Can the bible be taken literally?

[I, Brian]

Actually, Marsh - if you take a deep breath a moment you'll see that the issue of Pagan-prophet's post is not about God - it's about interpretations of God, specifically from the position of literalist Christianity.

Most of the comments relate directly with Old Testament statements, which are rarely given the honour of a deeper and wider reading (for example, with reference to Jewish philosophy and thinking, which has an extant ancient commentary of probably every aspect of the OT, backwards, forwards - but, heck, what could the Jews know about the Torah? ).

Also note that Pagan-prophets objections are entirely sourced through literal English translations - the sort that Dennis McKinsey likes trying to rub them in the faces of Christians, despite protestations that the Bible wasn't originally written in English.

[bananabrain]

Can the bible be taken literally?

there is a short answer to this:

"YES, BUT DON'T EXPECT IT TO MAKE SENSE OR HELP YOU UNDERSTAND"

on all the stuff about G!D - it is by definition impossible to know anything *positive* about the Divine - all you can know is what the Divine Isn't. in this case, G!D Is not limited by the concept of only one future - G!D Can Conceive of *all* possible futures at the same time, before and after the event from our PoV. it is axiomatic to judaism that we have free will - without this there is no possibility of making the correct - or incorrect choice. likewise, we don't believe in "goodies go to heaven and baddies go to hell" - that's far too simplistic. "ha-satan", in judaism, has no power to do anything other than get you prosecuted (as it were) for things you have yourself done.

the tree enables sin by activating free-will. free-will cannot exist without knowledge of choice and the consequences of choice - in other words, the knowledge of [the consequences of] good and evil.

God punishes Eve and Adam saying that, Men would have hard lives and woman would have painful childbirths. (he blames mankind)

it's not as simple as that. G!D also gives us the knowledge of sex. without any of these things, would we be human as we understand it?

I think that God is all powerful in the sense that he can manipulate everything. Thus he can know the future because he can make it what ever he likes.

as far as we're concerned, G!D Has Created a space within the Divine in which G!D's Will allows free-will to operate. this is what underlies the basis of the various commandments, such as the noachide commandment that no matter how bad we are in future, G!D Will not destroy the world again *directly*. we are of course able to exterminate ourselves through our own free-willed actions.

Well, when they make one mistake they are outcast and humanity made to suffer.

is someone who cannot know suffering truly human, then?

But he is all powerful he could have done some magic and made everything all better. (Get rid of sin: pain, unhappiness, evil) An all powerful god has no rules.

oh, deary deary me. this isn't the Divine you want - it's your mummy and daddy (and possibly a teddy bear. for a more adult outlook, there is a story in the Talmud where the rabbis are able to capture "evil" and take a few days debating whether to destroy it utterly. G!D speaks to them and says "oh, by the way, guys, before you do that, have you noticed that since you captured evil nobody has gone out to work, built a house or been able to get it up?" - the point is that it is simply unrealistic and immature to think that a world without evil can be one in which humans can live.

In my opinion WWII and free will could have been replaced with Happiness forever.

this can only be done at the price of that which makes us human.

From my perspective, men make make "hell" on earth for themselves by not responding to the Divine message and it is by their own choice.

quite. this has the additional advantage over the traditional "eternal flames and red-hot pokers up the jacksie" imagery of being self-evident.

I agree that "man blows everything out of proportion" and that it takes time for humans to respond "if we quiet our minds and listen we will find the answer over many years".... is very true I think and one reason the Prophet heard God in "the still small voice" in 1 Kings 19:12.

or, perhaps, the less obvious may be more effective.

Nevertheless, God caused things to be the way they are today. Even If there was free will then that would mean that god was the programmer of the human mind (god made man the way he is). Therefore, he is the one responsible for Hitler’s actions (as well as everyone else’s).

*ultimately*, yes - but not directly. the possibility is Created rather than the specific configuration of outcomes, such as wars and so forth. it's a subtle but important difference.

God is the Source of good and offers it freely to us. We have the uncompelled power to embrace that good and benefit by it, or turn away and be deprived. If the lamp is the source of light, and I place a box over the lamp, has the lamp made the darkness?

that's a rather elegant way of putting it, you know.

I'm sick and tired of people blaming God for our mistakes. Are you angry with God because of our evil? The alternative was for him to never create you at all. Would you prefer that?

this argument was also made by the angels, according to the rabbis of the Talmud.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Actually, Marsh - if you take a deep breath a moment you'll see that the issue of Pagan-prophet's post is not about God - it's about interpretations of God, specifically from the position of literalist Christianity.

Actually, Brian, I'm well aware of what Pagan-prophet's position is, and what the post is about. Take a look at my first paragraph following the inset quotation, which points out a non-sequitor logical fallacy in Pagan-prophet's position. The rest of my post? That was just what came into my heart as I was writing. We are allowed to speak our hearts here, aren't we?

[I, Brian]

Marsh, it was merely because you seemed to feel that Pagan-prophet was attacking God. This would seem to make no sense. But this place thrives on interpretations of God.

[Marsh]

This is actually a response to Brian's response to my response to Brian's response to my response to Pagan-prophet's argument. Confused yet?

These are some things that Pagan-prophet said-- not as part of his argument, but as foot-notes to it:

Originally Posted by Pagan-prophet

I see it as a place where people can burn for not believing in a story that other people told me.

If he loves you all then why does he tear away your “free will” after you die simply because you don’t believe he exists when he never told you himself?

I believe that if god REALLY loved me and wanted me to go to haven, he would come here and tell me about his existence himself.

If god was all powerful then why did he not send down a mental recording filled with proof of his existence?

I think that the holey ghost is contacting us but man blows everything out of proportion. We write down what we think he is saying but guide it with a false story when writing a holey book.

I will conceed that Pagan-prophet is not attacking God in this post. However, he clearly feels "attacked" by God: he questions whether God loves him or not, he questions God's power, and he questions God's competence as God. But look at the first and the last statements: Who is he really frustrated with: God, or mankind's interpretation (and, often, exploitation) of God? That's what I was trying to get at.

God has been taking flak from us ever since we had knowledge enough to question his authority. I don't mind it when people question God: everything that's true holds up when tested in the fire. However, I don't agree to any test where the questions are balanced unfairly, and since Pagan-prophet was challenging God based on mankind's theology, I consider the test to be unfair. Hence, my objection to what I called 'blaming God for our mistakes.'

And yes, by mistakes I do mean theology.

[julienhr]

Hi, I'm new here and happy to find this site. I'm in the midst of reading Spong's "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism", Funk (& the Jesus Seminar's) "The Five Gospels:What did Jesus Really Say?", and "Christianity without God" (!) by Lloyd Geering. I'm sure I'm leaving some books out. . .

Personally, I cannot fathom taking the Bible literally. One, there are too many contradictions. Two, the Bible was written by men, not God, and what is canonical has been seriously effected by politics. Thirdly, as another person in this thread has pointed out, there are so many translations and interpretations. I could go on, but other more educated on this matter have responded and will.

In my humble opinion, the Bible is a stunning piece of literature, wisdom and "written" oral history.

Not taking it literally does NOT mean that it cannot be taken seriously. Reading it with an eye and ear for metaphor and within its' historical context can bring one to insight and wisdom. Not taking it literally does NOT mean there is no God.

I must say that I hesitantly describe myself as atheist. However, I find that in all religions there is a core of the SAME ethical truths.

As someone who has been a practicing Quaker and Buddhist, I find that when reading Jesus' teachings, I "hear" them more as koans.

There is a universal beauty and truth at the heart of all religious texts.

[arthra]

Originally Posted by julienhr

Hi, I'm new here and happy to find this site.


However, I find that in all religions there is a core of the SAME ethical truths.

As someone who has been a practicing Quaker and Buddhist, I find that when reading Jesus' teachings, I "hear" them more as koans.

There is a universal beauty and truth at the heart of all religious texts.

Julien,


Welcome to the forum and i very like much what you wrote:


"I find that in all religions there is a core of the SAME ethical truths.

As someone who has been a practicing Quaker and Buddhist, I find that when reading Jesus' teachings, I "hear" them more as koans.

There is a universal beauty and truth at the heart of all religious texts."

That sentiment ties very much in with my own beliefs.

- Art

[I, Brian]

Hi julienhr, and welcome to CR. Some interesting points, certainly - it'll be good to see you expound on at least some of these in our discussions.

[Pilgram]

In response to your original question (name of your thread): YES!
The Bible can be taken literally. But why would anyone want to do something that irrational?
The human race evolved to the point where Galileo pointed out that the church and its teachings (which are derived from the Bible by "experts" i.e. theologians) were erroneous. From that point on the race evolved rapidly in learning but since it could not shake off its irrationality (clinging to superstition and biblical "authority") it is now at a place where its technology far exceeds its rational ability to use it responsibly and safely.
Take the bible literally and we mix knowledge with insanity. YOU ARE HERE!!!

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by Pagan-prophet

The next question is, how much of the bible can we really discard as myth/tall tale/story/poor translation? This is something nobody will ever know because God did not tell us directly the true story. Therefore the only thing we can put into account is are own intuition.
.

It makes sense to discard poor translation in favour of good translation.

But why would identifying a passage of the bible as myth/tall tale/story be a reason to discard it?

[kcjwriter]

Interesting thread. I am amazed myself at how many people who call themselves Christians have never really read the Bible in-depth. There
is massive cruelty, abomination, savagry, brutality, assault, rape, violence,
bloodshed, and a mass of contradictions all over the place. It cannot be
the Word of God, in that "God spoke the Bible". It simply cannot be. I believe that God is Love, pure and simple. The Old Testament God of Wrath and Violence is far from love. He is practically un-appeasable. If I faced such a god, I would ask him "how do you live with yourself? I really do feel sorry for you." Regarding the issue of hypocrisy, this is big. Why would God tell us to forgive (Jesus' request) seventy times seven times (in other words, continuously) if the Bible god continuously smittens peoples and groups with bloody death, violence, and wrath for small offenses? Isn't God supposed to lead the example, here? So, in conclusion, the Bible is a historical document, and is not the literal word of God. If it was, then we have got a big problem...we would have to deal with a Deity of Great Unhappiness, Anger, Wrath, and Jealousy...a True Wretch. I don't then know how the new testament could **ever** say that God is Love. That would be inconsistent.

[I, Brian]

Hi kcwriter, and welcome to CR.

As for the God of the OT vs the NT - I'm sure we've discussed that somewhere. It's cerainly worth noting the envoroments and cultures that the different books were written from.

[17th Angel]

literally?

Zep 1:2-6 lol would you want to take that literally?

[wil]

Originally Posted by kcjwriter

Interesting thread. I am amazed myself at how many people who call themselves Christians have never really read the Bible in-depth. There
is massive cruelty, abomination, savagry, brutality, assault, rape, violence,
bloodshed, and a mass of contradictions all over the place. It cannot be
the Word of God, in that "God spoke the Bible". It simply cannot be. I believe that God is Love, pure and simple. The Old Testament God of Wrath and Violence is far from love. He is practically un-appeasable. If I faced such a god, I would ask him "how do you live with yourself? I really do feel sorry for you." Regarding the issue of hypocrisy, this is big. Why would God tell us to forgive (Jesus' request) seventy times seven times (in other words, continuously) if the Bible god continuously smittens peoples and groups with bloody death, violence, and wrath for small offenses? Isn't God supposed to lead the example, here? So, in conclusion, the Bible is a historical document, and is not the literal word of God. If it was, then we have got a big problem...we would have to deal with a Deity of Great Unhappiness, Anger, Wrath, and Jealousy...a True Wretch. I don't then know how the new testament could **ever** say that God is Love. That would be inconsistent.

It has to do with the direction and understanding. Yes from the Christian perspective there is this old testament G!d and the New Testament G!d...Jesus brought us the Good News that we don't have to deal with all those laws and ways anymore...unless of course we are a member of a church that wants too...and then it is a different story.

And it is also a different story if you attend a synagogue and discuss the meanings and information contained in those texts....quite different.

[Azure24]

Originally Posted by Pagan-prophet

God is omniscient.

If you are reffering to the bible where does it say God is Omniscent?