by VorJack
These have been going around recently. They’re a pair of videos criticizing Intelligent Design, created by Gordon J. Glover, author of Beyond the Firmament. Glover is a Christian trying to integrate science with a moderate Evangelical approach to scripture.
It’s nice to see some push-back coming from the middle, but the effort is a bit odd from an atheist standpoint. ID is being mocked for its intellectual vacuousness, but Glover still maintains a fairly high view of scripture.
Part 1:
Part 2:
Tyler!: Sooooo who exactly are they taking our country back from??? And i am in the process of moving so... 
NoYourGod: Yerp – nuthin’ saiz “patriotic” like “love it or leave... 
LawnBoy: Gee.. when exactly was this golden age of pureness in politics and the reign of common sense? 
Daniel Florien: So why aren’t you out in Montana with a bomb shelter, stocked food, and tons of ammunition? 
nazani14: Things that can’t go on forever don’t. Following the record heat, the power outages in the D.C.... 
Nelly: my apologies for using “duplicate” way too many times………..I really wish... 
Ty: Please. A moon hoaxer talking about good science? “I personally do not believe that we can prove that... 
41 Comments
The problem with being “centrist” on the issue of creation versus evolution is that it’s not really a centrist position at all. He still believes, on the strength of no objective evidence, that God did it.
I didn’t see any mention of scripture in either video. In fact, the first one had no whiff of theism. The second one had just a passing mention that didn’t bother this atheist. I thought they were really good, actually.
Sorry, that was a bit garbled. Glover’s discussion of scripture doesn’t come from these videos. It’s discussed on his web page (see the link) and in his book.
“It’s nice to see some push-back coming from the middle, but the effort is a bit odd from an atheist standpoint. ID is being mocked for its intellectual vacuousness, but Glover still maintains a fairly high view of scripture.”
I don’t want to see push-back coming from the middle. I want to see the middle stop claiming to be Christians. The middle is providing cover for the nutcases.
In many ways, the casual Christians do more damage than the loons. It’s because of the casual Christians that criticism of Christianity is taboo.
This.
“The middle” is not “casual.”
Furthermore, just because you would prefer all Christians to be crazy does not make it so. Why on earth should people who *are Christians* but *aren’t crazy* stop being Christians? They’re Christians. Suck it up.
Where does the idea that crazy people are better Christians than sane people come from?
Also, since when is criticism of Christianity taboo?
Where does the idea that crazy people are better Christians than sane people come from?
It’s funny, I have this argument with my fiancee all the time. She’s a bit, eh, more militant than I am. But honestly, if I were to take a stab at where it comes from, it is quite simply that the crazy ones are louder.
And get more press.
And get more attention.
And use the political process more adeptly.
And are much better organized.
Christianity from the outside is whoever seems to be representing Christianity front & center in the cultural milieu, and that’s the crazy nut-job wackos hands down here in the US. I do not agree at all with 3D and Custador that the mere existence of the so-called mushy middle of Christianity is what allows the crazies to propagate. I would say rather it is the wholesale abrogation of the conversation by moderates to the crazies that allows them to dominate and come to represent Christianity as it is though of by all us heathens out here.
Moderate and Liberal Christians have done themselves and Christianity itself a disservice by not getting organized, by not playing the PR and political games that help define what it means, culturally, to be a Christian.
I agree that radicals are louder, although that isn’t actually saying much – radicals are always louder. But blaming radicalism on moderates is silly, although I agree that the situation does Christianity at large a disservice.
There are degrees of radicalism on every side of every issue. If people feel the need to blame moderates, perhaps I’d feel better if they blamed all moderates equally in every situation. I strongly doubt that that is a helpful position, but at least it would be more honest.
“I agree that radicals are louder, although that isn’t actually saying much – radicals are always louder. But blaming radicalism on moderates is silly, although I agree that the situation does Christianity at large a disservice.”
Did you read what was written here? Nobody “blamed radicalism on moderates”. I blame radicalism on the radical and crazy Bible.
But radical Christians wouldn’t have a megaphone in this country if it weren’t for moderate Christians giving them cover.
Dude, this is a dangerous statement:
Radical _______ wouldn’t have a megaphone in this country if it weren’t for moderate _______ giving them cover.
You can put anything in those blanks. If you’re comfortable with that, then more power to you. That means that moderate Christianity carries roughly the same amount of blame (and I’m not saying it’s a lot) that any other moderate ______ does.
If that isn’t what you mean, though… If moderate Christianity has some sort of special position that lets it affect radicals more than any other _____, then it does carry a disproportionate degree of blame, and I’m not inaccurately representing your argument.
“Radical _______ wouldn’t have a megaphone in this country if it weren’t for moderate _______ giving them cover.
You can put anything in those blanks. If you’re comfortable with that, then more power to you. That means that moderate Christianity carries roughly the same amount of blame (and I’m not saying it’s a lot) that any other moderate ______ does.
If that isn’t what you mean, though… If moderate Christianity has some sort of special position that lets it affect radicals more than any other _____, then it does carry a disproportionate degree of blame, and I’m not inaccurately representing your argument.”
Christianity (or, actually, “Christianity”) is the overwhelming majority religion in this country, so that is their “special position”.
I’m not picking on them because they’re Christians. Radical Muslims and Jews are just as bad, but have much less of a megaphone, because people are a LOT less concerned about offending Muslims and Jews than they are about offending Christians, so that is why moderate “Christians” do so much damage. They create an atmosphere where people are reluctant to criticize Christianity in any of its crazy forms, for fear of offending “the middle”.
I don’t notice this atmosphere you’re talking about. It might be there, but it isn’t like the Christian Taliban is going to come down and decapitate or stone you for questioning radical religious policies.
@ JonJon: “But blaming radicalism on moderates is silly”
The relationship is not causal, but the two are inextricably linked. If you have a group of well-meaning, well-intentioned people who base a religion on a several-thousand year old book which proclaims itself to be the font of all truth and knowledge, it is a matter of time before somebody is born into that religion and raised believing that book is the holy truth – and then actualy reads the damned thing and finds out what their book of “holy truth” actually says. At that point a fundamentally honest person has two choices: Deconversion or fundamentalism. Some will innevitably turn into Fred Phelps. Moderate Christians who have read the entire bible and who stay moderate Christians are, in my opinion, being dishonest with themselves. They’re choosing to disregard some sections of a book, other sections of which they will laud as infallible.
My point is, you can’t have moderate Christians without fundamentalists cropping up sooner or later.
So, 3D think moderates are to blame for fundamentalism, but you wouldn’t go quite that far; you just think they’re dishonest.
So, I guess I’ll ask you this question (again). Why is it dishonest to be a moderate Christian, or to put it another way, why are extreme fundamentalist Christians “better” at Christianity than moderates?
Because they not only claim to believe that the Bible is infallible, they mean it. Every single word. Moderate Christians only claim that the parts of the Bible which they find convenient are infallible, and they ignore the rest. That’s intellectual dishonesty writ large.
“Furthermore, just because you would prefer all Christians to be crazy does not make it so.”
I don’t think all Christians are crazy, nor did I post that here. What are you reading?
I DO think that anyone who follows the Bible and actually believes in it, and practices what is inside of it, is crazy. But those people are few and far between.
Most Christians are NOT crazy; they are sane, good moral people. Most were indoctrinated into a cult at a young age and a lot of them can’t let go of the rituals, but they pick and choose which parts of the Bible to selectively edit out to conform to present day societal norms. They mean well, but they do more harm than good.
“Why on earth should people who *are Christians* but *aren’t crazy* stop being Christians? They’re Christians. Suck it up.”
Suck on a reading comprehension textbook. I didn’t say that any practicing Christians should stop being Christians. I said that people who call themselves Christians, but ignore most of the repulsive things in the Bible, should stop pretending to be Christians.
Then we could laugh at the Bible openly and shun it from society rather than acting like crazy Christians are important members of society and inviting them on talk shows to help shape opinions and electing them to public office to make laws all of us have to follow.
1) “I want to see the middle stop claiming to be Christians.”
2) “I didn’t say that any practicing Christians should stop being Christians. I said that people who call themselves Christians, but ignore most of the repulsive things in the Bible, should stop pretending to be Christians.”
3) “I don’t think all Christians are crazy, nor did I post that here. What are you reading?”
1) This suggests to me that you do not think the middle actually are Christians, or that they would be more accurately described as something else.
2) In context with 1, this statement suggests that people who do not hold a view that you consider “repulsive” are only “pretending to be Christians.”
3) You think that moderates are not real Christians, and that real Christians are people who hold to “repulsive things in the Bible.” Furthermore, you actually say this: “I DO think that anyone who follows the Bible and actually believes in it, and practices what is inside of it, is crazy.”
I think I’m reading what you wrote. I also think I’m actually reading it with a high level of comprehension. However, I’m willing to admit that perhaps I’ve just misunderstood what you’ve said. So, perhaps, for my sake, you could restate what you actually mean? I apologize for my misreading of your comment, if indeed that’s what this is.
“1) This suggests to me that you do not think the middle actually are Christians, or that they would be more accurately described as something else.”
I agree with that. The “middle” of Christianity is actually a pastiche of weird new-agey spirituality, belief in ghosts, idol worship (medallions and crosses and saint statues) and other non-Biblical stuff, with an occasional Jesus thrown in.
But for the sake of simplicity, let’s call them “casual Christians.”
“2) In context with 1, this statement suggests that people who do not hold a view that you consider “repulsive” are only “pretending to be Christians.” ”
Technically true, but what I think about it is irrelevant to the point — that’s just my subjective opinion about it. More to the point, people who don’t follow the Bible are only “pretending to be Christians”. If you pick and choose the parts you like out of the Bible, and ignore the parts you don’t like, then you aren’t a Christian. You have your own morals and value system that you put ahead of the Bible. Which is admirable, but also hypocritical.
“3) You think that moderates are not real Christians, and that real Christians are people who hold to “repulsive things in the Bible.” Furthermore, you actually say this: “I DO think that anyone who follows the Bible and actually believes in it, and practices what is inside of it, is crazy.” ”
Correct. And that describes very few people — they are the radicals. Most Christians do not follow the Bible or even know what’s in it, other than the most cherrypicked passages.
If you are claiming that the vast majority of “the middle” actually adhere to the tenets in the Bible, then you have your work cut out for you in proving that claim.
So, why accuse me of misreading if this is what you meant?
My earlier point still stands: you don’t get to exclude “casuals” from being real Christians *just because you say so.* Come up with some evidence or some support for this assertion. You are calling people, who are *by definition* Christian, hypocrites/pretenders/liars because they don’t measure up to *your* definition of what Christianity is. You might even be right, but before I listen to you, maybe you could support your statement? And support it pretty well, because you are currently battling against the social, political, legal, theological, and dictionary definition of “Christian.”
“So, why accuse me of misreading if this is what you meant?”
Because, when I accused you of misreading my comments, you were misreading my comments. Now you’re saying something else.
Before, you said, “Furthermore, just because you would prefer all Christians to be crazy does not make it so.” When in reality, no one here said “all Christians are crazy”, in fact I clearly differentiated between the crazy and sane ones, and explicitly said that the sane ones sometimes do more harm. So that was one misreading.
Then you wrote, “Why on earth should people who *are Christians* but *aren’t crazy* stop being Christians? They’re Christians. Suck it up.” Nowhere in anyone’s comments in this thread did anyone say people should “stop being Christians”.
People can practice whatever religion they want, but if they’re going to practice something that contradicts the Bible whenever it’s convenient to do so, then I am not going to call them Christians, and neither should they call themselves that.
You have defined all Christians as crazy.
All christians believe thing X
People who do not believe thing X are not christians
All people who believe thing X are crazy
You have defined all Christians as crazy.
All christians believe thing X
People who do not believe thing X are not christians
All people who believe thing X are crazy”
OK, I definitely agree with that formulation. Earlier, I thought you were accusing me of claiming that all Christians are crazy, including “Christians” who don’t really follow the Bible. Clearly, those people in the middle are mostly perfectly sane people who were just indoctrinated at a young age and can’t let go of their superstitions. They’re not crazy.
If you remove “Christians” from the mix, and only count people who believe in the crazy Bible, for real, then yes, all Christians are crazy.
I happen to think that believing in the resurrection of a person supposed to be the son of god in order to absolve mankind of their sins if only you would ask him into your heart – is pretty crazy. It doesn’t really matter to me whether or not they believe the rest of the myths or not, just how much crazy they intend to spill out into the rest of society. If they want to believe in Creation myth or that gay people are evil or that hurricanes and earthquakes are punishment for sin, yeah, most people who include themselves as Christian would call that crazy, it’s really the one event they do believe in that binds them to the others.
Where it’s not really normal, at least where I live, to oppose Christianity, it’s mainly because it keeps itself in the pen here. It’s easy to criticize unmanageable zealots. But whenever someone feels that admitting to atheism is difficult, it’s because even moderate Christians feel that declaration to be an attack on their beliefs, and not something like saying you are a Jew, a Buddhist or another denomination of Christianity. For some reason, this moderate Christian tends to be tolerant of other religions and in turn, they act tolerable and are tolerated. They do not think (or say out loud) that an other-denominated Christian is going about it the wrong way. It’s how they were raised, we are all getting along fine even though we have different passages of the bible to help and guide us. The tolerance turned inward is to appreciate how it’s good to be able to choose what to believe in, which is another weird aspect of this moderate Christianity. If god is real, and the bible is his word, and Jesus is real, what exactly is debatable? You know you are right but also consider everyone has the right to be wrong, or the choice to be right with the god that works for them.
It is sort of like parenting. If you are a parent or going to be someday, you might have an idea how best not to screw it up. You might even have an extreme view, and some parents are terribly inattentive or abusive. In the balance, many ways to parent a child, a lot of room to make mistakes, and still have it mostly turn out ok – even at the extremes. Most parents tend to be tolerant of other parents’ ways even if themselves would just never do it that way. Parents may also disagree with each other, but try telling someone the harm they appear to be doing to their children if YOU HAVE NEVER HAD A CHILD SO SHUT UP. Like, a fierce resistance, a “moderate” parent will defend an “extreme” parent they disagree with over a person who can’t possibly have the slightest clue what they go through.
Not completely sure where I’m going with this analogy, lol. Christians tend not to tolerate atheists. Saying I am an atheist to any given person and supposing they probably believe in god, because most people do to a degree, puts them on the defensive. It is not a criticism of your religion, but I guess it sounds like it is, because what I’ve said is I’ve read your books and I think they are all stupid, or I used to be trapped like you are but I’m so much smarter now. It’s not merely finding a niche of spirituality analogous to yours.
When people declare a “War on Christmas,” or whether atheists should be allowed to put banners on buses or billboards, I don’t hear about a lot of moderate Christians saying it’s ok, let’s include atheists in our love-fest. They think there’s no harm in a little nativity scene on the lawn of the town hall, I mean, if you don’t believe in it, it’s just a baby and his mom and a couple donkeys, right? Suck it up, atheists, stop taking all the fun and meaning away from us (is that what we did?).
I think this is what is meant by the middle covering the extreme. You might not believe as literally as they do, but you are protective of your choices over being rational and objective whenever the opportunity arises. In general.
A slightly different question directed at the same end: 3D, do you think there is only one correct interpretation of the Bible?
JonJon wrote
“A slightly different question directed at the same end: 3D, do you think there is only one correct interpretation of the Bible?”
Yes. I think the stories in the Bible were meant to be taken at face value, and only took on the ‘interpretive dance’ quality, that so many people espouse, later on in history, as society evolved and began to shed the barbaric tendencies that led to the Bible in the first place.
I mean, really, if there’s more than one correct interpretation of the Bible, what’s the point? It’s not very useful as the direct word of God, is it? Especially when many of those “interpretations” directly contradict each other.
To use a popular example of the uselessness of the Bible as a moral guide to everyday living, consider these three stances on one issue, all held by Christians and all justified by scriptures:
“God hates fags” (Fred Phelps interpretation)
“Be nice to gay people in your everyday life, even though they’re sinners” (Casual churchgoing Christian)
“God loves everyone of all persuasions” (New-agey, “spiritual but not religious” Christian)
Now, if the Bible was a guide, why wouldn’t God pick one and make it clear in the Bible? Well — the answer is, he did. The correct answer is A, God hates fags. But, “middle” Christians realize that isn’t feasible in 21st Century society, so they water it down by claiming “interpretive differences”, ignoring what the Bible actually has to say about it in black and white (God hates fags).
Even Fred Phelps Christians don’t (presumably) follow the Bible to the letter, because the Bible prescribes stoning as a “cure” for homosexuality, and I haven’t heard any reports of them roving around the gay part of town stoning people.
Well, this might be your problem, then.
The problem is that while it might be nice (for you) to nail down a “correct answer,” there simply isn’t one in the way that you think there is. Interpretations can be in good faith or not, but many interpretations have a great deal of textual evidence supporting them.
Having multiple interpretations of a text does not make it invalidated, or even inconsistent with itself. Literally every text has multiple interpretations. If I can interpret the events of Kafka’s The Trial in multiple valid ways (and I can) then why is it problematic to interpret the Bible in multiple ways? You (probably) think they have the same amount of fictionality. Why insist on a “correct” interpretation of one text, when other texts have more than one?
If every text in the world has multiple interpretations attached to it, then why would/should “the direct word of God” be any different?
Because it’s supposed to be “the direct word of God” and because many, many people base their whole lives on it?
Seriously dude. If I interprete Kafka’s The Trial differently than you do, that’s a fine exercise in literature (besides, that book is awesome).
But that’s not how people see it. It’s not a mere exercise in literature. People read it as a guidebook on how they should behave to reach salvation (and sometimes, they even feel compelled to legislate on it). You don’t see guidebooks that are so ambiguous that the instructions therein are contradictory, do you?
So if you read the Bible as an inspirational text or whatever, as an exercise in literature, that’s fine and dandy, but frankly, you’re fooling yourself if you think it’s anywhere near a reliable guidebook and that its instructions hold any water. It’s not and they don’t.
JonJon, I have to agree with Siberia. The Bible is, among other things, a guidebook. Besides, even though I do consider your argument about multiple interpretations to have some merit, there are times when alternative interpretations just don’t seem warranted.
Take Lev 20:13, which quite unequivocally tells us that gays are an abomination and should be killed. Unless you’re prepared to go the John C way and interpret “abomination” and “kill” in some fluffy, spiritual way the meaning is quite clear.
I see two ways Christians can excuse and avoid this unpleasant commandment: 1) Claim it wasn’t really commanded by God, thereby severely challenging the Bible’s authority, or the more traditional option, 2) Claim the commandment was obviated or countermanded by Jesus. Unfortunately the NT is ambiguous as to whether we are to uphold such commandments or not – another case for interpretation, and a major source of Christian denominational division.
@ Siberia
But that isn’t the point. No matter *what* people decide to do with the book, there are a large number of ways to interpret it, and I seriously doubt there is much justification for a radical reading to be “better” than a moderate one.
I don’t care that you think the book is bogus, and that you shouldn’t live your life according to *any* interpretation of it. That isn’t what I’m talking about. Should we put restrictions on a book because some people believe that a specific reading of it contains the word of God? I don’t think so. I think we should treat it like any other book. People live their lives according to the interpretation that Dianetics is a true and helpful philosophy. Is that bad for them? Probably. Does it deserve to be treated differently than some other book, or interpreted differently from some other book?
We just interpret it. Just because some fundamentalist Christians think that there is only one “right” way to read the Bible– and I cannot emphasize this enough– *Does not make it so.* If you read the Bible as having only one “correct” interpretation, you are basically reading it the same way a fundamentalist does. It’s not a nice boat to be in.
@ trj
Yeah, some interpretations are better supported than others. Sometimes there aren’t other good ways to read the text. Most of the time, though, we can come up with others.
How do you decide what portions of the bible to believe and how to interpret them correctly? Mostly because it agrees with your own sensibility. You may think god is keeping it clear just for you which to accept, interpret and/or reject because it just feels right to you, that is god telling you that is the right way. You mention treating the bible as if it were any other book.
????
Well. Is it the word of god or not? I know there are a lot of books written by people that some people swear by and some people think are trash. Imagine I am listing some popular self-help books or diet books or philosophy books. Many of these books have something for just about anyone to take away from them, if only they could get through the bullcrap that doesn’t apply to them. Subjectively, some books are better than others – you may not be a vegetarian, for example, but that doesn’t mean the vegetarian cookbook doesn’t have a few recipes you would find delicious, while a vegetarian would get a lot more help from such a reference, probably. They might alternately find out by trial that only 10% of the recipes were at all yummy, despite being more tailored to their preferences, so the book has equal usefulness to you both, but perhaps their 10% doesn’t really overlap with yours. It’s also possible that you think 90% of the recipes are really good and still not be a vegetarian from eating all of them.
If you are friends with anyone at all, you know they have tics that annoy you, behaviors that you don’t agree with, but they have the best chili recipe, and you know they would come bail you out of jail with no questions asked, and you treasure that loyalty in them despite their flaws.
In whatever way the author of the book or your friend, etc., is not completely or mostly helpful to you, none of them is this god you worship. You read a book that is helpful to you in some ways, but you also have certain ideas of who god is and why he wants you to look at this particular book. How do you reconcile god to be perfect, wise, and complete with the use of this book to guide you? If you are taking 10% of it, and dismissing what you want to, but that 10% is really good, why is the bible a book and not a pamphlet? Who do you suppose god is after taking the 10% you like and ignoring or excusing the rest of the book?
JonJon wrote:
“Having multiple interpretations of a text does not make it invalidated, or even inconsistent with itself.”
I agree. Multiple interpretations of a text do not invalidate the text. But interpretations of text can be clearly shown to be invalid.
For example, if you came to this forum and posted “God hates fags”, and then I came and responded to your comment saying “What JonJon clearly meant to say is that homosexuality is awesome”, it’s patently obvious that my “interpretation” of what you wrote is incorrect. No matter how I try to dress up what you said, I’m still in denial because what you wrote was direct and to the point.
In other words, not all interpretations of all things are valid. When they contradict the text explicitly, for example the way “peace and love” Christians ignore the Bible’s ickier parts, then they’re invalid interpretations.
“Literally every text has multiple interpretations. If I can interpret the events of Kafka’s The Trial in multiple valid ways (and I can) then why is it problematic to interpret the Bible in multiple ways? You (probably) think they have the same amount of fictionality. Why insist on a “correct” interpretation of one text, when other texts have more than one?”
Because no one is blowing people’s cars up over what appears in a Kafka novel. If the zealots who follow Christianity can’t even agree with each other about what’s inside it, then we’re dealing with something a little bit more insidious and harmful than abstract concepts in a stuffy college lit class.
“If every text in the world has multiple interpretations attached to it, then why would/should “the direct word of God” be any different?”
If we’re going to validate everyone’s interpretations of the Bible, no matter how contradictory, even when those interpretations directly contradict each other by 180 degrees, so much so that there are hundreds of different sects (many of which regularly bomb the shit out of each other’s cars) just so no one gets their feelings hurt, then at some point the whole thing loses its meaning.
If you don’t think the Bible has any intrinsic meaning, and everyone can interpret it in their own way, through the lens of their own morals and upbringing, then what’s the fucking point? Get rid of the Bible and cut out the middleman.
Well, I wouldn’t say better, but I’d say it’s far more honest. Like 3D said, some of these rules are pretty damn straightforward, and it’s only exhaustive mental gymnastics that make them less so – forcing the text to bend to your likeness. There’s no real way you can tell who’s right and who’s wrong, because all interpretations are equally valid.
Which is all well and dandy if you’re not pretending to derive Truth-with-a-capital-T from it. It’s not the truth. It’s what you think is the truth.
Ah, but claiming it’s the word of god changes everything. Remember, these people believe god is an ultimate power. If s/he/it says something, it’s damn important, and it’s damn important that we get it right, too. Salvation depends on it.
The thing is, when you add ‘word of god’ into the mix, it gains an authority utterly unwarranted and opens many possibilities that are utterly crazy and dangerous. If the god who created the universe’s telling you, in no uncertain terms, that misbehaving children must be stoned… who are you to claim otherwise?
But you don’t believe the Dianetics is divine, do you? Why is that so?
More importantly, do you think the Bible’s divine? If so, why? Why not the Dianetics? The Qu’ran? The Vedas? They’re all equally dangerous and they’re all equally supported. Why one and not the other?
And neither does your view. Your view and theirs are equally valid. The main difference is that yours may be more palatable than theirs, but it’s still utterly arbitrary. Not the kind of thinking I’d like serving as my Guidebook to Salvation.
It might not be the only ‘correct’ interpretation simply because no interpretation is more valid than the next. They’re the same. Speculations over a bronze-age book of myths.
Seriously, we wouldn’t be having this dialogue if people didn’t think it’s the friggin’ Guide to Eternal Life And All Joyful Things rather than just something some bronze-age tribesmen wrote.
“If you read the Bible as having only one “correct” interpretation, you are basically reading it the same way a fundamentalist does. It’s not a nice boat to be in.”
You are right, I am reading the Bible the same way a fundamentalist reads it. Because the fundamentalist is reading what is actually written in the Bible, and so am I.
The people who are doing the mental calisthenics trying to justify the horrible things in the Bible, like you are here, are the ones who are missing the point. The Bible was written at a time when all this barbaric crap was commonplace and accepted. It’s meant to be taken literally. It was taken literally for centuries. It was taken literally when Galileo was being persecuted for suggesting that the ass-backward science in the Bible was wrong. It was taken literally when Southern Crackers were using it to support slavery in the US. And on and on.
Only recently, when Western society developed a semblance of morality that outstripped that of the Bible, and all these concepts became laughably outdated, did the “casual Christians” develop this interpretive dance designed to diminish the horrible things in the Bible. Try firing up the old DeLorean, JonJon, and go back to the 1500s and try telling some of the people in the Catholic church that the Bible is open to interpretation and all interpretations are valid, because it’s just a text, like any other book. And bring firearms with you or you won’t be making the trip back.
It might not be the only ‘correct’ interpretation simply because no interpretation is more valid than the next. They’re the same. Speculations over a bronze-age book of myths.
Seriously, we wouldn’t be having this dialogue if people didn’t think it’s the friggin’ Guide to Eternal Life And All Joyful Things rather than just something some bronze-age tribesmen wrote.
I think one of the problems here is that JonJon, like many well-meaning Christians, is having a hard time admitting that there are crazy things written in the Bible that do not hold up to any kind of interpretation whatsoever.
And that’s the basic problem with Christianity in a nutshell. JonJon has said here that I interpret the Bible the same way as a fundamentalist, as if this is an insult or a barb, but it’s not. The problem isn’t that fundamentalists read the Bible in a way that is crazy. The problem is that the Bible is crazy! And fundamentalists follow what it says, accurately.
And when others “interpret” the Bible, by ignoring most of what it says but still claiming to follow it, they give the Bible legitimacy, when it deserves none.
It’s one thing to believe the crazy book in its entirety and it’s quite a lot another thing, with a conscious effort, to capriciously invent a new religious flavor without any additional input or explanation from the same god. Ancient people made this stuff up, I think we can all agree, not a lot of it applies to our current situation. I also think a god who is eternal and omniscient wouldn’t have any reason to write a book that applies so blatantly to one time period long ago, and include no indication that circumstances would ever change so significantly as to render much of the text obsolete or up to the reader to abridge it and conjure up some metaphors and other excuses.
I think the main thing is you all think Christ is your savior, but what you are doing is inventing a new religion too. How can god be the same god, only different? How can so many people see god as different and still associate themselves to one another? It’s in the book. Is it because new religions don’t get the respect? LDS and Scientology always sound crazy on the outside because they are using recent text. Thousands of years ago, someone did the same thing, how is that more likely god, and if some of it wasn’t to be taken literally, why is this only being addressed now, by people?
“Suck on a reading comprehension textbook.”
That would surely be the most ironic book ever :D
Oh my god they killed Jesus, you bastards!
Sorry but it lost me at “I agree that there’s a higher power responsible for life” they have no more reason to believe that than the IDD has to believe his ID stuff.
The only thing anyone can agree with any certainty based on facts is that there is life, where it came from and if there is anyone “responsible” is still a complete mystery so any claims to that effect are pure faith.
This is just theism trying to be clever but the minute they talk about “higher power” it all falls apart as there is no middle, you can’t believe in a “little bit” of magic.
The difference is he doesn’t deny evidence when it’s slapping him in the face. Belief in a god is fairly mundane. There’s no evidence, but at least it’s not being directly contradicted.
Cool, except that the ID folks don’t have an algorithm. I’ve often wondered why God’s revelations were given to those who were so poor at math, instead of to the Indians or Greeks. Can it be that God abhors people with a dominant left brain hemisphere?