From God or about God?

[Elijah John]

This is a portion from a post I made on another thread. I thought it would be a good debate topic in and of itself.

Assuming there is a God, one can still consider that the Bible is not entirely from God, nor does it claim to be. It seems to me that a more reasonable way to look at it is to see the Bible as being about God, inspired by God.

Or more accurately, about an ancient people's encounter with the mysterious Divine, who they understood as "God".

That way, one can take the Bible seriously, but not literally. And not be compelled to defend everything contained within it's pages.

The only portions of the Bible that I recall that are even claimed to be from God are the Ten Commandments, (allegedly written by the finger of God Himself) and the prophetic utterances, which begin with the phrase ""Thus saith the LORD" and Jesus "verily, verily" statements.

To borrow a phrase from Hillel, "all the rest is commentary". Commentary and historical and cultural context.

So it seems to me that an entirely reasonable approach to the Bible, (if one is inclined to be a Bible-based Theist) is to view the Good Book not as infallible dictation, but as inspiration. Inspiration as a lover is inspired by his beloved to write love poetry.

That poetry doesn't come from the beloved, but rather it is inspired by the beloved.

And really, what is wrong with a believer picking the portions that resonate and ring true for them, and deriving Spiritual inspiration from those portions?

Who can argue with that?

After all, very few (except for some maniacs) are inspired by the verses which advocate stoning people to death, keeping or beating slaves.

But millions are inspired by the belief that there is a God, who commanded us to "love thy neighbor as thy self".

So for debate:,

Is Biblical literalism the only valid way to view the Bible? Is it the best way? Or can one derive Spiritual inspiration from a book such as the Bible even though one realizes it is not perfect.

Please justify your anwers.

[sawthelight]

If anyone listens to my sayings, and doesn't believe, I don't judge him. For I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects me, and doesn't receive my sayings, has one who judges him. The word that I spoke, the same will judge him in the last day.[/i]
John 12:47-48

This shows that Jesus will not judge as God but that the Father will. Which means Jesus is not God and that no Trinity exists. So it makes Jesus out to be a prophet and not God if judgement is reserved for God only - since Jesus won't be the judge.

Even this tells us words should be taken literally from the Bible and not solely as inspiration. If not, I don't know what else the Bible is needed for. It's just pure inspiration? Might as well label it as pure metaphorical. Don't really have to listen to the Bible and don't have to implement it but just to think about it's messages for fun. Lol.

[Justin108]

Or more accurately, about an ancient people's encounter with the mysterious Divine, who they understood as "God".

What reason is there to believe they encountered "the mysterious Divine" at all?

And really, what is wrong with a believer picking the portions that resonate and ring true for them, and deriving Spiritual inspiration from those portions?

Because this leads to unjustified assumptions that the parts of the Bible that we like "are really from God" while the rest is just the absurd opinions of men. It's hypocritical.

After all, very few (except for some maniacs) are inspired by the verses which advocate stoning people to death, keeping or beating slaves.

Yet all of these come from the same Bible, so why are we assuming only the nice bits came from "the mysterious Divine"? How are you so sure the Divine isn't a sadistic, controlling psychopath?

Or can one derive Spiritual inspiration from a book such as the Bible even though one realizes it is not perfect.

If by "Spiritual inspiration" you mean "believing this book was influenced by the creator of the universe", then no... I fail to see any justification for this belief

[sawthelight]

After all, very few (except for some maniacs) are inspired by the verses which advocate stoning people to death, keeping or beating slaves.

Yet all of these come from the same Bible, so why are we assuming only the nice bits came from "the mysterious Divine"? How are you so sure the Divine isn't a sadistic, controlling psychopath?

[/quote]

That's true. It would also be hypocritical to dismiss the earlier patriarchs as maniacs for using violence for God's cause. Examples include Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Elijah, etc.

If you dismiss these people from the Bible you then negate the reason to stay in Christianity. Unless you do think the whole religion was founded by maniacs.

[1213]

Christians may consider 'righteous' to mean obeying their commandments.

In the English language, however, 'righteous' is defined as:

1. characterized by uprightness or morality: 2. morally right or justifiable: 3. acting in an upright, moral way; virtuous: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/righteous
...

Modern people may make new meanings to old words. When speaking of what the Bible tells, I would recommend to use its definitions. Bible is little older than English language.

However, I have no problem with that definition. It is basically same as in the Bible. the only difference is, your definition doesn’t define what is morally upright. Without that definition, it is quite meaningless.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 12 by Justin108]

Why do you choose to focus exclusively on the negative elements of the Bible and use those elements as the shades with which to paint your portrait of God as a "monster", "maniac" etc?.

By doing this, you completely ignore the truth and beauty of the Psalms, the wisdom of the Proverbs, and the just teachings of the Prophets and the Ten Commandments.

A bit unbalanced, don't ya think?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 12 by Justin108]

Let me ask you this. Is there any reasonable way to be a religious person, or any reasonable approach to the Bible?

Or is religion entirely irrational? And the Bible completely evil and irrelevant?

If the former, what do you suggest, if not picking and choosing?

If the latter, then what have we to talk about?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but not much that I can see.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 12 by Justin108]

Also, do you think modern Catholics, Jews, moderate Protestants who are inspired by the Bible to live good lives and do good works are "hypocrites?"

Is it hypocritical to mine the Bible for the treasures it does contain, and take the Good Book seriously, but not literally?

To view it as a source of Spiritual inspiration as opposed to a literal word-for-word dictum from the Creator of the Universe?

[Justin108]

Is there any reasonable way to be a religious person, or any reasonable approach to the Bible? Or is religion entirely irrational?

If you place rationality on a spectrum, I suppose some approaches to the Bible are more reasonable than others. However, on the far end, the most rational is to simply reject the Bible as a man-made book entirely. You have yet to give us a single good reason to believe the Bible was in fact influenced by an actual Divine entity, so to believe it was is unreasonable

And the Bible completely evil and irrelevant?

The Bible is not completely evil. I never said it was. If you would like to use the Bible as a moral guideline, then by all means. As long as you don't attribute these morals to God, you are still within the realm of rationality.

However, if you are going to use the Bible as a moral guideline, you would have to reject large portions of it (slavery, sexism, etc). To be able to do this, you will already need your own moral principles. If you already have your own moral principles, why would you need to use the Bible as a moral guide?

If the former, what do you suggest, if not picking and choosing?

Give me a few examples of things in the Bible you choose to believe

Also, do you think modern Catholics, Jews, moderate Protestants who are inspired by the Bible to live good lives and do good works are "hypocrites?"

Yes. They point to the Bible and claim "what a great God", despite the fact that this same "great God" condoned slavery and condemned homosexuals. You cannot call this entity "great" if you first need to excuse his moral repugnance.

"My God is morally perfect... as long as you ignore the parts where he commands we kill homosexuals and beat slaves..."

Is it hypocritical to mine the Bible for the treasures it does contain, and take the Good Book seriously, but not literally?

In order for a book to be said to be metaphorical (i.e non-literal), the author must have intended it this way. While some parts of the Bible can be said to be metaphorical, the vast majority of the Bible was written as literal claims from the author. Since the Bible was not written to be non-literal, why do you read it as non-literal?

To view it as a source of Spiritual inspiration as opposed to a literal word-for-word dictum from the Creator of the Universe?

I do not believe a single word of it came from the Creator. That's my biggest problem with your approach - you still assume, for some reason, that the Creator had something to do with the Bible. Why do you believe this?

[Elijah John]

I do not believe a single word of it came from the Creator. That's my biggest problem with your approach - you still assume, for some reason, that the Creator had something to do with the Bible. Why do you believe this?

Because ALL good comes from God, that is my Theistic premise, and my Theistic pov. And the Bible contains much that is good. The good contained therein, I attribute to the inspiration of God.

[Justin108]

Because ALL good comes from God, that is my Theistic premise, and my Theistic pov. And the Bible contains much that is good.

That theistic premise needs to be justified. Why should God get credit for my good deeds? And who takes credit for my evil deeds? Should God be thanked for all the good I do while I get blamed for all the bad I do?

Why is it so hard for you to fathom the possibility that the good in the Bible simply came from the minds of men?

The good contained therein, I attribute to the inspiration of God.

And what inspired the evil contained therein?