Reclaiming The Bible For A Non Religious World

Sindri

Just something from a priest.

John Shelby Spong wrote:

The Bible is both a reservoir of spiritual insight and a cultural icon to which lip service is still paid in the Western world. Yet when the Bible is talked about in public by both believers and critics, it becomes clear that misconceptions abound.

To me, three misconceptions stand out and serve to make the Bible hard to comprehend.

First, people assume the Bible accurately reflects history. That is absolutely not so, and every biblical scholar recognizes it.

The facts are that Abraham, the biblically acknowledged founding father of the Jewish people, whose story forms the earliest content of the Bible, died about 900 years before the first story of Abraham was written in the Old Testament.

The rest here

ShooterSF

Moses, the religious genius who put his stamp on the religion of the Old Testament more powerfully than any other figure, died about 300 years before the first story of Moses entered the written form we call Holy Scripture.

This means that everything we know about Moses in the Bible had to have passed orally through about 15 generations before achieving written form.

Hey priesty, eh didn't people live like for hundreds of years back then? Sure Noah lived to 950.

georgieporgy

Sindri wrote: »

Just something from a priest.

describing John Shelby Spong as a priest is a tad misleading.

robindch

georgieporgy wrote: »

describing John Shelby Spong as a priest is a tad misleading.

Well, can we agree to call him a "retired christian cleric"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong

georgieporgy

Let's just be accurate and call him an athiest. Certainly not a christian by his own admission. (catchy photos dressed in clerical collar notwithstanding)

Ellis Dee

Anyone with any sense knows the credibility of the Bible, as good a read as it is, lies somewhere between that of the Lord of the Rings and the Beano. Yet there are millions of people who believe every word in it is founded in unequivocal fact.:rolleyes:

However, few people in the western developed countries have any need these days to wallow in such ignorance. They can easily inform themselves about the advances that science has been making for centuries and the doubts that research (just look at the Discovery Channel, to take just one example) cast on the accuracy and dependability of what the Bible says.:)

However, there will always be those who try to convince us that the story is essentially true, but we just have to accept that it has been told in such and such a roundabout way and we have to interpret it ... yadda, yadda, yadda.

All those god-botherers are doing is what a scarecrow does when he is trying to ****. They are clutching at straws.:D

RichieC

There are much better books out there. Though the wrath and violence is pretty sweet the narrative and character building leaves a lot to be desired. The author must have been schizophrenic.

philologos

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Anyone with any sense knows the credibility of the Bible, as good a read as it is, lies somewhere between that of the Lord of the Rings and the Beano. Yet there are millions of people who believe every word in it is founded in unequivocal fact.:rolleyes:

Even the most skeptical Bible scholars will accept that there is much truth in the New Testament, and that it is written in a style that no other Greek fiction was written in prior to that point.

I accept it as truth, because I believe it is likely to be true.

Ellis Dee wrote: »

However, few people in the western developed countries have any need these days to wallow in such ignorance. They can easily inform themselves about the advances that science has been making for centuries and the doubts that research (just look at the Discovery Channel, to take just one example) cast on the accuracy and dependability of what the Bible says.:)

Here I am in a Western developed country, with third-level education. I've seen nothing in natural science that would contradict the Bible, many scientists agree.

Simply put science isn't the handmaiden of atheism as much as many atheists may want it to be.

Ellis Dee wrote: »

However, there will always be those who try to convince us that the story is essentially true, but we just have to accept that it has been told in such and such a roundabout way and we have to interpret it ... yadda, yadda, yadda.

All those god-botherers are doing is what a scarecrow does when he is trying to ****. They are clutching at straws.:D

Simple rhetoric, I could have written something similar about atheism if I wanted to. Most of the new-atheist position is built on mere rhetoric without substance. Other older forms of atheism actually brought something to the table.

Spong seems to be a Christian atheist, unfortunately it is quite common in some spheres of Anglicanism.

Galvasean

philologos wrote: »

Here I am in a Western developed country, with third-level education. I've seen nothing in natural science that would contradict the Bible,

Look harder. That flooding of the entire planet bit is one of teh more obvious examples.

philologos wrote: »

many scientists agree.

And many more scientists would strongly disagree with such a statement. If you are going to try and appeal to authority it would be wise not to choose such an authority that can easily be turned against your point.

philologos

I believe that Noah's flood was regional, and there's evidence to suggest that a major flood occurred in that region at that time period.

As for CIS, I don't see how a reputable organisation which represents peer-reviewed scientists across the UK and Ireland could be used against my position.

Galvasean

philologos wrote: »

As for CIS, I don't see how a reputable organisation which represents peer-reviewed scientists across the UK and Ireland could be used against my position.

By saying 'many scientists agree' you leave yourself open to someone (like me for example) pointing out that even more scientists would disagree with your position.

Helix

you cant argue with a lot of the sentiment in the new testament to be fair. some of the ideas and stuff are very basic cop on, the problem with it is when agendas are pushed and it contradicts its message of love one another and let people do their own thing, with threats and hatred towards people or groups

but in general, the alleged teachings of jesus are a fairly decent way for anyone to live their lives - the only real thing is that you shouldn't be needing a jewish zombie to tell you what's basic cop on

RichieC

It fills me with unease that I share a planet with a bunch of psychopaths who need an old myth to keep them on the straight and narrow.

What happens if God is proven wrong? Rape and anarchy on the streets?

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

I believe that Noah's flood was regional, and there's evidence to suggest that a major flood occurred in that region at that time period.

As for CIS, I don't see how a reputable organisation which represents peer-reviewed scientists across the UK and Ireland could be used against my position.

So god mistook a local flooding for a global one and a boat with every species on earth for a skif with a few goats?

does the bible exagerate anything else, I wonder....

philologos

God didn't mistake anything. The Hebrew word used in Genesis 6 - 8 eretz means land. It's perfectly compatible with the idea of a regional flood.

Also - if I'm a psychopath in your opinion, sobeit. I don't care

RichieC

I never called you a psychopath. I'm mearly suggesting that folks who require religion to be good people are.

philologos

That depends on what you mean by good. If you believe morals are relative, that precludes you from postulating an objective good.

Doctor DooM

philologos wrote: »

That depends on what you mean by good. If you believe morals are relative, that precludes you from postulating an objective good.

How does this change the fact that people who require religion to keep them in check are psychos or not?

Or would you, mayhaps, be using words to dodge the point?

philologos

I don't believe that claiming that there is an objective moral source makes you a psychopath. I don't believe that claiming that God is fundamental to reality makes you a psychopath.

Then again, that's because both of those statements apply to me directly. I think lazy and arguably intolerant rhetoric about other people is unhelpful.

Asides from this the point was that if people required religion to be a good person, they are a psychopath. That depends entirely on what good is, is it an objective or a subjective principle. If it is a subjective principle, is it true that all people could have a different conception of "good".

18AD

The obvious implication is that if they had no religion to keep them behaving good (in check), they would be psychopaths. By those standards we should hope that they stay religious. But they are also psychopaths for accepting it. :pac:

Logical Fallacy

philologos wrote: »

I believe that Noah's flood was regional, and there's evidence to suggest that a major flood occurred in that region at that time period.

Indeed, never before has a natural event been given mythic status within a man made religion.

philologos

I don't believe that something natural precludes God's involvement of necessity. Nor do I believe that God has no place in His Creation. If the universe has no ultimate cause, I'd be happy to accept your conclusion. The problem is in thinking the universe could have no ultimate cause.

Your comment is no more remarkable than saying that if God doesn't exist, the idea of his action would be absurd. I agree, it would be if God doesn't exist, which I think is absurd for a number of reasons.

Sarky

philologos wrote: »

I agree, it would be if God doesn't exist, which I think is absurd for a number of reasons.

None of which you ever go into. Could you do that, some time? Without a response like "That isn't relevant to this specific discussion", or "It seems logical to me".

philologos

I've done so several times in my posting history. I've even posted quite recently as to what some of them are. When I get some time, I'm going to try and reformulise my reasons as to why I believe in God. I posted some a few years ago, and they need a bit of work. Some I feel weren't as strong as I believed them to be. There are many in there that do warrant consideration, but I found many were fobbed off when I tried to bring them to consideration here. I now find that I left some reasons out as well.

smcgiff

Galvasean wrote: »

Look harder. That flooding of the entire planet bit is one of teh more obvious examples.

Pharaoh putting Joseph in charge of all the land of Egypt is right up there. The bible writers really didn't think that one through, what with the Egyptians being pretty good at documenting even mundane events.

That's up there with the Myth as to how the Giant's Causeway was created.

Galvasean

smcgiff wrote: »

Pharaoh putting Joseph in charge of all the land of Egypt is right up there. The bible writers really didn't think that one through, what with the Egyptians being pretty good at documenting even mundane events.

That's up there with the Myth as to how the Giant's Causeway was created.

Wasn't there something in there too about plants being created before the sun? Bit of a doozey.

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe that claiming that there is an objective moral source makes you a psychopath. I don't believe that claiming that God is fundamental to reality makes you a psychopath.

Then again, that's because both of those statements apply to me directly. I think lazy and arguably intolerant rhetoric about other people is unhelpful.

Asides from this the point was that if people required religion to be a good person, they are a psychopath. That depends entirely on what good is, is it an objective or a subjective principle. If it is a subjective principle, is it true that all people could have a different conception of "good".

Youre intentionally complicating my point in order to avoid it.

philologos

No, it's perfectly valid. A good person, what do you mean by a good person? Good by whose standards?

I don't believe I'm a good person on my own behalf, but rather I'm good only in so far as Jesus died in my place to take away my sin, so I could restore my relationship with God. In short, I subscribe to the idea of penal substitution.

To be a good person, ones moral aims should be aligned with God's as far as I see it. Others may disagree.

If you believe that morality is subjective, then you can't speak of people being good or evil because there is no objective standard of good or evil.

RichieC

It is just you who seems to have a problem differentiating good and bad without religion. To me it is obvious.

philologos

What is this "good" you speak of? What is its source?

Is it subjective or objective?

Again, it's a valid question and a very important one if you're to demonstrate the logic behind calling someone a "good person".

Also, I believe that one doesn't have to believe in God to be good, but the mechanics of morality aren't particularly clear without an objective moral source. In relative moral systems, anything could be good if the person believes it is good.

JimiTime

philologos wrote: »

What is this "good" you speak of? What is its source?

Is it subjective or objective?

Again, it's a valid question and a very important one if you're to demonstrate the logic behind calling someone a "good person".

Also, I believe that one doesn't have to believe in God to be good, but the mechanics of morality aren't particularly clear without an objective moral source. In relative moral systems, anything could be good if the person believes it is good.

I often see, based on strawmen, lack of understanding or just plain ignorance, the accusation of cognitive dissonance levelled at Christians. This issue of atheists calling on some kind of 'good' IMO, is the most blatant example of cognitive dissonance if indeed such a theory has real merit.