Current Events > What's wrong with taking the Bible literally?

(+) Yeah! (+)

If the Bible is Gods holy word, then why did he allow it to be changed so many times?
Like how tall Goliath was.
Or how USA changed Isaiah 7:14 9 years ago from Mary being a virgin into a young woman.

---

Firewerx posted...

I suppose that when it comes down to it, faith is believing in the Bible because you believe in God -- not believing in God because you believe the Bible.

Yes, but why not believe the Bible wholly if you specifically believe in Jesus, original sin, and salvation through the cross? I'm not necessarily talking about religion in general. I'm talking about specifically believing in the gospel, but not the story of creation or the great flood.

---

These questions I'm asking are kinda loaded, but they are genuine. I'm quite confident people have made sensible ways to consider some older stories metaphorical on a reasoned basis, but I've never been exposed to those arguments. And it's not the easiest thing to find answers to.

---

Jabodie posted...

Yes, but why not believe the Bible wholly if you specifically believe in Jesus, original sin, and salvation through the cross? I'm not necessarily talking about religion in general. I'm talking about specifically believing in the gospel, but not the story of creation or the great flood.

So it's a case of "Look, if you can swallow any of this crap, you might as well swallow the lot"?

---

Firewerx posted...

So it's a case of "Look, if you can swallow any of this crap, you might as well swallow the lot"?

On what basis do you draw the lines? Do the lines evolve with modern science? If so, why should they? In what kind of faith do you believe in human observations of reality over those fond in the holy text? If some parts of the holy text are metaphorical, why not the resurrection itself? Is your understanding and all knowledge of Christ not fundamentally based on the Gospel? And is the book of Revelations also a metaphorical book?

Idk, if somebody is taking their faith seriously but disregarding certain parts of the Bible, it's introducing reason and doubt into faith. And with reason, I assume there is a reasonable or consistent standard to which you can hold some passage as literal or true and others as only metaphorical and there to teach lessons.

---

I should add that my first wife was a Christian, the daughter of a Baptist minister, and I used to go along to her fellowship and Bible study groups because I suppose it gave her hope that I could still be redeemed. But I never understood, and still don't, the mental gymnastics that faith demands.

What would be the point of even bothering to argue that some archaeological and documentary evidence exists to support the Bible's version of certain events, when faith demands that such evidence is not necessary and should even be ignored if it conflicts with faith? For example: if there were no archaeological or documentary traces anywhere of the cities or civilizations of antiquity referred to in the Old Testament, faith would still demand that we believe they existed.

I struggle to grasp how people actually do manage to arrive at such a perfect state of faith. To me, it's like reading a Grimm's fairytale and making a decision to program yourself into absolute belief in its total truth -- to the point that you are willing to kill or die for it. Something that profoundly antirational I find it deeply scary.

---

Firewerx posted...

I should add that my first wife was a Christian, the daughter of a Baptist minister, and I used to go along to her fellowship and Bible study groups because I suppose it gave her hope that I could still be redeemed. But I never understood, and still don't, the mental gymnastics that faith demands.

What would be the point of even bothering to argue that some archaeological and documentary evidence exists to support the Bible's version of certain events, when faith demands that such evidence is not necessary and should even be ignored if it conflicts with faith? For example: if there were no archaeological or documentary traces anywhere of the cities or civilizations of antiquity referred to in the Old Testament, faith would still demand that we believe they existed.

I struggle to grasp how people actually do manage to arrive at such a perfect state of faith. To me, it's like reading a Grimm's fairytale and making a decision to program yourself into absolute belief in its total truth -- to the point that you are willing to kill or die for it. Something that profoundly antirational I find it deeply scary.

Dont go on twitter then

---

Sunhawk posted...

A lot of people, even many Christians, say not to take the Bible literally.

Why not?

What do you mean by literal?

Dathrowed1 posted...

Dont go on twitter then

Sound advice at any time.

---

Firewerx posted...

I should add that my first wife was a Christian, the daughter of a Baptist minister, and I used to go along to her fellowship and Bible study groups because I suppose it gave her hope that I could still be redeemed. But I never understood, and still don't, the mental gymnastics that faith demands.

What would be the point of even bothering to argue that some archaeological and documentary evidence exists to support the Bible's version of certain events, when faith demands that such evidence is not necessary and should even be ignored if it conflicts with faith? For example: if there were no archaeological or documentary traces anywhere of the cities or civilizations of antiquity referred to in the Old Testament, faith would still demand that we believe they existed.

I struggle to grasp how people actually do manage to arrive at such a perfect state of faith. To me, it's like reading a Grimm's fairytale and making a decision to program yourself into absolute belief in its total truth -- to the point that you are willing to kill or die for it. Something that profoundly antirational I find it deeply scary.

For me, a lifetime of church going has made me sympathetic to people of faith. The aforementioned pastor is actually very intelligent, and in what was his most powerful message (imo) he admitted that he doubts, and that doubt is a part of faith. It is his decision to be faithful, and with all his effort uncompromising in his faith. I think different religious scholars come to different conclusions in seminary, but this is one I can personally understand after seeing his message for over a decade.

In the end, people do believe they feel the influence of God in their life and I personally can't deny that possibility. Genuine faith just seems like something you can't force on yourself; somehow the message has to hit home on an emotional or spiritual level (if there is spirit). I have to acknowledge that one day the spirit may hit me, and part of me hopes it will. But I things like geologic time and creationism do stand in the way, so I'm curious about well reasoned arguments for some stories being more metaphorical than literally true.

---

TBH, my faith is what most people would call "blind faith." But I'm too faithful and stubborn that you could bring all the facts at me and my beliefs still wouldn't be shaken. Does that make me foolish? Probably. But my faith is still important to me.

Still, as a Christian I have to admit my sins, which is disagreeing with some of the stuff in the Bible. I have different stances on issues like LGBT treatment. But when it comes to judging others that (in my eyes) did no wrong, I have to think that even if they're considered sinners, I'm a sinner too, so there's no reason to fuss about it.

---

NobleWill8 posted...

Still, as a Christian I have to admit my sins, which is disagreeing with some of the stuff in the Bible. I have different stances on issues like LGBT treatment. But when it comes to judging others that (in my eyes) did no wrong, I have to think that even if they're considered sinners, I'm a sinner too, so there's no reason to fuss about it.

This is a stance I understand pretty well. That, and the fact that many wretches and sinners are still redeemed in the end. Jonah himself got eaten because he was explicitly defying God, then got mad when He didn't destroy the infidels he preached to after they repented lmao (I forget the name of the society just now). And then there's all that stuff with David...

---

Jabodie posted...

This is a stance I understand pretty well. That, and the fact that many wretches and sinners are still redeemed in the end. Jonah himself got eaten because he was explicitly defying God, then got mad when He didn't destroy the infidels he preached to after they repented lmao (I forget the name of the society just now). And then there's so that stuff with David...

Yeah, Christians who ridicule LGBT people are missing the point of their teachings imo.

---

Jabodie posted...

My pastor takes it all literally. He even said we know the Earth is thousands of years old thanks to the Bible.

I'm not much of a believer, but I respect his stance tbh. If you already believe in stuff like Christ's resurrection, as well as the idea that the Bible is God's word, I really don't think the other stories are a huge leap. If the Bible is the truth, the word of an all powerful and all knowing God, why would its explanation of creation be wrong when it carefully lists the lineage of those who came from Adam and Eve? Why wouldn't our understanding of geologic time and science be what's in the wrong, even if we have what appears to be overwhelming evidence to the contrary to our limited human perspective?

And if Jesus could bring back the dead, walk on water, and give sight to the blind, i don't see why an all powerful God couldn't sustain a man in a whale/ big fish for a few days.

The history of the planet/science vs creation stuff is whatever, but when the bible says that god is a loving god and then he does all kinds of evil stuff I don't see how anyone can take what it says at face value.

---

stoltenberg11 posted...

The history of the planet/science vs creation stuff is whatever, but when the bible says that god is a loving god and then he does all kinds of evil stuff I don't see how anyone can take what it says at face value.

The bible claims that God is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving. The problem with all these claims is that there are many instances where he is 1 of the 3, but never all 3 claims at once. The only reason Christianity says so is because we're required to WORSHIP him, like you wouldn't want to worship (throw money) at a God that is a dictator/asshole. Reading the bible, God is a freaking prick. It would've made more sense to see God as a dude that is just experimenting and trying different shit out to see what works.

---

Prestoff posted...

The bible claims that God is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving. The problem with all these claims is that there are many instances where he is 1 of the 3, but never all 3 claims at once. The only reason Christianity says so is because we're required to WORSHIP him, like you wouldn't want to worship (throw money) at a God that is a dictator/asshole. Reading the bible, God is a freaking prick. It would've made more sense to see God as a dude that is just experimenting and trying different shit out to see what works.

Personally I'm into the theory that the 'God' referred to in the bible is actually Satan after he defeated the real God and became the new God.

---

You can't take it literally when it's all filled with allegory. God really didn't turn an entire city to salt; it was an allegorical reference to the sin of sodomy.

---

The bible is more of a guideline for morality

"Be you without sin to cast the first stone" and all that

But there's literally stories like Jesus covering a mans face with his hand and curing his blindness. Fuck outta here

---

dib153 posted...

The bible is more of a guideline for morality

"Be you without sin to cast the first stone" and all that

But there's literally stories like Jesus covering a mans face with his hand and curing his blindness. Fuck outta here

Jesus is supposed to be the son of God. I don't see how that's hard to believe if you believe in Jesus.

---

stoltenberg11 posted...

Personally I'm into the theory that the 'God' referred to in the bible is actually Satan after he defeated the real God and became the new God.

I have wondered about that before as well

stoltenberg11 posted...

Personally I'm into the theory that the 'God' referred to in the bible is actually Satan after he defeated the real God and became the new God.

Zikten posted...

I have wondered about that before as well

It's an interesting theory I read about the other day also. It suggests that the major monotheistic religions are based upon the Knights Templar view of the Luciferian Doctrine back in the middle ages. Satan (also referred to as Baphomet/Lucifer/Moloch) was not revered as a devil, but as a destroyer and a bringer of light, and Satanic principles would be things like human sacrifice, pedophilia, homosexuality, and cannibalism... all of which are actually symbolic to, and can be found in, many instances of our current religions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMHgm9C-sEU

Also fun fact, the same cross used by the Knights Templar is used by the KKK. The flame in the middle of the cross is symbolic to Lucifer, also known as the beholder of light in their views.

---

Prestoff posted...

The bible claims that God is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving. The problem with all these claims is that there are many instances where he is 1 of the 3, but never all 3 claims at once. The only reason Christianity says so is because we're required to WORSHIP him, like you wouldn't want to worship (throw money) at a God that is a dictator/asshole. Reading the bible, God is a freaking prick. It would've made more sense to see God as a dude that is just experimenting and trying different shit out to see what works.

That's if you read the Bible with a humanist lens.

The bible makes more sense once you realise it was written as God being the protagonist trying to appease crazy degenerates who want nothing to do with him.

Believing the earth is roughly 4000 years old for one.

---

Foppe posted...

What we do know is that the Egyptians were pretty good at documenting events, even things that were embarassing about.
There are history that they try to erase, but they were pretty bad at erasing it.

They werent that bad at it. They just liked to reuse stones from monuments and buildings they broke down. Theres probably years upon years of history theyve successfully erased.

---

ZeroX91 posted...

Believing the earth is roughly 4000 years old for one.

The Earth is not 4,000 years old. Thats just silly.

Its really 6,000 years old.

---