by VorJack
Some Christians and former Christians are fond of pointing at the doctrine of biblical innerrancy and calling it idolatry – the act of taking something less than God and making it out to be God. Robert Price is fond of doing this in his BibleGeek webcast.
The idea is that Christian fundamentalists are making the Bible itself into a God and placing an heap of of expectations on it that are to much for any collection of books to bear. There’s something to this, but I notice there are all different levels to which even fundamentalists ascribe.
Inspiration
As some basic level, beneath that which most people would call idolatry, is the idea I remember from Catholic school: the Bible is inspired. This meant something very similar to what we means when we say an artist is inspired; the author received some insights and ideas (from God, it was assumed) that they proceeded to work into prose. But they were human authors, who were capable of writing some poorly worded sentences or confusing an issue. Thus we needed something more with which to illuminate the text, and the Catholic answer to that is Christian tradition maintained and developed by the Church.
Dictation
Somewhere beyond that is verbal inspiration, in which the Gospel authors are merely secretaries, taking dictation from the Almighty. This sidesteps the messy process of having to consider the mentality of the author; instead, we’re getting it straight from God. One doesn’t have to believe that every jot and tittle is accurate since the books may have changed a bit since their original manuscripts, but presuambly the Bible is absolutely reliable on matters of faith and salvation.
One idea I often hear is that God is loving, and would not leave us with flawed instructions on how to achieve salvation. This assumes a lot about the way God might operate, or what “loving” means in the context of an infinite non-corporeal entity, but it does make a certain sense. However, once you start reasoning this way, there really is no limit. What else might an all-loving God provide us with in his Word?
Absolute Sufficiency
Ken Pulliam over at Why I De-Converted from Evangelical Christianity has some thoughts on the more extreme form of this idolatry, in which the Bible offer guidance on things having little to do with salvation. As one fundamentalist co-woker explained to me, “All truths are found in the Bible,” and these apparently include truths relating to psychology; thus Biblical or “nouthetic” counseling:
“Nouthetic” comes from a NT Greek word meaning: “to admonish,” or “to correct.” This type of counseling says that man’s basic problem is sin and that the job of the counselor is to point out to the counselee the nature of his sin and then admonish him to confess it and ask God to heal him. The father of the movement is Jay Adams, longtime Professor of Pastoral Counseling at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Westminster is a very conservative evangelical Reformed seminary. Adams burst on the scene in 1970 with his book, Competent to Counsel: Introduction to Nouthetic Counseling. The very popular book has been used by thousands of Pastors to guide them in their counseling methodology.
And so Adams believe he can derive principles for the Bible which allow him to deal with depression and other psychological problems. You can read Pulliam’s entire post, but I can give you a hint: Adam’s methods are both misogynistic and toxic.
Let me close with a joke that Darrell Dow, blogger at Stuff Fundies Like, left in one of his comments on the topic:
Jay Adams, Tom Cruise, and Mary Baker Eddy walk into an emergency room…and see a man in a full body cast moaning in pain.
Tom Cruise declares “this man is not injured, he merely needs to audit himself into a clear state to uncover his thetan reality then his so-called pain will cease.”
Mary Baker Eddy contradicts “No, this man merely needs to acknowledge that his physical flesh is a sinful manifestation and that only pure spirit can be righteous then he will understand his pain is an illusion.”
Jay Adams says nothing but picks up a Gideon Bible and begins beating the man on the head with it.
“What are you doing?!” ask the other two in horror.
“Discipleship!” yells Jay loudly “By the time I’m done he’ll still be in pain but by golly he’ll at least have the decency to feel guilty about it!”
I would that thou might vouchsafe thy readers a few more pixels when posting an image containing small text.
Click on it. It embiggens.
As a buddhist once told me , If you read the buybull in a ZenBuddhist frame of mind you can see a lot of buddhism in the new testament. Which is even more so in the Thomas gospel. Two things they sort of have in common is the rejection of magic & occultism.
But not surprisingly, most religious people are VERY magic minded. You can see this in their many relics and holey schite. This is culminated in the buybull (or KaKaron or whatever) as the main holey thing or ‘magic thing’.
They all are believers in magic and cover it with some form of ‘g0d power’. So in its extreme form you go from ‘holeyBull guide’ to the ‘absolute word and truth of the psychotic sky-fairy’ with magic powers. Go to any religious sect and watch all the magic motions and mumbo-jumbo they go thru at their ‘services’ especially the catlicks. As an X-altar-boy I know of what I speak.
One thing I’ve never been able to wrap my head around is the holy knickknacks. There are a great many things most people, even religious people, seem to reject as nonsense and cast off as superstition… however, now that I think about it, most people retain these superstitions that aren’t in the bible, and ward off evils with their crosses and rosaries, mixed up with horseshoes and not stepping on cracks, etc., a little of both for good measure. They think the devil is everywhere trying to get them, like the bogeyman, so they ban books, burn books, and brainwash their young to fear science teaching and the tools of science (not all of them do, but some of them).
They have as many fears of inanimate objects and circumstantial events in the secular world as they do idolize their book and their other charms and amulets, along with chanting and kosherizing and exorcising. If you do the wrong chants, you will summon the devil! Here I had a bizarre notion that many religious people could recognize clearly a “common” superstition (what we call superstitions being ‘ridiculous’; other faiths being more ‘wrong’ but not ‘ridiculous’) while remaining blind to their own, but many may think those beliefs just summon the wrong spirit. In that way, everything becomes a potential idol. A bottle of liquor is the devil, kids who read Harry Potter are learning how to channel the devil, etc.
Of course, not everyone thinks this way. I do think there are a lot of theists of one sort or another who accept and use science regularly, read things (or at least don’t consciously avoid exposing themselves to) which disagree with their beliefs regarding atheism and/or other religious thought, and don’t inhibit their children from the world, and feel securely with the god of their choice. The exception seems to be that, while tolerant and well-adjusted to secular business and people of many faiths, atheism tends to be misunderstood and regarded negatively. It’s for sure to be without god is the worst fate, we’ve rejected god or are mad at him, or are ensconced in satanic worship. At least someone of another faith is concerned about salvation and morality, but we’re totally ignoring it!
I like the story about Jesus traveling to the far east (India?) during the missing years of his bio, returning at 33 to teach some of what he had absorbed.
It would be fine and dandy for the fundies to hold their “book” in highest esteem IF they would only live by what it says! The only people who are going to believe that the “book” is inspired by god are those dumb enough it believe it! The are entire sections of the NT which denies everything that modern day christianity holds as doctrine! But then again, the NT was NOT written for them! Face it, they are just grabbing at straws and have no foundations for any of their beliefs. Christianity today is a massive crock of sh*t!!! I suppose I’ll have to get ready for another scriptural war!
Conditionally, I’ll grant that there are aspects of modern Christianity which deviate from the ancient Church (for example, the fact that Churches have buildings, the 1-hour only service times, and certain Catholic traditions within the worship service in general which don’t necessarily have a normative example in the Bible, i.e., crossing oneself, baptism by sprinkling, et al… George Barna recently published a book called “Pagan Christianity,” where he catalogs and discusses various pagan elements found in the worship services of American Churches. This fact alone is not compelling argument against the worldview of Christianity, and is an ad hominem fallacy (and to a certain extent, a tu quoque fallacy). The truth or falsehood of any worldview cannot be based upon individuals who fail to follow it. The truth or falsehood of a worldview must be based upon its own merits.
Based on the Critical-Historical method of interpreting texts (ALL historical texts, this is not some made up Christian method of interpreting), understanding the author’s original intent and “translating” it through the filters of culture, language, grammar/semantics, sociology, anthropology, etc is not “grasping at straws.” It is a modern, practical, and nearly universally accepted method of interpreting texts. Certainly there are some issues that are raised which, based on the information we have of the 1st Century society and culture – we cannot know without a shadow of doubt. This fact should not cause the reaction of throwing out the baby with the bath water.
It is a modern, practical, and nearly universally accepted method of interpreting texts.
Indeed. Both the minimalists and the maximalists agree that they are doing historico-critical analysis. As do the Mythicists, for that matter.
The problem is that historico-critical analysis is not a machine that you feed the bible into and get the answers out the other end. It’s a bundle of methodologies, many of which are in conflict.
So, for example, some quite reputable scholars say that the Gospels are primarily a literary creation. Others say that the Gospels are primarily historical. Most fall in the middle – this part is literary, this part is historical But how you answer is going to determine how you interpret the text – historically or literately.
Just because someone claims to be doing something doesn’t mean they are doing right (case in point – Fred Phelps). It’s certainly not a ‘machine.’ It is an art and a science.
What are some methodologies in conflict? You cited not a problem with the historical-critical method, but with the genre of the Bible.
I think it would be most helpful to explain that the Bible is not a “book,” it is a composition of history, poetry, apocalyptic literature, personal letters, and a few other genres as well.
To arbitrarily separate “history” from “literature” doesn’t make sense and has no foundations except in individuals’ antipathy towards a view that admits the historical and literary (I presume you mean “metaphorical” or “mystical?”) characteristics. It has all the elements of historic literature. People, places, events, and cultural aspects all coincide with extra-biblical sources we have from the time – ipso facto – historical.
What’s left is to determine if the miracles and supernatural events are historical as well, or merely the gross exaggeration of Jesus and the Apostles’ actions. That’s a whole other can of worms…
The truth or falsehood of any worldview cannot be based upon individuals who fail to follow it. The truth or falsehood of a worldview must be based upon its own merits.
I think that one of the merits up for legitimate consideration is whether the world-view can effectively induce humans to follow it properly.
I would agree in part. Obviously there has to be some continuity between what people say and do – but that has absolutely nothing to do with the truth or falsity of a worldview – it has everything to do with the individual. You can’t discount a claim to truth because people misapprehend it. 2+2=4 regardless of whether people can grasp it…
ou can’t discount a claim to truth because people misapprehend it. 2+2=4 regardless of whether people can grasp it…
We can’t reasonably disclaim the truth behind the representation, if there is one, but that doesn’t mean we can’t criticize the representation as ineffectual. Arabic numerals are an objectively better way of representing numbers than Latin numerals; we can say with a great deal of justification that because Arabic numerals are easier for human brains to use and manipulate.
Likewise, it is easy to call into question a text as a conduit for metaphysical or spiritual truth if it seems that humans are piss-poor at deciphering its meaning, or that slightly different interpretive rules yield wildly different end-result interpretations. It doesn’t mean that the text isn’t a referent for some truth, just that if it is, it is an ineffective one.
” IF they would only live by what it says!” That would be a catastrophe. People who take the Bible literally living by what it says? (shudder)
Who said anything about taking it “literally”? That’s the problem we are now stuck with. Reading the bible literally IS the problem in that what is contained in the NT can NOT be lived by simply reading the words. I’m going to presume that there is somebody in your life you love, isn’t there? Do you need to read a book in order to love that person, a sort of “How to Love for Dummies”? Love is a spiritual action and the feelings that are expressed go far beyond our attempts to put what we feel into words. As the NT talks of love, it is not a self help book written to help enable us into loving either god or man.
The entire foundation upon which christianity rests upon is the issue of sin(OT theology). In the book of I John, chapter 3, the author wrote that the children of god can NOT sin…they are unable to. This can also be seen in Galatians, chapter 5. No christian on earth will admit that they can not sin……ergo, they are the children of the devil. Thus saith the “word of god”.
As I tried to explain to you a few days ago, my enlightened view on “sin” is that we are not perfect. You are not perfect, I am not perfect. Perfection is unattainable, and I think even in the Jesus-believers’ own way, they are admitting to themselves that they can never be perfect.
What they’ve gone and decided is ok and what is not is up for debate, so I think you are right there. They are kind of simplistic in that (a) there is such a thing as perfection embodied(ish) by god, and (b) that there are things on a list that are good and things which are marks on your record, no real gray areas or cultural allowances.
That still, imagine a person who is as perfect as you could recognize, and equally as perfect as the biblical array of “sins” could account for. They don’t do anything the bible tells them not to, do everything the bible tells them to. I think where they get into “sin” is that it’s very hard to watch yourself all the time. On one hand, they may say that once you take the lord into your heart, you naturally avoid sins, and on the other, I have heard and believe that it’s a daily climb. That’s primarily because we’re humans. Other things are bad habits and temptations. I don’t think a perfect person could exist because, even superficially great, smart, funny, interesting to talk to, kind, generous, etc., takes a lot of balance in the head we don’t all have. That’s why most of us give ourselves a break and don’t fall apart. Some people pray to god about it. Either way, you feel better and don’t dwell on it – dwelling is toxic.
Think away from the bible to your “perfect” self, how you may or may not accept that you’re not there yet or ever will feel like trying hard enough or missed your chances or whatever. Every time you accept yourself for who you are now is pretty much the same as accepting you are a “sinner” only you call it something else. Every time you do something you know is not in line with who you want to be, are you hard on yourself or forgiving? Do you see people who do something you yourself consider “bad” and call them on it (at least in your head if they aren’t around to hear it?) “I would never do that” is easy to say, but did they actually do something wrong? Can you forgive them? Is that a righteous attitude?
I don’t know, I see you getting irate about a singular issue, so that’s my take on it. There are people who use salvation to get over their imperfections and get on with their day, same as is healthy for you or I to do, and some who use it to measure up other people and label them sinners. Yes, they are hypocrites, but everyone is. You can’t really escape being one, although you can increase your self-awareness to reduce it somewhat. I think a long time ago, I actually concluded that hypocrisy was the #1 “sin” that everyone shares in common. Nobody’s perfect.
Why must we hear of sin…..all the damn time??!! It is time to end the damn issue! There is no place in the NT that states that you must indict and condemn your neighbour for the very sins that you commit. Who gives the Fundies the right to beat someone else up for commiting sin? The NT does indicate that where the “law” exists, there is sin. Since the NT does not established any new laws, it is apparent that in order to condemn your neighbour, you’ll have to go back to the OT! If the fundies are going to call the NT the “word of god”, they had better well live by it instead of being a f*cked up bunch of hypocrites! Man can never evolve if every time we make a boo-boo we need to find redemption from a forgiving(??) god. Is that what god does all day? Spends his time forgiving people that do NOT forgive? Yeah…sure!!!
Ok, I’m done. You’re done. I give up. You’re right, you’re damn right. There’s no such thing as being imperfect, there’s nothing to learn from it, it’s all heinous and they should shut up and listen to you!!!!!
What the hell is “perfection”? Why has the entire western world gleefully accepted the very notion of sin, without question??!! Why do we so easily accept sin? I do not believe in sin….it does NOT exist, which means I do NOT sin and I am perfect! Who the bloody hell should listen to me? Sin is no more…..get your head out of the damn bible and get over it!!!!
My head’s not in the bible. You are talking to a bogeyman and shouting at others who are trying to communicate with you, which I’ve now found pointless to try to do.
“get your head out of the damn bible and get over it!!!!”
We do care and understand at this time.
@Kodie. Bogeyman? Is that how it’s spelt? I thought it was “boogeyman”. How about we compromise and call it the “buggerman”. Forgive me if I was shouting! I meant no harm. If I come on rather strongly, it must be that I have my own opinions. Ahh, being perfect can be a curse when dealing with people, unlike yourself, who want to sit in ashes and recite lamentations all day!
Ahh, being perfect can be a curse when dealing with people, unlike yourself, who want to sit in ashes and recite lamentations all day!
Are you kidding?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bogeyman
“bo·gey·man also boog·ey·man or boog·y·man or boog·ie·man”
I don’t know why you are so focused on the one thing and use so many exclamation points is all. We’re mostly atheists and agnostics here, so I don’t know who you are trying to convince with so many posts ranting on the same thing you really, really hate about Christians. They’re hypocrites, we get it.
@Kodie and DarkMatter. I wasn’t aware that you both were atheists and agnostics. My apologies. I don’t hate christians, it is their hypocracy I despise….I know I used to be a born-again twit! I only say I’m perfect when dealing with people who are determine to bring me down to a …..how should I say it……”sinful and going to hell” level. I pride myself in being an spiritual atheist! In the future, I’ll try not to use te exclamation key…..but only if I’m not making comments on Fundies. If I have frustrated you both, I am sorry(exclamation point).
No worries, but you did not clarify your comment on Kodie’s mourning. You should.
“Why must we hear of sin…..all the damn time??!!”
Many of us struggle also with injustice not apart from our humanity.
I absolutely agree with everything you say. It is a terrible pity that we allow “doctrine” to bring us to heads. Perhaps we should look upon christian doctrine as nothing but a collection of fairy tales, superstitions and child-like fables. Maybe then, we can move onto more important things and not argue amongst ourselves. I’m still going to be vigilant in exposing fundamentalist hypocrisy, often with their own scripture, but I hope you can forgive any of my “attacks” on your viewpoints.
Basically what I’m saying is that I’ve come to understand the word “sin” is that a relevant concept seemed to emerge from humanity which may have gotten warped into a laundry list of things everyone should avoid.
I told you about a conversation with a Christian woman online which cleared up some of the misconceptions I had about Christians. It is only fair, as they have misconceptions about atheists, that I should not oppose my imaginary version of them, but oppose them on the grounds of how their minds actually work.
So the discussion went, I wondered why, if she believed in god, and others who do, why aren’t they all, you know, very good, better examples of good citizenry. I was pretty sure that if I believed all that horseshlt, that I would try to follow it to the letter and show off how good god makes me, how better than everyone else he makes me, or my belief that it all makes one a better person all-around than most — you know, advertise for the guy. In reality, I can see that most people say they believe in god, but tend to act like everyone else, in essence, a lot worse than I thought they could if they really tried. Keep in mind, where I’ve lived, people don’t generally open up about their beliefs or shove them down my throat like it seems to be where you live. They just “blend in,” but statistically, most report themselves as Christians. I see a disconnect between “belief” and “behavior” I expect from sincerely devoted right off the bat.
So I said to her, I see all kinds of rude and selfish and impatient people all over, like they must be conscientious about an hour a week, and the rest of the time, they’re jerks like everyone else around. She said I have it all wrong, my perspective. So I worked on that, and I’m trying to tell you — Christians don’t think they’re perfect, and because of Jesus, don’t even try to be. That’s all “sin” is, it’s not being perfect. That’s not from god or whatever Christians come up with to label what they think is wrong with you.
Although, given the recent article Daniel posted about a coach who was fired for being gay, some Christians divide between major SIN (absolute don’ts) and ordinary sin – the less-than-perfect selves we all tend to be, which are acceptable and forgiven, because it’s impossible to be perfect (god) and unnecessary by god to try. Maybe this is where we are missing each other.
The idea that I came away with is that there is the concept of “perfection,” they call god, or whatever it means to you, that whenever you make an error or do less than your best, you forgive yourself. I feel that one time there was fear of god for not being perfect (born after the fall of Adam, so we are born that way and miserable), and then the Jesus STORY altered that mindset. God won’t punish you if you’re not perfect. Translated: Conveniently, Christians invented a scapegoat in order to let themselves off the hook with god and still get into heaven.
Translated even further: it’s a healthy mindset not to punish yourself overly for mistakes or things you think are wrong with you which you can’t change or haven’t yet changed. It’s a healthy goal to be your best self, but not to beat yourself up for not being there yet, or not up to your own standards today.
I know this is warped by Christians who would rather you meet THEIR standards and tell you everything they think is wrong with you according to a list, and it’s easier to tell someone else than it is to work on yourself. They also cherry-pick their own issues they have with everyone else, and magically make up a standard they find easy to stick to, while conveniently forgiven for everything else they do wrong. Hypocrisy is everyone’s flaw. Most people have a lot more. Hope that helps, glad we had this talk. Reminder: I’m an atheist, and this made sense to me.
I appreciate you! Where my anger comes from is experience with the christians I have known. I was once a born-again, pentocostal christian. I came to my senses, left the church I was going to and was from then on, regarded by family and church members as a “back-slidin-demon-filled-going-to-hell-on-a-fast-train” sinner. Am I angry at them…..NO. perhaps if you’d had some experiences with these people, you might understand. Hell, I even worked for two years with the 700 Club doing “god’s work”. In my dealings with these people, it is terribly hard to excuse them their mind boggling ignorance and hypocrisy. I see them and I see what jesus said in the bible and it just doesn’t add up! It has taken nearly thirty years to format my mind of all the crap that was fed in. One of those issues is sin and, for myself only, I must conclude that sin no longer has it’s grip on me. I have not lost my desire to know the unknown. With my pentocostal roots, I have discovered that I can live with everything in the NT. Spiritually, I am perfect…..physically, I am not. I see myself as a spiritual atheist that despises all forms of theology and religion. That will never change. I am open to all thoughts and viewpoints as long as I am not challenged with scripture by hypocrites. Then I can be a “little” overbearing in pointing out their errors. Please pardon my exuberance….and my spelling mistakes.
“Do you need to read a book in order to love that person, a sort of “How to Love for Dummies”?”
You love because you are you, naturally. Spiritualising love is not uncommon in human natural life, but individualising is unacceptable enmass.
“Who said anything about taking it “literally”? ”
Er..michael. You said “fundies”. To me a fundamentalist (Christian) is someone who takes the Bible literally.
In my comment I didn’t mention ‘fundies”.
Oh no? What’s this?
“It would be fine and dandy for the fundies to hold their “book” in highest esteem IF they would only live by what it says! “
Oh, in THAT comment! Yes, I said that and I stick with it.
Put down the bong, man.
@Nomad: Qu’est que c’est “bong”? What the hell is a bong?
Just teasing. A reference to pot intoxication. It just seemed you were a little disoriented.
If you actually did follow the advice given by Jesus in the NT, you would cause a lot of trouble for the people around you and a lot of harm to yourself. Remember, they did crucify him.
http://nobeliefs.com/jesus.htm
Not quite. I am following what jesus said and I’m not causing any harm. By the way, the Romans crucified him, if the event ever did happen. Please feel free to explain why living what the NT says is such a problem.
I gave you a link that makes that point.
I see your point, from the link. But I don’t even admit that jesus lived. Personally, I regard jesus as symbolic. Blame the author, not the fictional character. The message of that symbolic character though is essentially perfect.
As long as we’re talking about idolatry here, I find it a little weird that any non-Christian, an atheist even, would say they “follow” the NT or Jesus. Perhaps it is the leeway of cherry-picking, so you don’t have to buy the whole book to get some good stuff (you could read in another several dozens of books). I’m starting to put together a picture of someone who was batted with this book, so rather than reject it, lives more closely to the parts he likes than a “real” Christian, 1, to follow his spiritual journey, and 2, for the privilege of ranting about Christians who don’t actually read the book, or at least what’s been deemed “the good parts,” the parts Christians ought to strive for. And 3, claim not to be judgmental at all.
I think Christians read the parts they want to, you are all cherry-pickers at odds.
@Kodie. Yup, I agree with everything you say. Why disagree, it would not serve to endlessly argue over a little spilled milk. Go ahead, beat the bugger to death. I think that some atheists are as stubborn about aspects of their religion as fundamentalists are with theirs.
Atheists don’t HAVE a religion. Nothing about our lives is governed by a sentient being that either does not exist, or does not affect our lives in any supernatural way.
We’re just as stubborn about your god not existing as you are about the tooth fairy not existing. Does that make you part of a “Tooth-fairy-denying-religion”, or does it make you a logical individual who doesn’t believe in silly supernatural BS?
By all means though, try to make it sound like we’re the idiots here. It lends weight to your arguments!
Theist means “god,” the prefix “a-” means without. Therefore a theist is someone who believes in a god(s), while an atheist is someone who believes that there are no gods. Simple definitions. You are guilty of a very common misconception of atheists. We don’t hate or want to kill god, we simply have concluded no god is there (which is why we can’t hate or kill said god(s) ).
I believe you said, in an earlier post somewhere, that you are an ex-fundie. If you haven’t finished vetting the stereotypes you unquestioningly held as a fundie, then I implore you to quickly finish, please.
There is no difference at all between a theologist and an atheologist. You are all the same.
No difference except for perhaps being complete and utter opposites to each other. Other than that you are exactly right :P
Not reading the responses is rude and childish.
Reading them and not realizing you’ve lost the argument is a sign of a serious deficiency in your mind.
Which are you?
1 John 3 does not say that the children of God cannot sin – it says that people who ‘abide in God’ do not continue a lifestyle of sinning (“make a practice of sinning”). There is a difference between committing a sin and making a practice of sinning, just as there is a difference between partaking in a pie eating competition and have a contract for Major League Eating (“We want Kobayashi!”).
Wrong. Every translation that I have read disagrees with your account of that passage! Try reading it again.
“The truth or falsehood of a worldview must be based upon its own merits.”
The truth or falsehood of a worldview does not prove the existence of god, therefore worthless.
Can a worldview be something that is true or false? This reminds me of something I was told recently about the flavor of a banana cannot be true or false.
People following the bible wrong does not negate the bible’s divinity or god’s existence, just like the existence of atheism and atheists does nothing by itself to negate a possible deity’s existence; disbelief or disregard for some set of rules or stories does not negate their possible truth. However, plenty of other things negate those things just fine.
I also think we all have our issues with the effects of religion, and michael’s is obviously that Christians are hypocrites. I agree with nomad, the bible is not a good enough guidebook to hope people actually adhere to. That is like saying they keep shoving a cookbook of poison recipes in my face, but none of them actually eat it or feed the foods to their families. Er, or something like that.
I think it’s a “no true scotsman” there that Christians would be ok if they would only read the good parts of the bible and do that. Some do. Some other Christians pick other parts and say those first set are “doin’ it wrong.” The fact that the first set might make life more pleasant and less annoying for the rest of us notwithstanding, they’re all still idolizing a book. Not everyone agrees what the “good parts” are, and there’s a fact they are redundant with common sense and other productive philosophies, so the book’s kind of junk altogether. Mostly dangerous and a couple ideas I could think of myself or read elsewhere. Being written in the bible gives “the good kind” of Christian the idea that god gives us morals and loves us, dangerously ignorant of the rest of the bible itself.
Once you know anyone to read a book, ANY BOOK*, and call it their “bible,” be it a cookbook, a self-help book, a particular novel, and tell you it could change your life like it changed theirs, and you can see that they are changed and actually adhere to the book, it’s still over the line for them to push it on you and make you do the same thing and guarantee the same results. So yeah, it’s no good for me for anyone to read the bible, believe it is holy or exceedingly superior to anything, club me over the head with it to agree, even if they do as they’re instructed within.
*diet, band, movie, neighborhood, restaurant, hairdresser, etc. If a particular thing has made my friend into a lunatic for it, I’m going to be cautious of it and my friend.
I have just had a revelation/epiphany! The book “Mein Kampf” IS the word of god. I don’t follow anything in it at all….NOTHING, but if anybody else doesn’t believe in this new word of god, you will be severely punished after you die. As if death wasn’t enough of a punishment already! This new word of god will go on the bookshelf along with the other word of god: “The Joy of Sex”. I don’t follow anything in that book either because I’m gay. Has anybody a favourite word of god you would like to add to my list? Just like the Fundies, you don’t have to read or believe anything in your word of god……just use it to beat up your neighbour for not following it!
I guess I’d take the beating over a person being a living example plus beating. What are you going to say, well, it’s ok if you live like the book for you to insist I live like it also. It’s still not ok.
I live what the NT says and it matters to me, for my sake. If you don’t live as I do, why the f*ck should I care. It’s your life….live it to the fullest! I am perfect and it really is my hope you will find perfection, if you already haven’t!
I always felt like the concept of biblical inerrancy and Divine authorship pervert the Bible as well. Because yeah, if forced to look at the Bible as the divinely inspired, perfect word of God, it is pretty disgusting. But it’s more than that; it denies the Bible it’s very human (and much more interesting, in my opinion) history.
Or, as one Buddhist Abbott (?) once said, “It’s no wonder Christians sin all the time – it’s all they think about.”
That and the devil. That’s all they think about. It has been my belief that they have more faith in the devil than in the god that provided them a victorious salvation.
For some reason 2 responses I left here did not register. Maybe 3 is the magic number.
“It’s no wonder Christians sin all the time – it’s all they think about.”
LOL
I suggest laying off the pot.
Touche.