[Bible] Let's find something more boring than politics to discuss

I’ve read that book and I love it. I used to be pretty “fundamental” in my beliefs, especially about the Bible. Over the years as I’ve read more and learned more that has changed tremendously.

Books like Bell’s and Pete Enns’ resonate with me. I love the history around how the Bible came about, and I really love not having to tie my beliefs to a literal understanding of each story, especially when that is so obviously an anachronistic and incorrect way to read them.

 

not exactly my area, but I do know that the attempt to "demythologize" biblical studies in the mid-twentieth century was influenced a great deal by Rudolph Bultmann, fwiw. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Bultmann

interesting topic

 

I go to an evangelical church that believes in the inerrancy of the Word. And your example looks like a complete strawman to me. Sermons are always putting the words and stories of the Bible into a metaphysical context. Never have I heard it preached "yeah, one time Jesus went to a well and a woman gave him some water. The end." I haven't read the book. Maybe you didn't do it justice or maybe I'm not smart enough to get it. But, it feels like it's arguing against an approach that doesn't exist.

Oh and you're a heathen and the anti-Christ.

 

Its important to keep in mind that the New Testament isn't one book. It is 4 independent synoptic stories of Jesus' life that conflict with each other at times, a bunch of personal letters written by church leaders well after the death of Jesus, and then the Revelation of John which has more issues that I care to detail now (Martin Luther advocated it be removed from the Bible). The lineup of books that were included (and which books were excluded) wasn't finalized until 500 years after Jesus died, and the lineup was chosen by committees.

It's not so much a unified book as a compilation of short stories and various writings.

 

Man, I don't think I've ever had a woman come into baggage claim to meet me and hug me. Women suck. They make you stand outside on the curb, while they arrive late, then tell you to jump in amidst honking because they double park.

am I doing it right?

 

To expand on your comment.

Bible means 'biblia', which is translated to Holy Books. In the standard protestant Bible, it consists of 66 books. The Roman Catholic has more.

I find the Bible very fascinating and one of most interesting books I've ever read. That said, I can't have a serious conversation with anyone who blindly calls the Bible full of hypocrisy and hate. Its extremely complex, covers thousands of years and a mixture of different cultures. But it is fun to use it against the hard line believers who blindly follow the pulpit.

 

So it's not His story but Allegory? Who'd 'a thunk it...

 

btw: fwiw: One of the great things I learned at Rice wrt reading historical texts is we must always read them with time and place (context) in mind, before we can compare them to similar-topic texts of early and later times/contexts. Only then can we really understand their place in history, and learn the most from them.

I think it was a History of Science class where that light-bulb went off, when we were reading the works of paradigmatic shifts in math and science. ... and placing them in their time and place with works of Religion and Philosophy.

All Deconstruction Movements are fascinating in this regard, too.

 

@FranchiseBlade the fault may be mine. When I see criticisms of "literal interpretations" I understand it as a criticism of a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible as literally the divine Word of God. What you describe though seems more like an argument against uneducated and unsophisticated understandings of the Bible. I go to a well-educated church so maybe I just haven't seen it. But, I guess I wouldn't be shocked to learn that there's some little independent churches out there preaching while they have hardly any understanding of the Bible themselves.

Maybe @Rox>Mavs can come for another Christianity thread?

Many years ago when I started dating and then married a Christian woman and went to church, I was endlessly fascinated with how complex and nuanced theology, biblical scholarship and interpretation could get. As I reasoned then, western civilization has devoted its best people to this study for over a millennium. They should have produced lots of good scholarship on it by now. So I think I might understand the appeal of the book. But now I'm tired. All those hours in church and I still go to hell in the end.

 

I think there are a lot of people who simply don't feel comfortable around ambiguity and uncertainty. Reading the Bible, placing it in historical context, and parsing clear meaning from vast amounts of information is simply too much for them to do. They need to be told exactly how to act to be right with God, and making judgements about unclear instructions (i.e. thinking) is too much to ask. If you can convince them God wants x, nothing makes them happier than following orders and following a clear set of rules.

Then there are other people who like to tell people exactly how to act so they can feel important, and saying God wants you to do what I say is the ultimate appeal to (the ultimate) authority and having people fall in line behind them makes them feel important and powerful. Not saying they are lying or manipulating people, but when they are ordering people how to get right with God, they feel awesome, and they interpret that as God's blessing or whatever.

In short, there are some people who feel most comfortable when they are being told what to do, and there are some other people who really only feel great when they are telling other people what to do. Not a religion-exclusive problem but it seems to find a fertile breeding ground in religion. Taken to its most extreme, you end up with Jim Jones and The People's Temple. But just as Ebola is a virus that infects it's hosts and kills them within three weeks, other viruses like herpes that are more of a slow burn that move in, rearrange the furniture, and never kills its host. Its kind of a religious co-dependent synergy and not terribly healthy for either party, but it seems to be human nature.

So in summation, I love the topic at hand, but I think human nature may prevent universal acceptance of the principals laid down.

 

I thought the title said [Biden].

 

One of my favorite quotes is from a Nazi..."The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."

 

Good luck with that one...

 

Jesus spoke Aramic

27