If You're Not A Christian Then You Have No Authority

[Kelli]

From another forum I'm on. Ugh! This woman is also part of the GLBT community and yet claims she is an evangelical Christian. She posted this after a number of us took issue with the pastor on an exchange between another person being persecuted by her church and her pastor.

 

Writing as an evangelical Christian, I take issue with at least two matters:

 

- non-Christians quoting and/or analyzing Scripture; and,

- Christians selectively quoting Scripture to prove their point (instead of God's point).

 

In trying to "share the Word of God" with non-believers, I always ask if they are willing to accept the Bible as factual data, much as a judge would have to decide on the admissibility of evidence as valid or not. If the non-believer is unwilling or unable to accept the Bible as unerring, then it should be quoted with caution by believers, and NOT AT ALL by non-believers. I mean, think of it... Many non-believers quote the Bible in their various attempts to find the holes in it; yet, why quote a source document in which one doesn't believe? The Bible states, of itself, that it is unerring, and God-breathed - in other words, it is ALL written by God, although penned by man, and WITHOUT error.

 

If a non-believer is unable or unwilling to accept this, then neither he nor a believer should quote the Bible, except to consider the "possibility" of a specific train of thought.

 

It frustrates me that many believers feel that they have to PROVE that the Bible is correct, when the Bible says that faith is not the result of works (my "proving" the validity of the Bible to a non-believer would be defined as "works" on my part, thus impossible), therefore a non-starter as noted in the Bible itself.

 

I believe that the ONLY people who should be looking to the Bible to "measure" the reasonability of their actions are those people who accept the Bible as unerringly the Word of God (and not of man). If anyone doesn't believe that, why waste his time trying to find the holes in the Bible? In fact, as a Christian, I find no need whatsoever to find any "problems" with the Islamic faith (or the Koran), as my point of reference is the Bible. However, I also won't judge any Muslim, as that's not my job here on earth - I am woefully under qualified.

 

My response:

Writing as a former evangelical Christian, I take issue with being told that I have no authority to quote scripture. I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is on the believer.

 

 

Me: "You're going to be tortured for eternity because you drive a Toyota."

 

You: "Where did you come up with that nonsense?"

 

Me: "It's right here in this book. My God wrote this book and right here, see, it says that if you drive a Toyota you will burn in hellfire."

 

You: "Your book is meaningless. And tortured for eternity because I drive a Toyota? That's ridiculous. Your book is false."

 

Me: "But my book was inspired by God. See, it says so, right here!"

 

 

That's how I feel about the Bible. It was written by men and contains hundreds of contradictions and outdated notions. That wouldn't bother me so much except that so many Christians use it to condemn others, including transsexuals. And quite frankly, it's easy to do. You can pretty much damn anyone to hell with the Bible, including most "True Christians" today. But of course, everyone picks and chooses their pet verses to sling at others for their own purposes. That's what's wrong with the Bible.

 

So don't tell me I can't use the Bible to defend myself against those who would use it against me. There are many out there, in 2007, who would love to see us in prison or killed, based on their interpretation of the Bible. If I can't counter their arguments with Scripture, then fine, I'll be more than willing to just say that the Bible is utterly useless bulls*it and therefore has no effect anyway.

 

But the fact remains that it is, and has been, countless times, from the Inquisitions and the Crusades to modern-day persecution of the GLBT community, used to abuse, torture, kill and condemn. The world would be a much better place without it, and I say that with no reservations or apology.

 

I just did probably the hardest thing in my life this past evening. I came out to my oldest children. Why was it so hard? Because their mother is still a fundamentalist Christian and they've been ingrained that things like homosexuality and transsexuality is sin.

 

Tomorrow I deal with the same thing with my parents. So f your effing Bible. It's caused me untold pain and anguish in my life and in the lives of countless others. If you want to defend it then you better become rabidly outspoken against its abuses and abusers.

 

I'm not sorry for coming across strongly here. You have no idea how much I have been hurt by Biblical BS nonsense. Don't tell me I don't know how to interpret it or that I have no right to even try after I spent almost 20 years as a sincere evangelical, born-again Bible believing Christian. THAT is nonsense and angers me to no end.

 

This just made me really angry. I think I did a fairly good job of making my point though.

[Ouroboros]

Then Christians shouldn't argue about Logic, Science and Philosophy then, or atheism for that matter.

[Kelli]

Then Christians shouldn't argue about Logic, Science and Philosophy then, or atheism for that matter.

 

Damn good point. Thanks!

[Ouroboros]

You're welcome...

 

Damn, you're up late too?

[Kelli]

You're welcome...

 

Damn, you're up late too?

 

Up early. It's 7:30 AM here. But I was up late too ('til 2:30 LOL).

 

BTW, the debate rages on in the other forum. I'll update you later. Unfortunately I cannot tell you where it is.

[Ouroboros]

Up early. It's 7:30 AM here. But I was up late too ('til 2:30 LOL).

Ah, yeah, east coast. Didn't realize it was getting this close to dawn here.

 

BTW, the debate rages on in the other forum. I'll update you later. Unfortunately I cannot tell you where it is.

That's good, don't tell. We don't want to start any forum wars etc.

[R. S. Martin]

That "evangelical" Christian is about as far off-target as a christian can get regarding what the Bible's about. I haven't been studying theology and fundamentalism for nothing. The "inerrant, infallible, inspired" Word of God theology is so squeaky new it's barely done steaming from the press--it's still so hot. You don't have to go outside Christianity to get that idea. I get it from Christians themselves, though not evangelicals or fundies, to be sure. But from more traditional Christians--traditions that have been around since the Reformation. Fundies date only to the last quarter of the 1800s if that far back. Some say only to the 1920s. So she says the bible claims to be god-breathed. You can make the bible say anything you want and she apparently wants to make it say that. I would like to see chapter, verse, and translation that uses that specific word. I don't think it exists but I have been wrong before.

 

As for nonChristians having no authority to use or analyze the Bible--that's just plain worse than bullcrap. Who does she think she is anyway? The Bible belongs to the Jews--at least the first half of it. And also to the Muslims. Scholars of all religions and of no religion take the liberty to analyze the bible. I don't think some evangelical GLBT fanatic female, whatever other rights she may have the right to fight for, has the right to dictate who has and does not have, the right to analyze the bible. The crazy must be up against a wall and trapped in a corner to make such a ridiculous claim.

[Evolution_beyond]

Then Christians shouldn't argue about Logic, Science and Philosophy then, or atheism for that matter.

 

Or homosexuality for that matter.

[Evolution_beyond]

The Bible belongs to the Jews--at least the first half of it.

 

This is a very good point. According to the same logic christians shouldn't be able to quote from the Old Testament at all because it is Jewish scripture and Christians don't accept the Jewish interpretation of it.

[Mythra]

AUTHORITY!!

 

It's a fuckin' book. Who needs authority to quote the bible or any other book?

 

What a religiobotic moron.

[Ouroboros]

Does it also mean that one has to believe in hobbits, trolls and magical rings to do an analysis of Lord of the Rings?

[SWIM]

A question kat, why subject yourself to this? You just said it makes you angry, why even be there or read the dribble? Most boards like that will either delete your post, ban you, or hit you with hundreds of lunatic responses...

 

Unless you either like pain, or (probably this) you think you might be helping some readers to break away.

 

If it's the later, then don't let it get you mad. After all, all you are doing in a way, is "treating" the mentally ill. If doctors in mental wards got "mad" at their patients dribble, they could not function for long.

 

All I am saying is don't let it get you mad. Of course your response was good. Any rational response to delusion is *good*. But is it *good* for you, or is it creating stress that you really do not need in your life? Some people are not cut out for psychology, which is what you are practicing when you try to help the delusioned people on that board.

 

RubySera runs a board for fighting these people, but seldom do you see her angered (sometimes you do, but not often). And that says a lot for an admin of a board on-topic. I personally have the ability and skill to start such a board, but I myself am not willing to do this, not because I dislike people and don't want to help, but rather my own peace of mind must come first.

 

Not all people are meant to be psychologists, and your own personal skill set, tolerance for bullshit just might not be high enough for this kind of activity. Think about it, is the toll on your own sanity *worth* it? You did not cause their illness, and you are not obliged to do anything about it. That being said, helping others out of their delusion is a very noble thing. Do it though, only if you personally can handle the stress.

[R. S. Martin]

I don't think some evangelical GLBT fanatic female, whatever other rights she may have the right to fight for, has the right to dictate who has and does not have, the right to analyze the bible. The crazy must be up against a wall and trapped in a corner to make such a ridiculous claim.

 

Just to clarify. I don't want anyone thinking I'm calling anyone names here. I'm thinking a woman of the GLBT community who happens to subscribe to evangelical religious beliefs probably has all kinds of reasons to feel resentful and defensive. I'm thinking she has probably learned to stand up for her rights, been through assertiveness training and the likes. I'm thinking there are a lot of battles women in her community need to fight just to be treated as human beings. And she has a right to be fighting those battles.

 

However, dictating who does and does not have a right to use and analyze the Bible is taking things too far; she has neither the right nor the power to dictate or enforce that rule for the reasons I stated above. I think she must be up against a wall and trapped in a corner to make such ridiculous claims. As a female in evangelical religion who is also part of the GLBT community, she probably is up against a wall trapped in a corner.

 

Like we used to say in social work classes about people getting picked on at work. They go home and pick on the next person down the pecking order. The youngest kid kicks the dog.

[R. S. Martin]

RubySera runs a board for fighting these people, but seldom do you see her angered (sometimes you do, but not often). And that says a lot for an admin of a board on-topic. I personally have the ability and skill to start such a board, but I myself am not willing to do this, not because I dislike people and don't want to help, but rather my own peace of mind must come first.

 

Thanks Michael, but there's not many people posting there to get angry at. The timing's just plain wrong if you're trying to impress Kelli with my even-temperedness. I guess you missed some drama around one of our newest members with whom I clashed big time. I promised not to create any more controversy so I won't name names.

[SWIM]

Thanks Michael, but there's not many people posting there to get angry at. The timing's just plain wrong if you're trying to impress Kelli with my even-temperedness. I guess you missed some drama around one of our newest members with whom I clashed big time. I promised not to create any more controversy so I won't name names.

 

Just trying to make a point about choosing your battles. I guess I missed the *drama* you speak of. And I was not implying you *never* get angry, we all do. It's the toll it takes on you, and the stress it creates that is sometimes unhealthy. She may be as much up for the task as you are, but maybe not.

 

My post was food for thought along those lines, not an attempt to impress either her or you. My response was more an "overall" is it healthy to debate xtians as an ex-xtian.

[Mongo]

In trying to "share the Word of God" with non-believers, I always ask if they are willing to accept the Bible as factual data, much as a judge would have to decide on the admissibility of evidence as valid or not. If the non-believer is unwilling or unable to accept the Bible as unerring, then it should be quoted with caution by believers, and NOT AT ALL by non-believers. I mean, think of it... Many non-believers quote the Bible in their various attempts to find the holes in it; yet, why quote a source document in which one doesn't believe? The Bible states, of itself, that it is unerring, and God-breathed - in other words, it is ALL written by God, although penned by man, and WITHOUT error.

 

Kat,

 

An alternate view to consider...

 

I think there is a shread of logic in the wayward fundy's response but I doubt they have the ability to articulate it.

 

To me, using scripture to argue with a xtian is like throwing water on a duck.

 

The fundy in question actually points the way for us... they basically state that the prime argument for us is to assert that the bible is a collection of flawed books and that we should make the case for it being flawed.

 

The problem on our side is that we have so little knowledge of the flaws of how the bible was compiled and edited that we go the 2nd best route and start arguing the bible using the sanitized (edited) version we know of today.

 

I'm just started to read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman. Collecting this mental information is difficult but so is learning the bible.

 

Maybe we should go for the juggular and talk more about why we don't trust the bible. That is my aim as I read such books.

 

I'm aware that alot of what we say to xtians, when we use scripture, "suggests" that the bible is untrustworthy but from what I read on blogs and such, it comes off as an indirect assault, and I fear, far too subtle for their ears which are accustomed to only absorbing messages that are pounded out from a pulpit.

 

If you run into this person again, you might seek out some agreement on the pointlessness of using scripture and then highlight the multifarious reasons why you don't trust the bible as an authorative source.

 

Just another angle to consider.

 

Mongo

[GraphicsGuy]

If fundies are supposedly going to live their lives by the Bible then they should damn well follow it. If they get out of line then anyone has the right to correct them according to what their own book of beliefs says.

[R. S. Martin]

Up early. It's 7:30 AM here. But I was up late too ('til 2:30 LOL).

Ah, yeah, east coast. Didn't realize it was getting this close to dawn here.

 

Dawn? at 4:30 am? I've been mulling this over ever since reading it this morning. This is late November and at 7:30 Eastern Time we're just heading into daylight here in Southern Ontario. What does he mean on the West Coast about dawn being even close???

 

Finally I clued in. Southern California is so much closer to the equator that the days never get as short and dawn is probably a lot closer at 4:30 am in late November than here.

[R. S. Martin]

I'm aware that alot of what we say to xtians, when we use scripture, "suggests" that the bible is untrustworthy but from what I read on blogs and such, it comes off as an indirect assault, and I fear, far too subtle for their ears which are accustomed to only absorbing messages that are pounded out from a pulpit.

 

I don't know about the fundies in your area but I know about my own people. All they need to know is a person's basic position. If they disagree with a person's basic position, i.e. the speaker is atheist, then anything that person says is going to be scrapped. If a fundy said the same words, they would be accepted. The reason? They would ascribe a different meaning to the fundy's statement than to the atheist's statement, even though they had spoken the same words, word for word. They could read the same verse from the KJV Bible and different meanings would be ascribed to them depending on the reader's basic position.

 

They will respond with things like, "Oh sure he said/read such and such, but we know what he really means." Taking things at face value is outside their comprehension. It's not part of their world view. That has been my experience with the people around here. That is why reasoning with them is impossible.

[Mongo]

They will respond with things like, "Oh sure he said/read such and such, but we know what he really means." Taking things at face value is outside their comprehension. It's not part of their world view. That has been my experience with the people around here. That is why reasoning with them is impossible.

 

Absolutely. I've seen the hypocracy of this loyalty myself. It is so blatent too.

 

I guess that is why I'm looking for better avenues to engage xtians.

 

I mentioned on another thread that my brother was loosening up and sometime prior to that he and I had an intense debate on evolution where I simply asserted that what he claimed was not factual and that he needed to educate himself. Now he displays a sharper disagreement with other xtians who are not as broad minded as he is. One of my brother's fundamental desires is to be perceived as intellegent. My approach plays on that.

 

I guess that is why I'm attempting to get a grasp on how the bible came to be. That way, I can dispute the validity of the bible, cite some factual information and assert that the fundy in question needs to read up on the topic and learn about the bible's origins or at least the New Testament.

 

I think forcing the fundy into this territory can only be a good thing.

 

All of my disputes (several long email engagements) have boiled down to trust in the bible as god's word to man on earth. Once that pillar is gone, the rest of fundamentalism crumbles. (This was where my knowledge faltered.)

 

As well, I think spreading this kind of information puts it out there for the innocent bystanders to have the this particular seed of doubt planted.

 

As an example, I was reading Misquoting Jesus in the lunch room at work and someone asked what I was reading. I had just stared it and wasn't sure what the book would lead me to but it gave me an opportunity to underscore that the New Testament was changed many times by scribes and others who intentionally or accidentally altered the text.

 

Now that I'm half way through, I now have something concrete to say when someone asserts that the bible is god's word or when they keep quoting it.

 

Mongo

[R. S. Martin]

Mongo,

 

I remember the story about your brother. As I read your present post I am made to think of MY brother. I think of things like levels of education and layers of society. My brother will think he is reading advanced historical thought and science when/if he reads what you and your brother grew up on. How do I get my brother to so much as look at anything approaching real factual history and reliable science and archaeology?

 

My sister, who taught elementary school for ten years, believes that science is nothing but hear-say and gossip. She believes one person thinks it might work this way and another passes it on for fact, so it gets recorded as the theory of evolution. This is a simplistic restatement of her theory. However, her theory is a direct replica of the Old Order Mennonite Grapevine of Gossip. That Grapevine of Gossip, by the way, is continent wide and includes all the Plain Communities coast to coast, along with their publishing houses and educational systems. We are talking about tens of thousands of people outside, though related to, the mainstream fundy-evangelical systems. That is how "news" is produced. She imagines "science" is produced the same way.

 

1. How does one get through the skull of a person like that without using an electric drill?--not that that would do any good.

 

2. We grew up practically like twins. How can we turn out so drastically different? Bad question.

 

What are their core values? Loyalty and duty to Truth and Tradition. Hmmm. Undermining the illusion that their dress code goes back all the way to the Anabaptists might produce a hairline crack. But not a thing more. A challenge to the dress code is a challenge to Sacred Law. The dress code is based on the command to be separate from the world and to be humble. Rebellion against that law can get you sent to hell with no return ticket.