The Bible Says So....

[Sntrose]

This is directed to my Christian friends here, coming from an atheist. I have been reading through some of the posts here, and I keep running across the same thing. It's got me very confused. Why is it that when asked a moral question, the answer is "because it is in the Bible." ? The line of logic seems to stop there.

Usually, it is accompanied by a quote from Scripture, and then something along the lines of, "it's clearly in the Bible. So that's why it's a sin. The Bible says so."

What it is about this book that I'm not getting? What kind of book is there that could possibly be so infallible that you would never question it's contents? Nothing can be wrong? Not even a translation error? As long as it's in the Bible, you can relax...it must be right! It's in the Bible. So we don't have to think any more?

I sincerely do not intend this to be insulting. I mean it as a question. Read this in a happy voice...not a sarcastic one. That is the tone I intend...and would prefer the answers to be in....

[4gold]

[Replying to Sntrose]

I can only answer for myself, but once I decided based on reason that God exists and that the resurrection story was more true than false, then the parts of the Bible that I disagreed with or questioned were accepted based on faith.

I can't speak for others, but that was the route I took. I didn't take the Bible as fact and work backwards that therefore its moral declarations must also be true. I determined whether it was reasonable to assume God exists and the story of the resurrection was true, and then derive other truths from that.

[Sntrose]

[Replying to post 2 by 4gold]

Thank you for replying!

So according to your logic, if God exists, and the resurrection story is more true than false, then the rest of the Bible must be truth?

Why is that?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 2 by 4gold]

Thank you for replying!

So according to your logic, if God exists, and the resurrection story is more true than false, then the rest of the Bible must be truth?

Why is that?

I have no problem understanding how someone who has concluded that the resurrection story is more true than false would believe in the rest of the myth.

What I have a problem with is why anyone would believe that the resurrection story is more true than false in the first place.

[Sntrose]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

Well, I don't personally believe in the first part...much less the second...I'm just trying to understand the steps he's taking to get to where he is.

I'd imagine there's some rational behind it. Right?

[4gold]

[Replying to post 2 by 4gold]

Thank you for replying!

So according to your logic, if God exists, and the resurrection story is more true than false, then the rest of the Bible must be truth?

Why is that?

No, not quite like that. Obviously, like all Christians, I have my own disagreements with the Bible.

What I'm saying is that after the premise of God and the resurrection are accepted, a lot of the other quirky areas of the Bible fall down like dominoes as truth.

This makes sense, right? It would be absurd to believe a human could walk on water, unless the premise of God was accepted. It would be absurd to believe that eating bread and drinking wine connects you to God, unless you accept the premise of the resurrection.

After the other dominoes fall, then I'm left with the areas of the Bible that I think are wrong, or I disagree with, but do not challenge the premise of God or the resurrection: wearing braided hair is a sin, praying with an uncovered head is a sin, and all the other "low-hanging fruit", as I call them. For me, I couldn't find the premise that would make these true.

So then I'm forced with two options: either reject those parts of the Bible as false, or faithfully accept that the Bible as a whole is authoritative, despite cultural differences. Since these were areas of the Bible that neither challenged a belief in God nor the resurrection, I chose the latter. These are the "low-hanging fruit", as I see them...the parts that atheists love to challenge, but I see as inconsequential.

[Sntrose]

[Replying to post 6 by 4gold]

You are quite correct...the belief in God allows for the belief in miracles. The verses you referred to are, indeed harmless. However, there are many that are not. (stoning, eye for an eye, etc...) How do you determine what to mold your life around, if some ideas in the Bible are no longer relevant, due to cultural differences?

Most importantly, do you pay people (directly or indirectly) to do the research for you and tell you what parts are relevant, and what parts are not? Remember that there are lots of different translations of the Bible...

[4gold]

[Replying to Sntrose]

I personally do not pray with a covered head. I have never participated in a stoning (the opportunity just hasn't come up). I regularly eat shellfish.

Am I sinning? I tend to see it as cultural differences between then and now.

Back then, to that audience, praying with an uncovered head was disrespectful. Now, it is not. Eating shellfish was likely more of a health hazard than a moral hazard, whereas now we properly cook them. And stoning was the approved method of execution by the local governments, whereas now we have more humane ways to execute criminals (and much more sophisticated ways to determine whether someone was a criminal).

After I remove all the verses that deal with God and the resurrection, I determine ask myself, "Does this verse have a moral or cultural value to it?" If it's cultural, I respect the cultural value of the time it was written, but do not apply it to today's culture. If it's moral, I apply it to today's culture, even if culture at large disagrees.

[bluethread]

This is directed to my Christian friends here, coming from an atheist. I have been reading through some of the posts here, and I keep running across the same thing. It's got me very confused. Why is it that when asked a moral question, the answer is "because it is in the Bible." ? The line of logic seems to stop there.

So we do not get lost in the details, I will give you the short answers and we can proceed to the details as you respond to these. The short answer to this question is that there are atheist here who take offense at or discount quoting from the Scriptures, because they reject them out of hand.

Usually, it is accompanied by a quote from Scripture, and then something along the lines of, "it's clearly in the Bible. So that's why it's a sin. The Bible says so."

What it is about this book that I'm not getting? What kind of book is there that could possibly be so infallible that you would never question it's contents? Nothing can be wrong? Not even a translation error? As long as it's in the Bible, you can relax...it must be right! It's in the Bible. So we don't have to think any more?

You are presenting the KJV only view. There are a relatively few who hold that view. Most, when permitted, will acknowledge differences in translation and, when necessary look to the Greek and Hebrew. The acceptance of the Scriptures should come through study and not just blind acceptance.

I sincerely do not intend this to be insulting. I mean it as a question. Read this in a happy voice...not a sarcastic one. That is the tone I intend...and would prefer the answers to be in....

Thank you, I will attempt to answer your inquiries in the spirit they are presented. There will no doubt be attempts to interject sarcasm and sophistry from posters on both sides, but I hope we can keep our focus and congeniality in our discussion.

[Sntrose]

[Replying to 4gold]

"Back then, to that audience, praying with an uncovered head was disrespectful. Now, it is not. "

......

"If it's moral, I apply it to today's culture, even if culture at large disagrees."

Perfect! This is more along the lines of where I intended this conversation to go.

How do you determine what is moral, and what is not then?