Biblical Literalism Gone Mad

[drwayne]

"But it certainly wouldn't be the place of such puny beings as we to exercise judgement of or over God."

I have no problem declaring that a god that would create man to keep him company because he was lonely, knowing the costs, is completely evil.

So we are left with a choice. Either this god is evil, or the literal interpretation of scriptures might be a "tad"
off.

Wayne

[doom_shepherd]

"But it certainly wouldn't be the place of such puny beings as we to exercise judgement of or over God."

I have no problem declaring that a god that would create man to keep him company because he was lonely, knowing the costs, is completely evil.

So we are left with a choice. Either this god is evil, or the literal interpretation of scriptures might be a "tad"
off.

Wayne

I wouldn't say completly evil. I'd say "not capable of or interested in acting according to human morality, and certainly not the 'awesome God' of Christian Mythology."

Here's my crackpot theory... Sorry, "untestable, unprovable guess that I pulled out of my butt." I know the difference between religion and theory. or at least, one that fits reality a little better than Christianity does...

In the Beginning, there was God.

However, being alone in the universe for eternity is pretty awesomely boring and lame.

So God said, "This sucks. I need someone to talk to. I mean, okay, a dog would be fine but you just can't relate to pets on the same level as you can to real thinking beings on the same level as you. So... I will make LIFE. I will set up a cosmos according to some physical laws, set some conditions that will enable life to grow, and force it to change over time, and adapt, and with a little luck every so often something smart will arise, and grow, and learn, and eventually members of those species will reach out to the universe and learn about it and become even smarter and over the eons, those who achieve intelligence and the wisdom not to destroy themselves will become super-smart, and then when they get to the level that they can begin manipulating the universe by the same terms that I do... I'll walk on over and say 'Hi, how do you like the place?' And have someone to talk to."

"But I'll mix it up a lot, so that I'll never know what's going to happen or who's going to evolve. And I'll have to leave it alone because everybody knows that messing around with the experiment ruins the value, and even the observation can change the outcome - I think I'll call that the 'uncertainty principle' Uncertainty will be very important. Plus, I won't want to know everything about them before I meet them. That would make conversation so DULL!"

"It will be an AWESOME surprise."

And whumph, there was a universe.

And She's still waiting for the next species to join the party.

Sure it's crazy. But no crazier than any other theology, and it much more cleanly avoids the Problem of Evil, of Incomprehensibility, and... well, just about everything other problem I've ever heard of except the whole Thermodynamics issue.

[doom_shepherd]

Maybe so. No one ever said life would be a blissful bed of roses.

Well, actually... that IS how the stories say we started out. And really, if you don't accept at least SOME of the origin story as true, everything that follows it makes even LESS sense.

Would you rather not exist at all?

I'd rather have a God that was consistent. I can't trust yours.

He might.

Then he IS evil. Only the most evil people punish children for the crimes of their parents.

And there are fates worse than death.

yeah, like living forever standing around singing hosannas to a tin-plated dictator with delusions of grandeur.

True. It was the molester's choice to do evil. But it is the victim's choice in how they deal with it.

I can tell you, that's really absolutely no comfort whatsoever to the victim.

No one has ever said that individual free will has anything whatsoever to do with external, macro events. If you fall off of a cliff, it was an accident. If you jump off the cliff, that was your free will.

And if you were thrown off the cliff by a sudden earthquake, that could have been prevented by His Omnipotence...

And you pride yourself on your rationality?

Fight fire WITH fire...

Then you either you have an opinion of yourself as low as that in which you hold others, or, you think highly of yourself because you think lower of them. Again with your irrationality.

Oh stop, you're making me sound like God.

You don't know the cirlces I travel in, so that's an illogical statement.

I'm watching you travel in circles right now. With your reasoning.

Pre-decision? Try to understand. We are predestined, according to the Presbyterian interpretation, but you make the choice, it's not "pre-decided" just because God knows the outcome.

Yes it is. God knew I'd say that. He thinks it's hilarious. If he wanted it to be any other way, he could subtly arrange it so it was, and we'd never know or have our free will violated. (That's what "omnipotent" means.) He simply chooses to let it suck. Because He doesn't care.

Funny, if you look at it with a critical eye, the Gospels pretty much teach that we're all equally worthless cannon fodder in God's eyes. Also that slavery is OK. And that women, in general, suck. There are more female antagonists in the Bible than there are demonic ones. That says a lot. Not the greatest example.

I never ran across that we are cannon fodder in God's eyes.

Hey, you're the one calling humans "puny" on behalf of God. You ever heard anyone using the word "puny" in a context that denotes "worthy of respect and dignity?" Not by anybody who speaks English correctly.

Examples? Sure, anytime God sends humans to do his dirty work. "Clear out that valley, kill everyone (except the women who you can rape)," and settle there.

Also, everybody who dies in the events of "Revelations" is clearly expendable. Human suffering as a backdrop, while God plays Michael Bay with the whole Universe!

Chrisianity was reborn in the late Middle Ages through the Reformation. In fact, the Reformation as well as the Renaissance are used by historians to demarcate the fuzzy line between medieval and modern times.

And yet, the Inquisition and the Witch Hunts both came later than that. Christianity loves to rewrite its own history, doesn't it?

Have you ever fought in a "Holy War"?

Not till just now...

Anyone of faith is just as allowed to doubt everything same as the faithless.

Except for that whole Hell-torture-forever-soul-destruction-threat. Faith at the point of a Gun. Yay.

Again with the concrete literalism.

Well, hellfire, isn't there ANY part of that book that's ACTUALLY true?

If someone is trying to crush your skull with a baseball bat, Jesus doesn't expect you to just stand there and let him.

But you ARE supposed to let him drag you off to a show trial and execution. Got it.

Not for one copy. For ANY copy. Of ANY book, even the Bible. Try to burn a copy of Harry Potter in front of me and I will lay down a smiting upon thee that would make God's favored smiting Angels cringe.

Not very logical.

Just a different set of priorities. I work in mysterious ways, my wonders to perform...

[ZenGalacticore]

"But it certainly wouldn't be the place of such puny beings as we to exercise judgement of or over God."

I have no problem declaring that a god that would create man to keep him company because he was lonely, knowing the costs, is completely evil.

So we are left with a choice. Either this god is evil, or the literal interpretation of scriptures might be a "tad"
off.

Wayne

I thought I've been saying all along that the stories in the Bible cannot be taken absolutely literally. We should not judge one another, so how can we judge God? (Meaning, judging one another on a personal level in daily life, judging their soul, as opposed to a court of law among men, judging and punishing, for proven crimes committed.)

Whether God created the Universe because he was lonely is anybody's guess. But I doubt that that was the reason.

[ZenGalacticore]

"I would try not to confuse the results of His actions, with the result of our actions."

There is no "our" before creation. Only god. He knew, before there was any we what would
happen, the suffering that would be induced. A loving god would have not created man, or
would have created him under conditions which did not lead to the issues that arose.

Well then, perhaps the Old Testament is correct, that God is also a wrathful God, as well as a loving one; and according to Scripture, he is both. And this is Scripture, not my opinion, I hope Mr. Doom understands that.

[ZenGalacticore]

I'd rather have a God that was consistent. I can't trust yours.

Then find your own.

He might.

Then he IS evil. Only the most evil people punish children for the crimes of their parents.

If a pregnant woman smokes and drinks and snorts meth and her baby is born retarded or malformed, that was her choice. But hey, maybe God is both good and evil. Like you said, the Devil still works for Him.

And there are fates worse than death.

yeah, like living forever standing around singing hosannas to a tin-plated dictator with delusions of grandeur.

Is that your idea of heaven? Is that the best you can do when imagining infinite bliss? Pretty sad Doom.

I can tell you, that's really absolutely no comfort whatsoever to the victim.

Whoever said that I was trying to be comforting? Life ain't fair, get over it.

And if you were thrown off the cliff by a sudden earthquake, that could have been prevented by His Omnipotence...

In case you haven't noticed, we live in a Universe where events happen. Get over it. Earthquakes are a geologic underpinning of the fluid, living Earth. Would you rather live on a dead planet? Oh yeah, that's right, there's no life on dead worlds.

And you pride yourself on your rationality?

Fight fire WITH fire...

Yes. But you seem to be getting very angry. Why is that? It's funny how atheists claim to be so rational and logical all the time, yet they are easy to anger.

You don't know the cirlces I travel in, so that's an illogical statement.

I'm watching you travel in circles right now. With your reasoning.

I could say the same for you.

Pre-decision? Try to understand. We are predestined, according to the Presbyterian interpretation, but you make the choice, it's not "pre-decided" just because God knows the outcome.

Hey, you're the one calling humans "puny" on behalf of God. You ever heard anyone using the word "puny" in a context that denotes "worthy of respect and dignity?" Not by anybody who speaks English correctly.

Are you a big man compared to the Earth? Or the Sun? Or the Universe? No. We are puny compared to celestial bodies or the Cosmos itself. And therefore, we are puny when compared to God. But we are able to soar in spirit, or spiral downward in hateful spite, as you seem to be doing.

Also, everybody who dies in the events of "Revelations" is clearly expendable. Human suffering as a backdrop, while God plays Michael Bay with the whole Universe!

I have no idea what Revelations is about exactly. Some people say it was actually about the Roman Empire and its destruction, written in code so that the authorities couldn't decipher it. Perhaps you can enlighten us all as to what it's really talking about. Whatever it is, I wouldn't take it literally, as you seem to be doing yet again.

Chrisianity was reborn in the late Middle Ages through the Reformation. In fact, the Reformation as well as the Renaissance are used by historians to demarcate the fuzzy line between medieval and modern times.

And yet, the Inquisition and the Witch Hunts both came later than that. Christianity loves to rewrite its own history, doesn't it?

The Inquisition occurred in Catholic Spain before, and all during the Reformation. There was no reformation of the Spanish Catholic Church. And witch hunts occurred long before, during, and after the Reformation. Where has the history been re-written? You are making things up again.

Have you ever fought in a "Holy War"?

Not till just now...

Glad to see that you are feeling the passion!

Anyone of faith is just as allowed to doubt everything same as the faithless.

Except for that whole Hell-torture-forever-soul-destruction-threat. Faith at the point of a Gun. Yay.

Yep. Pretty scary, isn't it?

Again with the concrete literalism.

Well, hellfire, isn't there ANY part of that book that's ACTUALLY true?

Just because something is written figuratively in parts, doesn't make it untrue.

If someone is trying to crush your skull with a baseball bat, Jesus doesn't expect you to just stand there and let him.

But you ARE supposed to let him drag you off to a show trial and execution. Got it.

Your talking about one incident involving Christ himself. He didn't allow force to be used to protect his physical body for his own reasons. Besides, what were a handful of unarmed disciples going to do against the Roman army?


It was great corresponding with you. I'll give you the last word, as I know you will insist on having it anyway. And if I don't, this thread WILL go on for a billion years.

[wick07]

Wow, a lot was said in the last day. I will have to work overtime to catch up .

First, In relation to Job:
The main moral of the story of Job (as I see it, subject to interpretation) is that there is an inherent folly in assuming that bad things happen because you are bad, and good things happen because you are good. The story begins with a discussion between God and Satan, in which God is gushing about how great Job is. So Satan replies that Job is only faithful because God is good to him. God retorts that this is BS and proposes a demonstration.

So all sorts of bad things happen to Job, all his wealth is taken away, his family killed, and his health destroyed. Job’s good friends come over to commiserate with him, and spend the next 30 something chapters trying to convince him that clearly he has done something to offend God, all he needs to do is atone and the world will be right again. Job protests that he has done nothing wrong (which we already know is true from the opening scene), but his “wise” friends just keep telling him that denial is the first sign. In the end, Job remains faithful to God, despite all these horrible things that happened.

The point to all this that the “wisdom” of Job’s friends is based on an incorrect assumption, bad things don’t just happen because you are bad. This has two implications:
1) Being faithful to God does not mean your life will be perfect. Despite what some may preach, faithfulness does not bring wealth or fame.
2) Just because someone is suffering you shouldn’t assume it is their fault. A true friend would be there to help and give comfort, not preach about how they must deserve it.

This is the lesson I take from Job. Feel free to take your own lesson from the story, the Bible is good like that. More of my response to some other thoughts coming up, stay tuned!

[wick07]

Now on to my thoughts about free will vs God’s omniscience.

I should start with some of my assumptions (Feel free to challenge these! That discussion would be a great one to have in itself!):
1) God created the Universe, and therefore must be able to exist outside of it (whatever that means)
2) The dimensions we take for granted (ie physical, temporal, etc) are defined within our Universe only, and are undefined outside our Universe (or conversely these dimensions define our Universe and therefore do not apply outside of it).

I think many of you can see where I am going with this. What we experience as “time” is the linear progression along a temporal axis. As far as we know it’s a one-way trip.

But what about God, who exists outside of our Universe? Simply stated, God will not experience time. So we are free to make our choices and experience their ramifications. From God’s perspective both occur simultaneously. (Not exactly the concept I am trying to express, but I can’t think of a better word. Anyone?)

God knows where our choices lead because time simply doesn’t apply; yet we still are not bound by any limits on our choices within our universe. God already knows who will be with him for eternity (predestination), but you still have the free choice to choose to be one of them, or not.

[abq_farside]

....First, In relation to Job:
The main moral of the story of Job (as I see it, subject to interpretation) is that there is an inherent folly in assuming that bad things happen because you are bad, and good things happen because you are good. The story begins with a discussion between God and Satan, in which God is gushing about how great Job is. So Satan replies that Job is only faithful because God is good to him. God retorts that this is BS and proposes a demonstration.

So all sorts of bad things happen to Job, all his wealth is taken away, his family killed, and his health destroyed. ......

So you are saying that God used Job for demonstration purposes and had all sorts of bad things happen to him to prove a point? Nice.

Maybe in this case demonstration had a different meaning.

[drwayne]

And the Job story is also almost always viewed from *his* perspective. What *he*lost.
The perspective of the folks that were actually killed are seldom considered.

Now, after everything is over, Job gets a new family, and the ending is
presented as a "happily ever after" sort of outcome. Taken on its face, this story
has another lesson. The loved ones around you are replacable canon fodder.

Before you laugh too hard at this, consider this. I have asked some "church goin" folks
about how they could be happy in heaven, knowing that friends, family and loved ones
are spending an eternity suffering in hell - the answer is somethng along the lines of
"when we are in heaven, we won't remember them, only our relationship to the lord
matters"

Now, all of this comes into play if you want to view Job as a literal, historical fact.
If you view it as a story with a lesson, then things such as the point I just made become
plot holes, and they are far from essential to the story.

[wick07]

So you are saying that God used Job for demonstration purposes and had all sorts of bad things happen to him to prove a point? Nice.

Maybe in this case demonstration had a different meaning.

Yes, that is a bit if a dick move on the part of God ! However I don't believe the story is meant to be true in the literal sense, rather it is a parable. My reading of the parable is that we should not necessarily link Earthly happenings directly to the will of the divine, we can't see the "big" picture.

With respect to God's little bet, in the context of the society that told the story of Job, God would be expected to behave in the way indicated (it was a very human interaction between him an Satan wasn't it, but what do you expact from a story told by humans?) To take any part of the Bible and not view it within the context of the society that wrote it will lead you to some really wierd conclusions.

As you can tell, I am clearly not a biblical literalist.

[wick07]

Now, after everything is over, Job gets a new family, and the ending is
presented as a "happily ever after" sort of outcome. Taken on its face, this story
has another lesson. The loved ones around you are replacable canon fodder.

Once again, the story must be taken in the context of the society. At that time, a wife and children were considered posessions (charished ones, but still). So, yeah, they are completely replacable.

[drwayne]

If it is a story, then one is off the hook. Then looking at the story from all angles is like
looking for plot holes in "Gilligan's Island" - yep they are there in force, but does it matter?

The story context information also shows that it would be very - unwise for any relgion to place so
much emphasis on a written book to determine the eternal fate of all. Within a short time
period, much of the "color" of the meanings is lost. Not just the words, which can change
in understood meaning, but also the shared societal information. The "inside story" that
gets lost to most. (How many people know that there is commentary on real life figures
in classic literature like Gulliver's Travels?)

While some like to refer to the "Timeless" nature of the bible, clearly one only has to look
at the spirited (and at times Free Space nasty) arguments that spring up about what
the bible says about topics like hell, heaven, and redemption - the fact is that "experts"
don't agree on important messages. And that is with just one main type of bible. Imagine
how it was at the time that Marcion, and Gnostics and such were preaching a very different
message about Jesus and what his life and death meant...whew...

[ZenGalacticore]

If it is a story, then one is off the hook. Then looking at the story from all angles is like
looking for plot holes in "Gilligan's Island" - yep they are there in force, but does it matter?

Of course it's a story. How else could it be told to the human race?

Am I to understand that you are comparing the story of the birth, life, ministry, teachings, and Crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth to a CBS production called "Gilligan's Island"?

You speak of "looking at the story from all angles", and yet you suggest that the "Gnostic" gospels were ignored because of some reason or another. Because why? The "Gnostic" so-called "gospels" were ignored because they did not corroborate one another.

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were included in the New Testament because they were written by different men, at different times, and they all reported on the same events. Separately, independently; and yet their four stories corroborate and check out. Four different eye-witness accounts of the same events.

It was not so long ago... These men preached this "Word" at imminent risk to their lives. 2,000 years have now transpired. Whoopi-Goldberg-Doo! My grandmother lived to be 90. So about twenty-two grandma lifetimes ago, Jesus walked the Earth.

The story context information also shows that it would be very - unwise for any relgion to place so
much emphasis on a written book to determine the eternal fate of all.

Would you rather have the eternal fate of all based on gossip and hearsay? The stories and the knowledge handed down by word of mouth?

Word of mouth and oral transmission is always more accurate and trustworthy than the written word.*

Or no?

*Granted. The 'written' word is not the only law or "word". It is not the reality we face, as life is transient and ever changing. Therefore, anybody who has eyes and ears must accept dynamics and flux. I freely acknowledge change, biological evolution, the dynamic Universe, progress, flux and elasticity. Think of the Word of God as like plate tectonics, slowly changing. Disruptive at times, but an overall positive result.

Within a short time period, much of the "color" of the meanings is lost.

Is it? If I say to you, "Those who will be first, will be last. Those who will be your master, must be your slave..." How is that "color" faded or impotent over time? Is the meaning lost? What is the meaning?

Those who think highly of themselves will be humbled. And the humble will be exalted.

(I think that is at least a big part of what it means. And the thought was written down 2,000 years ago.) 2,000 years. Whoopy-Doo. It's so much faded I have no idea what he was saying... Right.

(How many people know that there is commentary on real life figures
in classic literature like Gulliver's Travels?)

Swift wrote "Gulliver's Travels" as a satire and parody of his own times. So? I'm really not trying to be mean or anything Dr.Wayne, but many people know about Swift's allegorical and metaphorical commentary about the social and political injustices of his time. (It's fairly obvious in the book. It was obvious to his contemporaries, that's why the book sold so well in the first place.)

While some like to refer to the "Timeless" nature of the bible, clearly one only has to look
at the spirited (and at times Free Space nasty) arguments that spring up about what
the bible says about topics like hell, heaven, and redemption - the fact is that "experts"
don't agree on important messages.

There are no "experts". Jesus himself, when asked, did not claim to know the time of the end of humanity, or "the world". The "Good News" as transmitted and handed down to us byChrist refers to our eternal souls, not to anyone's opinion(including mine), or a scientific experiment, or any temporal view of the Universe. When we die, Mr. Wayne. When we die. And we all die in the flesh.

And no offense to all here in "Free Space", or all here and sunder at SDC, but as you know the teachings of Jesus Christ predate Space.Com by two thousand years, and his teachings will outlive Space.Com indefinitely. Be assured of that fact.

Christians prefer to believe that the spirit lives on... Faithful Christians know it. If the Gospels that relate the teachings and ministry of Jesus Christ are a lie, then it is the greatest hoax ever played upon Man. Or, it is the Truth. Christians believe it to be the Truth.*

* If every man and woman followed Christ's teachings in our hearts, you know it would be true. Only then could Christ's "Kingdom" be established on "Earth". IOWs, it's not about "Earth" at all! But about the continuity of our consciousness.

Anyway, pardon my tirade. It is a matter of faith. But SDC, CBS, CIA, whatever, I cannot deny Jesus of Nazerath,the Son Incarnate of the Living Almighty God. (Even though I think "Creationists" should be deported. )

And that is with just one main type of bible.

Interesting how that "one main type of Bible" managed to reach well over 1/3 of the 6,000,000,000 human beings on the planet at present. After only a couple of thousand years at that! (I mean, let's not think for one minute that they've all read 'Robin Hood' or 'Huckleberry Finn'!)

[KickLaBuka]

the fact is that "experts" don't agree on important messages

I know a few very religious people and what I take out of it is that they don't realize their place in their studies. They read a bad story/situation and they assume that they are the other guy. They see a good one and assume that because it's written in their religion, they represent the good guy because they go to church with other perfect people. Then there's the people who are so set on the written words that they try to force a prophesy to their own liking, and anything or anybody that doesn't fit the molds they have invisioned are obviously the devil himself. I've been close to each of these types of people and it's a bit ridiculous.

[drwayne]

"Of course it's a story. How else could it be told to the human race?"

A story, as opposed to an historical (factual) acount. A story that has a moral that is the "point of the story" is allowed to have plot holes, as long as the point is made.

"The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were included in the New Testament because they were written by different men, at different times, and they all reported on the same events. Separately, independently; and yet their four stories corroborate and check out. Four different eye-witness accounts of the same events."

I would submit to you, and many historians would as well, that they are NOT independent accounts, and are certainly NOT eye-witness testimony.

"Would you rather have the eternal fate of all based on gossip and hearsay?"

Actually, an all powerful god would talk to his people directly. He would not rely on a book

[drwayne]

"Anyway, pardon my tirade. It is a matter of faith. But SDC, CBS, CIA, whatever, I cannot deny Jesus of Nazerath,the Son Incarnate of the Living Almighty God. (Even though I think "Creationists" should be deported. )"

You were not asked to, at least by me. I am very happy for you and your faith.

I just do not believe in literalism. (Or inerrancy for that matter).

I certainly do not beleive in ECT.

[CalliArcale]

Actually, an all powerful god would talk to his people directly. He would not rely on a book

A very important point, and one which is actually made in the Bible itself. The Bible recounts many stories of people talking directly to God, and vice versa. There are many conclusions one can draw from this, even if one doesn't regard the entire thing as complete nonsense. Some folks tend to think that God used to talk directly to people, but doesn't any more, which is why we need the Bible -- it carries those ancient communications into the present day. Others feel that He only speaks to special people. Me, I think both of those are wrong. I think God abides in all of us. We're just not very good at listening.

[drwayne]

In Christianity, that direct channel is supposed to be idea behind the Holy Spirit.

At least, that is what I think. But then again, I hold a number of opinions that are considered
heretical with respect to a "literal" reading of the Bible.

[lampblack]

I took a look at the forum (and a few threads) over there last week and it seems that some of those posters have real loose screws. I wonder how they even function in today's society. The moderators seems pretty coarse and I am sure they don't like a lot of dissention in their ranks. Seems like a bunch of people that preach to the choir and all the bobbles head just agreeing.

I wonder how they even call themselves Christians.

You do realize that the Landover Baptist Church is a parody site, not a real Church.

Yep, it's a parody web site -- but you have to spend some time with it before the joke sinks in. Many of the "views" expressed are so close to views I have actually heard expressed by folks who were being deadly serious.

For some, the actual truth of the matter will finally sink in during the site registration process. As a final step, it requires you to complete a Bible verse with the missing word from the King James Version. Song of Solomon 8:10: "I am a wall, and my ______ like towers: then was I in his eyes as one that found favour."

This missing word, of course, is "breasts."

I just joined Landover, as the thought of being an honorary Baptist sort of tickles my fancy.