The Silly-Putty(r) Bible

[Open_Minded]

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.)

107957[/snapback]

 

Mr. Grinch - if I were to say there were a "way, the truth and the life" I would say that this is through infinite WISDOM. As a Christian, I understand Jesus Christ as the WORD (WISDOM of God) made Flesh. I undestand Christ as other things as well, but for the purposes of this discussion - let us stay with the LOGOS of GOD made flesh.

 

There is a whole branch of Christianity that refers to this aspect of Jesus Christ as the Cosmic Chirst. The Alpha and the Omega - is the language most people are familiar with.

 

At any rate - when those of us from this perspective read passages like "I am the way the truth and the life." We are reading these passages in reference to the infinite and Divine WISDOM (or LOGOS). To us these passages are very real and very inclusive - because Divine WISDOM is available to every human, within their souls.

 

Christianity is not the only faith tradition that places an emphasis on Divine Wisdom. It is possible to find an emphasis on Wisdom in Buddhism and other major world religions as well.

 

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.

 

It is worthless to you, because of your view point. But that does not make it worthless, period. If someone decides money is worthless and gives it all up to live like a hermit, that does not stop money from having value in and of itself. The economy still continues to operate, the world still goes on and money still plays its roll in the process.

 

You have no need of the Bible, that is fine. But that does not stop it from being valid and playing its roll in the onward search for TRUTH. It also does not mean that the Bible has to be the only source in ones search for TRUTH, either. This ONE some call God has revealed itself to all cultures in all time periods. I accept this fact, many Christians do. And it is possible to accept this and still understand Jesus as the LOGOS of God made flesh - the WISDOM in and through and beyond all of creation.

 

Does this shed some light on my perspective?

[Alice]

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.

107957[/snapback]

 

If the 'truth' for you means something outside of yourself that has all the answers for you - absolutely! I totally agree with you that this the Bible is not.

 

I don't 'need' the Bible - it's a useful tool that's all. Fundamentalists 'need' the Bible to be the 'literal' word of God to back up all their dogma.

 

I'm just not that dogmatic anymore

 

You sure got an interesting way of not having a debate!

[Ouroboros]

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.

107909[/snapback]

Correct me if I'm wrong O_M, but in a sense, do you see the Bible in a similar fashion that anyone would look at this website?

 

This website contains a plentitude of discussions, ideas, thoughts and sayings, not necessarely everyone is correct, but they all are integrated in a mix of thoughts in the search for truth, honesty and understanding.

 

The Bible could be seen the same way, people wrote their own little ideas about how they see God, not necessarely they are right, but it shows their search for the understanding of whatever they like to call "God".

[Open_Minded]

Correct me if I'm wrong O_M, but in a sense, do you see the Bible in a similar fashion that anyone would look at this website?

 

This website contains a plentitude of discussions, ideas, thoughts and sayings, not necessarely everyone is correct, but they all are integrated in a mix of thoughts in the search for truth, honesty and understanding.

 

The Bible could be seen the same way, people wrote their own little ideas about how they see God, not necessarely they are right, but it shows their search for the understanding of whatever they like to call "God".

107997[/snapback]

 

Hans:

 

Yes, I suppose that this is close to the way that I understand the Bible and all sacred literature. But there's something else...

 

Let me see if I can communicate it...

 

Those of you who follow science will be aware that sometimes when a scientific breakthrough happens, it can happen in two different places by two different scientists who were not communicating with each other.

 

To me there is a thread of Divine Wisdom running through all the major world religions. I find it absolutely fascinatinig that people on opposite sides of the world at a time when they could not communicate with each other saw so many of the same things in this SACRED ONE ... for lack of a better term. To explore some concrete examples of this see the following website: http://origin.org/ucs/ws/ws.cfm.

 

Here you will find the World Scripture: A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts

 

This same dynamic is at play in the Bible - because it covers such a long period of the human search for God. It is possible to see the search for the SACRED unfold. Instead of Sacred Wisdom revealing itself across gaps of geography and culture it is revealing itself accross gaps of time and world view. This is why I find the study of context so important, of the history and literature of the Bible. To me, without the context, I would not see the threads of wisdom that weave themselves throughout the Bible. But, it does reveals itself in threads.

 

As you say, Hans...

 

"not necessarely everyone is correct, but they all are integrated in a mix of thoughts in the search for truth, honesty and understanding."

 

There is much to grieve about in the Bible as well. Its purpose in reminding us how religion can go wrong is just as real and valid as the wisdom actually written on the pages.

[Checkmate]

...........

You sure got an interesting way of not having a debate!

107991[/snapback]

Thanks. And if you'll notice, there never was any "debate". There never was anyone speaking FOR "biblical inerrancy". No one posting here claims the bible IS inerrant. We just went around in circles trying to decide what value a Silly-Putty® Bible has to anyone. And we all agree that it ONLY has value to those who want it. It can't be used to preach righteousness to anyone. (My definition of "useless", BTW.)

 

No "debate". Just a long winding road to arrive right back where we started.

 

Like I said: Thanks for proving my point.

 

 

Okay. I'm done for a bit. I don't know if it's a co-incidence or not, but I've been nursing a raging headache all day. Time for the Grinch to rest his eyes.

 

Later.

[Open_Minded]

...........

You sure got an interesting way of not having a debate!

107991[/snapback]

Thanks. And if you'll notice, there never was any "debate". There never was anyone speaking FOR "biblical inerrancy". No one posting here claims the bible IS inerrant. We just went around in circles trying to decide what value a Silly-Putty® Bible has to anyone. And we all agree that it ONLY has value to those who want it. It can't be used to preach righteousness to anyone. (My definition of "useless", BTW.)

 

No "debate". Just a long winding road to arrive right back where we started.

 

Like I said: Thanks for proving my point.

 

 

Okay. I'm done for a bit. I don't know if it's a co-incidence or not, but I've been nursing a raging headache all day. Time for the Grinch to rest his eyes.

 

Later.

108013[/snapback]

 

 

Good Bye.... Everyone.

 

Thanks for a rousing welcome to Ex-Christian.net:)

 

You won't see this much of me very often. I actually do have a job. But it was good today.

 

A special thanks to you Mr. Grinch for allowing me some laughter today.... I truly did need it.

[Eponymic]

Good Bye.... Everyone.

 

Thanks for a rousing welcome to Ex-Christian.net:)

 

You won't see this much of me very often. I actually do have a job. But it was good today.

 

A special thanks to you Mr. Grinch for allowing me some laughter today.... I truly did need it.

108017[/snapback]

 

Any particular reason you feel the need to announce that you have a job?

 

 

Just wondering.

[Open_Minded]

Any particular reason you feel the need to announce that you have a job?

 

 

Just wondering.

108043[/snapback]

 

Nope - it was just a side comment - since I got out of bed this morning planning on doing my "pay job". I work at home, and although I did get some things done today, not nearly what I expected. So the comment just slipped in because I was thinking about it.

 

Does that answer your question?

[mwc]

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?

107912[/snapback]

Does it? I didn't think so, so I looked it up. This is from the Oxford Concise English Dictionary:

 

ignorant (adjective)

- lacking knowledge or awareness in general. (often ignorant of) uninformed about or unaware of a specific subject or fact.

 

I don't imagine these ancient peoples were willfully ignorant. They just lacked the ability to gather information in relation to present day. Compared to a future culture I imagine we would be deemed to be ignorant as well. I don't think the use of the term in this context is derogatory.

 

Were you thinking more along the lines of "obstinate" instead?

 

mwc

[All Gods Fail]

Does it?  I didn't think so, so I looked it up.  This is from the Oxford Concise English Dictionary:

 

ignorant (adjective)

  - lacking knowledge or awareness in general. (often ignorant of) uninformed about or unaware of a specific subject or fact.

 

    I don't imagine these ancient peoples were willfully ignorant.  They just lacked the ability to gather information in relation to present day.  Compared to a future culture I imagine we would be deemed to be ignorant as well.  I don't think the use of the term in this context is derogatory.

108147[/snapback]

 

Thanx, mwc - that's exactly what I meant. 'Ignorant' in common usage implies 'intentionally stupid'. I meant it not as a slam on ancient people, but as a description of their worldview. It's not like they knew better and just refused to admit the earth was round. 'Uninformed' is a more accurate word.

 

Modern-day fundies are a different matter, tho. They are willfully ignorant.

[Alice]

...........

You sure got an interesting way of not having a debate!

107991[/snapback]

Thanks. And if you'll notice, there never was any "debate". There never was anyone speaking FOR "biblical inerrancy". No one posting here claims the bible IS inerrant. We just went around in circles trying to decide what value a Silly-Putty® Bible has to anyone. And we all agree that it ONLY has value to those who want it. It can't be used to preach righteousness to anyone. (My definition of "useless", BTW.)

 

No "debate". Just a long winding road to arrive right back where we started.

 

Like I said: Thanks for proving my point.

 

 

Okay. I'm done for a bit. I don't know if it's a co-incidence or not, but I've been nursing a raging headache all day. Time for the Grinch to rest his eyes.

 

Later.

108013[/snapback]

 

 

Location: Large deep cavern.

Suggestion: If the Bible isn't the actual word of God then ......

 

(shhh - wait for the fundamentalist echo)

 

Echo: it can't be used to preach righteousness to anyone!

 

Mr Grinch, I'm sorry this thread appears to have given you a headache. I think I see how you were not intending a debate on the issue of inerrancy - however what still reads to me as debatable - and appears to be being debated is the conclusion you draw as a result.

 

Where I see an echo of fundamentalist thinking is in that you appear to be saying you would only ascribe value to the Bible if it could in fact be used to 'preach righteousness' to others.

 

The value I still see in the Bible is no greater than the value I place in many collections of stories or thought. I find this extremely 'useful' however. I would hate for there to be book of ALL the answers - with nothing for me to do but effortlessly follow its advice and preach about it to others (uck).

 

Isn't this where the debate lies? You could quite easily team up with a fundamentalist christian here - they would agree with you ... if the Bible is not the actual word of God then it is useless.

 

Whereas me - I value the words of others that teach something to me - the words don't have to be magically inspired for them to have meaning and value for me.

[mwc]

Mr. Grinch - if I were to say there were a "way, the truth and the life" I would say that this is through infinite WISDOM. As a Christian, I understand Jesus Christ as the WORD (WISDOM of God) made Flesh. I undestand Christ as other things as well, but for the purposes of this discussion - let us stay with the LOGOS of GOD made flesh.

So what was the purpose of jesus then? I mean, the bible (in the xians opinion) is the LOGOS of "god" is it not? So what is the purpose of creating a human body to manifest this as opposed to just the book? Also, when jesus left the book expanded so jesus really did not serve much of a purpose in respect to getting information from "god" since he was only here (preaching) for maybe 3 years and only a handful of people heard what he had to say. To say that the NT (the gospels only really) were written as a result discounts the fact that 62 other canonical books were written via revelation alone. Also, taking into account, that much of what jesus supposedly said did not even originate with him makes the entire contribution so minute as to almost make it irrelevant (especially considering that Paul wrote so much more, again, based on revelation from "god," not jesus, alone).

 

Jesus, as logos, fits in perfectly with the ancient greek belief that divinity cannot directly interact with us and so logos is that thing that can be with both. Again, jesus, as logos, fits nicely into their existing belief system (the greek/hellinistic view) but not with Judaism of the day (or of present day for that matter). Since xianity is supposed to be sort of an "extention" of Judaism it is actually required that much of Judaism is ignored to achieve this goal (in particular the pagan aspects that you contend are accurate and true). It is in this way that "god" contradicts himself. If the OT god says that pagan ideals are bad, and in the NT those very pagan ideals are used to represent god (in the form of jesus) then god is essentially saying that pagan ideals aren't necessarily bad. I'm not surprised those old Jews of the day were angry and confused.

 

Christianity is not the only faith tradition that places an emphasis on Divine Wisdom. It is possible to find an emphasis on Wisdom in Buddhism and other major world religions as well.

So then why take the Chistian label? Why not call yourself a Buddhist or any of those others you're aware of?

 

mwc

107987[/snapback]

[mwc]

Let me see if I can communicate it...

 

Those of you who follow science will be aware that sometimes when a scientific breakthrough happens, it can happen in two different places by two different scientists who were not communicating with each other.

So are you saying that there is such a thing as coincedence (simultaneous development) or are you saying that this "Divine Wisdom" you speak of somehow "guided" the discoveries? Would this same wisdom be responsible for all other simultaneous development, in all fields, as well?

 

This same dynamic is at play in the Bible - because it covers such a long period of the human search for God. It is possible to see the search for the SACRED unfold. Instead of Sacred Wisdom revealing itself across gaps of geography and culture it is revealing itself accross gaps of time and world view. This is why I find the study of context so important, of the history and literature of the Bible. To me, without the context, I would not see the threads of wisdom that weave themselves throughout the Bible. But, it does reveals itself in threads.

So you assume that all the bible is true (since you believe it plays out for "such a long period of time") but only choose to take away the "wisdom" that you personally find to be worthwhile? You keep mentioning that you pick and choose this "wisdom" from other cultures and religions to which I have to again ask, so why take the xian label? Why not the others?

 

Could you reveal some of these "threads of wisdom" to me? I'm interested in knowing what you're speaking of specifically so that I can decide for myself. Now, what if I disagree with your views on wisdom? Does that make me "wrong" (for not seeing the wisdom or denying it or seeing something else or what have you)? If we can't agree on this wisdom then does that mean that (assuming you don't wish to assign blame to either of us) that "god" did not communicate things accurately so that everyone benefits or does this mean that this specific item may not be from "god" after all? I'm just trying to see if there's a purpose here. If we can both be "right" (you see wisdom, but I don't and vice-versa) then the whole thing becomes so fluid as to be meaningless. It's like looking at clouds and seeing images...sometimes you see what everyone else sees and sometimes you don't but, they're just clouds, and none of you are really seeing any of the images you think you are so it doesn't matter). Perhaps it's more understandable in a (non-related) quote by Freud: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." (Meaning you might be reading wisdom and/or "god" into things...but I'll withhold judgement until I get a little better handle on what you're thinking.)

 

mwc

[Amethyst]

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

 

Arrrrgh, my eyes, my eyes! Can we please stick to normal-sized font? Please?

 

[Amethyst]

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.

 

Good point. When I was in the process of deconverting, I realized that if I couldn't believe in hell, and that if I thought Jesus was most likely a myth, then I couldn't believe in any of it anymore. I was clinging to the title of Christianity because I was afraid that everyone I knew would hate me if I gave it up. I have seen people's negative reactions to atheists and agnostics, so I didn't want to come out of the closet. I stayed in it for about a year after deconverting entirely, then I finally told my parents and they accepted me. There are some relatives I will not tell, just because I know that they will overreact, tell me I'm going to hell, etc. because they are Baptists. (Most of my relatives are Lutheran on my dad's side and Catholic on my stepmom's side; they're the exception on my dad's.)

 

But not everyone has to know if you deconvert. It's not like Christianity. The "telling everyone" part is the Christian meme, not the freethinker meme. Unless and until you have children, you can stay in the closet for as long as you like. But online, I can be who I am. If someone doesn't like it, they can hit the back button.

[Checkmate]

Hello, everyone. I'd like to first thank everyone for their earnest participation, however, I must point out that SOME of you managed to derail from the POINT of the thread. Now, so as not to introduce FURTHER confusion (and avoid give me a headache trying to explain this logistical conundrum), let us return to a portion of my OP that everyone is either skipping, or misunderstanding. I quote myself:

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.

Note and re-read the BOLDED words. These are PIVOTAL for understanding MY POINT.

 

Now, let me see if I possess the verbal skills to paint a picture that can be comprehended ACCURATELY. (This is why internet debating is so difficult. I have to take ALL sides of the interaction.)

 

For easier communication I ask for the liberty to utilize generic and sweeping generalizations of TWO distinct classes. I will call these classes LIBERAL and LITERAL. (Only one letter of distinction, but it is still great.)

 

The Liberal person operates with a SUBJECTIVE outlook with his bible. (Our infamous Silly-Putty® Bible.) The liberal says that everyone's OPINION of what the Bible says is just as valid as the next person's. There is NO RIGHT OR WRONG. Whatever "spiritual value" the bible has is PERSONAL to EACH reader. Silly-Putty®.

 

The Literal person operates upon an OBJECTIVE standard with his bible. The literal person says that the words of the bible are from God, and thus are not subject to individual interpretation. What is TRUE for one MUST be true for ALL. A SURE foundation. A Truth™ that exists INDEPENDENT of what anyone FEELS.

 

Got that? Good.

 

Now yesterday, Open_Minded and Hesitent went round and round to hammer home the point that MANY Christians exist who are of the Liberal position. To them, the bible means whatever is says TO THEM. It's personal. It's spiritual. And whatever ANYONE derives from the bible is EQUALLY VALID to the next person. "NO ONE NEEDS TO BELIEVE IN BIBLICAL INERRANCY TO BE A CHRISTIAN", thus sayeth Open_Minded.

 

Well, if THAT is true, then how can ANY Liberal, Silly-Putty® Bible user, dogmatically state that someone is WRONG in their use or understanding of said Bible? They cannot. In order for the Liberal to be able to use a "right or wrong" STANDARD, they would need an OBJECTIVE truth, independent of what THEY "feel".

 

But...THAT definition lies within the purview of the LITERALIST!

 

You see, IF the Liberal maintains the position that the Bible means all things to all people, then the Liberal CANNOT declare ANYONE'S interpretation "wrong". In other words, the Liberal CANNOT DEBATE THE ISSUE. He can ONLY say, "I disagree with your interpretation." He can't state that anyone's KNOWLEDGE about the Bible is WRONG.

 

In order to have "right or wrong" one must first have an OBJECTIVE TRUTH or STANDARD that exists OUTSIDE of and INDEPENDENT of all participants. A Truth AGREED upon. (Something that the Liberal DENIES.)

 

In fact, the Liberal cannot even TEACH from his bible. For in order to instruct anyone in WHAT TO BELIEVE you MUST have an OBJECTIVE STANDARD of TRUTH. If all the Liberal has is his SUBJECTIVE OPINION, then he has NO STANDING to "teach" it.

 

Okay. Before I lose anyone again. Let's take a "for instance".

 

Liberal A says that the bible can be interpreted MANY ways. It can mean MANY things to MANY people. There is NO "right or wrong."

 

But along comes Literalist X. Literalist X dogmatically states something from the Bible is TRUE for everyone to obey. And everyone MUST obey it THIS way.

 

Suddenly, from out of the corner, the LIBERAL shouts, "No! You are WRONG, Mr. Literalist! That is not TRUE!"

 

Hello? How can Mr. Liberal say this? How can someone with a LIBERAL view of the Bible tell someone else that THEY are "wrong"? Remember. The Liberal has NO "objective truths" in his world, only SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS. So how can this Liberal state that the Literalist is "wrong"? According to what STANDARD? The Liberal HAS NO STANDARD! The Liberal CAN'T tell ANYONE their OPINION is WRONG!

 

The Liberal can't TEACH, CORRECT, REBUKE, REPROVE nor TRAIN anyone. For in order to DO any of these things one MUST possess an objective truth that exists independent of one's personal INTERPRETATION.

 

Even if the Liberal encounters ANOTHER Liberal interpreter, there can be NO right or wrong discourse. Everyone's OPINION is JUST as valid as the next persons.

 

Then what becomes of "right" and "wrong"? They vanish. They become a moot point.

 

THIS is the point I am trying to get across. In order for any TWO sides to be able to DEBATE ANYTHING, there MUST be an established STANDARD of TRUTH that exists between them. If the bible is mercurial, shifting, changing and malleable in the hands of EACH user, then HOW can it be discussed? How can it have MEANING? It is shifting sand.

 

When the Liberal meets the Literalist, the ONLY thing that can LOGICALLY occur is this: Literalist says something is True. He read it in the Bible. Liberal counters with, "Well, that's your opinion. I just don't agree with it." End of "debate." The Literalist is left boxing with shadows, while the Liberalist remains content to "live and let live".

 

The Liberal can NEVER tell ANYONE that THEY are "wrong". He can't even open his bible to "prove" something. For he has removed any foundation upon which to stake his claim. If the bible is a book of wisdom, free to be interpreted SUBJECTIVELY by all, then even the LITERALIST's viewpoint MUST be accepted and given validation. No Liberal can EVER tell a Literalist that he is "wrong." Disagree? Yes. State that someone is "wrong"? NO.

 

If the Bible is this Nebulous cloud, free to mean ANYTHING to ANYONE at ANYTIME, then what happens to Truth™? You no longer have it. You just have individual opinions and interpretations. And these only have weight, substance or value to the USER. Not to anyone else.

 

No one can debate OPINIONS! I can't argue with what is inside YOUR head. I can't tell you you're wrong. And more importantly, YOU can't tell ME that I'm wrong!

 

I am not a "biblical" literalist. I am not a "biblical" inerrantist.

 

What I am is LOGICAL and PRACTICAL. And to me, it is NOT logical for any LIBERAL to attempt to "correct" someone else's biblical understanding, when the Liberal lacks any sure foundation upon which to base his "corrections."

 

NO Liberal, Modernist Christian can tell ANYONE what is or is not "right or wrong." How can they? They abandoned any and all STANDARDS from which to "judge". They traded in Universal Objective Truth for Personal Subjective Opinion. And NO ONE can debate the latter.

 

I surely HOPE that this is clear to everyone. Because I'm frankly running out of different ways to explain what I'm saying.

 

You people are making me work WAY too hard to explain this principle.

[Amethyst]

No one can debate OPINIONS! I can't argue with what is inside YOUR head. I can't tell you you're wrong. And more importantly, YOU can't tell ME that I'm wrong!

 

Um...I respectfully disagree. Isn't that what people do when they debate politics on this site or anywhere else? They are debating opinions. Politics aren't factual, they're just one opinion verses another. But people treat them as if they are facts. If nobody could debate opinions, then we wouldn't have elections in this country or anywhere else, because how else could you decide on a candidate? You'd have to go with the way people decide on job candidates now, but the vast majority of people couldn't make a decision like that. So instead, they go with whichever candidate they agree with the most, and probably spend time having friendly debates with their co-workers and friends and neighbors about which candidate is better because of their opinions.

[Checkmate]

Um...I respectfully disagree.  Isn't that what people do when they debate politics on this site or anywhere else?  They are debating opinions.  Politics aren't factual, they're just one opinion verses another.  But people treat them as if they are facts.  If nobody could debate opinions, then we wouldn't have elections in this country or anywhere else, because how else could you decide on a candidate?  You'd have to go with the way people decide on job candidates now, but the vast majority of people couldn't make a decision like that.  So instead, they go with whichever candidate they agree with the most, and probably spend time having friendly debates with their co-workers and friends and neighbors about which candidate is better because of their opinions.

108248[/snapback]

True. You can "debate" opinions. But, as with politics, can ANYONE declare that anyone's OPINION or IDEA is "WRONG"? Is the Democrat wrong? Is the Republican wrong?

 

Nope. Just different ideas. Some work. Some don't. It all depends on the situation.

 

But NO "idea" is ever "wrong". Just not desirable to all. Each person decides what is best for them.

 

In my model for Liberal Christians, I am saying that they have no grounding to declare anyone's ideas "WRONG". In this spiritual quagmire, how can anyone say ANYONE is "wrong"?

[♦ nivek ♦]

Grinchster...

 

Let us simplify this discussion if I may step in:

 

Constructing a building to the Building Code requires a firm, flat, level foundation, a basis that the rest of the mterials will be fitted to.

 

One can argue what the foundaton consists of, how it is to be built, what materials, etc.

 

The ONE thing that the foundation requires is that is level to an inarguable degree.

 

We can use a decent amount of technology from high to low to make *level* work, but the actual flatness of what we are proposing to work on is the basis of what we want to do.

 

No level? No workee, as nothing will fit according to accepted measures/

 

Transposing this thought on *foundation*, we need to agree what it being discussed before the various tangents and opinions start being added to what the "*under the gingerbread and paint* of the building."

 

Remember, a "foundation" is something unmovable, soild and in time unchanging.

 

Everything added from the *ground up* can be moved, changed, painted, added to, but foundations are what everythng is based upon..

 

First Book of daFatman, 167:13.b: "I am stoned, therefore I am gonna be your Rock, or some other cool shit."

 

kL

[Amethyst]

But, as with politics, can ANYONE declare that anyone's OPINION or IDEA is "WRONG"? Is the Democrat wrong? Is the Republican wrong?

 

Nope. Just different ideas. Some work. Some don't. It all depends on the situation.

 

But NO "idea" is ever "wrong". Just not desirable to all. Each person decides what is best for them.

 

I do know that I've been called "wrong" for having an opinion different from someone else.

 

In my model for Liberal Christians, I am saying that they have no grounding to declare anyone's ideas "WRONG". In this spiritual quagmire, how can anyone say ANYONE is "wrong"?

 

That is a good point. However, I would say it depends on the beliefs. Do those beliefs lead to violence? If a belief in hating someone for being homosexual leads to killing homosexuals, I would say very much that that belief is wrong. I consider bigotry wrong for that reason, and did even when I was a liberal Christian. In that case, it's not just an opinion, but one that is harmful.

[Alice]

Hello Mr Grinch,

 

I hope your head is better.

 

I really appreciate the effort you have put into these answers and although I don't fully understand why - have to say it has made me fell very well disposed towards you.

 

 

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.[/b] 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?

 

My views and opinions are not worthless. Nor are yours! I like listening to your views and they often have value ( not counting the current bizarre conclusion )

 

 

 

 

The Literal person operates upon an OBJECTIVE standard with his bible.  The literal person says that the words of the bible are from God, and thus are not subject to individual interpretation.  What is TRUE for one MUST be true for ALL.  A SURE foundation.  A Truth that exists INDEPENDENT of what anyone FEELS.

 

I think it is always worth debating the content of the Bible with a literalist - 'as though it is the Word of God' - even the briefest of discussions about the Bible highlight the fact that any idea that it contains 'objective' truth is nonsense.

 

Even if God had written every word with his great big celestial biro - the moment someone engages with the words they become 'subject' to that person's understanding, intellect and interpretation. When the literalist claims they are following an objective truth written in a book for them by God they are only ever holding up their subjective interpretation of the such and such.

 

Got that? Good.

 

You see, IF the Liberal maintains the position that the Bible means all things to all people, then the Liberal CANNOT declare ANYONE'S interpretation "wrong".  In other words, the Liberal CANNOT DEBATE THE ISSUE.  He can ONLY say, "I disagree with your interpretation."  He can't state that anyone's KNOWLEDGE about the Bible is WRONG.

 

I agree with you here - I just don't think that this makes a liberal's contributions 'useless'. I think dialogue, in which people express their views without dogmatically insisting they are 'right' ... rocks.

 

In fact, the Liberal cannot even TEACH from his bible.  For in order to instruct anyone in WHAT TO BELIEVE you MUST have an OBJECTIVE STANDARD of TRUTH.  If all the Liberal has is his SUBJECTIVE OPINION, then he has NO STANDING to "teach" it.

 

Only if by 'teach' you mean 'lay down the law according to some objective truth'. I love teachers who suggest, share, guide and encourage.

 

 

 

The Liberal can't TEACH, CORRECT, REBUKE, REPROVE nor TRAIN anyone.  For in order to DO any of these things one MUST possess an objective truth that exists independent of one's personal INTERPRETATION.

 

Even if the Liberal encounters ANOTHER Liberal interpreter, there can be NO right or wrong discourse.  Everyone's OPINION is JUST as valid as the next persons.

 

Then what becomes of "right" and "wrong"?  They vanish.

 

I'm interested in looking at the terms literal and liberal and detaching them from christianity - as we ourselves have done.

 

Where is your 'objective' truth by which you determine right and wrong now Mr Grinch? Just interested that's all.

 

The Liberal can NEVER tell ANYONE that THEY are "wrong".

 

True - but they can inform, advise, persaude, demonstrate , listen, learn, share their views and teach.

 

 

 

 

Politics aren't factual, they're just one opinion verses another.  But people treat them as if they are facts.  If nobody could debate opinions, then we wouldn't have elections in this country or anywhere else, because how else could you decide on a candidate? 

108248[/snapback]

 

Exactly!

[Open_Minded]

So then why take the Chistian label? Why not call yourself a Buddhist or any of those others you're aware of?

107987[/snapback]

 

In the short time I have to respond, it would be most efficient of me to refer you to a post I made in the "Why do you remain a Christian thread". The most applicable part follows:

 

Why am I a Christian???

 

Well, because it's possible to be a Christian and go beyond the anthropomorphistic understandings of God in our culture.

 

God is Love, God is spirit (energy).

 

And because I experience LOVE in my life, I experience LOVE within, through and beyond all, uniting all, making all whole and reconciling all.

 

I experience LOVE as the first energy of creation, wisdom energy, energy bringing order out of chaos, even now. Infinite LOVE, ever in the act of creating, bringing order out of chaos.

 

And, in the spirit of discussion and understanding, if Christianity required me to honor the humanized god that most people see portrayed in our culture, I would not call myself a Christian.

 

Beyond that you should know that I spent a good many years of my life as an ex-christian. I've had my years arguing the dogmatic position of Biblical falicy.

 

I see Jesus Christ the way I do now not because of the Bible, not because of anything anyone said to me but because of personal spiritual experiences. These experiences are subjective and so have no place in an objective discussion about the validity of Jesus Christ.

 

Does this answer your questions?

[scotter]

Beyond that you should know that I spent a good many years of my life as an ex-christian. I've had my years arguing the dogmatic position of Biblical falicy.

 

I see Jesus Christ the way I do now not because of the Bible, not because of anything anyone said to me but because of personal spiritual experiences. These experiences are subjective and so have no place in an objective discussion about the validity of Jesus Christ.

 

 

An interesting profile as an ex-ex-Christian. I like to see your story but Anti-testimony area seems not appropriate. Perhaps the Off-topic area? If you have the time to write your story, or if you can PM me your story it would be appreciated.

[Open_Minded]

Let me see if I can communicate it...

 

Those of you who follow science will be aware that sometimes when a scientific breakthrough happens, it can happen in two different places by two different scientists who were not communicating with each other.

 

So are you saying that there is such a thing as coincedence (simultaneous development) or are you saying that this "Divine Wisdom" you speak of somehow "guided" the discoveries? Would this same wisdom be responsible for all other simultaneous development, in all fields, as well?

 

Yes, I would agree with that statement. From a subjective perspective, I've always seen much Divine or Sacred Wisdom in the scientific search for truth.

 

To be honest I see this dynamic at play in all of life. Even here on this forum...

 

HanSolo first asked me if the way I view the Bible could be compared to this forum:

 

This website contains a plentitude of discussions, ideas, thoughts and sayings, not necessarely everyone is correct, but they all are integrated in a mix of thoughts in the search for truth, honesty and understanding.

 

The Bible could be seen the same way, people wrote their own little ideas about how they see God, not necessarely they are right, but it shows their search for the understanding of whatever they like to call "God".

 

When I said there was something more... I did not mean more only in the Bible. To me the aspect of sacred wisdom is at play whenever there is an honest search for the truth. Something is at work connecting us altogether in this one sacred search for infinite truth. It is not JUST ideas, thoughts, says, etc.. there is energy in the search as well, connecting us all, bringing us closer to that which we are searching for BECAUSE we do not do it alone. There is a gentle wisdom in it all as well, and we participate in it.

 

 

Could you reveal some of these "threads of wisdom" to me? I'm interested in knowing what you're speaking of specifically so that I can decide for myself.

 

Well, for instance the emphasis on Wisdom itself. Not to go into long-winded writings here. But it is common and accepted scholarship that there is a connection between the wisdom passages in proverbs and the 1st verses of Johns Gospel.

 

For the record - you will most likely disagree with the conclusions I draw from those connections. And as I said in an earlier post, my reasons for seeing Jesus Christ the way I do are subjective and therefore not appropriate in this discussion. And again, I'm not trying to PROVE anything here. You have your opinion, I have mine. Our personal opinions are NOT where the Wisdom is. THE WISDOM IS IN THE SEARCH and this WISDOM is also the path to the TRUTH. This is what I see in the Bible, in other sacred literature, in the scientific quest, and in the search being conducted right here in this forum.

[Open_Minded]

The Literal person operates upon an OBJECTIVE standard with his bible. The literal person says that the words of the bible are from God, and thus are not subject to individual interpretation. What is TRUE for one MUST be true for ALL. A SURE foundation. A Truth™ that exists INDEPENDENT of what anyone FEELS.

 

In theory what you say is correct, but how many fundies have you seen read different things into the Bible because of their own subjective feelings? Human beings, whether they consider themselves literalists or liberal, or whatever... have been subjectively reading things into the Bible for as long as it has existed.

 

 

You see, IF the Liberal maintains the position that the Bible means all things to all people, then the Liberal CANNOT declare ANYONE'S interpretation "wrong". In other words, the Liberal CANNOT DEBATE THE ISSUE. He can ONLY say, "I disagree with your interpretation." He can't state that anyone's KNOWLEDGE about the Bible is WRONG.

 

In order to have "right or wrong" one must first have an OBJECTIVE TRUTH or STANDARD that exists OUTSIDE of and INDEPENDENT of all participants. A Truth AGREED upon. (Something that the Liberal DENIES.)

 

Again, in theory, I understand where you are going here, Mr. Grinch. But this does not reflect reality. As a "liberal" I fully accept that the Bible - in and of itself - cannot and more importantly SHOULD NOT serve as an objective standard.

 

In fact, the Liberal cannot even TEACH from his bible. For in order to instruct anyone in WHAT TO BELIEVE you MUST have an OBJECTIVE STANDARD of TRUTH. If all the Liberal has is his SUBJECTIVE OPINION, then he has NO STANDING to "teach" it.

 

Yes, teaching ONLY from the Bible would be dangerous. But, it is possible to teach the objective historical, anthropological, literary and other contextual scholarship surrounding the Bible.

 

The Liberal can NEVER tell ANYONE that THEY are "wrong". He can't even open his bible to "prove" something. For he has removed any foundation upon which to stake his claim. If the bible is a book of wisdom, free to be interpreted SUBJECTIVELY by all, then even the LITERALIST's viewpoint MUST be accepted and given validation. No Liberal can EVER tell a Literalist that he is "wrong." Disagree? Yes. State that someone is "wrong"? NO.

 

Disagree and then point out a few objective errors, for instance errors I see being pointed out in this forum all the time about obvious conflicts in the Bible. Or maybe errors regarding historical context... those types of things.

 

If the Bible is this Nebulous cloud, free to mean ANYTHING to ANYONE at ANYTIME, then what happens to Truth™? You no longer have it. You just have individual opinions and interpretations. And these only have weight, substance or value to the USER. Not to anyone else.

 

May I ask what has happened to TRUTH under the reign of the Literalists? That could start a whole new thread - if you decide to start one, just PM me so I know where to find you this time

 

You people are making me work WAY too hard to explain this principle.

 

YOU!!! Good Grief .... I feel as though I'm going through Baptism by Fire

 

In truth Mr. Grinch you and I agree more than it may appear on the surface. I've never viewed the Bible as something I could point to and say "There's the TRUTH and you must believe it or else..."

 

Well, I have to go now...