Modern Bible Interpretation

[The Frostfangs]

Slight derailment, but this thread got me thinking. Forget about dogma and doctrine for a moment. I don't know that I believe a lot of it. However, I do believe, deeply and fiercely, in faith. Faith itself is an extremely powerful force (no matter what inspires it). So, I have faith in, am deeply respectful of, am awed by, and am sometimes very (rationally) frightened by true faith. (Not something I really have btw).

This is a Dawkins quote : Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

Not saying this is my feelings just giving one side.

As an athiest though i have never felt or believe in Faith.. But i would love to hear what you think Faith is?

[Sci-2]

So when people (Christians and at least one Muslim) hid Jews during Holocaust, they were taking the easy way out?

Thanks Dawkins, that's good to know. :rolleyes:

[Mlle. Zabzie]

This is a Dawkins quote : Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

Not saying this is my feelings just giving one side.

Not at all my point. My point is more that the power of those faith is somewhat awe-inspiring, both in good and (often, IMO) in bad and frightening ways.

[emberling]

Because we have an understanding of our residual caveman impulses and those are far more likely to be the culprit that an omniscient entity that doesn't fit into the current successful model of physics or that humans suddenly developed an magical power to glean understanding of the universe from nothing.

To find their idea correct you need to start adding things, like a creator and above mentioned magical powers that are unexplainable. That's why it doesn't fit Occam's Razor, those additions don't have evidence in their favor. It'd be like adding green genies working behind the scenes to an explanation of how fridges work.

Again, you're conflating your perception of religion (a collection of absurd myths) with someone else's (a welcoming community that speaks often of giving and caring and provides a home for their faith). Assuming that any [given] religious person is concerned with the parts of religion that offend your own rationalist sensibilities is like assuming that an astronaut is concerned with the ecological impact of the rocket fuel burned to get them up. This thread has specifically borne this out, as Christian after Christian has dismissed multiple odious implications of the Bible as 'oh, well we don't pay any attention to that passage'.

[And yeah, faith is awesome, in the truest sense of the word.]

[Castel]

Again, you're conflating your perception of religion (a collection of absurd myths) with someone else's (a welcoming community that speaks often of giving and caring and provides a home for their faith). Assuming that any [given] religious person is concerned with the parts of religion that offend your own rationalist sensibilities is like assuming that an astronaut is concerned with the ecological impact of the rocket fuel burned to get them up. This thread has specifically borne this out, as Christian after Christian has dismissed multiple odious implications of the Bible as 'oh, well we don't pay any attention to that passage'.

[And yeah, faith is awesome, in the truest sense of the word.]

Where in that post did I talk about how odious religion is? At best I can assume that you're referring to the part of the post you didn't quote, but nowhere do I say that people can't find happiness or see religion that way instead of some oppressive,irrational tool.

You've simply abandoned the discussion about rationality to make a generic dodge (claiming that for some it isn't about odious actions which has no bearing on the discussion at all) I don't really care what parts of the Bible people care about right now, that wasn't the discussion, you tried to frame the irrationality as rationality, I provided a counterpoint. You asked why your example wasn't an example of Occam's Razor at work, I provided an answer. How did we jump to that old argument about what it means to people?

Are you claiming that it doesn't matter to these people whether it's irrational or not? That's fair. But that doesn't really change much now does it?

[TerraPrime]

Slight derailment, but this thread got me thinking. Forget about dogma and doctrine for a moment. I don't know that I believe a lot of it. However, I do believe, deeply and fiercely, in faith. Faith itself is an extremely powerful force (no matter what inspires it). So, I have faith in, am deeply respectful of, am awed by, and am sometimes very (rationally) frightened by true faith. (Not something I really have btw).

I think I understand what you're saying.

Not a few times have I wondered "what's wrong with me that I can't believe in any of the religions?" It seems like a nice thing to have, especially Christianity. It's so... re-assuring.

I'd say that there were 2 occasions in which I felt something akin to what people describe as their experience with the divine. By that, I mean, if I could transplant that feeling I had in those 2 times to someone who's religious, I imagine that they'd call it, without a doubt, an experience with God's presence. Yet, looking back and re-examining those 2 scenarios I just cannot match it to any religion. Nothing in the Christian mythos, of all the variants that I have a passing knowledge of, seems to fit as an explanation for that experience.

So I think I know what you speak of about seeing other people's deeply-held faith as something sort of awe-inspiring. At the same time, I don't actively try to become a Christian, because I find the whole theology, and by that I don't mean the anti-gay, anti-women stuff that some of the Christian sects adopt, to be morally incompatible with my own ethics system. So it's inspiring awe, but not inspiring an emotional need to emulate, if that makes sense.

[Wun Drop]

I thought the common consensus was that the Gospels were written with the divine influence of the Holy Spirit? Shouldn't that be fact-checking enough?

Are you serious?

[Wun Drop]

But it does and thats the point. People vote against same sex marriage and relationships, even though it does not affect them at all, two Gay men/women getting married will not change someone elses life. So how can people decide ( based on religious doctrines) what two consenting adults cant do.

I support gay marriage, I am not in disagreement with you.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I think I understand what you're saying.

Not a few times have I wondered "what's wrong with me that I can't believe in any of the religions?" It seems like a nice thing to have, especially Christianity. It's so... re-assuring.

I'd say that there were 2 occasions in which I felt something akin to what people describe as their experience with the divine. By that, I mean, if I could transplant that feeling I had in those 2 times to someone who's religious, I imagine that they'd call it, without a doubt, an experience with God's presence. Yet, looking back and re-examining those 2 scenarios I just cannot match it to any religion. Nothing in the Christian mythos, of all the variants that I have a passing knowledge of, seems to fit as an explanation for that experience.

So I think I know what you speak of about seeing other people's deeply-held faith as something sort of awe-inspiring. At the same time, I don't actively try to become a Christian, because I find the whole theology, and by that I don't mean the anti-gay, anti-women stuff that some of the Christian sects adopt, to be morally incompatible with my own ethics system. So it's inspiring awe, but not inspiring an emotional need to emulate, if that makes sense.

Terra, makes perfect, perfect sense to me.

[The Frostfangs]

I support gay marriage, I am not in disagreement with you.

I didnt say you were sorry if thats how it sounded.

[Wun Drop]

I think Wun Drop was speaking of the consensus amongst Biblical scholars, and you're speaking of the consensus of believers. Historically, we have evidence to show that written Bible is a collected anthology of various accounts, some of them oral. For instance, iirc, we now think that the gospel of Matthews has two sources, and obviously, one of them is not the disciple Matthew. I think that's what Wun Drop was alluding to.

In the minds of the believers, on the other hand, the Bible is indeed written by men inspired by the divine, and the primary guide (and in some denominations maybe even the only guide) to understand God.

Exactly, you totally hit the nail on the head with what I was getting at... except I disagree with your use of the word "believer." I am certainly a "believer" without being a Biblical literalist, and I know I'm not the only one. People who believe every single word of the Bible is literal divinely-insipired gospel truth are very, very rare in the social circles I interact with (here in my blue state).

Are you aware how little part the Bible is actually plays in Catholicism? Three brief selected readings per week (old testament, new testament, and gospels) and then it is interpreted by a priest in his homily. Catholicism definitely does not teach that believers must read, understand, and follow every word of the Bible; rather the assumption is made that it's a difficult document to untangle, and that we must draw on tradition and the interpretation of clergy to figure out which parts are worth taking to heart and how they can be applied to modern life.

Re: Wun Drop

I'd agree, and go one step further: the only way to interpret the Biblical message to be anything other than anti-woman and anti-gay is to engage in retrofitting modern sensibilities onto the text. As written, the book is, imo, incontrovertibly sexist and anti-gay. I'm glad, of course, that not every Christian choose to see it that way, that so many of you find ways to reconcile this text with a modernized view of equality and fairness. But as a non-believer, it is hard for me to see the book in any other light. I actually quite sympathize with the conservatively religious folks, because I do think that they got their religion right. It's just sad that their religion is not compatible with modernity. Kind of like a large swath of Islam.

First of all I think there is a huge difference between the Bible stance on gender roles vs. homosexuality. While there are dozens if not hundreds of rules about relations between the sexes, homosexuality is only mentioned a couple of times in very vague terms. It is accurate to say "certain close readings of the Bible will uncover a kernel of anti-homosexuality" but a big jump to say "the Bible is anti-gay." Regarding the role of women, the case is much easier to make, I would not argue with the statement "gender roles in the Bible are difficult to reconcile with modern feminism."

However I do think there's a major cognitive leap from "different" to "anti." It might be hard to wrap our heads around with all the modern notions of political correctness, but in certain religious communities it is believed that differences between the sexes are a beautiful and holy thing. If a woman feels called by God to be a good wife and mother, and to be subservient to her husband in worldly matters, then I think that is a very blessed and beautiful thing, and I believe that is her religious freedom, to the extent it is not used to infringe my own freedoms.

[Scion of Valyria]

Are you serious?

Yes. That is what I learned in Catholic school. I phrased it as a question so if it was incorrect you could re-educate me.

[Wun Drop]

Yes. That is what I learned in Catholic school. I phrased it as a question so if it was incorrect you could re-educate me.

I respect that if that's your belief, but, wow.

[Elder Sister]

I think I understand what you're saying.

Not a few times have I wondered "what's wrong with me that I can't believe in any of the religions?" It seems like a nice thing to have, especially Christianity. It's so... re-assuring.

I'd say that there were 2 occasions in which I felt something akin to what people describe as their experience with the divine. By that, I mean, if I could transplant that feeling I had in those 2 times to someone who's religious, I imagine that they'd call it, without a doubt, an experience with God's presence. Yet, looking back and re-examining those 2 scenarios I just cannot match it to any religion. Nothing in the Christian mythos, of all the variants that I have a passing knowledge of, seems to fit as an explanation for that experience.

So I think I know what you speak of about seeing other people's deeply-held faith as something sort of awe-inspiring. At the same time, I don't actively try to become a Christian, because I find the whole theology, and by that I don't mean the anti-gay, anti-women stuff that some of the Christian sects adopt, to be morally incompatible with my own ethics system. So it's inspiring awe, but not inspiring an emotional need to emulate, if that makes sense.

I love this. Religion is so often mistaken for spirituality. And they are completely different. At the risk of sounding like Oprah, that is. :) My religion helps me to grow my spirituality, if that makes sense.

I know that sounds flaky.

Your post and Mlle. Z's crystallizes what God means to me.

Thank you. That was completely unexpected and great.

[emberling]

Are you claiming that it doesn't matter to these people whether it's irrational or not? That's fair. But that doesn't really change much now does it?

I'm saying that it's only irrational if you apply your biased preconceptions. Do I really have to go into this point by point? Physicists continually discover new crazy shit that is outside our usual perception of reality. Science is not finished. Magic is insufficiently explained science. Why can't one of the things not yet discovered that is outside our perception of reality be God? On what grounds do you reject the possibility even in the face of (theoretical) convincing evidence? The fact that a bunch of words written by humans on the subject are not consistent with other words written by humans?

What I'm saying is it isn't relevant if (for instance) Genesis is contradictory to science, because Genesis is viewed by many as allegory or irrelevant anyway. It's not relevant if you can't wrap your mind around the concept of omnipotence, because if God is merely 'really powerful' or even 'powerful enough to create the world, but can only intervene in limited ways' it doesn't invalidate the rest of the faith.

[Seventh Pup]

I miss my faith. But I think I am better with out it. It's like missing an exciting but unstable ex. Sure there where good times, when I was scared, and I could literally feel the hand of God surrounding me and keeping me safe. But there was also a lot of bad, like when my mom was excommunicated and we where forced to leave the church, because she was having premarital relations with the man who would eventually become her husband. Or when my Grandmother's church asked her to come to a less popular service and quit the choir after she broke her back and became incontinent. etc.

I was a true believer for a long time, God was real, and as involved in my life as the air I breathed. Turning away from that was hard, and actually acknowledging that I'd let go of that was very painful. For me it was like quitting a drug, I still miss the highs it could provide. But letting go of it was also really liberating. I no longer had a hand of God to protect me when I was scared, but I also no longer had the Devil waiting for me with a lake of fire if I had impure thoughts.

Like Z, I am truly in awe of real faith, and people who can keep that feeling through out their life. Who can really critically examine themselves and the world they live in and find Faith waiting for them on the other side of that. When Faith is used to bring food the hungry, healthcare to the sick, and comfort to the dying I am all for it. But when it's used, as it often is, as a justification to persecute the Other, I wish that more people could let go it.

[Fragile Bird]

Hey Seventh Pup, I was gone for 30 years. I'm not totally back, but so far it gives me what I want need to hear about love thy neighbour as thyself, as the priest in my church spent years working with the poor, the homeless and drug addicts and alcoholics, and about trying to live an exemplary life.

[Castel]

I'm saying that it's only irrational if you apply your biased preconceptions. Do I really have to go into this point by point? Physicists continually discover new crazy shit that is outside our usual perception of reality. Science is not finished. Magic is insufficiently explained science. Why can't one of the things not yet discovered that is outside our perception of reality be God? On what grounds do you reject the possibility even in the face of (theoretical) convincing evidence? The fact that a bunch of words written by humans on the subject are not consistent with other words written by humans?

I reject it because there's no logical evidence for it. I reject it because there's also no evidence for the idea that humans have intuition like that. I reject it because of the principle I stated before: that the universe is already well explained without adding meaningless, unproven elements to an already complex equation.

God may well exist, as I've said elsewhere what 'God does not exist" in atheist shorthand basically means (at least I hope it means)that the likelihood of God as described existing is exceedingly slim and since it's not proven nor is it likely to be proven above other theories we should proceed as if it isn't true.

AS far as science can tell, and I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong here, people don't have the ability to perceive such things in a bizarre, extrasensory way. The most likely explanation is that their viewpoints are flawed, and for them to use those viewpoints as justification is still troublesome because even they admit the fallibility of human instinct (a lot of religious people are convinced that all those other certain people are wrong).

Even the possibility of them being right doesn't matter that much, they're still asking us to take subjective information at it's face value against the evidence that it's most likely a benign delusion.They themselves are taking subjective information at face value when a lot of them know and can find examples of other people succumbing to false urges. To paraphrase Hitchens: "Which is more likely, that your brain should tell a lie or that the laws of physics no longer apply?" Einstein being right about dark matter doesn't change the fact that adding an unjustifiable element into his work to bring the universe in line with his beliefs is still irrational. You're trying to shift the argument to make me try to prove that there is not God. It is not for me to prove a lack of God, it is for you to prove his presence and that you're (I'm just using you because you're the closest defender) not being irrational by believing that subjective feelings prone to human error count as proof.

I love how I'm biased. The person ignoring science and the rigors of logic and rational thinking and deciding that their subjective gut feeling is more important is not being irrational?

And please don't even try to reduce science and rationality to being another viewpoint in opposition to religion as if they're equal. One is a field that has methods of challenging and reviewing it's own viewpoints based on evidence and has proven to be the most reliable method of explaining our universe, the other is...a story (EDIT: I'm not being totally fair here, religions can reevaluate and change, but imo it's always steady around a few core tenets that aren't negotiable for the larger institution-belief in God for example- if reform happens based around a book -like Islam is supposedly a reformation of the old Arab polytheistic order- that's unquestioned it's problematic). At best. With no evidence. It's a doctrine that often revels in the dearth of actual proof. They aren't on the same sport let alone field

What I'm saying is it isn't relevant if (for instance) Genesis is contradictory to science, because Genesis is viewed by many as allegory or irrelevant anyway. It's not relevant if you can't wrap your mind around the concept of omnipotence, because if God is merely 'really powerful' or even 'powerful enough to create the world, but can only intervene in limited ways' it doesn't invalidate the rest of the faith.

Depends on the religion. If God is not indeed omniscient or omnipotent then the faith loses it's precious objective morality. This is of course more valuable to some religions than others but it is a blow.

Besides that doesn't invalidate my belief in God. Omnipotence isn't that much a problem for me, it's the huge logical leaps. There's a God--> He's the god of X religion---> Everything that was said about him in the canon is true. None of those beliefs are justifiable.

[Lady Olenna]

I miss my faith. But I think I am better with out it. It's like missing an exciting but unstable ex. Sure there where good times, when I was scared, and I could literally feel the hand of God surrounding me and keeping me safe. But there was also a lot of bad, like when my mom was excommunicated and we where forced to leave the church, because she was having premarital relations with the man who would eventually become her husband. Or when my Grandmother's church asked her to come to a less popular service and quit the choir after she broke her back and became incontinent. etc.

I was a true believer for a long time, God was real, and as involved in my life as the air I breathed. Turning away from that was hard, and actually acknowledging that I'd let go of that was very painful. For me it was like quitting a drug, I still miss the highs it could provide. But letting go of it was also really liberating. I no longer had a hand of God to protect me when I was scared, but I also no longer had the Devil waiting for me with a lake of fire if I had impure thoughts.

Like Z, I am truly in awe of real faith, and people who can keep that feeling through out their life. Who can really critically examine themselves and the world they live in and find Faith waiting for them on the other side of that. When Faith is used to bring food the hungry, healthcare to the sick, and comfort to the dying I am all for it. But when it's used, as it often is, as a justification to persecute the Other, I wish that more people could let go it.

This is heartbreaking and I'm sorry your church treated you that way. It makes me sick.

I have to admit that I rarely attend church. I never grew up with it so it's still unfamiliar to me in many ways. But like you, I can say I have felt the hand of God so I know He is real and I love Him. I don't pray as often as I should or read scripture enough. Even so, I know God is there and I always wish I could give that feeling to people that have never felt it. It's a beautiful thing.

I don't know how I feel about the idea of a rapture, but I do think civilizations self destruct and I'm starting to wonder if that's what's happening now. People have become so self absorbed, rude, angry and downright offensive to the point that I can't imagine how we dig ourselves out of the hole we've made. So much violence and negativity. I would feel very alone in the mess if I didn't know there was something better beyond this.

It's nice to have forums in which people can talk and share in a respectful manner. Even in a world of uncertainty there are still ways in which to reach out to each other and demonstrate kindness. It may not be a church, but it may be the help someone needs to keep on going.

[Sci-2]

It's nice to have forums in which people can talk and share in a respectful manner. Even in a world of uncertainty there are still ways in which to reach out to each other and demonstrate kindness. It may not be a church, but it may be the help someone needs to keep on going.

TTTNE is rather nice, isn't it? :-)