Just in case anyone was wondering about my stance on religion ... well, honestly, you probably don't want to know all of my thoughts on the subject, but in short, I'm not fond of any situation where my personal opinions should be automatically superseded by someone else's without very good reason. "I have a gun" is a very good reason not to state one's opinions to the gunholder. "I need absolute silence" is a very good reason not to disturb someone who is meddling with a bomb (and if you really think he has the wrong answer, leave the building.) "I fix cars for a living" is a very good reason not to argue with a mechanic unless you really know what you're talking about. But the argument of "God says so", or "I speak with God's authority" doesn't hold ground as a very good reason to me. I've never seen God. The argument of 'blessed are they who have faith without seeing' sounds suspiciously like 'pay no attention to the lack of evidence'. (Or maybe 'open your mouth and close your eyes and you will get a big surprise.')
When I was a kid, I enacted a simple experiment in faith. I described, to the immediate members of the branch of my family that believes in such, a supernatural occurrence. Specifically, I described having been ethereally present at an event while sleeping, and thus having gotten an impression of the event they were attending. Despite the fact that I was making it up, had no real idea of the layout of the building they were in, and didn't even really know the person the event was for, they didn't question the facts, but cited it as proof that such things can occur. That taught me more about religions than any amount of study on the subject.
Anyhow - Berf wrote this article which asked ten questions. My wife and I both answered, and discussed our answers with each other -- here's the ten questions, and my answers for them.
1. Is the Bible absolutely 100 percent without errors or mistakes?
That depends on what you define as an error. If you mean 'is it the same as the original books were when they were first written'... well, there's been some revisions since then, by the Church, by kings, and by translators, so asking for godly perfection from mortal publishers is a bit much.
2. Is the Bible infallible in all that it says?
No more than the Pope is.
3. Is the Bible literally the words of God Himself?
No more than the words of any televangelist or president are the words of God. Barring direct intervention by a divine being, most people are apt to claim that their personal agendas are God's will, and I don't think that the Bible is any different.
4. Is the Bible historically accurate?
Not perfectly; it's a book written by a select group of people. If I recall, the British historical record kept things like the legend of King Arthur as historical fact -- why? Because they were in the book, of course.
5. Did every single event in the Bible actually happen as it is described?
No. Although many of the events in the Bible happened, assuming they occurred as was described is somewhat like believing that an invasion of another country went exactly as depicted in a newspaper. You're going to get distortion of facts, and if there's enough control over information, you're going to get glorified prose instead of tactical strategy.
6. Is the Bible unfairly biased?
Sure. Most books are. If it weren't biased towards the writers, they wouldn't've written it.
7. Was the Bible merely written by superstitious or ignorant people?
No, it takes quite a bit of intelligence to write such a book and get people to believe in it. Was P. T. Barnum superstitious or ignorant just because he advertised Fiji mermaids?
8. Did the writers of the Bible have some hidden agenda?
Of course. The main, though not readily apparent, agenda of any religious work is to provide a moral compass for survival. Whether it's 'love thy fellow man (or he'll kill you)' or 'don't eat the unrefrigerated pork or you'll die' or 'give unto Caesar what is Caesar's (or he'll kill you)' or 'give unto the wife as she gives unto you (or you're going to have some serious problems)', there's plenty of advice within the Bible. (If you want to come up with a more sinister agenda, though, look toward the distributors of the Bible -- nothing gives you more power than declaring that there is a holy book and you're the only one allowed to read it.)
9. Is the Bible a reliable book today?
Actually, most Bibles are printed on that weird super-thin paper that only Bibles are printed on, so I don't know how reliable you'd call them. If you were a serious Bible-reading fanatic, I'd suspect they'd wear out sooner or later. I'd say it's fairly reliable as a religious text, however, as it's managed to function over the millenia with only a few upgrades and has yet to be replaced.
10. Could Christianity survive without the Bible?
Possibly. If the Vatican abruptly came out with a declaration that the Bible was to be discarded, the world would not actually change; however, some Christians would likely accept this as a sign that the time of the Antichrist is nigh, Revelations is at hand, yadda yadda yadda. On the other hand, Christians seem to survive reliably without bibles every day, just as they did when nobody could afford one and few people could read. As long as you have faith in something, that's all you really need. The pretty book is just a tool.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 35
Wouldn't it be nice if the Believers reciprocated?
I believe what it says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
To me, the Bible is God's love letter to us. It is His instruction manual for our lives. If we read it faithfully and follow those instructions, life is so much better and easier.
I'm happy to have discussions with people about their religion, and to have opinions about other religions, but saying 'I don't believe in your god, so you're not allowed to talk about it' (or the opposite, 'you don't believe in my god, so you're not allowed to talk about it') always rankles a little. (On the other hand, I'm none too fond of Chick tracts and televangelists and similar... but I think that's more a matter of advertising than religion. ::wry grin::)
I was just sitting on my porch thinking of a world where we would say, "Gee, I'm sorry Mr. Atheist. You have to pretend that you believe. You have to read text books that only teach Creationism. The library will only hold books that are Christian ones. We will be putting chastity belts on all of your female children once they are 8 years old and will only be teaching them about abstinence." Some might say that's the way things used to be, but not in any time I can recall. :)
What we don't realize - most of us, I think - is that no matter what label we have given oursleves - Christian, Jewish, atheist, etc. - if we are true to that belief system, then it isn't something we can take on and off as it pleases other people. There's a huge difference between being "religious" and being Christian, just like there is between dabbling in maybe being an atheist and truly believing and behaving as one. (One of my favorite cousins is a very active and outspoken atheist.)
I think if we truly believe something, then it becomes a part of us. That belief is reflected in what we read, in our friends, in the movies we watch, the music that we enjoy. Our belief is woven as part of our personality. Or so it should be. :)
To ask any one group or individual to stop being who they are or asking them to cut out a part of their person in order to be part of the public school system or the work place doesn't make a bit of sense. That means that we're living in a country that is not free for all, but only for some.
I thought we were trying to change that...by having laws that say we cannot either lift up or hold down an individual because of his/her gender, race, age, stature or FAITH.
Guess I can dream. :)
I do appreciate your thoughtulness, though. Bunches.
Those things are allowed.
Austin,
When you described the gathering to your family members, how can you be so sure that you DIDN'T have some sort of "psychic flash" which came into your mind and allowed you to describe it so acurately? "Psychic flashes" aren't like what one sees on TV or in the movies... You don't gasp and clutch your throat and look like you've just been shocked by a 220 outlet... They come as little mental "pictures" of what is being perceived...
Rejecting all of paranormal phenomena out of hand -- never having even given any consideration of possible other explanations for an experience -- seems a tad narrow-minded in my opinion... Not to mention "self-limiting"... Would that you were even half as respectful of the experiences of psychics and others who experience paranormal phenomena as you are about Christians...
I'm just sayin'...
Interesting answers; most I would not dispute your opinions about, although may not be in total agreement.
The answer for #6 though is kind of interesting and I do think I would address as actually one of the reasons and strengths that allow me to have faith in the validity of the Bible. If the writers of the Bible were biased, why do they so often put themselves in such a bad light?
Some examples are that Abraham mislead on two occasions leaders that were according him sanctuary by telling them Sarah was his sister rather than his wife. Jacob was shown to be very deceitful during his lifetime; David was not a good father and not the best husband in the world; many of them were polygamous; very contrary to Christianity. In the new testament the disciples were not always the sharpest crayons in the box and also at times very cowardly and weak. The fact that women appeared to support many of the ministries and were the first witnesses to Christ empty tomb also did not put these writers of the new testament in the best light.
My point is; I think your discussion on the bias of the writers of the Bible is weak given the light the writers put themselves in. If they were so biased, I would think they would put themselves in a more heroic light?
Nope
2. Are our theories of evolution infallible in all that it says?
Nope
3. Are our theories of evolution correct about describing every single event in our history?
Nope
4. Are the people who champion theories of evolution unfairly biased?
Sure.
5. Are our theories of evolution written by superstitious or ignorant people?
No, it takes quite a bit of intelligence to write such and get people to believe in it. Was P. T. Barnum superstitious or ignorant just because he advertised Fiji mermaids?
6. Did the scientist of our theories of evolution have some hidden agenda?
Of course.
7. Are our theories of evolution reliable today?
Nope. Many have disproved many years ago.
8. Could Christianity survive without our theories of evolution.
Quite Possibly.
This was kind of fun...
My church is chocolate for the soul. Sometimes I like pumpkin pie even better than chocolate, and I can get that at church too.
We invite everybody else in to tell us about their ways to get high, and the parts we like we make into a seminar, and mostly we each pay $60 for a 3-month shot of whatever it is.
I loved the Jewish mysticism shot (I couldn't spell Kabbalah without getting a red-underline). Episcopal people argue with God, in the fine tradition of our Jewish forbears.
I used to belong to a tai chi group that seemed to end up being largely Jews and progressive Christians.
As for a religion that discourages converts, try Judaism. You have to argue your head off to get in, from what I hear. The only easy way in is to have a mother who is Jewish.
Cheers, Shalom, Namaste, etc. etc.
Atheism already has an ism on it. I did not write Atheismism or create the original word. How would you have me describe people who belong to societies who evangelize about Athe?
Truly, I want to know. I did not intend to offend your non-religion. Would interest group be a better word than non-religion? philosophy? belief? non-faith?
I confess I have a difficult time talking across this boundary. I feel put-down because I believe in a noun (God is an idea, right?) that you insist does not exist. To you, this word is just letters on a page, nothing beyond that, right? Clearly you are irritated by me. Do we just agree to disagree and not communicate?
I am tempted to say, whatever, but I don't actually feel that way. I am an endlessly curious person. I would have sent a connection request, but I don't like being rejected. I've gotten enough of that in recent years.
Cheers anyway. Do you like beer?