I just don’t get it. If I can’t take the Bible literally then how am I supposed to interpret it? Can a true believer please give me a coherent answer?
It seems to me that the majority of “contemporary Christians” (a term I coined for the majority of Christians living in America, it does not include fundamentalists who believe the bible word for word) suffer from a severe case of doublethink.
They’re smart enough to realize that the world is more than six thousand years old, that Noah did not have a big ass boat capable of carrying every species of animal, and that evolution is indeed a biological reality.
Well my friends, when does it end? If I’m just supposed to shrug my shoulders and blow off the entire book of Genesis then when can I start taking the Bible seriously?
Let me put it to you like this:
Say you’re on a road trip in the middle-of-nowhere and you come to a Circle K convenient store. You decide to stop and ask for directions to the nearest gas station as your tank is only 1/5 full. You ask the man behind the counter for directions and without hesitation he begins to tell you a faulty route. You begin to drive and sure enough, forty minutes later you find yourself at the same Circle K store. Red with anger (and nearly empty on gas) you go inside to confront the liar. As you walk in the door the man squeezes out a chuckle and says “Sorry pal, I was just pulling you’re leg! But this time I’ll tell you the real way.”
Questions:
1. Does this man have ANY credibility after he just lied to you?
2. Would you not be a fool to trust this man a second time around?
You see what I’m getting at? Most contemporary Christians have decided to trust the Circle K clerk (despite being a known liar), and they’re now headed sixty miles in the wrong direction! If the Bible is supposed to represent truth (but much of it has proven to be false) then how can anyone believe a single word of it?
In conclusion, this isn’t an attack of Christianity, it’s a call for action. Gone should be the days of swallowing age old dogma. It’s time that the individual starts thinking and questioning things for themselves. It’s time to face whatever boogeyman is keeping you locked away in that dark little closet of so-called “certainty”. Inconsistencies wouldn’t fly on a third grade math test, so why should they on your deepest of metaphysical theories?
—————————————————————————————
Now here’s a little gem I accidentally stumbled across on youtube after searching for backpacking/hiking videos. While this video isn’t entirely related to my post, I will say that it proves a valid point. The point being that AT LEAST fundamentalists are consistent with their theology, however mind numbing and ridiculous their logic may be.
Tags: athiest, christianity, doublethink, evolution, god, jesus
April 7, 2008 at 11:21 pm
It seems like you’re putting it in black and white terms–either you believe all of the Bible or none of it. I’m not saying you can pick and choose (i.e., a gray area) what parts of it to believe. But let me ask you this–do you believe Aesop’s Fables? (Would a logical person believe in talking animals?) No, because animals don’t talk like humans. The point is, the talking animals illustrated a moral ideal in each of Aesop’s stories. I prefer to think of the Bible more along those lines–just because some (if not all) of the stories are unrealistic doesn’t mean that there’s something to be gleaned from them. Just as with many other stories, essays, and poems, the details don’t have to be true to drive a point home. That correlates with the fact that the basic moral codes found in many religions is similar, if not the same. It’s not that one is right or wrong or better than the other–they’re trying to say the same thing, but the stories are told for different audiences, so they’re not going to be told to everyone the same way.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I don’t disagree with you that the Bible shouldn’t be taken literally, but I don’t think that any book should be tossed aside as a whole just because the stories don’t depict actual events.
April 8, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Jess first off thanks for replying.
I agree that the Bible can be useful in teaching rather rudimentary lessons to many people. However, so can many other books, such as “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” for example.
The fact is, the Bible is a collection of works that are supposed to document the history and origin of man. If I find inconsistencies and scientific errors in its pages when it claims to represent THE TRUTH, then I can no longer take it seriously. If you want to call the Bible a book of human ethics and life lessons then fine, but it’s can no longer be the book of truth if it cannot accurately explain the existence of man.
Also, in regards to this “universal truth” you have pointed to (ie: all religions having close to the same moral codes), I’m going to have to disagree with you on that one too. I don’t believe there are any truths to “good” and “evil”. I believe that as rational thinking creatures that must function and work together in a society it seems impractical to lie, cheat, murder, and rape one another. Instead of these being moral truths of right and wrong, various cultures have deemed these actions inappropriate because it would be breaking our social construct.
Now since you agree with me that much of the Bible is in fact one big fairy tale then let me ask you a question. Did Jesus really perform miracles and did he actually rise from the dead….because if Jesus didn’t really do these things then all Christianity has broken down. When can I begin separating fact from fiction?
April 8, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Hey again.
In response to your thoughts–I’m not saying that there is a definite “universal truth” out there–just that religions are all trying to say the same thing. Whether that means they’re right or wrong is another thing. It might just be that they’re saying “to live in a way that is agreeable to most people (i.e., society), these are the moral codes we want everyone to live by”. (Which I believe somewhat parallels your view, as you’ve stated here.)
Another thought I had was that it’s important to take things in context. I don’t claim to know what happened back in ancient times, but apparently some things happened that people couldn’t explain with the facts they knew back then. So maybe those things became miracles. I can’t give you an answer on whether Jesus really did rise from the dead, but who can (without relying on outside sources)? We don’t have any eyewitnesses (not that eyewitnesses are the most reliable sources anyway). I think people did their best to get down accounts of what happened, but time has passed and the truth (what events transpired, not a “universal truth”) can get lost in translation, whether it’s from verbal to written language or between written languages.
On a tangent–What is the point in separating fact from fiction? Is it of fundamental importance to existence? Is it for the sake of the two? If people believe in something fictional (of their own choosing, not because they’ve been brought up with it or it’s imposed upon them by some outside power), why should anyone try to convince them otherwise? This line of thinking seems to imply that there are some truths in existence somewhere (not necessarily moral truths). Are there? Or is truth something pliable? Could truth exist in both fact and fiction, if there is such truth in the first place?
Apologies for the length and rambling thoughts at the end.
Oh and here’s a quote from Faulkner’s As I Lay Dying that popped into my head at the end of all that: “That was when I learned that words are no good; that words don’t ever fit even what they are trying to say at…fear was invented by someone that had never had the fear, pride, who never had the pride.” Just another thought.
April 9, 2008 at 9:13 am
Words are dry and dull and dead; the ideas and concepts and feelings, unique to each and every person, cannot be conveyed very well by such “generalizations.”
A rough estimation is possible, sure… but what good is that when you’re trying to find the ultimate truth?
Our language simply isn’t very good for describing any sort of situation; especially the “Divine”. Take “love,” for example: the same word is used for God’s love, making love, love for your family, “I really love Radiohead,” whatever. How many times does someone write something that can be taken so many different ways? Metaphors are supposed to be great at explaining points, but in the end, how can you explain a unique situation with something so general?
Context helps; but with context, you can make anything into anything else.
The Bible poorly written, comprised of tales using our inferior, confusing, empty language,
and the ways of interpreting any passage are numerous due to this. Any lesson can easily be contradicted with a counter-lesson less than a page away.
I find it hard to value the book.
Or put it on any higher level than the Velveteen Rabbit.
We (or perhaps just You) are free to value whatever you like… the “Truth” seems to be non-existent, or unknowable; subjective truth is all we have. It is so hard to prove anything, even your very own existence…
I have to agree with Ryan on the social construct idea; religions are reflections of the cultures that they exist within… and peace and compassion, having practical applications, could have very well existed as human ideals thousands of years before organized religion.
April 9, 2008 at 9:19 am
^^Hell, what I just wrote is a great example of how confusing words can be
April 10, 2008 at 2:50 am
Jess, surely there is a “truth” to existence, in terms of how mind and matter have originated. However this truth is most definitely too great for the human mind to grasp, and it seems almost absurd for us to make up these fairy tales to attempt to explain it. Also the truth resulting in our consciousness is totally unrelated to any moral truth or definite purpose for life (in which I believe there are no specific truths for these, as these are merely socially constructed).
Without getting into my own metaphysical theory (because it is irrelevant to what we’re talking about), I will say that holding ANY ideal too seriously is damaging to the society as a whole. Religion starts wars, discourages free-thinking, and is self debilitating to the individual (how many die-hard Christians are actually happy? More often than not they feel like guilty scoundrels who will never amount to the piety of the Lord). I can’t think of one instance in which the world would not be better off without organized religion. All the moral codes that religion has stood for can easily be more intelligently crafted in the form of philosophy/ethics (see Utilitarianism or even Kant) which will teach the individual to think for themselves instead of turning them into hypocritical, ten commandment reciting sheep.
Jake, I understand what you are saying and agree whole heartedly about the limitations of language. I do not know if your argument properly addresses Jess’s explicit point but it’s definitely food for thought.
April 12, 2008 at 1:11 am
Ryan,
I think from now on (at least until I have more time on my hands), I’ll be reading but not necessarily commenting. It’s not because I agree or disagree with anything you’ve said (I agree with more than you’d think), but it seems as though you’re fitting what I say into preconceived arguments with which you disagree. I’ve tried to be as specific as possible with my words in previous posts because I’m not attempting to apply them to arguments for which they aren’t suited.
April 17, 2008 at 1:38 am
Suggested Reading: The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster