You're taking the bible too literal...your response.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-04-2012, 01:09 PM
RE: You're taking the bible too literal...your response.
Of course the Bible is not to be taken literally. I mean, according to theists, it's only the divinely inspired word of the all powerful and omnipotent creator of the universe. The actual CONTENT of the book is irrelevant, right?

Sure some of the passages are a little "dark" (Bears slaughtering groups of children, plagues wiping out families of innocent bystanders, invading and conquering foreign lands without any real justification, etc.), but those aren't important. You need to focus on the real meat of the book!

Namely:
Homosexuality is wrong
Abortion is wrong
Don't eat meat on Friday, unless you forget or you're really hungry. Then it's okay.
God loves you, but is still sending you to hell because you didn't stroke his ego enough by going to church.
So long as you repent, you don't need to take responsibility for your actions.

The rest of the book is just filler, and can be safely ignored.

</sarcasm>

The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of the mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Michael's post
05-04-2012, 02:15 PM
RE: You're taking the bible too literal...your response.
Interestingly enough, not taking the bible literally has was first introduced into the catholic Church in 490 AD.

@ Godless
the bible actually maintains a relatively average standard of historical accuracy, At least after Abraham.

@ DLC
I know I'm not very good at typing. I have to look down at the keyboard and I never read over my work.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2012, 02:19 AM
RE: You're taking the bible too literal...your response.
(03-04-2012 08:02 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Well, I guess it really depends on which part of the Bible you're talking about.

There are some parts that are stories. There are some parts that are historical data. There are some parts that are visions and apocalyptic language.

Moreover, the Bible isn't a science book, and it shouldn't be held to a scientific standard. God never said that His Word was literally inerrant. He said that His Word is divinely inspired and is useful for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteous. No where does it say that it's useful in teaching science.

There is a gigantic difference between "inspired" and "inerrant".
Well let's go with the story of Noah and the deluge.

Did Noah literally exist? Was he a real literal person? His family? etc. etc.....

Now whats literal and what's not? Was there really a flood that covered every mountain? I mean cmon, I get this 'read it context' feces thrown in my face all the time and when I read it in context I'm not interpreting it right.

Where do I draw the line between Noah really existing and the fact that a great deluge killed every fucking thing unless your on a big boat?

(03-04-2012 08:28 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(03-04-2012 08:27 AM)KVron Wrote:  God said his Word is divinely inspired..¿?
Inspired by whom? He's God!
Inspired by God himself?


Me no entender...

Yes. Scripture is inspired by Him to the author.
The way I understand it from most theist, God is the author. Man is the tool.

Much like you are the author and the pen is the tool.


(04-04-2012 09:44 PM)Godless Wrote:  
I used to believe there were parts of the bible that were historical but the more I look into it the more I find that almost no part at all of the bible is historically accurate to the standards that most historians require.

Is there a particular section or sections you feel are historically accurate?

That having been said my typical response to people who claim that we are being too literal is quite simple.


Oh yes because expecting an omniscience, omnipresent, and benevolent god to be accurate and accountable with the only set of instructions he leaves us is too high a standard for such a being.

Instead he has to leave it to us humans to interpret, translate, select (from dozens of gospels!) and mass produce his message for him and figure out which parts to take in which context.

This wouldn't even be so bad if said god would communicate with those reading to let them know what narrative bend to take with each passage but we all know how god is with communications.

Seriously though the moment a person makes the "out of context" argument without providing context it lets me know how truly informed they are about how logic and argument work.
Isn't it interesting how god makes us to interact with other a certain way. For example talking, writing, hearing, seeing, using a forum on a website........

yet he won't commune with us...



Of course, in the bible he talked directly to humans.

(05-04-2012 06:36 AM)Thomas Wrote:  I want to say this again. Please I beg of you theists to stop and think.
If the provable parts of a book are wrong, and you know the parts, how can the parts the can't be proven or disproven be claimed as true with a straight face?
Stop this insanity. Can you not see your delusion?
Whoa!

easy!

Don't overdo it. This is too much at a time man.

S p e a k s l o w l y. L i k e t h i s.

Forget Jesus. Stars died so you could live.-Lawrence Krauss

For god loved the world so much he tortured his only begotten son, gave him a 3 day nap only to wake up in ultimate awesomeness and called it a sacrifice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atheist Chiefs fan!'s post
06-04-2012, 02:43 AM
RE: You're taking the bible too literal...your response.
Well if we're asking if noah existed and going to get into flood myths....

Why aren't we also validating Matsya and that flood myth too? Afterall, hinduism is also an accepted religion in many parts of the world.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2012, 03:00 AM
RE: You're taking the bible too literal...your response.
(06-04-2012 02:43 AM)Logisch Wrote:  Well if we're asking if noah existed and going to get into flood myths....

Why aren't we also validating Matsya and that flood myth too? Afterall, hinduism is also an accepted religion in many parts of the world.
Well I just used that as an example.

But you know what is interesting?

Look up and see how many theologies have a flood legend.

Forget Jesus. Stars died so you could live.-Lawrence Krauss

For god loved the world so much he tortured his only begotten son, gave him a 3 day nap only to wake up in ultimate awesomeness and called it a sacrifice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2012, 03:03 AM
RE: You're taking the bible too literal...your response.
(06-04-2012 03:00 AM)Atheist Chiefs fan! Wrote:  
(06-04-2012 02:43 AM)Logisch Wrote:  Well if we're asking if noah existed and going to get into flood myths....

Why aren't we also validating Matsya and that flood myth too? Afterall, hinduism is also an accepted religion in many parts of the world.
Well I just used that as an example.

But you know what is interesting?

Look up and see how many theologies have a flood legend.
That was a good bit of my point. There are many of them. There are also many religions. Most of the hangup seems to be on christianity or the abrahamic religions. Why? Why would one religion get a "fair shot" at that god being "the god" if there are also many other religions throughout the world? Many of them have similar stories. Many of those stories also seem to come from polytheism. Therefore, why is it unreasonable to think that many of the abrahamic religions also came up as similar.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: