The Silly-Putty(r) Bible

[Checkmate]

Rather than try and respond all over the place, in threads where this subject has reared its ugly head, I thought it prudent to begin a separate thread to handle this discussion. Here are some salient quotes from other threads and my current reactions to them:

 

Daniel: How do you know Jesus said He would send a helper? Where did you read that?

 

Open_Minded: Well, hmmm.... let's see

 

THAT WOULD BE THE PROMISE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT ... SEE JOHN 14:1-31

 

You see, this is why certain people should not be allowed to debate. Daniel HAD a perfectly good argument set up, but then he went off on some strange tangent. The POINT that Daniel SHOULD be trying to make is this – O_M is stating that the Bible is NOT inerrant, while simultaneously getting his dogmatic arguments from that very same bible. Conundrum: How can you dogmatically quote from a source that you say is not the end-all and be-all of TRUTH?

 

Daniel notice the verse says, "the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will TEACH you all things." NOT "the inerrant Bible, the Pastor, whom the Church will send in my name, he will TEACH you all things."

 

You can twist these passages any way you please, but in the end, when all is said and done Jesus was pointing to a counselor and guiding spirit to teach you all things, and this Counselor would be IN you. He did not say canonized scripture written after my death and resurrection. He did not endorse Christian scriptures because the DID NOT EXIST at the time of his death and resurrection.

 

Once again, O_M, IF the bible is NOT inerrant, then HOW can you KNOW that what you read and quote HERE is correct? You claim that “the bible says”, as IF you believe that this an INERRANT statement, when in your very next breath you argue that the bible can be made to say ANYTHING – by “twisting passages”. How do we know that YOU aren’t “twisting scriptures” right now? Hmmm?

 

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t tell us that the bible can be made to say “anything”, and therefore is NOT “inerrant”, and THEN begin quote mining from the bible as if we should now believe it! THAT is ridiculous!

 

Again, it is possible to be Christian and to understand Jesus as the Word made Flesh without looking at the Bible as inerrant. Many, many Christians do.

 

Really? And exactly WHERE is one to get this information about “Jesus” WITHOUT a bible as a guide? ONLY the bible declares your so-called “truth” about “Jesus”. You say that “Jesus” is the word made flesh. Question: Where did you learn this? From the Holy Ghost? Or from the Bible as taught AND read to you by some preacher, in John 1:14? Be honest.

 

Face facts, O_M. There is no LOGICAL way to cut out your “inerrant” bible from your faith. Your faith MUST have a STANDARD. It can not be propagated by “personal revelation” and interpretation of feelings. That way leads to the creation of many denominations and splinter group cults.

 

OH wait! That is precisely what we have today! Imagine that!

 

You see, what YOU are doing, O_M, is the very reason for the Council of Nicea. Christian groups were believing what they wanted to believe, based on THEIR individual sources and feelings. Emperor Constantine hated this confusion and wanted ONE faith that everyone could hang their hats on. So he ordered all the presbyters to hash out ONE source document for all Christians to follow. And THIS is how and why you have your ONE bible (hah!) today. To prevent people like YOU from creating your own personal “faith/dogma”.

 

(Have you ever heard of Arius? He was called a “heretic” for not believing that Jesus was also “God”. But how could he, if there were no BIBLE that said as much? You see, Arius was going by his OWN understanding and SPIRIT. The church don’t like that!)

 

Hello Pritishd:

 

Are you a literalist as well as Daniel?  To be clear - It is possible to be a Christian and NOT read the Bible literally.

 

As mentioned in my first post - playing "I know the Bible better than you" will get no one anywhere. But, since you seem to want to play dueling Bible verses, you may want to look up a book written by Philip Gulley and James Mulholland. The title is If Grace Is True: Why God Will Save Every Person.

 

Haha! Once again we see the fallacy revealed. For in order for ANY discussion/debate to take place surrounding the bible, at least ONE person MUST take the position that the bible is “literal”. If not, then what is the purpose of discussion? If the bible is a form of Silly Putty®, to be molded at a person’s whims, then the bible is valueless. Ergo: YOUR FAITH is worthless. For upon what do you hang your hat? Your personal feelings? Your private interpretations? How can you honestly expect any of us to debate THOSE?

 

For any debate to occur here, there MUST be an absolute standard. Something that we can all agree upon. But, as you say, if the bible is fluid and can mean anything to all peoples, then it can’t be discussed. NOR can it be respected or believed.

 

Catch-22.

 

You lose by default. No trustworthy bible, no trustworthy religion. It’s just your imagination.

 

I will now conclude with my response to Open_Minded from another thread.

 

Open_Minded, why does it not surprise me that you've read and liked this book If Grace Is True? I bought that book last year while I was still a Christian, and I could not embrace the fallacy of the authors' thinking.

 

Such as their concept of "weighing scripture", discerning which scriptures accurately reflect God's character. They say that this concept allows them NOT to take an all or nothing approach to the Bible so prevalent in Christianity. (pp 51-53)

 

Using this dodge they manage to sweep aside all verses of scripture that they find distasteful. Like claiming that Joshua misunderstood God's instructions and killed whole nations on his own accord. That is ludicrous!

 

So, when the "word of God" is favorable to your cause, then the bible is correct. But when that same bible is shown to be horrible, you sheepishly sweep these verses under the rung and claim they "must have been a mistake by MAN"? Or even worse, "the bible characters MUST have got the message wrong"?

 

Talk about special pleading! What nonsense!

 

Not to mention that you run into the problem of not being able to tell anyone what to believe. If the bible cannot be trusted (and it cannot be if you cherry pick your way through the verses by "weighing scripture"), then it has no value to anyone. Anyone can make the words mean whatever they want them to. Ignore what offends or upsets you. (Christians do this anyway!) How in the world is this a "sure foundation"?

 

I'm sorry, but as much as I would like to defer to your more "liberal" and "user-friendly" approach to bible study, I must agree with Ssel and other fundamentalists regarding the bible. (Editor’s note: Ssel is NOT a Fundy, nor a Xian!)  To have such a "fluid" and "personal" interpretation scheme in place renders the bible null and void. Either GOD's word has substance, value and IS inerrant, or it is NOT "God's word". And therefore, it MUST be ignored.

 

If the bible is THIS useless as a guide from "god", then what is the point in having it? Believe whatever the hell you want. Create your own NEW religion and just call it Christianity. YOUR head in the sand position, Open_Minded, IF correct, puts Christianity in the toilet as a valid faith system.

 

But not to worry, the opposing position is in no better shape!

 

A Silly Putty® Bible is absolutely useless, and a condemnation against the very notion of a “divine” religion. If your Bible is NOT “inerrant”, then you are left with ashes.

 

However, if it IS inerrant, then you’ve got a boat load of problems to explain away. Which you can’t do. Which is why people such as Open_Minded, diggin and Amanda prefer to rely on their Silly Putty® Bible. And, as I have demonstrated, THAT is the height of stupidity.

 

Check AND mate. You people have painted yourselves into quite the uncomfortable corner.

 

Please, feel free to try and squirm and wriggle your way free from this trap of your own devising.

[Open_Minded]

Oh Cool.... Mr. Grinch:

 

I didn't know we could move in the middle of discussion ... and not even inform those we were having the discussion with.

 

Like my mother always said, "I can play the game, just give me the rules"

 

For those of you who missed the discussion in "Personal Definition of God" it follows:

 

(Mr. Grinch @ Nov 15 2005, 06:08 PM)

Open_Minded, why does it not surprise me that you've read and liked this book If Grace Is True? I bought that book last year while I was still a Christian, and I could not embrace the fallacy of the authors' thinking.

 

Such as their concept of "weighing scripture", discerning which scriptures accurately reflect God's character. They say that this concept allows them NOT to take an all or nothing approach to the Bible so prevalent in Christianity. (pp 51-53)

 

Hello Mr. Grinch

 

Do you read every book with an "all or nothing" approach?

 

You're making an assumption that because I've read the book If Grace Is True I agree with every word the author wrote.

 

Yes, I remember the concept of "weighing scripture" well. It stood out to me because I thought to myself, "he's writing to people who have taken scripture literally, and he's trying to teach them how to look at it a different way."

 

I've never read the Bible literally, so the concept of "weighing scripture" just didn't have any impact on me.

 

Not to mention that you run into the problem of not being able to tell anyone what to believe.

 

Why is it the responsibility of any religion, or any individual for that matter, to "tell anyone what to believe"? Isn't this one of the largest problems with religious dogma? "We have the truth and the rest of the world be damned".

 

 

If the bible cannot be trusted (and it cannot be if you cherry pick your way through the verses by "weighing scripture"), then it has no value to anyone. Anyone can make the words mean whatever they want them to. Ignore what offends or upsets you. (Christians do this anyway!) How in the world is this a "sure foundation"?

 

 

We are all in trouble if sacred literature of ANY faith is to serve as a "sure foundation". The "foundation" of my faith has nothing to do with the Bible. The "foundation" of my faith is within my own soul - it here that I experience the sacred. I do NOT need the Bible to serve as a foundation for my faith in something SACRED, infinite, full of Wisdom and the very essense of pure LOVE within all, through all and beyond all. I do NOT need the Bible to convince me that this SACRED ONE is worthy of my wonder and respect. My heart knows it, my heart has known this for as long as I can remember.

 

I'm sorry, but as much as I would like to defer to your more "liberal" and "user-friendly" approach to bible study, I must agree with Ssel and other fundamentalists regarding the bible. To have such a "fluid" and "personal" interpretation scheme in place renders the bible null and void. Either GOD's word has substance, value and IS inerrant, or it is NOT "God's word". And therefore, it MUST be ignored.

 

Mr. Grinch - you are a literalist. I go back to my first question. Do you read every book with an "all or nothing" approach?

 

Your approach to reading the Bible is no less destructive than the same approach when applied by fundamentalists. It just causes damage on the opposite end of the spectrum, that is all.

 

Your approach of demanding that if the Bible is Not inerrant than "it MUST be ignored" would mean ignoring some of the most timeless wisdom ever put down in writing.

 

Just because the Bible was written in a different time and different culture and reflects the humanity of that time and culture does not render it useless as a source of sacred wisdom literature.

 

Just curious... would you ignore all the other sacred wisdom literature of this world? Do you think human violence, biased views of the Sacred and limited understanding of the natural world is limited to Christian literature?

 

And if you would toss out the sacred literature of other cultures... hmm.... that is letting go of much wisdom from the ancients. Do you think we have nothing to learn from those who have searched out the Sacred before we arrived on the scene? Sorry, Mr. Grinch, even letting go of the wisdom within the Bible (as well as other sacred literature) is just too much wisdom for me to pass on?

 

 

If the bible is THIS useless as a guide from "god", then what is the point in having it? Believe whatever the hell you want. Create your own NEW religion and just call it Christianity. YOUR head in the sand position, Open_Minded, IF correct, puts Christianity in the toilet as a valid faith system.

 

People have been creating their own "NEW religion" for all of human history. Reading the Bible literally, or within the context of the time and place it was written in, will make no difference in that regard.

 

Christianity is not valid because of its sacred literature, it is valid because of the Christ (Wisdom made Flesh) experience. And no, I do NOT believe this makes any other religion invalid. That is a separate discussion.

 

 

P.S. - I would LOVE to see you and Ssel debate this issue. I can't rightly do it, because I'm no "Christian". The bible is just a book of fairy tales to me. But YOU two! Two well-edumacated, polarized Christians, debating the "inerrancy" (or not) of God's word, would, I think, bear much more fruit than any other. Think about it.

 

Don't have to think long, Mr. Grinch. As I've said before, I'm not into dueling Bible verses. It's an exercise in futility. But thanks for the offer

 

 

Rather than to go off on another tanget it would be nice to have a response to this first post... specifically:

 

Mr. Grinch - you are a literalist. I go back to my first question. Do you read every book with an "all or nothing" approach?

 

Your approach to reading the Bible is no less destructive than the same approach when applied by fundamentalists. It just causes damage on the opposite end of the spectrum, that is all.

 

Your approach of demanding that if the Bible is Not inerrant than "it MUST be ignored" would mean ignoring some of the most timeless wisdom ever put down in writing.

 

Just because the Bible was written in a different time and different culture and reflects the humanity of that time and culture does not render it useless as a source of sacred wisdom literature.

 

Just curious... would you ignore all the other sacred wisdom literature of this world? Do you think human violence, biased views of the Sacred and limited understanding of the natural world is limited to Christian literature?

 

And if you would toss out the sacred literature of other cultures... hmm.... that is letting go of much wisdom from the ancients. Do you think we have nothing to learn from those who have searched out the Sacred before we arrived on the scene? Sorry, Mr. Grinch, even letting go of the wisdom within the Bible (as well as other sacred literature) is just too much wisdom for me to pass on?

 

Respond to the above post... then we can proceed with this new post of yours in this new thread...

 

 

 

 

 

Rather than try and respond all over the place, in threads where this subject has reared its ugly head, I thought it prudent to begin a separate thread to handle this discussion. Here are some salient quotes from other threads and my current reactions to them:

 

Daniel: How do you know Jesus said He would send a helper? Where did you read that?

 

Open_Minded: Well, hmmm.... let's see

 

THAT WOULD BE THE PROMISE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT ... SEE JOHN 14:1-31

 

You see, this is why certain people should not be allowed to debate. Daniel HAD a perfectly good argument set up, but then he went off on some strange tangent. The POINT that Daniel SHOULD be trying to make is this – O_M is stating that the Bible is NOT inerrant, while simultaneously getting his dogmatic arguments from that very same bible. Conundrum: How can you dogmatically quote from a source that you say is not the end-all and be-all of TRUTH?

 

Daniel notice the verse says' date=' "the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will TEACH you all things." NOT "the inerrant Bible, the Pastor, whom the Church will send in my name, he will TEACH you all things."

 

You can twist these passages any way you please, but in the end, when all is said and done Jesus was pointing to a counselor and guiding spirit to teach you all things, and this Counselor would be IN you. He did not say canonized scripture written after my death and resurrection. He did not endorse Christian scriptures because the DID NOT EXIST at the time of his death and resurrection.[/quote']

 

Once again, O_M, IF the bible is NOT inerrant, then HOW can you KNOW that what you read and quote HERE is correct? You claim that “the bible says”, as IF you believe that this an INERRANT statement, when in your very next breath you argue that the bible can be made to say ANYTHING – by “twisting passages”. How do we know that YOU aren’t “twisting scriptures” right now? Hmmm?

 

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t tell us that the bible can be made to say “anything”, and therefore is NOT “inerrant”, and THEN begin quote mining from the bible as if we should now believe it! THAT is ridiculous!

 

Again' date=' it is possible to be Christian and to understand Jesus as the Word made Flesh without looking at the Bible as inerrant. Many, many Christians do.[/quote']

 

Really? And exactly WHERE is one to get this information about “Jesus” WITHOUT a bible as a guide? ONLY the bible declares your so-called “truth” about “Jesus”. You say that “Jesus” is the word made flesh. Question: Where did you learn this? From the Holy Ghost? Or from the Bible as taught AND read to you by some preacher, in John 1:14? Be honest.

 

Face facts, O_M. There is no LOGICAL way to cut out your “inerrant” bible from your faith. Your faith MUST have a STANDARD. It can not be propagated by “personal revelation” and interpretation of feelings. That way leads to the creation of many denominations and splinter group cults.

 

OH wait! That is precisely what we have today! Imagine that!

 

You see, what YOU are doing, O_M, is the very reason for the Council of Nicea. Christian groups were believing what they wanted to believe, based on THEIR individual sources and feelings. Emperor Constantine hated this confusion and wanted ONE faith that everyone could hang their hats on. So he ordered all the presbyters to hash out ONE source document for all Christians to follow. And THIS is how and why you have your ONE bible (hah!) today. To prevent people like YOU from creating your own personal “faith/dogma”.

 

(Have you ever heard of Arius? He was called a “heretic” for not believing that Jesus was also “God”. But how could he, if there were no BIBLE that said as much? You see, Arius was going by his OWN understanding and SPIRIT. The church don’t like that!)

 

Hello Pritishd:

 

Are you a literalist as well as Daniel?  To be clear - It is possible to be a Christian and NOT read the Bible literally.

 

As mentioned in my first post - playing "I know the Bible better than you" will get no one anywhere. But' date=' since you seem to want to play dueling Bible verses, you may want to look up a book written by Philip Gulley and James Mulholland. The title is If Grace Is True: Why God Will Save Every Person.[/quote']

 

Haha! Once again we see the fallacy revealed. For in order for ANY discussion/debate to take place surrounding the bible, at least ONE person MUST take the position that the bible is “literal”. If not, then what is the purpose of discussion? If the bible is a form of Silly Putty®, to be molded at a person’s whims, then the bible is valueless. Ergo: YOUR FAITH is worthless. For upon what do you hang your hat? Your personal feelings? Your private interpretations? How can you honestly expect any of us to debate THOSE?

 

For any debate to occur here, there MUST be an absolute standard. Something that we can all agree upon. But, as you say, if the bible is fluid and can mean anything to all peoples, then it can’t be discussed. NOR can it be respected or believed.

 

Catch-22.

 

You lose by default. No trustworthy bible, no trustworthy religion. It’s just your imagination.

 

I will now conclude with my response to Open_Minded from another thread.

 

Open_Minded' date=' why does it not surprise me that you've read and liked this book If Grace Is True? I bought that book last year while I was still a Christian, and I could not embrace the fallacy of the authors' thinking.

 

Such as their concept of "weighing scripture", discerning which scriptures accurately reflect God's character. They say that this concept allows them NOT to take an all or nothing approach to the Bible so prevalent in Christianity. (pp 51-53)

 

Using this dodge they manage to sweep aside all verses of scripture that they find distasteful. Like claiming that Joshua misunderstood God's instructions and killed whole nations on his own accord. That is ludicrous!

 

So, when the "word of God" is favorable to your cause, then the bible is correct. But when that same bible is shown to be horrible, you sheepishly sweep these verses under the rung and claim they "must have been a mistake by MAN"? Or even worse, "the bible characters MUST have got the message wrong"?

 

Talk about special pleading! What nonsense!

 

Not to mention that you run into the problem of not being able to tell anyone what to believe. If the bible cannot be trusted (and it cannot be if you cherry pick your way through the verses by "weighing scripture"), then it has no value to anyone. Anyone can make the words mean whatever they want them to. Ignore what offends or upsets you. (Christians do this anyway!) How in the world is this a "sure foundation"?

 

I'm sorry, but as much as I would like to defer to your more "liberal" and "user-friendly" approach to bible study, I must agree with Ssel and other fundamentalists regarding the bible. [b'](Editor’s note: Ssel is NOT a Fundy, nor a Xian!)[/b]  To have such a "fluid" and "personal" interpretation scheme in place renders the bible null and void. Either GOD's word has substance, value and IS inerrant, or it is NOT "God's word". And therefore, it MUST be ignored.

 

If the bible is THIS useless as a guide from "god", then what is the point in having it? Believe whatever the hell you want. Create your own NEW religion and just call it Christianity. YOUR head in the sand position, Open_Minded, IF correct, puts Christianity in the toilet as a valid faith system.

 

But not to worry, the opposing position is in no better shape!

 

A Silly Putty® Bible is absolutely useless, and a condemnation against the very notion of a “divine” religion. If your Bible is NOT “inerrant”, then you are left with ashes.

 

However, if it IS inerrant, then you’ve got a boat load of problems to explain away. Which you can’t do. Which is why people such as Open_Minded, diggin and Amanda prefer to rely on their Silly Putty® Bible. And, as I have demonstrated, THAT is the height of stupidity.

 

Check AND mate. You people have painted yourselves into quite the uncomfortable corner.

 

Please, feel free to try and squirm and wriggle your way free from this trap of your own devising.

107826[/snapback]

[Checkmate]

Hey, Open_Minded!

 

First off, a word of forum advice -- you don't need to quote and paste EVERYTHING someone says. Bits and pieces works wonders in saving bandwidth. (Notice how I'm NOT quoting anything you've said?)

 

Second, as to my being a "literalist". As far as the bible, YES, I am. How can you be otherwise? As I've stated very clearly. If it is NOT literally true, then it must be worthless. (Note: I am the "literal" "devil's advocate" in our little dialogue. )

 

However, as regards to OTHER books? Of course I don't take OTHER books literally. Why should I? THEY don't claim to be "God's Holy Word". Why should anyone place trust in just some book written by man.

 

Oops! There goes your Silly Putty® Bible again!

 

You also made mention of other spiritual books. Ha! Of course I don't believe them. Just as I don't believe your bible. What's your point?

 

MY POINT, which you seem to keep missing, is that YOU no longer have a reliable source document, IF you claim the bible does NOT need to be "inerrant".

 

Stop getting angry and testy with me, for noting and pointing out the fallacy of YOUR cherished position. Take a chill pill, eat some fruit of the Spirit, and learn how to post without hysteria.

 

Later.

[Vigile]

Too much bible talk in this thread.

 

Moving on now...

[Kryten]

Mr. Grinch doesn't need help or my opinion, but I'm posting this anyway...

 

The Bible claims to have the very words and thoughts of The Almighty God, and claims to be God's Message to humans. It contains numerous tales of miracles and events that defy logic or are impossible. It contains various methods in which we are to live and how to be saved and how to avoid eternal torture. Neither "Moby Dick", "War and Peace", "Snow White", or any other non-religious books make such claims. We can accept them as fiction, even though they may have some elements that are real. We don't argue about whether somebody's autobiography is inerrant because we don't care!! Nobody is threatening us with "How to Install Kitchen Cabinets" or quoting "Star Trek: First Contact" in order to convert us.

 

The bible is UNIQUE in that it is supposedly a book that we MUST ACCEPT in order to have ETERNAL LIFE. We MUST BELIEVE in one or more of the four conflicting resurrection accounts in order TO BE SAVED!!! But how can it be from God if it was made by men, contains numerous errors, contradictions and absurdities, and describes a petty, mean-spirited diety who wipes out whole countries including babies and animals, tortures people, and is jealous and intollerant. The God described in the bible is a total asshole, with behaviour that no society would ever tolerate.

 

How do you know which parts of God's Word are God's words and not from man???

How do you know the Holy Spirit is telling you the truth when it's telling others something different???

Just what is the FOUNDATION of your beliefs? The Bible??

 

That is why we point out flaws in the bible, but not "Forrest Gump". The bible is the basis for centuries of torture, extortion, oppression, bondage, misery, and it has always hindered science and progress.

[Open_Minded]

You also made mention of other spiritual books.  Ha!  Of course I don't believe them.  Just as I don't believe your bible.  What's your point?

107842[/snapback]

 

To bad for you Mr. Grinch... you are loosing access to thousands of years of wisdom.

 

MY POINT, which you seem to keep missing, is that YOU no longer have a reliable source document, IF you claim the bible does NOT need to be "inerrant".

 

With you and others who discount the validity of the Bible, you are right I have no source document in the Bible. Both parties have to view a source document as valid, for it to have any real foundation in a discussion. With Daniel, and others, who view the Bible as a valid book it can serve as a source document.

 

However, in using the Bible as a source document one best be prepared to defend one's position. It would be stupid to get into a conversation using the Bible as a source document unless one were willing to address the historical context, literary history, cultural context, and any other contextual information.

 

Stop getting angry and testy with me, for noting and pointing out the fallacy of YOUR cherished position.

 

Oh settle down ... I'm not angry with you. Actually you're rather amusing, or should I say amazing. Either way it fits

 

Back to work now...

[Open_Minded]

The bible is UNIQUE in that it is supposedly a book that we MUST ACCEPT in order to have ETERNAL LIFE.  We MUST BELIEVE in one or more of the four conflicting resurrection accounts in order TO BE SAVED!!!  But how can it be from God if it was made by men, contains numerous errors, contradictions and absurdities, and describes a petty, mean-spirited diety who wipes out whole countries including babies and animals, tortures people, and is jealous and intollerant.  The God described in the bible is a total asshole, with behaviour that no society would ever tolerate.

 

How do you know which parts of God's Word are God's words and not from man???

How do you know the Holy Spirit is telling you the truth when it's telling others something different??? 

Just what is the FOUNDATION of your beliefs?  The Bible??

107863[/snapback]

 

 

Hello Kryten:

 

It is not necessary for a person to believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God in order to call themselves Christian. For the record I do not believe you have to read the Bible literally to be "saved". And for the record there are many, many Christians who question the whole literal concept of being "saved". We call ourselves universalists.

 

Now I really do have to get back to work.

 

Later

[LloydDobler]

My issue with the concept of 'errancy' or 'silly putty scripture' as the Grinch here has so visually described it, is that in order to weigh and discern scripture you have to use outside judgement and influence...

 

So where do you get that?

 

This is where I get the most hope from humanism, by the way. That if I can use what I've been taught outside of the bible to discern what parts of the bible are real and good, and what parts are false and/or unnecessary, then why do I need the bible at all?

 

I judge what is right and good using human morality. And using that I judge the bible. And I have discerned that while there are good parts within it that already agree with my belief system, there are vastly more parts that do not. Therefore it is dismissed.

 

What's sad is that every single person who reads the bible does this, errantists and inerrantists, christians and non christians alike. Some just won't admit it. Some will claim the holy spirit guides them, but that's really a case of putting the cart before the horse isn't it?

[Checkmate]

Also, what is it about Christians that they don't understand that when we "attack" the bible, we are NOT saying "do away with any moral value that can be learned from the bible"?

 

Why do Christians believe that the Bible is the ONLY source of spiritual nourishment?

 

For example, by doing away with the bible as the source of "Jesus is Lord", it does NOT take away the universally accepted notion of "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." This is a truism and philosophy found in almost ALL other religions AND in secular philosophy. We are not saying to "do away" with such thoughts.

 

What I AM attacking is the bible premise of claiming "Jesus" as the source and fount of all that is good, righteous and "holy". Says who? Says your suspect and fallible bible?

 

Why should I believe THAT? Why should I accept a Silly-Putty® Bible over, say, the Qur'an? They both say a few "good" things. So what? Why should I accept either as "authoritative"? Why should I wager my LIFE upon defending and supporting either?

 

If BOTH are "merely" spiritual guides, then why all the hooplah? Why MUST you Christians be "right" about everything?

 

Open_Minded, do me a favor, willya? Don't be like all the OTHER Christians who respond to my posts. To date, they have all followed the following pattern:

 

1. Hysterical rants

2. Ad hominem attacks against my person, character, "foul" language or methodology

3. Non sequitor tangents and rabbit trails to derail the thread topic

4. Avoid thread topic at all costs

5. Pout, sulk and run away in a huff when all else fails.

 

IF you've got a legitimate COUNTER-argument, then let's hear it. Otherwise, don't bother.

 

Oh, BTW, thanks for the back-handed "ad hominem" attack/insult of "amusing or amazing" and telling ME to settle down. Nice little character assassination job.

 

I rest my case.

[Kryten]

Hello Kryten:

 

It is not necessary for a person to believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God in order to call themselves Christian. For the record I do not believe you have to read the Bible literally to be "saved". And for the record there are many, many Christians who question the whole literal concept of being "saved". We call ourselves universalists.

 

Now I really do have to get back to work.

 

Later

107867[/snapback]

Yes, about a year ago I became a Universalist-- led there from study of the Bible and errors in the hell doctrine. After 30 years of fundyism, I suddenly came to believe that all men are saved because it was God's will.

I spent every spare minute studying one thing or another regarding Christianity. But I kept going, and I only stayed a Universalist for about a month. I studied the origins of the NT books, the formation of the canon, and why Christianity became popular. {The people were eager for a religion that forgave all wrongdoing, allowed all of the existing favorites (Sunday worship, holidays, etc), no need for works, celebacy or castration, and promises of paradise in the next life along with revenge (hell) for your enemies!! And all you had to do was believe!! Glory!}

I then realized the whole thing was crap. But you do what you must and think what you want.

If I were to still be a Christian, I would be a Universalist. So I am not your enemy, but I do want you to see that if the bible has errors, then how can you believe it is from God? And if you KNOW it has parts NOT from God, then how do you know which parts ARE?? You cannot logically think that the holy spirit tells you, because the FACT that there are thousands of different denominations who ALL use certain parts of the bible while disregarding other parts pretty much nullifies any argument that there is one holy spirit teaching people the real unchanging truth.

[Open_Minded]

Now, now, now Mr. Grinch - just settle down. When I said you amused me it was because you do. In a positive way. If you'll remember the first time we happened upon each other in the "Why do you remain a Christian" thread, I wrote that you made me laugh. You do, sorry but you do.

 

You come back in that thread and tell ME not to get my "knickers in a twist!" and that I can call myself the "Queen of Siam for all I care. (Sensitive much?) Sheesh!"

 

And my response was to laugh, just a good hearty the world needs more laughter laugh. I wasn't insulted, I didn't accuse you of "back-handed 'ad hominem' attack/insult"

 

I just simply laughed

 

Why do Christians believe that the Bible is the ONLY source of spiritual nourishment?

107871[/snapback]

 

Why do you assume because I am Christian that I believe the Bible is the ONLY source of spiritual nourishment. If you don't want me to treat you the way other Christians have, then you hold yourself to the same standard. Don't judge me until you know me.

 

Believe it or not I didn't come to this forum to argue with you, or any other non-Christian for that matter. I feel no need to "save" anyone, or "convert" anyone. I am here because I happened upon this forum while searching for something else and found amusement in the way you were all debunking the fundies.

 

Do you not believe as a liberal and universalist who practices the meditative aspects of the Christian tradition and participates in inter-faith, interspiritual dialog that I've not had my own run-ins with the fundies?

 

Maybe it's a knee jerk reaction - but seriously (not laughing now) give me a break.

 

But onto your questions...

 

What I AM attacking is the bible premise of claiming "Jesus" as the source and fount of all that is good, righteous and "holy".  Says who?

 

And you want me to disagree with this, or debate you???? What's your point? I DON"T disagree with you.

 

If BOTH are "merely" spiritual guides, then why all the hooplah?  Why MUST you Christians be "right" about everything?

 

I can find great comfort and wisdom in the Bible and I can feel that it is inspired without assuming that it is the ONLY inspired spiritual writing. And - again - do not judge me before you know me. I am Christian - and I do not feel the need to be "right about everything". I've no argument with you spiritual life, or with the spiritual life of any other ex-Christian.

 

Open_Minded, do me a favor, willya?  Don't be like all the OTHER Christians who respond to my posts.  To date, they have all followed the following pattern:

 

1.  Hysterical rants

2.  Ad hominem attacks against my person, character, "foul" language or methodology

3.  Non sequitor tangents and rabbit trails to derail the thread topic

4.  Avoid thread topic at all costs

5.  Pout, sulk and run away in a huff when all else fails.

 

I've never been like OTHER Christians - I don't intend to start now;)

 

 

Oh, BTW, thanks for the back-handed "ad hominem" attack/insult of "amusing or amazing" and telling ME to settle down.  Nice little character assassination job.

 

See the first line of this post and then you can rest your case

[All Gods Fail]

You also made mention of other spiritual books.  Ha!  Of course I don't believe them.  Just as I don't believe your bible.  What's your point?

107842[/snapback]

 

To bad for you Mr. Grinch... you are loosing access to thousands of years of wisdom.

 

First, apologies if English is not your first language, but try a little harder with your spelling, please. Argh!

 

Second, a lot of the 'wisdom' in these spiritual books is questionable at best. I think it's fine to read them and pick out the gems, but come on - just like the bible, most of these books are ignorant, primitive people's attempts to explain reality. You can get better insight into the human condition reading Vonnegut, IMO.

 

It would be stupid to get into a conversation using the Bible as a source document unless one were willing to address the historical context, literary history, cultural context, and any other contextual information.

107865[/snapback]

 

That doesn't even make any sense. If the bible's errant, how does context make any difference? I mean, you could say the same thing about Mein Kampf - one has to take into account the historical context, literary history, cultural context, and any other contextual information.

[Alice]

Also, what is it about Christians that they don't understand that when we "attack" the bible, we are NOT saying "do away with any moral value that can be learned from the bible"?

 

Why do Christians believe that the Bible is the ONLY source of spiritual nourishment?

 

For example, by doing away with the bible as the source of "Jesus is Lord", it does NOT take away the universally accepted notion of "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you."  This is a truism and philosophy found in almost ALL other religions AND in secular philosophy.  We are not saying to "do away" with such thoughts.

 

What I AM attacking is the bible premise of claiming "Jesus" as the source and fount of all that is good, righteous and "holy".  Says who?  Says your suspect and fallible bible?

 

Why should I believe THAT?  Why should I accept a Silly-Putty® Bible over, say, the Qur'an?  They both say a few "good" things.  So what?  Why should I accept either as "authoritative"?  Why should I wager my LIFE upon defending and supporting either?

 

If BOTH are "merely" spiritual guides, then why all the hooplah?  Why MUST you Christians be "right" about everything?

 

107871[/snapback]

 

Mr Grinch - I'm a little confused by your comments. It seems to me that you are trying to have a debate with open minded when he already agrees with you. When he quoted the Bible as an authoritative 'to be believed' source - that was to Daniel.

 

Sounds like he sees the Bible as a book that is a mixture of truth and nonsense - much as you do and makes no big claims for the Book as such.

 

I find the Bible a useful tool with which to examine my own beliefs and values. It makes much more sense as a collection of stories about man's search for God than it ever did as the 'actual word of God'.

[Open_Minded]

If I were to still be a Christian, I would be a Universalist.  So I am not your enemy,

107883[/snapback]

 

Thanks Kryten - good to meet you.

 

but I do want you to see that if the bible has errors, then how can you believe it is from God?  And if you KNOW it has parts NOT from God, then how do you know which parts ARE?? 

 

Hmm... how to answer. I do not believe it is from God in a literal and concrete sense of the word. In other words... I do not believe that God whispered it to Moses on the Mount, or any other human being for that matter. I believe it is Sacred because it was written by humans a search for the SACRED. Sacred literature (not just the Bible) is a history of humanity's spiritual struggles, spiritual searches. In this sense I consider the Bible sacred literature. I can't just toss it out the window because it is a reflection of a search that we are all on. And there are threads of wisdom running through it, and other sacred books that I can not ignore. I have taken much comfort from much of the Bible.

 

Maybe because I've never been taught to view the Bible literally it is not a problem for me. I can see the human violence, biased views of the Sacred and limited understanding of the natural world in the Bible and accept it all as part of the picture of the human search for the sacred.

 

That is part of it too, Kryten. Part of the human search for God is the self-righteous attitudes and the wars and the violence in the name of God. And those of us today need to remember these lessons as well. We also need to see the pain involved in humanizing God instead of searching for that which is beyond full human comprehension. To me it is a whole picture.

 

You cannot logically think that the holy spirit tells you

 

No, I do not believe that. I read the Bible in context and I surround myself with other people who read the Bible in context. And I don't ever assume that my interpretation is the only way to see things, because there will always be others around me to remind me I don't have a clue Like The Grinch for example

[Mythra]

I can find great comfort and wisdom in the Bible and I can feel that it is inspired without assuming that it is the ONLY inspired spiritual writing. And - again - do not judge me before you know me. I am Christian - and I do not feel the need to be "right about everything". I've no argument with you spiritual life, or with the spiritual life of any other ex-Christian.

107884[/snapback]

 

Before we can talk too much about "spiritual life", you would need to give us some convincing evidence about the existence of spirit.

 

Unless you use that term generically, just as we would use the term "mental health".

 

And, if so, then I can tell you that my mental health does just fine without relying on the "wisdom" of the ancients.

[Open_Minded]

Sorry Mythra:

 

This forum has ex-christians who are pagan, deists, or any number of faith traditions. I wasn't taking into account the large numbers of atheists. So to rephrase:

 

"I am Christian - and I do not feel the need to be "right about everything". I've no argument with the spiritual life (or lack thereof) of you, or any ex-Christian, for that matter."

 

Is that better

 

Before we can talk too much about "spiritual life", you would need to give us some convincing evidence about the existence of spirit.

107895[/snapback]

[Mythra]

That's much better.

 

And I can say truthfully that I have no problem with the spiritual life (or self-delusion of it) possessed by Christians and New Age bible buffet diners.

 

Just so everyone is on the same page.

[Open_Minded]

Well OK, then... we're all on the same page

Aren't we just one big happy bunch, but.... wait.... where.... where's Mr. Grinch

 

 

That's much better.

 

And I can say truthfully that I have no problem with the spiritual life (or self-delusion of it) possessed by Christians and New Age bible buffet diners.

 

Just so everyone is on the same page.

107903[/snapback]

[Open_Minded]

I find the Bible a useful tool with which to examine my own beliefs and values. It makes much more sense as a collection of stories about man's search for God than it ever did as the 'actual word of God'.

107889[/snapback]

 

Thank you Hesitent, for making my point in fewer words than I could.

[Checkmate]

I'm right here, O_M. You have a life. So do I. "Don't get your knickers in a twist." (Since I "amuse you", I may as well use my "gifts".)

 

Plus I'm busy writing replies. Now, if you'll pardon me...?

Mr Grinch - I'm a little confused by your comments.  It seems to me that you are trying to have a debate with open minded when he already agrees with you.  When he quoted the Bible as an authoritative 'to be believed' source - that was to Daniel.

 

Sounds like he sees the Bible as a book that is a mixture of truth and nonsense - much as you do and makes no big claims for the Book as such.

 

I find the Bible a useful tool with which to examine my own beliefs and values. It makes much more sense as a collection of stories about man's search for God than it ever did as the 'actual word of God'.

107889[/snapback]

Hesitent, I am NOT seeking a debate with Open_Minded, nor any other Christian, particularly not on THIS subject. I am simply pointing out a fallacy that exists in dogmatically calling oneself "Christian", while simultaneously doing away with the very source for being ABLE to call oneself "Christian". I.E. The Bible™.

 

You say that you find the bible a "useful tool". However, you don't go so far as to call yourself a "Christian", do you? Why not? Open_Minded does. Why?

 

Because, in the book that he claims CANNOT be taken literally, and is NOT inerrant, it makes this fantastic claim that "Jesus Christ is Lord." IF, as we are all agreeing, that the bible is a book of nonsense and a "mixture of truth", then HOW can anyone confidently claim that "Jesus is Lord", AND preach to others this "dogma"?

 

I'm not here to debate what Open_Minded believes about the bible. I am TRYING to point out that once the Bible has been reduced to NOTHING but a "mere book of wisdom", then "Christians" no longer have any foundation to claim dogmatically that "Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. And no one may come to the Father BUT by Him."

 

How can anyone take these words seriously? How can Christians? IF, as we are all in agreement, the Bible™ is NOTHING but a book of "wisdom" and is NOT the "word of God", NOT to be taken literally, then how can Christians claim any "truth" vis-a-vis "Jesus"? It then truly IS my opinion versus someone elses. Arguing and discussion is pointless.

 

And most importantly -- "Christianity" is a lie.

 

Does this clear up any confusion, or have I made it worse?

[Open_Minded]

most of these books are ignorant, primitive people's attempts to explain reality. You can get better insight into the human condition reading Vonnegut, IMO.

107886[/snapback]

 

Ignorance implies an unwillingness, or inability, to learn something new. People who lived in pre-scientific cultures were a lot of things. But ignorant? There is a timeless search for truth that we are only part of. We can learn nothing from their path?

 

 

That doesn't even make any sense. If the bible's errant, how does context make any difference? I mean, you could say the same thing about Mein Kampf - one has to take into account the historical context, literary history, cultural context, and any other contextual information.

 

See my answer to Kryten, then if you have any questions just let me know.

[Alice]

If the bible is a form of Silly Putty®, to be molded at a person’s whims, then the bible is valueless.  Ergo: YOUR FAITH is worthless.  For upon what do you hang your hat?  Your personal feelings?  Your private interpretations?  How can you honestly expect any of us to debate THOSE?

 

For any debate to occur here, there MUST be an absolute standard.  Something that we can all agree upon.  But, as you say, if the bible is fluid and can mean anything to all peoples, then it can’t be discussed.  NOR can it be respected or believed.

 

Catch-22. 

 

You lose by default.  No trustworthy bible, no trustworthy religion. 

 

 

107826[/snapback]

 

That sounds like a debate to me;)

 

 

Hesitent, I am NOT seeking a debate with Open_Minded, nor any other Christian,  particularly not on THIS subject.  I am simply pointing out a fallacy that exists in dogmatically calling oneself "Christian", while simultaneously doing away with the very source for being ABLE to call oneself "Christian".  I.E. The Bible.

 

You say that you find the bible a "useful tool".  However, you don't go so far as to call yourself a "Christian", do you?  Why not?  Open_Minded does.  Why?

 

Because, in the book that he claims CANNOT be taken literally, and is NOT inerrant, it makes this fantastic claim that "Jesus Christ is Lord."  IF, as we are all agreeing, that the bible is a book of nonsense and a "mixture of truth", then HOW can anyone confidently claim that "Jesus is Lord", AND preach to others this "dogma"?

 

I'm not here to debate what Open_Minded believes about the bible.  I am TRYING to point out that once the Bible has been reduced to NOTHING but a "mere book of wisdom", then "Christians" no longer have any foundation to claim dogmatically that "Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.  And no one may come to the Father BUT by Him."

 

How can anyone take these words seriously?  How can Christians?  IF, as we are all in agreement, the Bible is NOTHING but a book of "wisdom" and is NOT the "word of God", NOT to be taken literally, then how can Christians claim any "truth" vis-a-vis  "Jesus"?  It then truly IS my opinion versus someone elses.  Arguing and discussion is pointless.

 

And most importantly -- "Christianity" is a lie.

 

Does this clear up any confusion, or have I made it worse?

107911[/snapback]

 

Mr Grinch - I think your stance that the Bible has to be taken 'literally' to have any worth is an echo of your previous fundamentalism. I said similar things when I was deconverting. Having had a literal and fundamentalist mindset I hung onto some crazy beliefs because I was scared to let go and risk the loss of everything.

 

Not that I'm calling you a fundamentalist! I know you are not - I'm saying your comments reflect a similar way of thinking ... the all or nothing approach. When I questioned parts of the Bible when still part of a fundamentalist church - I was warned over and over 'if you question one part - where will it end?'.

 

Christians I know who had not ever been part of this mindset found my struggle difficult to comprehend. In the UK few christians take the Bible literally or believe it to be some kind of magical revelation in the way fundamentalists do.

 

I don't call myself a christian anymore because I don't have a relationship with Jesus, and that's what most people understand being a chrsitian to be - although in the UK there are plenty of people who call themselves Christians and who don't subscribe to this either. Having a 'personal relationship with Jesus' is a relatively new idea in christendom. My Church history is hazy but the christian ecstatics that first claimed this were initially seen as heretics.

 

I think fundamentalist christianity is a distortion and a lie but I don't feel qualified to dismiss all religion.

 

I think there is a point to having dialogue with people who believe - whatever they base their belifs on - be it personal experience, or a magical book, the point being I find it interesting - don't you?

[Mythra]

I think the root of this discussion is this: Is the Bible the Word of God or is it the word of human beings who thought they were speaking for God?

 

Hey Grinchie: I kinda like your characterization of this type of bible interpretation as "silly putty". But I'm a little confused.

 

Is this the same thing as the Levi's 501 approach?

 

(shrink to fit)

[Open_Minded]

Mr Grinch - I think your stance that the Bible has to be taken 'literally' to have any worth is an echo of your previous fundamentalism. I said similar things when I was deconverting. Having had a literal and fundamentalist mindset I hung onto some crazy beliefs because I was scared to let go and risk the loss of everything.

 

Not that I'm calling you a fundamentalist! I know you are not - I'm saying your comments reflect a similar way of thinking ... the all or nothing approach.  When I questioned parts of the Bible when still part of a fundamentalist church - I was warned over and over 'if you question one part - where will it end?'.

107920[/snapback]

 

Thank you Hesitent, again. Really .... everyone I'm NOT PAYING HER.

 

Seriously though, remember Mr. Grinch, when I suggested that you were being a literalist. And that your approach to reading the Bible was similar to a literalist?

 

Christians I know who had not ever been part of this mindset found my struggle difficult to comprehend. 

 

Again, Hesitent, I'm in debt to you. As I said in an earlier post ... more like mussed.. "Maybe because I've never been taught to view the Bible literally it is not a problem for me."

 

Having a 'personal relationship with Jesus' is a relatively new idea in christendom.

 

Amen, Amen, Amen, Sing Hallelujah.... OOPS.... Sorry everyone

 

Now onto Mr. Grinch:

 

I'm not here to debate what Open_Minded believes about the bible. I am TRYING to point out that once the Bible has been reduced to NOTHING but a "mere book of wisdom", then "Christians" no longer have any foundation to claim dogmatically that "Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. And no one may come to the Father BUT by Him."

 

Site one post where I have dogmatically claimed that "Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. And no one may come to the Father BUT by Him."

 

Or find a post where I have tollerated a fundie doing just that...

 

On a side note... the Bible is much more than a mere book of wisdom to me. But I do not expect it to be so to you, or anyone else for that matter.

[Checkmate]

Open_Minded, I'm glad you're enjoying yourself, but you don't realize that you (and Hesitant) are making my position more solid.

 

IF anyone can call themself "Christian", believing whatever it is they want to about "Christ" and the Bible™, even to the point of disregarding the Bible™, then WHY DOES ANYONE NEED THE BIBLE?

 

The Bible, as you have so neatly summarized, is incidental to being "Christian".

 

There is OBVIOUSLY no "hell", no "sin", no "grace or faith" necessary for "salvation." These are recent "add-ons" to "Christianity" and NOT to be taken seriously or literally. (That's what YOU guys keep telling me!)

 

And apparently, there is no "Jesus Christ" either. (How can you call yourself "Christian" if you DON'T believe that He is the way, the truth and the life? Oh, right. Just because YOU want to.)

 

Once you've done away with the "divine" aspect, or even "literal" aspect of the Bible, then you've nothing left. Nothing but people playing around with a religion and CLAIMING it is "real" or even "better" than anyone else's.

 

Conclusion: The bible is WORTHLESS as "God's word". Everyone may believe whatever "spiritual truth" they want to, because there is NO "God" at the helm ready to cast anyone into "hell". Pay no attention to that preacher with the funny book. It don't mean nothing.

 

Thanks for proving that I'm right.

 

As I mentioned before, I wasn't seeking a DEBATE. I was dogmatically making my point that the BIBLE IS USELESS as the arbiter of Truth™.