Religion
Related: About this forumI visit this group quite a bit-
there is plenty of snark and give-and-take.
I have not seen a good example, though, of someone providing a rational justification(yes--I speak of Christians) for choosing certain things to believe from the Book and some to disregard.
This seems on the surface to be an old saw.
I see much avoidance and misdirection.
Not understanding or lacking an experience counts for nothing.
So, just for clarity--I want to know how people pick things to believe and how they pick things to ignore(in the bible). And then how to square the circle.
For the record-this may seem like a demand to justify a belief-I can't say that it is not
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
rug
(82,333 posts)
digonswine
(1,485 posts)I was raised(by proxy) a Catholic-
I would agree with some, though, that Catholics are not true Christians. The loopholes, you know
I have seen many of your posts-This does not answer my question--I DO know that it is not your job to do so--but a little info is always good.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)are the hard and fast qualifications for being a "true Christian", and who decided them? Jesus?
digonswine
(1,485 posts)it means little to me. I just want terms and words.
My original question was about how people decide what to take from the Bible. I was not looking for anything else.
I do not consider any group to be "truly christian" since it has nothing to do with me. I am simply interested
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that's really the point. Which is why it's rather silly to label all the members of a religion as "not true Christians".
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)out is not a bad thing.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that Christ taught, at some times and in some ways. So if that were the criterion, there would be NO "true Christians". And isn't it rather fundamental to the whole notion of Christianity that everyone is a sinner in need of redemption and salvation?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Yes we all fall short in the end.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I never said that there are no true Christians. I said that if the criterion YOU offered were the threshold then there wouldn't be, but I think that's a pretty silly guideline. You're free to say that Catholics aren't true Christians if you like, but I don't happen to agree.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)why you included that.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Clear now?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)why would you INCLUDE Catholics among those who are not true Christians, especially when they think that they are? Do they not have the right to consider themselves "true Christians", and does that right not supersede your right to say that they are not? What gives you the right to judge them that way?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)But no human can be a true christian. I hope this answers your questions.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that I was right, and that you presume to judge all others on whether they are "true" and "good" Christians, and to elevate your opinion on what makes someone a "true" Christian to a position superior to any others.
Oh...right, I forgot...you don't do that, do you?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
LostOne4Ever
(9,286 posts)Then they are true Christians.
Catholics are as much true christian as any other sect.
digonswine
(1,485 posts)Through my limited understanding-
I have heard that Catholics are alone in their belief that one can get to heaven by good works. Don't get me wrong-I LOVE this idea. But other christians say that you can only get there by acceptance of the divinity of Christ, etc. These differences DO exist. I am more on-board with the good works stuff. Of course, I am a Polish apostate.
LostOne4Ever
(9,286 posts)Are flat out wrong. They do not have a monopoly on how the religion work or what does or does not define one as a Christian.
Yes there are differences in the sects/denomination, that does not make Catholocism any less Christian than any of the other sect. If you get right down to it, some sects believe ALL OTHER sects are fake Christians because and they are the only TRUE Christians because they dont believe in X or do Y.
Its a bunch of arrogant, self righteous bullshit made so that they can feel superior to everyone else.
FURTHER
THEY BELIEVE IN JESUS
THEY FOLLOW JESUS's Teachings
THEY WERE THE ORIGINAL CHURCH FROM WHICH ALL THE OTHERS WERE BORN
Catholics view themselves as Christian...so they are Christian. Period. Those claiming otherwise are trying to perpetrate a form of anti-Catholic bigotry that goes back centuries.
Bigotry that I as a former catholic have heard many many times.
digonswine
(1,485 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)you do know that the catholic church has spent the last 1800 years or so claiming, and frequently enforcing through draconian measures, its status as the one true church, right?
the bigotry between christian sects is generally mutual.
LostOne4Ever
(9,286 posts)Thus why I am no longer a part of that religion 
rug
(82,333 posts)Is that right?
Ok, good luck.
I think it is rubbish.
In fact-I respect the Catholics more than all other Christians.
The idea that you can enter the gates of heaven based on acts is great.
But those that say otherwise have a leg to stand on.
rug
(82,333 posts)Personally, I have no taste for parsing Scripture. Acknowledging that it has been parsed, picked and probed for over two thousand years, I am content to defer to the scholarship that exists.
When I encounter something that doesn't make sense, I look up what they have said about it. I have yet to encounter something that hasn't been encountered before. If what I find does not make sense, I keep looking. I almost always find the answer. That's one reason I remain Catholic, they've been at it a very long time.
That said, living the religion is to me the greater part of it.
BTW, Catholic doctrine does not hold that salvation can be obtained by acts alone. No one can earn it. But it does teach this:
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?[c] 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[d] And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..that fit your own point of view enough for you to choose to believe in them.
am i far from the mark?
rug
(82,333 posts)In fact, it's downright epistemological.
You have described the Gettier problem.
I hope not but, now that you mention it, I rarely change my mind.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..i recall chatting with hrmjustin on this subject in a subthread sumwhars and had to admit it was disarming when he just came out and said, paraphrasing, 'i pick the parts i believe in'.
i think the appearance of hypocrisy bothers nonbelievers more than the actual cherry-picking.
iow.. the 'Jefferson Bible' is a great idear. let's get some scissors and a glue stick and make our own bibles in sunday school! it would be an excellent exercise in critical thinking about ethics and morals.. a sure-fire conversation starter.
..
edit.. i'm on an editing spree. read up a tidbit on Gettier problem and how interesting! i think it is always a mistake to neglect the element of chance in any analysis of complex group dynamics, and rather have to agree with Gettier on this one. in stats.. especially Bayesian stats.. there's elegant approaches to estimation of course. throw in an extra term or two in your curve to account for randomness and noise.
the black/white dualism of fundamentalism is ill-suited to reality.
rug
(82,333 posts)Think about it: are any of us objective enough to be swayed by pure persuasion, to fall passively into a conclusion by the sheer force of facts and logic? Whatever we believe, hold dear, or cherish must resonate with us or it's not likely to take.
I don't think that's either hypocrisy or self-serving rationalization. The trick is to keep our senses about us and to continually re-examine our positions. That strikes me more as honesty than hypocrisy.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..but there is something of a scale of 'objectivity' that i think has more to do with how easily swayed one is to irrational appeals to emotion, authority, tradition, etc., than it does with how easily one is swayed by a rational argument.
i believe social psychology backs me up on this one. we must push through our initial gut reactions .. for some of us that means we must *force* ourselves to think rationally. we need to take a time out.. close our eyes and breathe for a few seconds.. whatever.. then try again. for other people it comes much much easier.
gawd, my research partner in college .. math major.. was like that. fucking vulcan. i had to bust my ass for every B+.
..
edit (why stop now?).. i did say *appearance* of hypocrisy.. no?
rug
(82,333 posts)Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)digonswine
(1,485 posts)that the scripture does not say that there is a wholly inaccurate version of reality.
rug
(82,333 posts)Leontius
(2,270 posts)having faith, the pearl of great value.
Response to digonswine (Reply #2)
hrmjustin This message was self-deleted by its author.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)the question has been posed to believers here again and again, how do they decide what things god actually said, and what things were simply attributed to him by humans. I have yet to see even an attempt at a coherent answer. No one wants to admit that they cherry-pick the Bible, but they all do.
digonswine
(1,485 posts)ONE. . MORE. . TIME-
I consider it a social grace.
I, of course, foresee the fruitless result.
I don't care what has been tried before-there may be new ones to mine.
I ask the question in all earnestness, however.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I see no point in even discussing it with you, then. If you foresee fruitless results, I suspect that is exactly what you will get.
Your earnestness is not apparent. At all.
digonswine
(1,485 posts)because I see the same reaction-if I am wrong-good for us all
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And what kind of reaction would lead you to think that you were going to get something different than what you predict?
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)it bears much repetition.. especially since many of us are sporadic visitors. i participate here in fits and spurts myself.. depending on work schedule, life, whether or not there's a new episode of 'game of thrones' to watch, etc.
so, yeh, it bears repeating whatever the oversized outrage of some interfaithful posters to a question earnestly asked but never..
..ever..
..*EVER* honestly answered.
..
edit.. i take that last part back. ask our own hrmjustin.. as i recall he once flatly stated that he cherry-picks the parts he believes in. and as i recall.. he won a *lot of respect that way*.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Bad Thoughts
(2,514 posts)I know that the OP is addressed to believers. However, there is weighty scholarship on the hermeneutics and philology that deal with problems of authenticity, origins, authorship, etc., that are as applicable to the books of the Bible as they are Herodotus or Gilgamesh.
(You don't know how disappointed I was that Calgacus did not say, "they made a desert and called it peace."
rug
(82,333 posts)Calgacus is now dead to me.
Bad Thoughts
(2,514 posts)And JFK didn't say "I'm a jelly doughnut," although that's what some Germans heard.
rug
(82,333 posts)Don't tell me I'm wrong!
Bad Thoughts
(2,514 posts)
struggle4progress
(118,214 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)and disregard other parts of it?
If so, how do you decide to do that?
When you read a book of philosophy or politics or even history, are there not parts that you believe and others that you are skeptical about?
Are there no books in your life that cause you to ask questions as opposed to providing all the answers?
Why do you think the bible should be different?
digonswine
(1,485 posts)all of those books are not claimed to be revealed wisdom.
I certainly can take wisdom from the good book, but to assume a divine author is another thing.
That is the point.
Once I admit any divinity, all rationality is out the window.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)written by humans but may have been at least partially divinely inspired.
Even the literalists can't claim that it can all be true, because there are clear contradictions.
Perhaps for you admitting that there is a divinity erases all rationality, but that's just you.
Your mistake here, imo, is making broad and false assumptions about what believers believe. If you are truly earnest, then you may want to truly listen to the responses here and set aside your assumptions.
digonswine
(1,485 posts)I think I do make assumptions, but I am not met with any clear ideas.
I live my life based on the assumption that I am wrong. I really do. I know the thinking errors that I am likely to exhibit-it is humbling.
What broad generalizations am I missing?
How am I wrong about what believers(not Beleibers) believe?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)degree of interest in learning things you don't already know, but an inquiring mind and a degree of skepticism.
Why would you think that believers, and christians in particular, would approach religious writings in a different way? One can find examples outside of religion where the same holds true.
It is very difficult to answer your last question without knowing what it is that you think believers believe. I have no idea what Beleibers are. Is that snark?
it was not snark-just silliness.
I think some believers do approach ideas/writings in that way. I have no problem with people reading the bible and extracting the some wisdom from it. That makes sense to me.
I THINK-that there are as many forms of Christianity as there are Christians.
But there certainly are plenty of folks who really do take the whole bible literally-even if they do not live it out in their lives, which is a good thing.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The more that people can see each other as individuals and the less as just members of some group the better off we are, imo.
We have to combat the literalists who use the bible to harm or restrict the rights of others, and we are much more likely to accomplish this if we all work together.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Your error here is in assuming that all believers take that position and that is incorrect.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)How can you tell which parts are divine and which are not?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)People will use it for good or bad, but only literalists will say it is all true. There is no definitive answer to that question. Which is why his OP is pure, unadulterated flamebait.
It asks a question he knows can't be answered, but the point is that it need not be answered except by those who claim it is all true and written by god.
I don't think any of those people post here.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)...whether or not we are going to hell forever, and whether or not JC will save us makes no difference?
We may not know the answers, though I suspect that we actually do, but in principal there are right and wrong answers. Either JC is divine or else he is not. Either humanity lost paradise because of sin, or it did not.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)In principal, there may be right or wrong answers, but I do not believe that we will ever be able to definitively know them.
So what is the use of arguing about it?
Live a good life. Respect the beliefs or lack of beliefs of others. Support the religious when they are doing the right thing and combat them when they use religion to harm or disenfranchise others.
Why get all invested in trying to prove the unprovable? Those on either extreme who claim to know the truth are equally wrong.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)2. The reason Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism as so widespread today is because their founders did care about what people believed. So having convinced the world that these things do matter, they cannot now claim indifference.
3. What someone believes affects how that person acts. That should be obvious. How can anyone calculate the toll in human misery that the idea of the inherent guilt of humanity has caused. How many have endured torment or caused it in others while being convinced that suffering leads to holiness?
MissMarple
(9,656 posts)It really doesn't matter what I believe or what John Calvin believed, or what St. Augustine believed. It matters what you believe and how you treat people and the rest of the world based on that. I believe that "god" loves us and wants us to be happy.
Generally, many Christians believe that, and that the New Testament can be generally summed up to love "god" with all your heart and care for your neighbor as you do your self. Everything else is just... stuff. How you dress, what foods you may or may not eat, how and how many times a day you pray, may or must you kill someone and for what reasons, what ever dogma you accept, that's the window dressing.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)is an important part of other people's faith, and you have no evidence that god finds your "stuff" more important than their "stuff". It's all just cherry picking. Decent people seem to be able to figure out how to behave without using the Bible at all, so why bring along all of the attendant baggage of religion?
MissMarple
(9,656 posts)In my opinion, it comes down to how you treat others, how we all treat one another. That is reflected in the kinds of governments we have and the laws we make.
If I think "god" loves us and wants us to be happy, what difference does it make to anyone? Trying to figure out "absolute truths" from a book written by men, whether inspired by "god" or not, to me, seems rather futile. I don't have a lot of "stuff" or believe much dogma Christian or otherwise. But many people do. It's an important part of how they connect, or try to connect, with the divine. And that is fine by me as long as they don't try to make me believe it or live just as they do.
I really don't understand your response. The second part of what I said above is about how many of today's Christians sum up the meaning of the New Testament. I didn't say I am one or not. And I did reference prominent Christians, but that was because the general context of the thread seemed Christian. Perhaps I was mistaken. I'm sorry if I seemed to dismiss your, or anyone's, belief system. They hold great value, excepting their dark sides.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)...it's in the evidence. If you are thinking with your heart then you are getting confirmation bias, not the truth. The difference between medieval thinking and modern thinking is that medieval thinking accepts multiple realities. Contrary conditions can be true at the same time. Modern thinking rejects this. Every description of reality must have a unitary, logically consistent solution.
The upshot is that if god exists, he exists for everyone and only has one nature. If god depends on how people imagine him, then he's not real and only exists in imagination. Real things exist independently from our thoughts.
The idea that humanity is damned and can only be redeemed by the vicarious suffering of an innocent person is the central premise of Christianity. If they are getting all the touchy feelly stuff you mention, but not the damnation, then they missing the central message of the NT.
As someone skeptical of all dogma, I think it is extremely unlikely that I will ever kill anyone. If I accepted a dogma that claimed that humans would burn in hell unless they believed X, then coercing conversions would be far less of an evil than letting people suffer forever.
MissMarple
(9,656 posts)The is, is. I just try to deal with it. Evidence is a curious thing. We have our limits in how we measure it, how we can perceive it. Quantifying, discovering, understanding, these are always changing, hopefully for the better and moving us forward, but not always. Sometimes we fall back, other times we are inspired.
We are just people trying to find our way. I believe in trying to treat each other with respect and thoughtfulness as much as we can, as much as we are able. And that is just what I think. And I hope I am getting better at that. Why I think that may be existential, religious or pragmatic. It doesn't really matter to anyone but me.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Scripture, tradition, and human Reason.
I believe that Jesus was executed, died and rose again. I believe that humanity is saved by this. I believe he will come again. I believe he gave us the model to live our lives.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)goldent
(1,582 posts)I read it for inspiration, and don't see it as a book of facts some of which are true and others false. I could probably go though it and try to classify everything one way or the other, but it would be pointless.
It's probably not the answer you wanted. You can't try to shape Christianity into a science, although people keep trying.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Christians have to ignore the bad parts, or say that those parts don't say what they really say. Pretty sorry book to rely on for your morals.
Emperor Constantine ordered the Council of Nicaea to take out what he didn't want to keep in there.
Non-canonical books were kept out as to not contradict his authority.
I learned this in religion courses in college at a Presbyterian university.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I believe it is divinely written but I do not believe it is the literal word of God.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Not a good guide for morality.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)And he said kind things, like the Sermon on the Mount. He also allegedly said many hateful and cruel things.
However, I consider these discussions irrelevant as there is no evidence outside of the bible that Jesus really existed. He is just like other gods--Mithra, Apollo, Osiris. Born of a virgin on December 25th, worked miracles, reborn and resurrected. He is a product of religious syncretism of pagan gods. Nazareth did not exist.
Lots of interesting reading:
www.jesusneverexisted.com
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
okasha
(11,573 posts)If not, you really should.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)and most of what has come to be claimed as the new testament appears to have been molded to fit the needs of a state religion for the late roman empire.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Late Roman period? That's a new conspiracy theory to me.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I suggest you start with wiki and get a bibliography from that. By the reign of Constantine it was more or less the state religion. Think about that and consider that this state was vast and powerful and at the height of its power.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)I am so sick of the constant BS about Constantine and his influence on the teachings of the Church it's just the same old tired canard that you and others constantly use and it is really embarrassing that it has been used for so long by so many like some magic spell to derail the real debate on the development of Christian thought. Constantine's' sole interest was in the stability of the empire so that his reign and that of his children would find little opposition and his dynasty continue in control of it. His dynasty ended within thirty years of his death and Christian schism and instability continues so his plan was not even a success in its primary aims.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Now about Constantine, emperor of Rome, having nothing to do with shaping the formal doctrinal and organizational structure of what would become the Catholic Church, say what?
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Held between 20 May and 19 June 325 was called for by Constantine to settle the dispute of the nature and relation of the Son to the Father. Attended by some 300 eastern bishops but less than 10 western bishops and observers since the controversy was of little concern in the West. Arius and his teaching was condemned with only two bishops refusing to agree with the final conclusion of the council. Constantine had little interest in the doctrinal dispute as his letter to Alexander and Arius in 323 clearly shows. His interest was to end the dispute and restore unity and harmony in the Church so it would not destabilize the Empire. Under the guidance of his adviser Hosius Bishop of Cordova he did propose the insertion of 'homoousios' in the draft of the creed. This was the only point of doctrine considered by the council, the date of Easter was also formalized but no 'organizational structure" was addressed. As to Constantine "having nothing to do with shaping the formal doctrinal and organizational structure" I never stated that, I said only that his influence on doctrine was neither great nor lasting as he in all probability had no idea what the dispute was really about and eventually recalled Arius form his exile in Illyricum.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Jewish writers inked the Torah sometime in the first millennium B.C.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)is earlier than the late Iron Age.
And it was written by skilled propagandists, whose intention was to get and keep power. They succeeded.
Bad Thoughts
(2,514 posts)particularly those in which the author reproach the political and religious leadership for the mistreatment of common people? I doubt they were that good at propaganda if they got that wrong.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)Few books have had such great effect. The audiences of that ancient day must have been more receptive to that kind of writing than we are today with our tools of skepticism.
Compare how in our own time the Republicans talk a good game as if they care about common folks, but truth to tell--they don't. Their talk is propaganda. All they really want is power.
Another place to find railing against the powers that be would be the Book of Mormon. Just another example of the genre. Propaganda.
In a nutshell I'm saying don't underestimate the Bible. It's a skilful compilation intended to convince and control.
okasha
(11,573 posts)The principal issue before the Council of Nicaea was the divinity (or non-divinity) of Christ. It also settled the method for determining the date of Easter. It did not rule at all on the list of books accepted as Biblical canon, or even discuss the issue.
I seriously doubt you encountered this nonsense in a religion course at a Presbyterian University.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)http://www.christian-history.org/roman-catholic-one-true-church.html#sthash.7RHbCCbf.dpbs
Hail Mary, Rosary Beads, Novenas, Icons, Statues are not Biblical nor are Vain repetitions. They are from Chaldean religion.
Least respect for RCC.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..but from some you *will*.
you might have to work for it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)provocative statement.
What would a "straight" answer be for you? What do you mean by *will* (it seems to imply something, but I'm not sure what).
And what do you mean by "work for it"?
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..and leave deflection to those with the will and desire to engage in it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Just an opportunity to take a swipe at the other *team*. That might be the definition of deflection, but I'm not sure what your intent was.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The second group are the history of the early Jewish people, and the third, the literature of that same people, meaning the historic Jewish tribes.
That's the oversimplified version. But all of the Old Testament should be taken as laws, history and literature. Many of the laws are inapplicable today because our society is much more complex than that of the early Jews. There were lots of sheep and animal sacrifices in the Old Testament, cedars and whores of Babylon, terrible battles and captivities. We don't seem to have gone much past the basic reality of conflict, but we don't have cedars or whores of Babylon.
The New Testament includes the gospels which claim to tell the story of Jesus' teachings and a bit about his life. But remember, they were written years after his death, probably by individuals who were under Roman rule. They are said to be based on some manuscript that is gone. There is a strong Roman influence on the texts and stories told.
Remember, the Jews revolted. Remember Simon the Zealot.
Jerusalem fell and Jews and their sacred artifacts were marched through Rome. The conquered Jews were paraded in front of the people of the conquerors. The church in Jerusalem that had been established perhaps by James (the brother of Jesus) was destroyed. Perhaps some of the followers escaped. That is unclear to me.
Paul was a Roman Jew. He never knew Jesus but became a Christian after experiencing a miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus. He founded the church outside Jerusalem. The Letters, the Epistles in the back of the Bible are attributed to him.
That is my scrambled and brief understanding of the origins of the Bible. Seems to me that it is absurd to take every word as literally true because most of them were written based on oral and missing versions of stories. Very few of the authors had any firsthand knowledge or close acquaintance with the people including Jesus that they described.
What is important to me are the essential teachings of Jesus, the words attributed to him whether they were his or not. And these teach us, as do the teachings of the Jewish leaders who lead in the period between the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament to love each other and to help the poor. So that is what I think is to be taken seriously: love each other and help the poor.
The rest of it should be read and understood according to one's own spiritual sense. It's the basics that count.
And if we could only live the message: love each other and help the poor. Love each other and help each other out. Then we would live in peace and the Bible would be alive, not just a book.
goldent
(1,582 posts)It now appears the op wasn't really looking for this kind of response, but I enjoyed it!
pinto
(106,886 posts)Has nothing to do with belief or non-belief per se. I read The Sound and the Fury in a similar vein, fwiw. I had no pretense of understanding the character, or even "believing" the character, but the stream of conscious segments as a whole touched me.
digonswine
(1,485 posts)I think I need to start it in the right frame of mind in order to understand it.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)Modern scholarship does not look at the Bible as a divine book of truth coming down from somewhere, but as the record of human struggles in various times and cultures, to find meaning in life. Much depends on the nature of that particular culture. Yet underneath it all are certain values--truth, beauty, love, joy, companionship, hope etc. One must pass these values over any text which will indicate its usefulness..
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)practiced by your limited little gaggle of ivory tower "New Theologians", Charles. Presuming that this is the only Biblical scholarship going on out there is the height of hubris.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I will say that there are things I do and don't believe in the bible. I choose what I believe if it makes sense to me. Stuff like the creation story I don't accept because modern science can show that we evolved. I do believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and by that humanity is redeemed. It makes sense to me. For others it may not.
digonswine
(1,485 posts)I was just talking of Christians in the OP-not to the exclusion of others.
Picking and choosing like I mentioned happens plenty outside of religion as well-like people choosing to ignore climate science because it does not match their politics, those who choose to believe in homeopathy.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)digonswine
(1,485 posts)MissMarple
(9,656 posts)Rigidity in thinking and the need for control also have a place. Having said that, the truth and faith we find is our own. There is no formula or set of words or posturing that can take the place of that. Some people experience profound faith, others don't. Religion is often used to control people. True faith, a connection with the divine, can free the individual, many believe. How to define the divine remains an open question. For many, the bible is what they have to work with, and work they do for good or ill. I believe most of the seekers are on a journey. A few seem to have glimpses of the destination.
Life is interesting. Peace.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)If you do than well, you read the Bible and other holy works in communion with God and from that figure out how best to interpret the experiences and teachings of people who lived thousands of years ago in your life in the here and now.
If you don't, than the bible is essentially some sort of holy instruction book, and in that case I don't know exactly how you do it.
Bryant
