogical as I expected the leaders to have a really, really good answer. Not only could they not answer but I’d get in trouble for being a D- christian!
The great thing is, that he wouldn’t obey the literal words of scripture, yet he takes a verse out of context to support his anti-choice views. “Knit in the womb” my ass.
@Daniel…
Go ahead…you can have ALL my money too. Of course, you do realize I’m currently unemployed don’t you?? lol.
Religious leaders seem to set the rule as follows:
If it would make it hard for people like us, God meant that verse metaphorically.
If it would make it hard for all those other people not like us, God meant that verse literally.
@John C
Maybe if you stopped claiming to be another species someone would hire you.
@cello
Right, and thats why these people are impossible to have an honest argument with. (and here I thought honestly was a Christian virtue)
Good one Aor, maybe I need to report for work at the “illegal alien” office…lol
What a whip.
This clip is from “For the Bible Tells Me So” and is definitely worth watching. Depressing and encouraging at the same time.
I like the guy that says that God wrote the Bible so that even a simple guy like himself could understand it.
The Bible is simple to understand?! Simple – I do not think that word means what he thinks it means.
Okay, Dan, you did it again. I just couldn’t help myself and “borrowed” this video for Contextual Criticism.
What I liked most about it was its succinctness…it did a great job with the topic in just a couple of minutes. Pretty amazing!
So thanks! And keep up the good work. Pretty soon I’ll just let you absorb my blog into yours..
Heh. Heh.
I respect Christians who say “Lets look at the Bible and see what major morals and values are being conveyed.” It is generally the bigots who say “these are my socio-political beliefs, what verse or verses can I cherry pick and distort to support my agenda?”
These are the ones that take Old Testament verses out of context to support slavery or homophobia or war or genocide. If you actually studied your Bible you would know that, other than restricting homosexuality in the same way as consuming shrimp or covering your head, the Bible doesn’t really say anything about homosexuality in the context of consensual, loving, monogamous relationships.
In the 1800′s the Bible was used to support the long held institution of slavery, The Southern Baptist denomination was actually formed to defend the rights of slave owners. After all, even the New Testament condones slavery. Over time our understanding of the Bible and morality evolved, and (most) Christians abhor the concept of slavery. The same is true with homosexually and the Bible today.
** Where are you? And why not somewhere else? **
• What you’re against shows what you’re open to accepting.
Before you engage your scepticism, five narrowing levels of religious discourse need to be untwined. (A dictionary alone is not good enough to distinguish or define them.) A lot of confusion goes away when you can pinpoint what you are rejecting. Do you reject:
1. Supernaturalism: any doctrine putting forward a realm outside of nature or of post-mortem existence: whether of Platonic ideas, Aristotelian entelechies, the Absolute, Being, ground of being, gods, demons, spirits, minds, mystical union, karma, reincarnation, nirvana, Buddha realms, yogic chakras.
2. Theism: claim that at least one divine being (god) exists. Gods as persons: polytheisms and monotheisms. Gods as impersonal entities: deism and philosophical Hinduism. God as nature: pantheism.
3. Xianity: one recent theism (in the last 3,300 years) belonging to the big-4 monotheisms, from eldest to youngest: zoroastrianism, judaism, xianity, and islam. Xianity accepts a basic equality: Jesus=Messiah=Christ=God.
4. Fundamentalist xianity: highly puritanical sects broadly identified within american protestantism as Baptist. Characteristics: adult baptism by full immersion, psychological indoctrination leading to “conversion” to sect membership, epistemological reliance on biblical inerrancy, enthusiastic and “inspired” preaching dismissive of rationality and science.
5. Dominionism: a christo-fascist political ideology masquerading as a legitimate aspect of fundamentalist xianity. It seeks to overthrow the US Constitution and secular government, and to replace them with a xian theocratic state.
Like Russian dolls these ideas fit one inside the other. If, like me, you are an anti-supernaturalist (and reject 1) then you also reject 2 through 5. You can be an atheist (2) and still be a supernaturalist. You can be a xian (3) without being a fundamentalist (4). You can be a fundie without accepting dominionism (5).
This is a concise run-down, which I agree with for the most part. However, I once considered myself in the dominionist camp, without aligning under the fundamentalist branch. so, this template might not fit every Christian.
The Biblical Literalists are the scariest bunch in existence. They don’t need to think, and they look to a book that can be interpreted to mean just about anything to justify their viewpoints. Fortunately (and I do mean fortunately) most of the high profile literalists are hucksters just out to make a buck. If they start demanding their people stone women in the streets, then we have a new problem.
anti –
That was a pretty succinct breakdown. I am curious, though, why do you abbreviate Christianity (i.e. “xianity”) and nothing else?
Because no God is despised as much as the only One.
I am astonished by religious literalists’ lack of intellectual integrity
To claim that a book (bible, torah, koran, any of them) riddled with contradictions, inaccuracies, internal inconsistencies and downright errors can be a source of “literally” inerrant truth is a breathtaking thing
Or is it just laziness?, is it just easier to assume ‘the book’ contains all the answers rather than having to do any thinking for yourself?
I totally agree. I think, however, your phrase “intellectual integrity” is rather too charitale. Literalists are downright ignorant and, in my experience, terrified of the intellectual adventure that come when you apply reason and experience to a text. There are no easy answers but literalists, seeking refuge in absolutes, see things in either black or white. In reality, as experience teaches, this is rarely the case. Moral problems usually have many dimensions and being categorical about them is foolish. I am particularly alarmed by the fact that while accepting the Bible as the “Word of God”, literalists are unable to analyse it. This is because they have no awareness of language itself, how it originated, how it evolves, how meanings change under the influence of diverse cultures and how full of pitfalls a Biblical text is for the unwary. A case in point is Christ’s exhortation in the NT (Kings James Bible) to “suffer the little children to come unto me”, in which the word “suffer” has in modern usage lost one of its two meanings. Readers of the King James version of this text would have no difficulty in understanding its meaning but modern English would need to render “suffer” as “let” in order for it to make sense. I have even heard a (so-called) Biblical commentator ( Harold Camping ) expand this text into a disatribe on physical suffering. QED. This is just one of many examples that illustrate how using a faulty, time-bound translation causes misunderstanding and confusion.
You know that using the Greek letter Chi (the first letter of Christos) to denote Jesus is an ancient Christian tradition dating back at least 1900 years, right? That it has morphed into the almost-identical Roman letter X is hardly a mark of disrespect, much less hatred.
Because no God is despised as much as the only One.
How does that even approach making sense?
@wintermute: Aw, you spoiled the persecution complex. That’s no fun.
I remember thinking for a long time that “x-mas” and “x-ian” were “crossing out christ.” Then I took Greek, and got a good laugh at my ignorance.
You know that using the Greek letter Chi (the first letter of Christos) to denote Jesus is an ancient Christian tradition dating back at least 1900 years, right? That it has morphed into the almost-identical Roman letter X is hardly a mark of disrespect, much less hatred.
The only thing I’ve been confused about is why they don’t use the full chi-rho. “XPianity”?
Words are most often (and accurately) interpreted by cultural context rather than original meaning…c’mon you guys know this…you’ve been telling me the same for 7 weeks now!
But I guess its convenient for you this time to be a “literalist” huh? Pun intended…lol
John C –
But how is the interpretation that Christianity getting abbreviated is a sign of disrespect reasonable when *in our current context* both Christians and non-Christians do it (and in the same way)?
I was merely curious why he bothered to do it at all. It’s not like “Christianity” is a long word or something, especially when you stick it next to “Zoroastrianism”.
Words are most often (and accurately) interpreted by cultural context rather than original meaning…
It would be better to say that words do not have an “original meaning” in any useful sense, and all words when uttered are uttered in a specific context (which, BTW, is informed by far more than simply “culture”).
The real question becomes whether the meaning of a sentence is portable out of its original context; to what extent, what can be kept, what is necessarily lost in the attempt.
@Elemeno-
I can appreciate what you are saying…for the most part. Not sure I can totally sign off when you say that words do not have an “original meaning”, but I think I get where you’re going.
I am not personally offended by the “X” (I really dont get offended at all anymore cuz that would imply that I have some reputation of my own to protect and I dont…and oh how free’ing it is) but you have to admit that’s typically seen as a generic denial of the name…Christ. Personally, I don’t know any believers, never have in the past 25 yrs that substitute an “X” in place of the word Christ.
Maybe I found the Atheist’s proverbial “hot-button”, the collective reaction caught me by surprise…now I know.
Thx, JC
[...]you have to admit that’s typically seen as a generic denial of the name…Christ.
I really don’t.
Personally, I don’t know any believers, never have in the past 25 yrs that substitute an “X” in place of the word Christ.
Personally, I know many people, believer and otherwise, who shorten the name of the religion because they are typing/writing quickly and/or are lazy. I found it odd in this particular case only because the guy didn’t seem to be typing on the run and there were longer words in the passage.
If it really were an attempt to deny the *name* of Christ, as you claim, then they would do it in verbal speech, too, but they don’t. I personally don’t know any Atheists who won’t call Christianity “Christianity” aloud, or verbally omit other references to Christ. Do you?
@Daniel…
I’m not sure…but I think you just called me…ignorant? ha.
C’mon now, the titles are becoming a bit numerous don’t you think, now I gotta add ignorant to an already long list?
Let’s see if I can remember all the names I’ve been called:
Delusional
Idiot
Nutjob
Fundie
Troll
Proselytiser
Crazy
Liar
Disingenuous
Anti-Choice’r
Fool
Schizophrenic
And my personal favorite?….Deranged Cleric!
I’m feelin the love! You guys are awesome!
Keep’em comin’…after all, variety is the spice of life! lol
JC
@Elemeno-
I see it on this forum often…by certain poster’s. It’s ok, after all, that’s what most here have done in real life…deny Him so at least they are being consistent! ha
Fantastic site for getting a look at the bible as a literal story a la LEGOs:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/
Now you can see the story as it was literally meant!
@John: I didn’t call you ignorant — I called myself ignorant.
* * *
About the X: Really it’s just shorthand. It’s like saying “bf” for boyfriend. Boyfriend isn’t that long of a word, but it’s easy to abbreviate.
When I’m lazy, I write x-ianity or x-mas. Other times I write it out. Just like sometimes, I write “by the way,” and other times I write “BTW.” I mean no disrespect towards “by the way,” but sometimes I don’t feel like typing it out so I use the shorthand.
I’ve had professors that wrote “x-ianity” on the chalkboard many times during my education, and that was at a conservative school. Of course, those professors knew Greek so it makes perfect sense to them. But since most Christians don’t know Greek, they assume some nefarious scheme to remove “Christ” from “Christian,” like we’re afraid of it or something.
I see it on this forum often…by certain poster’s.
You didn’t read what I wrote very carefully, did you?
I asked, do you know anyone who refuses to *say aloud* the word “Christianity”? How is reporting on what you’ve seen *written* in a forum in any way related to the question I asked? (Please carefully note the distinction between the two phrases surrounded by the asterisks up there, if you are still confused.)
So far as I know, when Atheists are talking about “Christianity” we will use the word “Christianity” (sometimes we also use the word Christianism, but that also includes Christ!)
So, your theory about Atheists using the “X” to deny Christ’s name, in view of the fact that we say it aloud all the time, is pretty unsupportable.
@Elemeno-
You are correct, I should have paid closer attention to your post if I was going to respond…my bad, I apologize.
JC
James said:
“If you actually studied your Bible you would know that, other than restricting homosexuality in the same way as consuming shrimp or covering your head, the Bible doesn’t really say anything about homosexuality in the context of consensual, loving, monogamous relationships.”
No. In the Pentateuch God specifically condemns men who lie with one another to death. There is no distinction made for monogamous relations.
In the Pentateuch God specifically condemns men who lie with one another to death.
He didn’t say anything about the penalty for violating the rule, only that the rule was akin to the other rules of ritual cleanliness.
There is no distinction made for monogamous relations.
The case of Naomi and Ruth, and that of David and Jonathan, make the situation at least a little problematic.
@Elemeno-
There is no case for either…Naomi/Ruth or David/Jonathan, you’ve been duped if you are falling for that old trick.
God is…holy (set apart, not like the world, unstained) just as we are called to be holy, in the world but not of the world, a “peculiar” people as Peter puts it.
I know, I know…that’s another name to add to my long list…peculiar. :)
There is no case for either…Naomi/Ruth or David/Jonathan, you’ve been duped if you are falling for that old trick.
You simply saying so doesn’t make it so.
If you’re honestly wondering why people react to you the way they do around here, it has little to do with your beliefs and much more with the means by which you use or don’t use to express them and argue for their significance. When people come to discuss, debate, and argue, nobody is going to get anywhere if one party won’t present an argument and attempt to actually support it.
So, how’s about you explain *why* you think that the cases of Naomi/Ruth and David/Jonathan are false. Then you might get somewhere.
What “case” are you talking about? You speak as if it is some accepted fact, even doctrine that they were involved in a homosexual relationship?? This is the same unfounded thinking that plagued the Da Vinci code mess a few years back…there is nothing to any of it, nothing recorded, nothing inferred.
When scripture mentions homosexuality it is pretty clear, ie Sodom & Gomorrah, Romans, etc…nothing of the sort is remotely implied in the two “cases” as you suggest except a deep love & friendship of the “soul”.
While I kindly accomodate various conversations and am happy to linger, explain, etc…this one is absolutely pointless to me, nowhere else to go with this kind of sillyness.
“nowhere else to go with this kind of sillyness.”
Pot, meet kettle.
That’s cute Ty…but seriously…this one has zero teeth to it…zero.
John C
“I’m not sure…but I think you just called me…ignorant? ha.”
Persecution complex.
John C wrote:
>Because no God is despised as much as the only One<
Well, I’m glad to see you think there is more than one god, John.
Of course, I particularly despise Anubis, the Egyptian god of embalming, because, when I die, I want my ashes scattered. I definitely don’t want my body pumped full of chemicals by a god who has the head of a jackal (ugh, how ungodly).
Would you stand ford that, John?
So for me, Anubis must be the “only One.” I despise him the most. I depise him the most, I suppose, because I’m not aware of all the thousands of other gods who have existed.
Perhaps another god more despicable, and if so, I would definitely despise him/her/it more. Embalming the dead against their will – that’s gross.
Btw, John, do you despise Anubis more than Jesus, (who has the head of a human – ugh, how ungodly)?
I’m assuming you don’t despise the god you do believe in. Which would mean, of course, that you don’t think your god is the “only One.”
This is getting confusing.
@Dave…
I think you win for weirdest post of the evening my friend, that’s no minor feat, usually I win in a landslide! lol
I can’t believe you guys aren’t even interested in the LEGO’s bible! I mean, the Rape of Dinah (and consequent destruction of an entire people because of it) and the Instructions to Women in the NT are surely as classic as LEGO Star Wars or LEGO Indiana Jones! IMHO…
Oh, the Lego Bible rules, but so does the LOLCat Bible.
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
Yes! I was recently informed of the lol’cat bible!
Excellent post. I’ve come to the conclusion that the literalists have it backwards- whatever verses they take literally, any rational, moderately-critically-thinking person would take figuratively, and whatever verses they take figuratively, any rational, moderately critically-thinking person would take literally.
Then, whenever you start talking about ‘interpretation’, you get guys like Missler who say things like ‘use the bible to interpret the bible’ (I could be mistaken on that quote, but I’m 99% sure it’s him who I first heard say it). If that’s not a face-palm-worthy example of circular reasoning, I don’t know what is.
“No. In the Pentateuch God specifically condemns men who lie with one another to death. There is no distinction made for monogamous relations.”
Yes, it says it is an abomination, or it is “unnatural” or “outside the norm” for a specific people at a specific time. It also says it is an abomination to eat shrimp (Leviticus 11:9-12) yet I strangely do not see Christians protesting at Red Lobster or Long John Silver? Why are shrimpers accepted at any church? Why did Christians not boycott “Forest Gump”? Why is that? Cherry-picking literalism, that’s why.
“About the X: Really it’s just shorthand. It’s like saying “bf” for boyfriend. Boyfriend isn’t that long of a word, but it’s easy to abbreviate.”
Ironic that a guy who ends every third post with “LOL” doesn’t get this.
LOL. Why does everyone of the LEGO Bible scenes look like it could have come straight out of Star Wars?
Exactly, Cello! :)
Is this based on the post where I asked how you could differentiate your hearing a voice and attributing it to God from a schizophrenic hearing a voice and attributing it to God? The post where I specifically pointed out that I was not saying that you were schizophrenic?
Can you please either point to a post where someone has called you a schizophrenic, or admit that you’re lying in order to play the victim? Thanks.
Ezekiel 16:48-50:
What, dear John, is this a code for? Because it doesn’t seem to be clearly about sexuality to me. It seems to be clearly about not helping the poor and powerless. But you know God better than I do, and I’m sure you’re better able to say whether consensual sex is worse than allowing people to starve, right?
I disagree with the anti-literalists. The bible was written to be taken literally. There’s no reason not to take it literally; it’s a disturbing, bloody book and intended as such. This was the zeitgeist of the time.
The crazy fundies have it right; the ones who are misinterpreting it are the (mostly well-meaning) majority of Christians who sugarcoat it, because taking it literally would conflict with their morals and principles.
Sad! You need to think when you read the Bible otherwise much of it is gobbeldygook,
That Luke 6:30 story is great. I’d love to meet a Biblical literalist and make them see how un-literally they can take that verse.
My favorite had always been Luke 14:26
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple”
@Winter…
“lying to play the victim”? Come now…I thought we knew each other better than this by now my unbelieving brother.
No, I have been called “schizo” by others, you were not being singled out…besides, that is mild compared to some.
I can’t get over…”lying to play the victim”, have I ever “played the victim” before? I don’t think anyone would point to that as my M.O. in my many prev posts.
The names dont bother me, if they did I would have left long ago…besides, what should I expect? Really.
Hey, its Sunday! Did you attend the “church of your choice” today? lol
I went to a cool, intimate little fellowship close to the house today. Pure people, in whom there is “no guile”. No pretense, authentic, God-lovers. The acoustic reverberations made the music sound so sweet, I was blessed.
Take care Winter
@Winter…
Sodom thy sister…why thy sister and not thy brother? Why female and not male Winter? Why did a virgin bring forth the Christ??
Pride, haughty, fullness (of self), not concerned with others…I will let you stew this time…here’s a hint…I addressed this male/female symbolism (in detail) just recently.
Also, Exodus is not the best place to appreciate the sodom & gomorrah episode really.
JC
@gmcfly…
Yes, Christ is first..in heart, in love. Then all other loves fall naturally under (Him) like branches on a fruitful tree.
Order, priority…passion. When I am loving Him, in fellowship with Jesus, He gives me His overflowing, abundant love to lavish on my other loves, kids, etc.
There are many definitions of love…just look at Valentines Day…but God claims the only, the highest definition in that God doesnt say, but demonstrate it in Himself, for God is love.
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends…John 15:13.
You mock what/whom you know not…its ok, you are still greatly loved because love just…loves. Thats who He is.
Well, given that “the church of my choice” is “no church”, I suppose I did. Just as I do every day.
Because people familiar with the stories of Attis, Mithras, Osiris, Hercules, et cetera (as the Hellenised Jews of 1st Century Palestine would have been) expect their godmen to be born of the union of a god and a virgin?
So, you believe that the Sin of Sodom was… letting the spirit rule over the soul (or vice versa? I can’t remember which way round you had it)?
In which case, one might ask why the explicit reference to not helping the poor and the weak, when they had plenty of bread to spare?
One might also ask what this has to do with it being a “clear” reference to homosexuality, as you claimed earlier.
I agree entirely. Had I cited Exodus instead of Ezekiel, I might even think you’d said something meaningful and useful. As it is, however, this is something of a non-sequiter.
Considering that the ten commandments are reputed by many christians to be the ultimate moral guide, it is amazing there isn’t one about not sticking your whatchamacaller into some other dude’s hoozitz. Would have been pretty easy to add that one if that particular god really cared about it. Maybe replace the one about not covetting your neighbors female slaves.
John C:
>Because no God is despised as much as the only One<
All kidding aside, here are two questions for you:
1) Do you despise your god?
2) Do you think there are other gods beside the One God?
Pingback: Biblical literalism « and it starts again. and again.
Now, before people get carried away thinking John is saying something meaningful, what he actually means is this:
Some people express disbelief of (or sometimes even disrespect for) the god I believe in.
Therefore, everyone hates and despises the got that I believe in.
Therefore, the god that I believe in is real.
>Because no God is despised as much as the only One<
Wintermute, I think part of the implication John is making is that it’s possible to know the One True God by how much it is despised by the rest of humanity.
John therefore thinks his god is despised, which helps him believe in its reality. Atheists don’t believe in gods, though, so atheists don’t despise his delusion.
However, I have a guess that John doesn’t quite get that – or he does and he enjoys himself immensely when he can serve the purpose of a good troll. I’m never sure with John.
And John, are you going to attempt to answer my questions?
John never answers a direct question, because he has no direct answers.
He’ll hand wave a bit and talk about the spiritual matrix, but he won’t ever say anything that a rational person can parse.
I mean, take this particular digression of his. “I know my god is real because he’s the most hated.”
This is possibly the single sentence record for containing the most logical fallacies.
First, even if every single atheist in the world active hated John’s particular god, we’d still be outnumbered 10 to 1 or more. But most atheists I know don’t actually hate any gods, because that would be like hating the tooth fairy. Add in that the most unpopular religion in America right now is Islam, I’d bet Allah gives John’s god a serious run for his money in the hated department. Note that this hatred of Allah will NOT be considered evidence of Allah’s truth by John.
Everything he says is a complete failure of logic and rationality, and yet he insists on seeing that same failure as his greatest strength. There’s nothing you can say to someone who lives with that level of delusion.
This is about bible literalism; people have actually stayed within the specific forum topic – sorta, sometimes!
Over on the “virgin birth of Jesus” forum, there was this sect of bible literalism:
and
Sorry if you lost your lunch. I couldn’t help the
;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
part of the quote. Hope you weren’t eating.
Are these the same people that believe in not changing a jot or tittle (*snerk*) of it? The same ones that don’t believe in cafeteria buffet-style Christianity? How do they justify their cafeteria-style selection? If not, why do they believe parts of it? How do they choose?
How do they justify what they choose? How do they blind themselves to the cognitive dissonance and self-contradictions and doubt?
I can “get into the space” of certain premises and forms of argument, but I have too many functional brain cells to get into the space of having no doubt or uncertainty.
Doubt is a part of the structure of belief. (Definition: the choice and activity of accepting something as real. Think of example: flat earth.)
Making fun of Christianity and “fundies” is good sport isn’t it? However, when dealing with life and death issues like abortion, AIDS, malnutrition, human rights, it’s easy to pick out the one issue to hang your philosophical rants. Christianity is not about a literalist interpretation of the bible but how to love your neighbour as yourself. As Jesus unequivocally stated, “The law and the prophets is this To love the Lord thy God and to love your neighbour as yourself.” If what you are doing is denying the literalist view of scripture without these two commands in mind, then you really have missed the mark. Christians are busy with these two absolutes Love God – love others. On these the whole bible rests. Other interpretations and literalist rants forget that this is the essence of the bible.
That’s a nice fluffy interpretation of Christianity you’ve got there, but it ignores most of the bible and cherry-picks the verse that happens to fit in with your personal philosophy. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great value, but you really don’t need a religion to tell you that – and that one verse is hardly the “essence” of a religion that has justified atrocities such as the Inquisition and Salem witch trials.
I agree with Morpheus91. Seems to me that you believe primarily in the Golden Rule (a concept that Christianity did not originate), and because you have been indoctrinated to believe that there is a God and that he is good and that you must worship him, you can’t accept the more barbaric stuff in the Bible because it violates that rule and shows God not to be good. You are working backwards, using your ethics as a filter to reject any of the stuff that in your holy book that is inconsistent with a good and loving deity.
There’s no evidence that the Christian God exists; it’s not even a coherent concept. Why not toss the mythology and just live a good and ethical life?
Using the word “absolutes” so loosely is not a good idea. “Love god” is not an absolute, it’s an interpretation of scripture, with no foundation in physical reality or anywhere else outside of the scriptures.
And far too many christians are busy interfering in the lives of others without concern for love, but merely to protect their social taboo’s, in order for me to take you seriously on what christianity is “about”.
You wanna spend your time loving an invisible man? Fine, go for it, just keep it to yourself. And feel free to join us in the criticism of those christians who fail to love their neighbours. But don’t try to pretend you know what christianity is all about, because your christianity only applies to you, and can never be generalised. Every single dogma you cling to as “christian” will be contradicted in word or deed by someone else who also calls themselves christian.
Christianity is not about a literalist interpretation of the bible but how to love your neighbour as yourself.
See now, here’s the thing. There are huge swaths of people who are “Christians” and claim that it is about literalism and shunning anyone who doesn’t agree. How can a poor dumb old non-believer like me tell if they are right or you are? Especially since the book that allegedly supports your religion provides no real guidance.
As Jesus unequivocally stated
Can we back up a bit? Could you please prove the existence of this Jesus fella? And if you do, could you please also prove his divinity? And if you can prove that, could you please also convince me that he’s worth following?
Christians are busy with these two absolutes Love God – love others.
Which “Christians?”