A belated reply to serotonin_wraith

by GentlyFeral 5 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  GentlyFeral

  This is a long-belated reply to serotonin_wraith's thread here (currently inaccessible for some reason).

  serotonin_wraith,

  GentlyFeral,

  Either the Bible is the word of God or it is not.

  Abstract: The parts of the Bible you cite are not historical or scientific. ...

  I once heard a Unitarian minister explain the Samson story as the ancient Israelite equivalent of Paul Bunyan (except for the tragic ending, I suppose).

  If you concede there are errors in the Bible, then you cannot know which parts are true and which parts are not. It all comes down to what you want to be true.

  Up to a point. Is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" true? Do you want it to be true? How far do these questions overlap in this case? Conscience is the best canon we have, yet consciences differ.

  Take the rules against homosexuality- you cannot say your God didn't really mean they were sinning. On what could you possibly base that?

  On the fact that parts of the Bible have been disproven. We have as much evidence for the innocuousness of homosexuality as we do for the reality of evolution, so Paul was talking through his hat on this subject. Does that make the "Love" chapter of 1 Corinthians any less useful as a guide for life? Even a [name of despised political party] is right once in a while. :)

  To take the story that God made Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago from dirt and a rib, and think that means God made it so humans would evolve from other species over millions of years is astounding.

  Proto-Hebrew shepherds told that story. The Creative Force carries out its own perpetually improvised plan. Smaller minds make what sense of it they can. Everybody gets a little piece of the hologram.Furthermore, not everything "we know" about the Bible is in the Bible. For instance: Cain was not black, but was enslaved; Ham was black, but not enslaved. So the Bible itself contradicts the once popular Christian conception that "the black race was cursed because it was descended from Cain." I dare say any of us could name other errors imposed on the Bible by later religious or cultural groups.]

  But, again, you assume a dilemma where none need exist.

  I never said that "the Bible is true." I said that "truth is in the Bible." Rather than "the Bible is God's word," I believe the Bible includes God's word: as does all the world's scripture and scientific literature and art.

  To think the account of the sun being created on the 4th day really means it was created millions of years BEFORE the Earth is astounding too.

  You are still assuming Biblical literalism.

  By wanting the Biblical god to be true,

  Well, yes and no. The creative force, the power of love, the sense that the universe is conspiring to bless us – definitely yes.

  you're basically rewriting the Bible in your head!

  Yes!!! Finally you get it!!!!

  gentlyferal
• 

  serotonin_wraith

  Thanks for the reply. I'll get back to you tomorrow- it's late here now.
• 

  serotonin_wraith

  Abstract: The parts of the Bible you cite are not historical or scientific.

  Who decides this? What makes the story of magical strength giving hair a metaphor, and a person rising from the dead a real historical event? (This is if you don't think Jesus' resurrection was a metaphor). If you do, are we dealing with a book of fairy tales here?

  Is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" true? Do you want it to be true?

  It's good advice. But we don't get it from reading the Bible, like you say...

  Conscience is the best canon we have, yet consciences differ.

  There are some universal 'rules' we follow with our consciences- the 'golden rule' is one of them. Occasionally people don't, but we have ways to punish those people. On the whole, our consciences are in agreement. What we consider right or wrong may differ from person to person, but that's how change happens. Slavery would still be considered okay if there were those who didn't agree.

  We have as much evidence for the innocuousness of homosexuality as we do for the reality of evolution, so Paul was talking through his hat on this subject. Does that make the "Love" chapter of 1 Corinthians any less useful as a guide for life?

  If we determine what is right and wrong, why hold 'holy' books in such high esteem? What are we actually getting from them that we don't get from our own minds?

  I never said that "the Bible is true." I said that "truth is in the Bible." Rather than "the Bible is God's word," I believe the Bible includes God's word: as does all the world's scripture and scientific literature and art.

  Are you saying 'God's word' is basically our consciences and any scientific truths written in text books, etc? Whatever we consider 'right' is from God? So if there's one line in say, The Book of Mormon, that our consciences agree with, that line is from God? Not that he put it there, but when it was written, that line came from the writer's conscience, which is from God? If I'm barking up the wrong tree, tell me.

  The creative force, the power of love, the sense that the universe is conspiring to bless us

  Okay, the creative force is blind. 99% of all animals the 'creative force' has made are now extinct. A big part of this 'force' has to do with some species suffering so that others gain an advantage. Just look at the food chain. Is this 'god'?

  The power of love- as part of evolution, we came to see love as a beneficial attribute. Did it develop naturally, or is this 'god'?

  The universe conspiring to bless us- we can't live anywhere in the universe except for in a thin strip of breathable air on one planet out of billions. A disease could wipe most of us out, an asteroid could destroy the planet, another species may gain a foothold in the future, our sun is going to fry Earth, and - this is one I found out today - the milky way is going to collide with Andromeda in 2 billion years. It's a long way off, but it just shows that humanity won't be living on this planet forever. If we don't find a new home, we will die out. Will the universe provide this new home, or will we have to do the work? Don't get me wrong, I feel extremely lucky to be alive, but the universe conspiring to make it so? I just don't see it.

  Yes!!! Finally you get it!!!!

  Haha, well this is what I don't get then. If it's all coming from within us anyway, why should 'holy' books be considered so 'holy'? I can see how the book can be interesting as a piece of literature, much like other mythological books. But beyond that?

  Will you see God in what I've just written too?

  (For anyone in the UK who's interested in hearing more about the colliding galaxies, there's a show on it at 7.30, BBC4 tonight).
• 

  Anti-Christ

  Hey serotonin

  Haha, well this is what I don't get then. If it's all coming from within us anyway, why should 'holy' books be considered so 'holy'? I can see how the book can be interesting as a piece of literature, much like other mythological books. But beyond that?

  I don't believe that the bible is from god( if it is, he is one sick M.F.) but I do believe the bible does have a certain importance because it influence our western society so much. Also it gives us a look into the minds of people living over 2000 years ago trying to understand the world around them. I think the biggest danger is to take the bible literally and to accept it as a moral guide. If we do that we regress and accept the morals that are over 2000 years old. We should remember that conquest had a big role in the spread of Christianity. If someone believes that the bible is the word of god then that person must accept that violence was also used to spread it through out the world. Now did god have a role in this?
• 

  serotonin_wraith

  I agree with you, Anti-Christ.

  It's like the hieroglyphics (sp?). They're important in that we can see what the Egyptians believed and get a glimpse into their society- but that wouldn't make us take a leap to believing Ra or Osiris are real gods. There's no reason to think they have anything to do with any deist god either, which is what I think GentlyFeral is implying. How she knows this is certainly beyond me.
• 

  Anti-Christ

  It's like the hieroglyphics (sp?). They're important in that we can see what the Egyptians believed and get a glimpse into their society- but that wouldn't make us take a leap to believing Ra or Osiris are real gods. There's no reason to think they have anything to do with any deist god either

  Exactly. If the Egyptian belief would have spread instead of Christianity, we would probably be debating if the book of the dead is 'inspired', instead it's the book we call the bible that spread across the world and influence so much people. I think people who still defend the bible it's either out of fear, sticking to tradition or just plain old pride.