What is the Bible an authority on?

[Cleobulus]

I think this is a pertinent question, many people defend the Bible by saying it uses poetry and metaphor to get its point across. A counter to the fundamentalist's claim of it being literally true. Fine, however, this still brings up the problem of this, what authority does the Bible have? If its not the physical world, then what insights exist in it that have not or cannot be derived elsewhere?

[izquierdista]

1. The habits of prehistoric goatherds

Their superstitions, fears, and social taboos.

[Nay]

19. Exactly. nt

[TheDebbieDee]

46. I thought they were sheepherders???????

[Unvanguard]

50. Actually, it doesn't tell us very much about that.

A great deal of the Bible is politically motivated and sanitized. For instance, monotheism almost certainly became established long after the Bible suggests it was.

[msongs]

2. superstition to validate and justify deliberate behavioral choices nt

[dipsydoodle]

3. A series of moral lessons

.

[Cleobulus]

6. OK, what moral lessons?

From what I can see in the Bible, God has endorsed and aided in genocide, infanticide, rape, murder, pillaging other tribes, etc. Even if we took those out, and just went with the commandments, which number a hell of a lot more than ten, we have commandments about not eating shellfish, not wearing mixed fiber clothes, etc. it get ridiculous and in some cases contradictory.

[dipsydoodle]

14. There's a few there anyway.

I'm still reading Robert Crumb's Book of Genesis - I'll get back to you.

I read once that Kane and Abel were twin gods. Abel was sweetness and light and Kane the vindictive punsisher. The Jews drew the short straw. :)

[Cleobulus]

15. There are always "a few there" what I find interesting is these few...

moral codes generally are common throughout all human civilizations, from either religious or secular writings. The Golden Rule is a classic example, through varies slightly across cultures. This is most likely an example of common human values, not proof of a God, but rather an example of Humans being wired up to experience the world in a certain way. The Golden Rule, you could say, is a basic part of human nature.

[dipsydoodle]

17. I agree with what you say

.

[CanonRay]

4. Fairy tales

Think of Jack and the Beanstalk, or Goldilocks, set up in a book and turned into a religion.

[crikkett]

5. What is the bible an authority on is not the same as what authority it has

Furthermore this post is a troll.

But I'll bite. To answer your questions, it is an authority on social control and it has the authority that individuals grant it.

Everything in it, from 'she shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for her heel' to 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is designed to teach people to act a certain way. Social control.

[Cleobulus]

8. What you say is true, outside of me being a troll...

what I find fascinating is that the individuals who do give the Bible authority, only give the parts they like authority, rather than all of it. They outright ignore(but never disclaim) the parts they don't like. In a way, they deny God, the parts or behaviors of him they think are immoral or wrong, but they never go that far.

[crikkett]

11. Looks like your post was designed to pick a fight. It could be a stretch to call it

a troll, so I'm sorry.

I wouldn't have thought so if you had included your opinion in your OP.

On edit:
After seeing how you're responding to other comments I've come back to soften my waffling. Admit it, you wanted to start something here.

[Cleobulus]

13. Call it a challenge, not a troll, I want to see how people respond to the question...

rather than to my opinion on the Bible itself. Generally the question gets lost when the opinion needs to be challenged first.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

20. Yes, Cleobulus probably wanted to start something

He posted a religious question in the Religion forum, and is attempting to start a debate. It's not as sinister as you're trying to portray it.

You've really got to grow a thicker skin if you're going to survive in R&T.

[mothergooseminute]

7. Troll? Hmmm...

Some contend it has authority as a historical record.

[Cleobulus]

10. Wouldn't that argument be equally true for other written stories and folklore...

from any people? Such as the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, Persians, etc.?

[Goblinmonger]

52. Historical record of what?

That the Jews were enslaved in Egypt? Because that is nowhere else. That there was a person called Jesus that did all that stuff? Because there is no record of that anywhere else. That Herod called for a mass census and everyone had to go to their homeland? Because that exists nowhere else.

Maybe it is a record of evolution because back in the day bats weren't mammals and rabbits chewed their cud.

[struggle4progress]

9. It's part of the record of a human search for the sacred

[Cleobulus]

12. If that's true, then is it any more authoritative than, for example the Vedas....

of Hinduism?

[struggle4progress]

27. I have no idea what your question means to you. I'm not an authoritarian, and I'm

seeking authoritarian help in my effort to live as an authentic human being in the 21st century. The authoritarian approach seems to me a medieval monarchist project, and my mind-frame is conditioned by modernity and the problems of human freedom

If you're asking whether I think that traditions other than my own Lutheran background can offer important insights, then I must say, But of course! The Buddhists offer some profound psychological insights, and "be mindful" is in some ways excellent ethical advice. The Taoists have some helpful notions about (say) how to approach politics. Some portions of Midrashic texts are very informative. And one ought to take Gandhi's reading of the Bhagavad-Gita seriously

[Cleobulus]

32. But why seek authority at all? Or perhaps I should say reinforcement...

granted we may not know everything, but I would think human beings, as individuals can form their own moral compass, as it were, simply from being human. From within, rather than from without. As such, there is no need to not only seek authority, but even the more benign form of guidance.

[struggle4progress]

36. You do not read very well: I just told you I'm not an authoritarian.

[darkstar3]

54. Authoritarianism is not the same as seeking authoritative input on certain subjects,

which you have already admitted that you do. You're dodging the question by throwing a red herring.

[rurallib]

16. everything

[Cleobulus]

18. Can you give a specific example? n/t

[rurallib]

22. nope. just repeating a fundie talking point.

[kestrel91316]

21. Nothing. It IS, however, a book with some words of wisdom among the dreck.

[mgc1961]

23. LTTE: Rev. Davis interprets Bible text to suit a bias

If the Rev. Maury Davis can find no bet­ter text than John 10:1–7 to sup­port his claim that the Bible teaches that ille­gal immi­gra­tion is wrong, he should prob­a­bly leave the issue alone (“Bible calls ille­gal immi­gra­tion wrong,” June 17). The text clearly refers to get­ting into Heaven, not get­ting into the USA … unless some trans­la­tor acci­den­tally trans­lated the Greek word as “sheep­fold” when he should have trans­lated it “USA.”

Per­haps those of us who are com­mit­ted to the teach­ings of the Bible would be bet­ter advised to admit that the Bible is silent on some cur­rent issues as far as specifics are concerned.

To do oth­er­wise likely causes us to jerk texts and inter­pret them as we think oth­ers want us to or to inter­pret them accord­ing to our own biases.

Jerk­ing texts is a dan­ger­ous exer­cise; one can do so and find the one that says, “Judas went out and hanged himself.”

There is also one that says, “Go thou and do likewise.”


http://blogs.tennessean.com/opinion/2010/06/18/rev-davis-interprets-bible-text-to-suit-a-bias/#more-2110


Editorial note: This guy, Davis, is a Cornerstone Church preacher who pays for Sunday morning time on our local CBS station. This July 4 they're advertising an indoor fireworks display and rodeo.

[Cleobulus]

24. Interesting LTTE, of course, I think it ignores a key point...

While it acknowledges that the Bible is silent about certain issues, it doesn't acknowledge that of the issues that the Bible isn't silent on, Bible believers either ignore them or even disclaim them when they don't fit with modern ethics or morality, examples include slavery and child abuse.

[JDPriestly]

25. Read Joseph Campbell on the power of myth. Study

literature. The Bible and similar texts contain priceless cultural wisdom.

More than ever, in this internet age, wisdom is needed.

The Bible instructs us, among other things, about the power of nature, the dangers of jealousy, the insanity of war, the folly of racism, the nobility of courage and the joy of love. It teaches us about a vast range of human experiences. It assures us that the difficulties and joys we experience are not unique to us.

More specifically, the Bible tells the story of a people as it would like its story to be told. And so, it encourages us to think about and tell our own story.

If you don't like the Bible, read something else.

If you have never read the Bible for enjoyment, start with the Psalms. Read them as stories, not as religious teachings. Read them the same way that you would read the Odyssey or the Iliad, as reflecting the history and culture of an ancient time.

[Cleobulus]

29. So the Bible should be used to make sure we don't act like God?

The Bible instructs us, among other things, about the power of nature, the dangers of jealousy, the insanity of war, the folly of racism, the nobility of courage and the joy of love.

First off, a few things, one is God is pro-war, pro-racism, not very courageous, and very, very, jealous. Second, I don't see where the Bible talks about the power of nature that much, but more about the power of God and his miracles.

Even taking the Bible as folklore or myth doesn't mean it should be used as an instruction manual, I wouldn't want to model my life after Odysseus, for example, that guy was an asshole. Same could be said for most of the leaders and Patriarchs in the Bible, including God.

[JDPriestly]

39. Much of the Bible is the story of human folly and failure.

It is also the story in human courage and faith in something beyond the self in the face of difficulty. That is what you learn from.

You learn from the stories what works and what doesn't. That's the purpose of literature and stories -- to explore human experience. Thanks to stories, we aren't limited to learning only from our own personal experience.

[Cleobulus]

42. If it was only considered literature and stories, I would agree, sort of, except...

in one area, you focus on the human folly and failure, but what about God's follies and failures? Shouldn't the Bible, being a work of literature, warn us against worshiping such an egotistical maniac? I mean, seriously, in all the works of fiction over the years, God is perhaps the worst character of them all. Killing, as it were, millions of people, at least according to the Bible.

[JDPriestly]

43. Regardless of whether you believe in God as a higher power (and

I do), the God of the Bible seems to change over time. The God of the Bible is a projection of the humans who told the stories about Him.

[Cleobulus]

48. So what's the point in worshipping this mutable character in a series of disconnected...

stories written thousands of years ago, from various different sources, from various different authors, and even oral histories?

You cannot tell me that this changing, mutable God as described in the Bible is someone you seriously worship.

[zabet]

26. The Bible

can be used to shore up or tear down any moral argument depending how you choose to interpret it. One must always keep in mind it was written by humans, and has been translated by humans. Humans are fallible and who is to say their interpretations during translations were what the original author intended? We will not even get into the fact that the Bible in use today has a large portion of books removed that were deemed 'not worthy'.

Literally true? Some parts MAY be.

[Cleobulus]

30. So the Bible is unreliable, correct? If that's the case, why use it to shore up any arguments? n/t

[zabet]

34. Not what I said....

in a nutshell...it is open to interpretation. Why use ANYTHING to shore up arguments? Because one that does thinks it will justify their reasoning. Geez

[Cleobulus]

35. You said humans translated it, and inserted bias into it...

editorially. You shouldn't really use anything to shore up any arguments outside of evidence that can be verified. For example, if we want to make a moral argument against slavery, isn't it enough to say it is wrong because those humans being enslaved deserve the same freedom we ourselves enjoy? You can even back it up with evidence that those humans are the same as ourselves, with the same wants, needs, and yearnings. What need to you have for the Bible to shore up such an argument?

[zabet]

37. I did not say they inserted bias....

just that the potential for that having happened is there. I am not advocating using questionable things to back up ones arguments or beliefs but, the reason is still the same. People use what they think will justify their positions whether the material is factual or not....whatever that material may be. If you cannot dazzle people with brilliance....you can always baffle them with bullshit.

As far as needing the Bible to shore up an argument, I never said I did, and I don't. What I may accept as morally right or wrong may not be the same as another person's belief system.

[Cleobulus]

38. I'm not an advocate of Moral abolutism, but there are some absolutes in morality...

I mean, if something is wrong, its wrong, the fact that others feel differently doesn't change that. Most things are in areas of gray, where disagreements happen, but some things are, or should be absolutes, like my example of slavery. Or infanticide, or genocide, etc. There are many items that we can't reasonably disagree on, and while those who are for these things may try to justify them, there are rational arguments to be made against them.

[Bitwit1234]

28. We don't know if ANY of the Bible is true

all we know is it was supposed to be written by MEN to describe the times they lived in. We have no historical record of any of those times.

[Cleobulus]

31. Well, not necessarily true, the Bible is good at figuring out how the ancient Israelites...

viewed themselves and the world, along with providing insights into their religious beliefs of the time. However, the Bible isn't the ONLY historical resource of the time, its one of many for the middle east, and the most extensive on the Israelite or Jewish perspective of the time. Its probably the best preserved though.

But it had contemporaries in Ancient Egypt, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian and Ancient Greek writings.

[Scuba]

33. Being authoritarian.

[onager]

40. Dr. Samuel Johnson nailed it perfectly.

According to the story, a new writer once sent Dr. Johnson a copy of his book.

Johnson wrote back: "Your work is both good and original. Unfortunately, the good parts are not original and the original parts are not good."

I feel exactly the same way about the Bible. The "good parts" - don't kill, don't steal, etc. - were part of human society long before the Biblical authors started scribbling. And the original parts - Original Sin, hell, the Tripod-God, the loony ravings of Revelation - are not very good.

As for hell, I like to amuse myself by thinking I know exactly how that myth originated.

People Smarter Than Me (which is everybody) says "hell" came from the Hebrew "sheol," which was the dump outside Jerusalem where people burned their garbage.

In the Gospel According To Onager...

One day a hard-working Jewish mom was trying to take out her garbage. The day was brutally hot, the fires of the flaming garbage made it worse, the stench was terrible...and she had brought along her kids, who were driving her crazy by throwing dead rats and sticks at each other.

Mom finally lost her temper and yelled: "If you little shits don't behave, when you die you're going to end up in a place JUST LIKE THIS!"

Not far away, two of the Priestly Anointed were passing by, heading for the Temple to count the weekly take of the First Fruits and their other undeserved income.

"Did you hear that? 'When you die, you'll go to a burning place!" By W_ats_isName, we can USE that!"

"Nah. They'll never buy it. Eternity as a burning trash pile? You gotta be kidding."

"No, seriously. If they bought the Talking Snake, Lot's daughters and that yarn about Noah's big boat, they'll buy ANYTHING!"

[and-justice-for-all]

41. War and Death...nt

[laconicsax]

44. Depends on whom you ask.

If you ask a particular flavor of theist, you'll find that it's an authority on any number of subjects in which it either contradicts reality and/or itself.
If you ask a slightly different flavor of theist, you'll find that it's an authority on some abstract historical curiosity.
If you ask yet another flavor of theist, you'll find that it's all lies.

[classysassy]

45. " A falling away"

The bible(God's Word revealed by man.)All of you non believers that are repeating what other non believers tell you,you need to read the Holy book for your selves.If you read the bible try to get an understanding of what you read,because reading and not understanding is the reason you all have a mis understanding of the Holy book.Please read 2nd thes.ch2-11.

[Cleobulus]

47. Don't know many non-believers, do you? Many of us are non-believers because we read the Bible...

And realized it made no sense. For example, you cite The Book of 2nd Thessalonians, Chapter 2-11. Classic text of fear of acquiring "unGodly" knowledge, and infinitely dangerous to human kind, not the knowledge, but the Bible itself. It tells you to be incurious about the world outside of what is in the Bible. To limit people's pursuit of knowledge is a great evil, nothing but, and the Bible is a premier example of this evil.

[trotsky]

51. Hey, guess what?

Reading the bible - cover-to-cover - is what pushed me over the hump from Christian to atheist.

So I agree with your advice and urge everyone to read the ENTIRE Christian bible. Don't skip over any of the nasty bits, either.

[Goblinmonger]

53. If an atheist broad brushed believers like you just did to atheists

the usual crowd would be in here screaming "fundie atheists." I'm an atheist. I graduated from a Catholic HS Seminary. I read the bible cover-to-cover twice during high school. I am very comfortable with knowledge of the bible.

And I find the selection you point to a little offensive. Did you seriously mean to have the "non-believers" read:
"And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith."
Really? Those without faith are unreasonable and wicked? You have to be kidding me.

[Unvanguard]

49. What the Bible says.

Well, at least what the particular version of the particular translation you have in your hands says.

[Critters2]

55. Violence in human communities, and antidotes to it. nt

[darkstar3]

56. Antidotes? I think not.

The answer most often provided in the Bible when two warring factions have trouble settling their differences is slaughter.

That's not an antidote, that's a final solution.

[Critters2]

58. Laying bear the violence that other myths hide is a step toward an antidote,

the teachings of Jesus are antidotes. It's hard to slaughter someone if you love them as you love yourself. So, yes, first scripture shows us violence...then it offers antidotes.

[darkstar3]

59. And after Jesus?

It offers us more violence, oppression, and culminates in an apocalyptic acid trip where Jesus himself gets in on the murdering.

Hell, the parts with Jesus aren't even free of violence, or have you forgotten the whipping of the money changers? That may be love to some fetishists, but most of us call it violence.

[Critters2]

60. Actually, the money changers weren't whipped.

He drove out the sacrificial animals, to end the violence of the sacrificial system of which the Temple was the center. The Greek is clearer about who the "them" that he drove out is. The translations make use of the same cultural assumptions you do, like that Jesus would be fine with Temple sacrifice. A careful reading of the Gospels demonstrates this to be wrong. He actually never did violence to anyone in the cleansing of the Temple. Just turned over tables. Unless you're concerned about the feelings of furniture, that's not doing any harm. If anyone had been injured, one or the other of the Gospels would've mentioned it.

And Jesus was killed as the victim of scapegoating violence, no different than any other lynching. A community finds unity in its common hatred of a single victim. Nothing new under the sun. Scripture never says that God endorses this. That's an interpretation that grew out of the deeply flawed work of Anselm, who invented the "doctrine" of substitutionary atonement. God doesn't stop it, either, but that shouldn't be a problem for those who claim there is no god.

Jesus' death is a classic outbreak of scapegoating violence, nothing more, nothing less. The only difference is that he spent 3 years beforehand teaching his followers to expect it, to be prepared for it, and to live so that it doesn't continue.

Yes, the church returned to the same cultural violence as everyone else with the "conversion" of Constantine. I fully acknowledge that. But the violence that follows that is no different from the violence engaged in by any powerful group. And sadly, Jesus offered antidotes to that violence that the church chose to ignore.

But yes, scripture makes violence obvious, including the violence of the Temple sacrificial system. And then offers antidotes.

[darkstar3]

61. Now you're going to need to be specific.

What antidotes to violence do you see in the Bible? You've mentioned only one thus far, which doesn't count as plural, and it is one that I disagree with.

Love your neighbor as you love yourself is not an antidote to violence. Leaving aside for the moment an obvious joke about masochists, loving your neighbor will not eliminate their violence, only your own. Only, and I mean ONLY, when every single person on the fucking planet adheres to this idea will we ever see an end to violence. That's not an antidote, that's a result.

Compare that with the real idea of an antidote. What does an antidote do? It heals the body by eliminating specific pathogens. Note that word eliminate. Loving your neighbor will not eliminate violence, especially if your neighbor has some serious psychological issues.

On a side note, Jesus death was classic all right. So classic, in fact, that the story of a pure and meek hero being tortured and ritualistically killed by his neighbors had been retold for countless generations before anyone was even named Jesus. It's the same old song and dance called "the hero of a thousand faces", and no matter whether he did violence himself he certainly never offered any antidotes to violence.

[Critters2]

62. It is exactly the same. I think I said that. The only difference is that

Jesus prepared his followers for it, so that they would not react violently themselves, or see it as a solution to violence, but the truly sad event it was. This makes it different from other stories of scapegoating violence. The story is not different at all. I would never say it is.

And yes, we can all only control our own behavior, but our collective behavior creates communal violence. Many of Jesus' teachings lead us away from our potential role in that violence, by empathizing with the victims of violence (the meaning of loving another as yourself), forgiving 7 times 70, doing to others as you would have done to yourself, etc.

[darkstar3]

63. And none of those are antidotes for violence.

They prevent YOU PERSONALLY from committing violence, but they do nothing eliminate violence in the world at large.

[ironbark]

65. You can lead a humanity to antidotes…but you cannot force it to drink ;-)

“Many of Jesus' teachings lead us away from our potential role in that violence, by empathizing with the victims of violence (the meaning of loving another as yourself), forgiving 7 times 70, doing to others as you would have done to yourself”

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. The notion of “loving another as yourself” was radical and revolutionary, its impact and consequences widespread and still being felt and assimilated.
The very word/concept ‘love’ often suffering from assumed common meaning…many/most holding that it is descriptive of an emotional state. I’m not a Christian or a theist, but I hold with the great Christian writer/community builder M Scott Peck that ‘love’ refers to a-“Preparedness to do for others”. This preparedness being sometimes conducted in the absence of any positive feeling towards the other and sometimes in spite of profoundly negative feelings towards the other.
It is a reading/understanding/cosmology of ‘love’ that enables “Love thine enemy”…The possibility that one might vehemently oppose what the other is doing and/or hate them…and yet still be prepared to act in their interests and through doing so provide antidote to violence/injustice.

Have been enjoying your posts.

[darkstar3]

66. How trite.

Aside from your awful topic sentence, your claim that the notion of loving one another was radical and revolutionary in Jesus' supposed time is just flat out wrong. The idea of loving your neighbor as you love yourself, while expressed in other fashions, was around for thousands of years before Jesus in various classical civilizations. Without this "preparedness to do for others", society and perhaps even humanity wouldn't have survived long enough for Jesus' predecessory messiahs to make it onto to the scene.

[ironbark]

67. I did not claim such love/preparedness was unique in history.

In its time, location and context (Roman occupied Judea) it was “radical and revolutionary, its impact and consequences widespread and still being felt and assimilated.”

Other faiths at other times have certainly “expressed in other fashions” the same Golden Rule principle and I know of no “classical civilization” that was not deeply religious.

But we do not have an example of an entire and entirely atheistic/secular “society” to examine to see if such principles arise and endure without the influence of religion.
(Unless, of course, you would like to consider the former Soviet and/or Nth Korea? ;-)

That leaves the micro…the basic, fundamental and vital social/science experiment of isolating people from the broader community in purpose built communes and see how “Preparedness to do for others” plays out in confined quarters.
To take a group of people of diverse cultural, linguistic, economic and social background and see if a shared cosmology will transcend their differences for a protracted period of time.

That would be… a deliberately founded commune with the purpose of demonstrating to the world how "preparedness to do for others"/love is conducted in the face of profound differences at close quarters over long periods.

The Buddhists, Jews, Christians and Moslems all managed to achieve such communes/monasteries that endured for hundreds of years and bore remarkable cultural fruit.

Innumerable secular efforts at such close quarter shared philosophy communal living have been conducted in the last 3-400 years…..but not >one< has lasted significantly beyond the death of a charismatic founder.

The “Preparedness to do for others” proof is in the pudding….the repeatedly demonstrated capacity of religion to produce viable communes…and the clearly abject failure of secular philosophies to produce even one identifiable communal success.
(And no…the entire “Native American community” still does not constitute a ‘secular commune' ;-)

[darkstar3]

68. Meandering, off-topic, and contradictory.

In its time, location and context (Roman occupied Judea) it was “radical and revolutionary,
That first half of the sentence, with the qualifier I bolded in place, is acceptable.

its impact and consequences widespread and still being felt and assimilated.”
This contradicts the first half of the sentence, especially the qualifier that I bolded.

As for the rest of your post, it is an off-topic attempt to continue a previous argument in a new thread. It's also wrong, which is why, much like politicians with lies, you continue attempting to repeat it as much as possible. Have fun with that.

[Cleobulus]

64. Hmm, interesting, from your other posts, you are postulating the Jesus is the anti-God, is that...

correct? Being that Jesus was, as you put it, a proponent of nonviolence, then God would be his opposite, being a perpetrator of great violence according to scripture, is that correct?

[supernova]

57. I think it is a record

of people at various times in the ancient world interacting with what they thought was divine.