Understanding Bibliolotry

[megasamurai]

I know most people acknowledge Christianity, Judaism, and Islam and three of the world's most controversial religions, but why does hardly anyone mention the religion of bibloilotry, aka worship of the Bible. These people are heavenbent on forcing people to believe the Bible is perfect and without error and often attack other Christians just as much as other religions. These people are especially viscous towards Christians who believe in evolution. It isn't enough to believe that God created the world. They have to believe that God created the world in the exact method described in the book of Genesis. Saying the Bible is partially true, but not completely true is complete blasphemy. Christians who disbelieve certain violent sections of the Bible, such as the genocides of Joshua, receive particular wrath. You're going to hell unless you believe that God ordered the deaths of women and children and that those orders were pure acts of love. Christians who believe that a good God wouldn't do that and that humans put words in God's mouth to justify atrocities will be hunted down by these Bible worshipers. These people glorify the Bible, but seem less focused on practicing Jesus' teachings and honoring him. What I want to know is, why do these people hate Christians who are sensible enough to tell right from wrong and that "God's ways are higher than our ways" is not a license for any god to do whatever he wants.

[sdelsolray]

I consider bibliolatry regarding the Bible, when exhibited by a committed theist, to be evidence of emotional and psychological dysfunction and often a sign of mental illness, akin to OCD.  They are difficult to deal with because of this.  They usually avoid rational thinking, evidence based arguments and alternative world views.  Their "only my way is correct" attitude is often comical, particularly when they are attacking other committed theists.

 

Put more simply, they are nutters.

[megasamurai]

Is that why they believe science to be an elaborate atheist conspiracy to justify pre-marital sex or whatever?

[sdelsolray]

Just about anything that contradicts, challenges or calls into question their beliefs is feared, so they attack with whatever indoctrinated ad-hoc nonsense is on their mind at the time.  Like I said, it can be quite comical.

[megasamurai]

So scientists can't be trusted, unless they believe dinosaurs and humans were created on the same day. 

[sdelsolray]

So say the bibliolatry addicts.  They're full of shit.

[LogicalFallacy]

If you are up for mental abuse, go to youtube and look up some creationist videos that 'explain' the world around us.

 

I suggest you wear a helmet while doing so because there will likely be much head bashing on your part.

 

Scientists are of the devil

Darwin had a vendetta against God, that's why he created the theory of evolution (even though Darwin was not its first proponent)

Billions of years of tectonic plate movements happened inside a year

 

And incidentally the Intelligent design movement is just the sophisticated black ops arm of creationism. I have seen the documents where they detail how they plan to get Intelligent design accepted into mainstream.

[Geezer]

I was part of the Church of Christ and they definitely worship the Bible. Their beliefs & actions must be based on a specific relevant scripture. "Is that scriptural?" was a common question. They do not have instrumental music in their worship service because there is no scripture in the NT that authorized instrumental music as part of a worship service.

 

In reality the Church of Christ workships the Bible first, the Apostle Paul next, then Jesus. In their mind God & the Bible are one and the same thing. And In their mind Paul & Jesus were pretty much equal. Jesus didn't finish the job so God picked Paul to finish Jesus work. It's interesting that the C of C has elevated Paul to such high importance because Paul was all about grace but the C of C is all about laws, rules, & commands. They obviously don't see the contradictions.

[megasamurai]

I sometimes wonder if people act like the Bible IS God because of its status as a tangible, physical object. It's much easier to love what you can see to what you can't see. I remember when I was (kind of) a believer, I thought I loved Jesus, but I realized I actually loved the Christian music more than Jesus himself. I could not feel love for Jesus without the musical cues. The music stirred those strong emotions in me and seemed to have a hypnotic effect.

[Lilith666]

Precisely, megasamurai! I used to feel guilty about not having a close relationship with Jesus - I never heard him talking in my head like the church people claimed I should - but felt so close to and in awe of him during the worship songs. A lot of the rest of the time, when I wasn't on a spiritual high, I just wondered if I was trying hard enough. I never thought of it before the way you put it: that is, loving the music more than Jesus himself, but that's an accurate description.

[Jeff]

Ugh. That droning keyboard to drum up the "anointing".

Last pastor couldn't preach without his guy Tony up there keyboarding the anointing into existence. Laughable.

[megasamurai]

What about the belief that God literally wrote the Bible and humans merely transcribed what he said? Paul said that many of the things he wrote were merely his opinions and not necessarily the word of God, but many Bible-obsessed Christians believe Paul's words are God's words, particularly the misogynistic and homophobic words of Paul, but if God told Paul to write that those words were his and not God's, then that would mean that God lied about the Epistles not being the word of God. The Bible says that God cannot lie so if the Bible is inerrant, it could not have been completely written by God.

 

Also, if God wrote every book of the Bible, why are the writing styles of the various books of the Bible dramatically different. If God dictated the entire Bible, wouldn't it have the same voice?

[sdelsolray]

What about the belief that God literally wrote the Bible and humans merely transcribed what he said?

...

 

 

What about it?  It is an unsupported assertion.  Believers make all sorts of unsupported claims.  It goes with the territory of being a theist relying on religious faith.  There is no actual evidence for this claim, although apologists have attempted to invent some (e.g., out of context prophesies) or invoke fallacious reasoning (the Bible says so).

 

...

Paul said that many of the things he wrote were merely his opinions and not necessarily the word of God, but many Bible-obsessed Christians believe Paul's words are God's words, particularly the misogynistic and homophobic words of Paul,...

Again, their beliefs are just that - personal beliefs likely formed through childhood indoctrination and maintained by religious peer pressure, among other things.  A more sanguine explanation is that believers cherry pick the Bible to support the believers' own personal morals and opinions.  A Christian who is misogynistic will use misogynistic Bible phrases and sentences to support their views while ignoring Biblical passages that are against misogynistic views.

 

...

but if God told Paul to write that those words were his and not God's, then that would mean that God lied about the Epistles not being the word of God. The Bible says that God cannot lie so if the Bible is inerrant, it could not have been completely written by God.

...

It wouldn't necessarily mean that at all.  It could simply mean that those that interpret the Bible as you reference above are just wrong insofar as interpreting the Bible goes.

 

...

Also, if God wrote every book of the Bible, why are the writing styles of the various books of the Bible dramatically different. If God dictated the entire Bible, wouldn't it have the same voice?

Good question.  Why were the originals written in different languages?  Why was the text changed, redacted, interpolated, etc.?  Bart Ehrman states there are over 200,000 documented differences among the earliest known manuscripts, none of which are originals in the first place but just copies of copies.  And that is before translation from one language to another is considered.

 

As to your question, differences in writing styles would be expected from different authors from different areas and from different centuries.  Seems like the actual explanation is quite simple.

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

Precisely, megasamurai! I used to feel guilty about not having a close relationship with Jesus - I never heard him talking in my head like the church people claimed I should - but felt so close to and in awe of him during the worship songs. A lot of the rest of the time, when I wasn't on a spiritual high, I just wondered if I was trying hard enough. I never thought of it before the way you put it: that is, loving the music more than Jesus himself, but that's an accurate description.

 

Lilith I also had this problem as a Christian. I am not an emotional person, and I am self conscious so displaying great love of Jesus by weeping and wailing was not my thing and I felt bad for years. Prayed the God would overcome my hesitant uptight nature. I would listen for a reply, but never got one. I could never quite feel the love for Jesus more than family - yet apparently the rest of the family could. For so many years I thought it was a problem with me, but in hindsight I just lack the need for a great father/god to love me, and for me to love him back. 

 

What about the belief that God literally wrote the Bible and humans merely transcribed what he said? 

Also, if God wrote every book of the Bible, why are the writing styles of the various books of the Bible dramatically different. If God dictated the entire Bible, wouldn't it have the same voice?

 

Due to my recent deconversion and challenging the pastor on the 'inerrancy' I have made quite a hole in my churches idea of the bible.

 

No longer is it the inerrant word of God, but the 'inspired writings of fallible men' that captured the spirit of God. So I guess I can have some small victory in that I have forced a rethink of the bible.

 

However if they wish to take this view, but still hold the bible literal (as they do) then they have to explain if God didn't directly dictate to the writers then how did the writers know what God himself said? There is all sorts they take as literal that if it were true would require God telling the person this is what happened. (Creation, God's conversation with satan re Job, God talking to prophets etc) 

 

 

PS: A common 'proof' of the bible in my xtain circle is that with 66 books and 40 authors and a thousand years there is a single theme of redemption running through the entire bible. Therefore it must be of God. "You can't pick 66 books from the library and get a theme running through it". (Said the pastor) I have several refutations to this, but interested in what others think of this 'assertion'.

[megasamurai]

The Marvel universe is written by hundreds of different authors, yet the books often have re-occuring themes. Explorations of justice and the law can be seen in many Daredevil comics, whether Frank Miller, Brian Michael Bendis, Ed Brubaker, or Mark Waid is writing. The consistent themes do prove Daredevil to be real, yeah?

[LogicalFallacy]

Brilliant point there megasamurai - I hadn't thought of fictional universes. In fact we could say that Star Wars and other longstanding sagas have themes running through them.

[Jeff]

Fantasy books I believe often share common themes and ideas, as do thousands of sci-if books.

How many dragon stories are out there? Sheesh.

[sdelsolray]

There are thousands of books about astronomy which share the same information, themes and purpose.  Same for other scientific disciplines.

[Lilith666]

Oh gosh, LogicalFallacy, I used to feel the same way about church. Other people would have their eyes closed and hands raised and I just felt guilty for thinking it was cheesy.

It's so weird when I come on this site and find that other people have similar experiences. Like christianspeak and constantly repeating "lord Jesus" and "fathergod" during prayers.

[LogicalFallacy]

Lilith, I don't think too many Christians realise how much of their 'personal experience' is actually culturally inherited from centuries ago. So much so, that many of us, living in separate countries, never having me can share very similar experiences.

 

Phrases like the ones above, and "heavenly father", "Amen", "Praise the Lord" etc are all phrases that help identify and solidify in group solidarity.

 

I got to the point where I wouldn't raise my hand to songs like "Here's my hand lord" Everyone automatically raises their hand so even years ago I thought this is not a genuine wanting to praise God - this is raising your hands in worship because the song directs you too.

 

Have you heard of Steven Pinker? He's a brilliant scientist and delves a lot into religious psychology. There are a lot of uploaded lectures and talks from him on youtube that explains a lot about how religions operate etc. It also explains why there is such a negative reaction to someone de-converting. It's not necessarily that religion or the religious are bad, but a lot of it is to do with the protection of the societal structure (In this case the church). So he's well worth listening to IMO.

[Tsathoggua]

I was part of the Church of Christ and they definitely worship the Bible. Their beliefs & actions must be based on a specific relevant scripture. "Is that scriptural?" was a common question. They do not have instrumental music in their worship service because there is no scripture in the NT that authorized instrumental music as part of a worship service.

 

In reality the Church of Christ workships the Bible first, the Apostle Paul next, then Jesus. In their mind God & the Bible are one and the same thing. And In their mind Paul & Jesus were pretty much equal. Jesus didn't finish the job so God picked Paul to finish Jesus work. It's interesting that the C of C has elevated Paul to such high importance because Paul was all about grace but the C of C is all about laws, rules, & commands. They obviously don't see the contradictions.

 

 

Very accurate and spot-on description! I am an ex Church of Christ member, as well. So glad to be out of it!

[rerics]

 

 

 

PS: A common 'proof' of the bible in my xtain circle is that with 66 books and 40 authors and a thousand years there is a single theme of redemption running through the entire bible. Therefore it must be of God. "You can't pick 66 books from the library and get a theme running through it". (Said the pastor) I have several refutations to this, but interested in what others think of this 'assertion'.

 

 

There's also a single theme of a god that's a misogynistic genocidal monster--let's see the pastor promote *that* theme on Sunday morning.

[megasamurai]

If you've ever been to a Sunday school of a church that believes in that the Bible is perfect, you will hear these verses taught without any hint of it being bad. Those Canaanites deserved it. Yes, even the babies. I was just shocked at how nobody flinched at the violent stories told in Sunday School and the supposed lessons of these stories. Let's take the story of Bathsheba. This story is considered good because it teaches that adultery is bad. David learned his lesson when his baby was slowly killed and his daughter was raped. One member of the class (these being college kids) argued that God was merciful and David deserved to have his army brutally killed in a battle. I was shocked at his lack of compassion for these soldiers (but then again, maybe the soldiers were going to commit an atrocity). 

 

I know my late father believed that there were nasty parts of the Bible, but it taught good lessons. He believed that God killing that baby was immoral (and therefore untrue), but he also thought that this story was a wonderful parable concerning the evils of murder and adultery. I guess this is better than believing in Biblical inerracy, but if you consider it a parable, it sends mixed moral messages.

[Lucy]

The explanation for god murdering babies I remember was that dead babies get an automatic free pass to heaven so that was better than being raised by their sinful parents anyway.

[rjn]

The explanation for god murdering babies I remember was that dead babies get an automatic free pass to heaven so that was better than being raised by their sinful parents anyway.

 

Why not transport every damn person to heaven right away then? That effectively means that it's better to be born among godless "pagans" whom YHWH subjects to his wrath than to risk damnation among the sheep of his own flock.

 

Christian rationalizations are so dumb. Pisses me off.