Agreeing to Disagree

[detlef]

I just thought I'd clear the air about a few things. I am quite outspoken about how I feel the Bible is a man-made bunch of stories (fairy tales, I've actually said) and that has rankled many feathers. Fairly so.

 

So, I thought I'd clear the air. The entire reason why I feel the Bible is nothing more than a book written by men is, honestly, because I do believe in a higher power and I think that a higher power great enough to do what he give that entity credit for would be above much that is written in the Bible. The Bible may be an amazing text filled with no shortage of timeless lessons, but it's also filled with some pretty nasty stuff. There are, after all, instructions on aquiring and dealing with slaves. If you think about it, slavery is probably second in line to only marching Jews into gas chambers on the list of effed up things that virtually everyone agrees is horribly wrong. And the Bible not only does not condemn it, but includes an instruction manual on how to manage them. The bible got something that virtually everyone agrees as undeniably horrible, wrong.

 

So, when I say The Bible is just a book written by men and someone takes issue. Are you implying that this bit about slaves is the official word of god? Wouldn't this god be big enough to see the fundamental injustice in that? I mean, take the constitution. Initially, it was no better in this regard, but at least we didn't pretend that it was the word of god. So, once we realized that it actually didn't follow it's own goals with respect to "all men being equal", we fixed it. But with the bible, since we have to pretend that it is god's word, we just have to ignore things.

 

We can discuss other things like stoning non-virgin brides and other. less than noble things, but I think you get the point.

 

And, maybe this god, being a big picture guy, realizes that he has to let evil happen, because of the free will thing. So, I'm not saying god should step and and stop these sorts of things, but give instruction? Advocate?

 

What I believe to be a plausible situation is that men witnessed miracles and wanted to record them. But, being men, there was corruption, right from the get go. I'm guessing, just like the writing of the Constitution. I'm pretty sure there were some who thought slavery was messed up back then, but politics will be politics, so you've got to bend a little here and there. There were likely men who just wanted to get this thing done and bent a little. But they talk about false prophets and such. How do we know the people who were actually writing this stuff down weren't as well?

 

So, when I try to diminish the "validity" of the bible, I do so because I'd like to give god an out. I do so because I'd like to say, "Well, something had to get messed up in the translation because you're way too cool to have said this part." But, once you do that, of course, you have to start wondering how much of it is god's word. Once you assume that god doesn't want you to own people or stone a non-virgin bride, what other parts are you supposed to ignore? Seemingly, whatever parts the man (born from sin) who speaks at your church each day says. Which, in a way, is fine. Again, there's plenty of lessons in there worth shaping your life by.

 

But this is why I try to remind people that I don't believe the bible is god's word. Not because I think your religion is stupid, but because I think it's odd to attach something that should be as great as god to that tome the way so many do. And this doesn't mean I don't have faith, because I do. In fact, I don't think it's silly to have faith that many of the things in the bible happened. But, if they happened, they happened long, long ago. And all we've been doing for 1000s of years is repeating the story. That doesn't make it any more certain to have happened. Every single person who believes what happened in the bible was not there to see it. So their mass doesn't make the it any more creidible. It's still faith, which is fine. This is not like 20 people all watching a crime go down and being called one by one to the witness stand. This is millions of people who have all been told the same story and thinking that makes it true.

 

So, when you say you know, you're actually lying. If you say you believe, that's fine. But that's why I say, "just because a fairy tale has been repeated for 1000s of years, doesn't make it true" I'm not saying you're an idiot if you believe it. I'm saying you're a liar if you say you know it's true.

 

At any rate, sorry to go on, but I just wanted to fully explain myself. And, yes, we can agree to disagree about whether the stories in the bible are all true. However, I'm not actually saying they're not. I'm just saying that neither of us knows for sure so I'd appreciate it if we didn't enter it as evidence.

[godtomsatan]

Rihanna and Chris Brown have unfollowed each other on twitter.

[matt770]

Ezekiel 23:19-20

[Furd]

I've never understood the concept of "agreeing to disagree."

[SEC=UGA]

Ezekiel 25:17

[Hugh 0ne]

These pretzels are making me thirsty.

[godtomsatan]

Ezekiel 25:17

 

 

You're the weak, and I'm the tyranny of evil men.

[SEC=UGA]

You're the weak, and I'm the tyranny of evil men.

 

 

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

[Hugh 0ne]

[bpwallace49]

Enjoy hell.

 

They will continuously make you serve toast and ask "is it hot enough for you"

[stevegrab]

Yes men wrote the bible, anybody who says different isn't thinking clearly. But these men, they were there, they witnessed things and basically recorded them for history. The bible has been translated many times, and some things have probably gotten skewed. Not everything in the bible is something God condones, since it is historical in nature. (I personally don't read the bible much, but do know lots of parts. I don't recall the part where God gives us a manual for conducting slavery, but those who are against the church or bible always seem to point that out).

 

One more thing, as far as many people seeing something and reporting it differently, there is lots of that in the bible, between the 4 primary writers of the New Testament (Matthew Mark Luke & John). They all saw things, but their accounts were a little different.

 

You are entitled to your opinions just like anybody else. But don't be surprised when Christians (even those who are not devote, or regular church goers) take great offense at you referring to the Bible as a collection of fairy tales.

[SEC=UGA]

So which version of the New Testament is the "gospel"?

[stevegrab]

So which version of the New Testament is the "gospel"?

 

 

All 4 of them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#The_Gospels

[SEC=UGA]

All 4 of them

http://en.wikipedia....ent#The_Gospels

 

 

What about the rest of the books? I'm afraid that you took my use of the word "gospel" to biblically.

 

Here's my problem... Not even Christian Scholars can agree on what parts of the bible are truly the bible. Hence, you have a split in denominations. So, to say that the bible is a recount of the life of JEsus and is the word of God seems odd to me when one branch, protestantism, will exclude books used by another branch. Further, during the compilation of the new Testament back in the 2nd and 3rd centuries it is assumed that there were a number of writings that were left out of the bible.

 

How can man choose to edit the words of God, how can they choose what books to exclude if all of it was divinely inspired?

[stevegrab]

What about the rest of the books? I'm afraid that you took my use of the word "gospel" to biblically.

 

Here's my problem... Not even Christian Scholars can agree on what parts of the bible are truly the bible. Hence, you have a split in denominations. So, to say that the bible is a recount of the life of JEsus and is the word of God seems odd to me when one branch, protestantism, will exclude books used by another branch. Further, during the compilation of the new Testament back in the 2nd and 3rd centuries it is assumed that there were a number of writings that were left out of the bible.

 

How can man choose to edit the words of God, how can they choose what books to exclude if all of it was divinely inspired?

 

 

Yep I was taking you literally, not sure I have the answer to your questions. No doubt there's lot of strange stuff going on during the last 2000 years or so.

 

As far as man choosing to edit the words of God, who else was going to do it?

 

Just to clarify, I'm no biblical scholar, nor a regular reader of the bible. I'm going mostly off what I remember from my Sunday school days and other things I've learned over the years (including growing up with my father who was an Eastern Orthodox).

Edited May 10, 2012 by stevegrab

[Big John]

What about the rest of the books? I'm afraid that you took my use of the word "gospel" to biblically.

 

Here's my problem... Not even Christian Scholars can agree on what parts of the bible are truly the bible. Hence, you have a split in denominations. So, to say that the bible is a recount of the life of JEsus and is the word of God seems odd to me when one branch, protestantism, will exclude books used by another branch. Further, during the compilation of the new Testament back in the 2nd and 3rd centuries it is assumed that there were a number of writings that were left out of the bible.

 

How can man choose to edit the words of God, how can they choose what books to exclude if all of it was divinely inspired?

 

 

Acts is an extension of Luke's gospels.

 

But after reading the Letters (the rest of the New Testament excluding Revelations), I believe this part was written solely by man and in many instances contradict Jesus's teachings.

[detlef]

Yep I was taking you literally, not sure I have the answer to your questions. No doubt there's lot of strange stuff going on during the last 2000 years or so.

 

As far as man choosing to edit the words of God, who else was going to do it?

 

Just to clarify, I'm no biblical scholar, nor a regular reader of the bible. I'm going mostly off what I remember from my Sunday school days and other things I've learned over the years (including growing up with my father who was an Eastern Orthodox).

 

Then they're not the word of god anymore. And, again, based on what a lot of them say, I freaking hope they're not. Because there's some effing nasty stuff in there that I'd much rather believe is there because some a-hole thought he'd invoke the word of god unjustly to substantiate his personal beliefs than I would like to think that any god worth a crap would say.

 

Like I said in the other thread, the irony is that my belief that the bible is not god's word actually means I see god in a better light than most who think the bible is god's word must. Because I think god should be better than a lot that crap.

[stevegrab]

Then they're not the word of god anymore. And, again, based on what a lot of them say, I freaking hope they're not. Because there's some effing nasty stuff in there that I'd much rather believe is there because some a-hole thought he'd invoke the word of god unjustly to substantiate his personal beliefs than I would like to think that any god worth a crap would say.

 

Like I said in the other thread, the irony is that my belief that the bible is not god's word actually means I see god in a better light than most who think the bible is god's word must. Because I think god should be better than a lot that crap.

 

 

That's some pretty circular logic there.

 

The bible has accounts of Jesus Christ being tortured and crucified, that doesn't mean God condones or agrees with it. I feel the same goes for a lot of that "nasty stuff" that's in there.

[detlef]

That's some pretty circular logic there.

 

The bible has accounts of Jesus Christ being tortured and crucified, that doesn't mean God condones or agrees with it. I feel the same goes for a lot of that "nasty stuff" that's in there.

 

I think there's a difference between chronicling the suffering of someone and a passage, say like this:

 

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

 

So, again, how is it not seeing god in a better light to assume that he'd have no part in the construction of a manual on slave ownership. Should I post the rest? Because there's plenty. They go into some detail about the specific protocol in owning slaves. If it's your own daughter, who you can buy them from. They've got you covered. Well, either "they" do, or god does.

Edited May 10, 2012 by detlef

[SEC=UGA]

I think there's a difference between chronicling the suffering of someone and a passage, say like this:

 

 

 

So, again, how is it not seeing god in a better light to assume that he'd have no part in the construction of a manual on slave ownership. Should I post the rest? Because there's plenty. They go into some detail about the specific protocol in owning slaves. If it's your own daughter, who you can buy them from. They've got you covered. Well, either "they" do, or god does.

 

 

Det, you will have to give props to the authors as far as what we can eat, though....

 

Nevermind... Those mutherfokers don't want me eating pork can kiss my furry, white, ass...

Edited May 10, 2012 by SEC=UGA

[stevegrab]

I think there's a difference between chronicling the suffering of someone and a passage, say like this:

 

 

 

So, again, how is it not seeing god in a better light to assume that he'd have no part in the construction of a manual on slave ownership. Should I post the rest? Because there's plenty. They go into some detail about the specific protocol in owning slaves. If it's your own daughter, who you can buy them from. They've got you covered. Well, either "they" do, or god does.

 

 

Interesting, wasn't aware of that passage in particular. As I said before, I take those things as stories, God (or the author) trying to teach some lesson. I do not see it as "God gave us a manual on slavery."

 

The old agree to disagree thing.

[detlef]

Interesting, wasn't aware of that passage in particular. As I said before, I take those things as stories, God (or the author) trying to teach some lesson. I do not see it as "God gave us a manual on slavery."

 

The old agree to disagree thing.

 

 

Here's some more...

 

 

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

 

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

 

 

 

Don't exactly sound like stories to me. Look pretty much like rules.

[detlef]

Here's some New Testament stuff:

 

 

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

 

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

 

 

[Azazello1313]

I'm not great at articulating the biblical literalist viewpoint, because it's not one I adhere to. but even the staunchest fundamentalist holds that biblical "instructions" change over time depending on context, etc. and that the nature of God's revelation becomes more complete over time. the dietary laws of leviticus are one clear example, the sabbath, and so forth. according to that view, the bible certainly recognizes that things like slavery and polygamy existed in ancient societies, and makes prescriptions for people in that time and place that take those things for granted. by the time the new testament rolls around, and all those old laws are reinterpreted in the light of Jesus (read Romans, for example), we have a more complete picture.

[Huzz]

Big Bang Theory..........