Religion - I can understand someone believing in god/jesus, but why do they believe in the bible?

[Deadbeat]

I could really but what will it prophet thou? do you seek enlightenment or something else?

No, not enlightenment - not from the bible. As I've mentioned before, I have nothing against the Christian creed. The vast majority of Christians I've met have been decent, rational people, but they're not the ones who consider the bible to be the spoken word of God. Most are happy to pick and choose what tenets to live their life by, and feel no shame in doing so - all power to them, they generally shape their faith to allow them to be the best person they can be. Even those who respect the bible as a human transcription of God's words most often accept that the times have changed. The only problem I have is with those who refuse to acknowledge the contradictions and travesties littering the texts, those who use passages from the bible to justify any aspect of their lives that comes under criticism, who cling to the bible as the exact word of God and yet still see that word as mutable, twisting the meaning of the text as close to acceptability as they can and paying no heed to how far they distort the original passages.

Without ranting on and risk inciting conflict, would you please answer just that one question in my last post? Genesis 19 - how, in any setting or situation, at any conceivable point in civilised human society, could you possibly justify a man offering his two virgin daughters to hold a mob in abeyance?

Edit: I throw the question out wide to any other Christians who believe in the immutability and purity of the bible.

 

[Castiel]

Deadbeat, you do know that later in the bible, I forget where (posting on a phone so no resources) that Genesis and several other parts of the jewish section of the bible (old testament) are clearly stated as being allegorical.

As an agnostic I can see that some of texts in any holy book are clearly abhorrent to modern sensibilities. What we have to remember is that they are tools for guidance and whilst relevent to the societies in which they were born it takes study and careful interpretation to make then relevent to modern society. There is nothing wrong in this, each abrahamic religion has done this to begin with anyway, the bible was born from the torah and talmud, the quran born from the bible and the torah in a progression relevent to the time in which each religion began.

Most people know this and interpret the texts accordingly, a minority will not and not only religious people either.

 

[Deadbeat]

Deadbeat, you do know that later in the bible, I forget where (posting on a phone so no resources) that Genesis and several other parts of the jewish section of the bible (old testament) are clearly stated as being allegorical.

As an agnostic I can see that some of texts in any holy book are clearly abhorrent to modern sensibilities. What we have to remember is that they are tools for guidance and whilst relevent to the societies in which they were born it takes study and careful interpretation to make then relevent to modern society. There is nothing wrong in this, each abrahamic religion has done this to begin with anyway, the bible was born from the torah and talmud, the quran born from the bible and the torah in a progression relevent to the time in which each religion began.

Most people know this and interpret the texts accordingly, a minority will not and not only religious people either.

I guess this is the crux of my statement, couched in more reasonable and informed prose. However, I'd dsagree that most people know their holy books (at least the bulk of them) are allegorical, and to my knowledge there's no clear distinction between what should be read as allegory and what should be enshrined in dogma, so any one part of the texts can be claimed as either to suit the motive of the quoter. In addition, even labelling the trickier sections as 'allegory' does little to ease my mind - for what tenable situation is the above-mentioned passage a suitable allegory? Finally, do you have a reference for which part of the bible describes what is allegory and what is factual account?

 

[rapid64k]

Genesis 19 - how, in any setting or situation, at any conceivable point in civilised human society, could you possibly justify a man offering his two virgin daughters to hold a mob in abeyance?

.

This is why i cannot go any further with you sir, you just said that Sodom and Gomorrah "was a civilised human society"
Do you see why I have to stop now. its been good, God bless.

 

[Deadbeat]

This is why i cannot go any further with you sir, you just said that Sodom and Gomorrah "was a civilised human society"
Do you see why I have to stop now. its been good, God bless.

That's your interpretation of "reading the whole section"? As far as I know Lot was related to Abraham somehow, and they lived in Canaan before Lot left. The angels Lot offered his daughters to protect presaged the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, and presumably judged Lot to be worth saving after he'd offered up his daughters for gang rape because they warned him and he fled the city before its destruction, but his wife became a pillar of salt and they hid in the mountains where his daughers got him drunk and had sex with him to get pregnant.

I don't see why you should have to stop, though. You haven't started yet.

 

[Castiel]

I guess this is the crux of my statement, couched in more reasonable and informed prose. However, I'd dsagree that most people know their holy books (at least the bulk of them) are allegorical, and to my knowledge there's no clear distinction between what should be read as allegory and what should be enshrined in dogma, so any one part of the texts can be claimed as either to suit the motive of the quoter. In addition, even labelling the trickier sections as 'allegory' does little to ease my mind - for what tenable situation is the above-mentioned passage a suitable allegory? Finally, do you have a reference for which part of the bible describes what is allegory and what is factual account?

The fact is that most people do not know their holy books at all, and rely upon the Priests, Imams and Holy men to initiate them in their interpretation instead of discovering their own.

But that aside, from a purely theological viewpoint it is widely accepted that huge parts of the old testament, particularly Genesis are allegorical and are intended to be.

Galatians 4:22-26 Paul writes in his epistle:

"For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. The child of the slave was born according to the flesh; the child of the free woman was born through the promise. Now this is being allegorized: for these women are two covenants. One, indeed, is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. This is Hagar, for Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is a slave with her children. But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother"

this is just one example. Theologians since the 2nd Century have surmised that large parts of the Bible are allegorical and not meant literally.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Which translation is that from Castiel? The NIV uses the word "figuratively" and implies that what follows is the figurative part, rather than the historic story being referred to.

 

[Castiel]

Which translation is that from Castiel? The NIV uses the word "figuratively" and implies that what follows is the figurative part, rather than the historic story being referred to.

The New Revised Standard Version, or NRSV.

It is worded similarly in the KJV and English Standard Version, the ESV is thus

"22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. "

My Latin Vulgate bible for reference is this:

"22 scriptum est enim quoniam Abraham duos filios habuit unum de ancilla et unum de libera 23 sed qui de ancilla secundum carnem natus est qui autem de libera per repromissionem 24 quae sunt per allegoriam dicta haec enim sunt duo testamenta unum quidem a monte Sina in servitutem generans quae est Agar 25 Sina enim mons est in Arabia qui coniunctus est ei quae nunc est Hierusalem et servit cum filiis eius 26 illa autem quae sursum est Hierusalem libera est quae est mater nostra"

Again the bold part shows the allegorical intent of the passage.

This is my point, it is difficult to lay an literal intent on the Old Testament in regard to Christianity, the Old Testament is exactly what it says it is Old, and is superseded by the New Testament.

Of course I am not a Theist or believer as such, just an amateur theologian, and I would like to hear you perspective from your faith POV. (which denomination are you, If I should be so bold?)

 

[Vonhelmet]

I was going to guess at NRSV. It's supposed to be an excellent translation - very accurate and very detailed if you can cope with the more complex language it uses. I've been meaning to read through the bible in NRSV at some point. Might do that sooner rather than later. ESV is good too - I've found it to be very pleasant to read, almost poetic.

 

[Castiel]

I was going to guess at NRSV. It's supposed to be an excellent translation - very accurate and very detailed if you can cope with the more complex language it uses. I've been meaning to read through the bible in NRSV at some point. Might do that sooner rather than later. ESV is good too - I've found it to be very pleasant to read, almost poetic.

It is very good and takes advantage of the improved knowledge and translations available since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Might I suggest the NRSV common Bible as it contains the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books not found in the strictly Protestant version.

I understand that you may well be a protestant Christian, but it is always worth reading nonetheless even if you do not accept them as canon.

 

[e36Adz]

They may follow aspects of it but miss the entire point.

Why don't you tell us the entire point then?

I have barely scratched the surface, I could have gone on and on and on. I have seen many debates between muslim and christian scholars - debates in which the muslim scholar uses the Bible and only the Bible because that is the only source a Christian can accept, to show how they have completely abandoned the teachings of the Bible.

It's all well and good saying 'well things are open to interpretation.' You are right they are but some things are not, the meaning cannot be changed or twisted. If I say the sun is round, there is no way to can change that to mean the sun is square, no matter how hard you try. Those 2 definitions are contradictory, you can have one or the other, but not both.

Anything I quoted out of context, by all means correct me and show where I have missed the point. I could have gone on and on using nothing but the Bible, which although an atheist or agnostic may pay no attention too (fair do's they don't believe it to be the word of God), I would expect Christians to adhere to it's teachings.

I say this though - be christian, muslim, hindu, follow any religion but adhere to the holy scripture as strictly as you can, strive to understand and learn the holy scripture of your faith. But I have no respect for a religious person who is a pure hypocrite and has completely made up his own religion, in his own mind, which totally and blatantly goes against the holy scripture he/she claims to follow. They imo are the lowest of the low because they have changed what they themselves believe to be Gods word.

Islam doesn't just mean submission either. It means peace and purity in submission before God. Amazing how many people decide to leave out the peace part.....

You are indeed correct, Islam I think comes from the root word Salaam which means peace. It also means submission and I quoted that in reference to the Biblical quote I used.

/\

I'm afraid they all conveniently choose to ignore the bad parts of holy books where they don't like what is written.
But this is where is becomes futile for them to quote only the good parts in trying to justify the bible/koran as proof of anything they believe in because it then becomes hypocritical to shout down anyone who points out the , raping,stoning and all the other nasty stuff that's frequently in the scriptures.

Where would both those religions be without the aforementioned books because that's seemingly is the only visible thing they can base their entire belief on.

The 'bad' things are subjective though, you may consider something bad that someone else does not. Something may be bad now, which in 50 years is considered fine.

Muslims consider what God has deemed right and wrong in the Quran, to be exactly that. That hasn't changed, and I don't think any muslim will deliberately miss out quotes were they don't like what is written, if they felt that way I think they need to ask themselves if they are in the right faith.

Let me just point out that Shariah Law only comes into practice when you actually have Islamic law in place. So you could not try to enforce a certain punishment eg. cutting the hands off a thief, in this society where zakat (charity) and other such practices are not compulsory.

 

[batsy]

It is very good and takes advantage of the improved knowledge and translations available since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Might I suggest the NRSV common Bible as it contains the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books not found in the strictly Protestant version.

I understand that you may well be a protestant Christian, but it is always worth reading nonetheless even if you do not accept them as canon.

Castiel, your ego is Superhuman

 

[Deadbeat]

I say this though - be christian, muslim, hindu, follow any religion but adhere to the holy scripture as strictly as you can, strive to understand and learn the holy scripture of your faith. But I have no respect for a religious person who is a pure hypocrite and has completely made up his own religion, in his own mind, which totally and blatantly goes against the holy scripture he/she claims to follow. They imo are the lowest of the low because they have changed what they themselves believe to be Gods word.

I apologise if I insult you, I sympathise if I offend you, but in this statement you've pretty much summed up everything I find most abhorrent about organised religion.

 

[Castiel]

Castiel, your ego is Superhuman

Mmmmmmmmmm.

 

[Vonhelmet]

I say this though - be christian, muslim, hindu, follow any religion but adhere to the holy scripture as strictly as you can, strive to understand and learn the holy scripture of your faith. But I have no respect for a religious person who is a pure hypocrite and has completely made up his own religion, in his own mind, which totally and blatantly goes against the holy scripture he/she claims to follow. They imo are the lowest of the low because they have changed what they themselves believe to be Gods word.

Begging the question... is it God's word? And what does it mean for it to be God's word anyway?

 

[Uriel]

I too would recommend the NRSV. I also like the New Jerusalem Bible. These two seem to be favoured by more academically minded Christians and have generally been the translations of choice favoured by lecturers on theology courses I've attended (at least the ones that don't just translate from the Greek or Hebrew on the fly...).

 

[Castiel]

I say this though - be christian, muslim, hindu, follow any religion but adhere to the holy scripture as strictly as you can, strive to understand and learn the holy scripture of your faith. But I have no respect for a religious person who is a pure hypocrite and has completely made up his own religion, in his own mind, which totally and blatantly goes against the holy scripture he/she claims to follow. They imo are the lowest of the low because they have changed what they themselves believe to be Gods word.

You have no respect for those who do not adhere to your interpretation of what those scriptures mean, is what you are really stating.

That is rather arrogant don't you think. I can understand Deadbeats accusation here, although I will point out that thankfully most people of a religious persuasion I speak to do not share that view thankfully.

 

[e36Adz]

I apologise if I insult you, I sympathise if I offend you, but in this statement you've pretty much summed up everything I find most abhorrent about organised religion.

You find it abhorrent that a christian tries to follow the bible, or that a muslim tries to follow the quran etc? Really?

Atheists have more of my respect because they have rejected religious scripture and concluded their is no God. They do not call themself christian, maybe as some sort of safety net, then claim that they don't really believe in Jesus Christ pbuh, or God. They are not hypocritical in their beliefs.

Begging the question... is it God's word? And what does it mean for it to be God's word anyway?

Muslims believe the Quran was revealed directly to the prophet Muhammed pbuh by inspiration, through the angel Gabriel. The arabic text of the Quran, which to this day is identical in every arabic Quran (translations vary), are regarded as the literal words of God.

You have no respect for those who do not adhere to your interpretation of what those scriptures mean, is what you are really stating.
.

You are not that silly to have misunderstood me, therefore I will assume it was done deliberately.

BY ALL MEANS have your own interpretation of a religion scripture, but that would be supported BY the religious scripture. If book A says in black and white, the sun is round, I cannot argue I believe it is square and then claim to follow book A. Is that simple enough to comprehend?

 

[batsy]

Mmmmmmmmmm.

Ignore me, tbh i don't know why i quoted you and replied. Apologies

 

[Castiel]

You are not that silly to have misunderstood me, therefore I will assume it was done deliberately.

BY ALL MEANS have your own interpretation of a religion scripture, but that would be supported BY the religious scripture. If book A says in black and white, the sun is round, I cannot argue I believe it is square and then claim to follow book A. Is that simple enough to comprehend?

Well, as there is not too much in the Bible that would conform to your black and white ideology, I would say that your argument is therefore moot.

What religion do you ascribe too btw?