Your opinion on the Bible

[Darth Wong]

You would think a book about such whimsical things as talking animals, global floods, monsters, magic, gods and warfare would at least be amusing, if not downright entertaining. Somehow, the authors managed to make it long, boring, redundant and inconsistent. Asstardery.

An interesting hypothesis I heard about this:

It's all monotheism's fault. In a polytheistic religion, you have all these gods running around doing crazy cool stuff in their stories because they have to compete against each other. If Jehovah actually had to compete in storytelling contests with Ba'al and Ishtar and all those other gods and goddesses instead of just having his fan club slaughter all the other believers, the Bible would be a lot more entertaining. But no, he had to be a sore loser.

I think it's more a function of the ancient Jewish priests simply being a bunch of prudish, boring, hateful old men. I'm sure I could write a monotheistic Bible that's got some really hot action in it.

[Darth Servo]

I think it's more a function of the ancient Jewish priests simply being a bunch of prudish, boring, hateful old men. I'm sure I could write a monotheistic Bible that's got some really hot action in it.

Knowing you, much of it would probably be a lot more like "Song of Solomon"

[Morilore]

It seems to me that the distinction between 3 and 4 really comes down to whether you believe those who mess with facts to reduce uncomfortable cognitive dissonance and justify their actions are forgivable or not. I think the first ones who started the giant telephone game did it for their own selfish interests, but later on, those who continued the game and added their biases had internalized their predecessor's moral systems and really tried to behave in a way that they thought was for the greater good.

I don't think most evil philosophies are the root cause of evil actions. I think evil philsophies are created to justify evil actions, which are done for the sake of number one. 'Course, they can live a while and spawn their own messed-up perverse behaviors, but the root is still originally selfishness.

[The Guid]

Actually I don't neccessarily believe Genesis is meant to be a literal account. How many people write down what they genuinly believe to be true (in the literal form) as a poem?

[Guardsman Bass]

I think(and believe, from the research that I've done) that the Bible was originally a religiously motivated text written by 7th century B.C. Hebrew Priests, regularly revised and added to in new versions, not to mention the massive New Testament addition done by the Council of Nicae in the 4th century A.D. Some of it is interesting, but I do not believe in the exact historical veracity of almost any of it.

[egyptfrk]

No. 3 I believe that it was compiled with the best of intentions, which over time has been edited for whatever use was desired

[Frank Hipper]

Actually I don't neccessarily believe Genesis is meant to be a literal account. How many people write down what they genuinly believe to be true (in the literal form) as a poem?

Well, if it evolved out of an oral tradition using poetic devices as mnemonic aids, it's easy to see how, I'd think.

[Macross]

I view it like I view any other piece of mythic lore, like the Trojan War, Beowulf, King Arthur, etc. There is some truth behind the story, but over time the stories became so over-embellished and dramatized that the real story gets buried behind the myth.

[Perinquus]

I think it was a combination of 3 and 4. I don't doubt that some people wrote parts of the Bible who were sincere in their belief. However there is most definitely some of 4 in there. If you want a good example, check out the story of King Saul, as presented in the Old testament, starting in 1 Samuel. The kindom of Israel was a theocracy, at a time when other peoples in that part of the world were evolving from the city-states to nation-states -- and growing more powerful by virtue of this political progress. Israel's theocratic political system, by contrast, was keeping the country backward and now many of the Israelites' local leaders approached Samuel (the de facto ruler) and demanded that he reform the political system to a nation-state, and name a king over Israel. Samuel, purporting to speak for God, violently objected, pointing out in detail the political corruption that was certain to result from this move, and saying that this was flatly against God's wishes. The people were not to be persuaded, however, and Samuel doubtless found himself in the unenviable position of having to bend before this wind of change, lest he be broken by it instead. The king eventually chosen was Saul.

No need to cover his entire career, but a few key facts are interesting. When at one point battle against the Phillistines turned against the Israelites, Saul offered a sacrifice to God himself, hoping his show of piety would turn God's favor back toward him. Samuel declared that in doing so, he broke God's law (only the priests had the authority to make such sacrifices), and declared that God had withdrawn his favor from Saul, and would replace him as king. Later still, Samuel conveyed an order from God to attack the Amalekites, and to destroy them completely, taking no survivors and no plunder. Saul assembled his army, made special arrangements to protect nearby innocents, and laid an ambush against the Amalekites. The battle was won. However, Saul spared the Amalekite King, and Saul's soldiers, following his example, kept much Amalekite livestock as plunder. Samuel, upon learning of this, told him that his act of disobedience was an outrage to God, and that there was now basically nothing in this life that he could ever hope to do to restore himself to God's favor. That was it. Stick a fork in him; he's done. And what's interesting is that Samuel condemned Saul for failing to obey an order that was probably impossible for him to follow. Saul may have balked at such cold blooded butchery, but it's also possible he may not have spared the people he did for such noble reasons. In those days, slaves and plunder were a soldier's pay. Samuel basically told Saul to take his army out and fight while simultaneously witholding their pay. Saul may have disobeyed, knowing he would face a rebellious army if he followed Samuel's instructions. And Samuel, I suspect, may have given Saul this order -- from God -- knowing this full well. So Saul spared the prisoners and plunder, and Samuel declared that God was now against Saul, and you can imagine the effect that this had on the people, many of whom really believed Samuel spoke for God. Samuel later supported David, who rose to replace Saul.

Bible believing Christians take this story as an example of the favors shown by God when one is faithful and obedient (e.g. Samuel and David), and the punishments delivered by God when one disobeys (e.g. Saul). Someone not indoctrinated, however, can see something quite different: a blatant attempt by a theocrat to hang onto power, and when this proved impossible, to undermine at every turn the authority of the rival who supplanted him. When the theocrat realized that he would be unable to restore the old system, and replace this rival himself, thus regaining all his lost power, he began to build up another man to replace Saul, one who would prove more "Godly" (i.e. more inclined to do as he was told). Given that it was the Hebrews' religious caste that wrote all this down, I think this is a crystal clear example of scripture being written to serve their own purposes, in this case, maintaining their power.

[General Brock]

The Bible seems to be part propaganda history, part supremacist guide to psychopathic-conquest-without-social-implosion. I kind of suspect parts of it, like the Book of Songs, wasn't even Hebrew in origin, but useful ideas spun or directly taken from their neighbors and rivals without citation. It's too bad we don't know more about the ancient societys of Egypt, Canaan, Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome, and that what we do know was not more commonly known. At best, it's like watching a good Xena episode, and knowing nothing about HK fight films. Human truths are human truths, and every major religion has tried to record the patterns in some useable way as they became recognizeable.

[wolveraptor]

The Bible has some sections that are mostly fact in it. A large part of th OT is Hebrew history. Thus, we can't say that it was all #4 or #3. It must have been some plain old recording at times.

Personally, I wonder why the writers didn't even try to make the book interesting or descriptive. Wouldn't they want to encourage people to read it? It isn't easy to follow a religion when you can't even read its holy scriptures without being bored to death (and subsequently going to hell because you hadn't reached the part about Christ yet ).

[sgiathach]

Hi everyone,

this is my first post here since 2002, I think.

I voted #3, though as it has been said here, a lot of #4 is involved as well.

Actually I decided to spend some more time in this forum, because on another board I'm debating various flavours of christians on issues like bible versus science, ethics and morality, and so forth. After exchanging some emails with Lord Wong for "ammunition", I thought I might as well drop by in the forum.

Well I'm from Germany, and luckily there are really not many fundies over here, but those few are just as die-hard as you could imagine.
I had RE classes at school basically all the years, but about the first thing they taught us was that the bible is _not_ not be taken literally. Maybe you can imagine my surprise when I met my first fundie.

Anyway, I digress. Hope to talk to you soon.

[Castor Troy]

The Bible is not a "bad" book if it's used like it was intended too, mearly to be a simple guide to living a good Christian life and not to be taken literally.

It's the people that take the bible literally that are doing the wrong, not the Bible itself.

[Darth Wong]

The Bible is not a "bad" book if it's used like it was intended too, mearly to be a simple guide to living a good Christian life and not to be taken literally.

And what if the guidelines in the book are full of shit? Paul rants continuously about keeping women down and hating gays; are these parts of this "guide to living a good Christian life"?

[Castor Troy]

The Bible is not a "bad" book if it's used like it was intended too, mearly to be a simple guide to living a good Christian life and not to be taken literally.

And what if the guidelines in the book are full of shit? Paul rants continuously about keeping women down and hating gays; are these parts of this "guide to living a good Christian life"?

Like I said, one is not supposed to take the Bible literally. You have to recognize that the Bible was written during a time in which the culture accepted keeping women down and shit like that. Basically, you have to focus on the keys. An example being the Ten Commandments. Also, filter out the bullshit, too. Another good thing to do is to question the laws, perhaps ask priests, and see what they have to say, that way you would truly understand the reason of the laws and the laws themselves.

[Petrosjko]

Personally, I wonder why the writers didn't even try to make the book interesting or descriptive. Wouldn't they want to encourage people to read it? It isn't easy to follow a religion when you can't even read its holy scriptures without being bored to death (and subsequently going to hell because you hadn't reached the part about Christ yet ).

Old literature in general is hard on the eyes. Writing styles morph drastically as time goes by, along with usage of language.

Also, remember that the bible was sequestered away from common hands for a good chunk of its history, so that the priestly caste could deliver its wisdom as it suited them.

It is a truly strange and torturous journey that book has taken...

[Darth Wong]

Like I said, one is not supposed to take the Bible literally. You have to recognize that the Bible was written during a time in which the culture accepted keeping women down and shit like that.

So what value is it as a guide then? If you decide for yourself which parts to follow based on your own modern moral codes, then are you truly using it as a guide? Or are you really using modern morality as your guide?

Basically, you have to focus on the keys. An example being the Ten Commandments.

The Ten Commandments are a fine example of what I'm talking about. People reinterpret them based on their modern morality, which means that they are NOT using them as a guide at all.

Also, filter out the bullshit, too. Another good thing to do is to question the laws, perhaps ask priests, and see what they have to say, that way you would truly understand the reason of the laws and the laws themselves.

See above; the only way to "filter out the bullshit" is to use some external system of thought to do this filtering, and it is this external system of thought which is your true guide.

[Imperial Overlord]

unbeataBULL said:

The Bible has some sections that are mostly fact in it. A large part of th OT is Hebrew history. Thus, we can't say that it was all #4 or #3. It must have been some plain old recording at times.

No it isnt. It was written comparitively recently (around 4th Century BC is the most common guess) and is contradicted by the archaeological evidence. It is the version of Hebrew mythology the priests wanted to sell, including their version of history.

[Castor Troy]

So what value is it as a guide then? If you decide for yourself which parts to follow based on your own modern moral codes, then are you truly using it as a guide? Or are you really using modern morality as your guide?

You have to use both, mixed with what you think is right. Basically, you have the Ten Commandments as the basic laws, and your common sense to apply them in certain situations.

The Ten Commandments are a fine example of what I'm talking about. People reinterpret them based on their modern morality, which means that they are NOT using them as a guide at all.

Not so much. The Ten Commandments are pretty much laid in cement, and you use modern morality to use them through.

See above; the only way to "filter out the bullshit" is to use some external system of thought to do this filtering, and it is this external system of thought which is your true guide.

Your common sense.

You see, you use your common sense, but the Bible laws to use as a foundation. An example is "Thou Shall Not Kill". Well, you now know not to kill, and you use your common sense and judgement to know what to do in situations to follow that law.

Please tell me if I'm being clear enough. Also, if you want, I can retreive my Catechism (I can get it by tomorrow) and I can see what it says about interpreting Bible law.

[Darth Wong]

You have to use both, mixed with what you think is right.

OK, this line is basically the heart of what you're saying, so I won't bother quoting the whole post. Now here's my question: if you have two equal systems of thought which produce conflicting recommendations, how do you decide? One system must overrule the other, correct? And whichever system overrules the other must be the one that is your primary guide; the other one is just window-dressing; its recommendations only followed when they fit the recommendations of the primary guide.

[Castor Troy]

OK, this line is basically the heart of what you're saying, so I won't bother quoting the whole post. Now here's my question: if you have two equal systems of thought which produce conflicting recommendations, how do you decide? One system must overrule the other, correct? And whichever system overrules the other must be the one that is your primary guide; the other one is just window-dressing; its recommendations only followed when they fit the recommendations of the primary guide.

I...actually don't know. My guess is that you do what you think is the "right thing".

As per which is the "primary guide", I'm not exactly sure on that either. Again, my guess is that your judgement is the primary guide, basically what tells you what is the "right thing" to do. The Biblical Laws are there to act as guides as well, to point you in the right direction. At least, that's my take on it. I might have to look up my catechism on that.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Actually I don't neccessarily believe Genesis is meant to be a literal account. How many people write down what they genuinly believe to be true (in the literal form) as a poem?

The entire Qur'an is a poetic account dictated by Mohammed to scribes. I'm pretty sure he believed it.

[His Divine Shadow]

I think it's a piece of shit, kinda like mein kampf.

[Enforcer Talen]

mein kampf has some excellent teachings on propaganda.

christianity doesnt even have that much.

[Petrosjko]

mein kampf has some excellent teachings on propaganda.

christianity doesnt even have that much.

Har har har, Christians r teh stoopid.

Seriously, the Bible is chock full of social control goodness and manipulation of the masses. Hell, its tortured prose by itself serves that function quite well, by being too daunting for the average practicioner to read through. Instead they get the predigested interpetations from their ministers.