The Irrelevance of the Bible

[Jagella]

Question for Debate: Is the Bible relevant today to anybody including Christians regarding concepts or practices that are valued, applicable, or ethical?

I think it's safe to say that most people including many Christians no longer believe the world was created in six days, that figures like Noah and Jonah existed, that Jesus' teachings need to be followed or that we even know enough about him to know what he really taught, that wiping out a military enemy including men, women, and children is acceptable, or that women are inferior to men and should be subordinate to men. Yet all of these ideas come directly from the Bible, the "foundation-document of Christianity."

The Bible has become irrelevant to our knowledge of the world, our daily practical activities, and our morality.

Bible scholar Hector Avalos writes that the numbers demonstrate that the Bible has no more relevance to almost all of us. He cites a Gallup poll, for example, that reveals that only four in ten Americans know that Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount!

I'm not surprised. Few if any of of us need to know who preached the Sermon on the Mount. We don't practice its moral tenets, and we are probably better off for not doing so. Not to mention that we, unlike Christ, know better than to believe that illness is caused by demons. If anybody does become ill, then we first seek medical attention, and the prayer Christ taught is at best an afterthought. Unlike Christ, we have protested against slavery and have abolished it in the developed nations.

So yes, by our actions we speak more loudly than our words that the Bible is irrelevant to us. If it has any use at all, it is at best a way to give some of us hope for a life beyond the grave, but even that hope has been now recognized as forlorn by many of us who wouldn't want it even if it was real.

[Jagella]

If you know Christ, you know He opposed slavery, which is why Christians were at the forefront in putting an end to slavery.

If Christ opposed slavery, then I'm wondering why his opposition to slavery didn't take root until many centuries later. Did it take the church that long to conclude that Christ opposed slavery?

I think a much more likely explanation for the abolition of slavery is the impact of modern, secular morality. I've noticed that a lot of Christian apologists like to take credit for Christ for abolishing slavery while modern secularism should get the credit.

Christ’s established Church opposed slavery and did not use the Bible to support it, rather helped fight against it.

Again, the opposition to slavery has differed from one Christian to another. You've been corrected. Please stop making the false claim that the church has been unified against slavery.

Gee, if human beings opposed slavery, why did it take them so long to put an end to it?

Because many people, including a lot of Christians, did not oppose slavery.

I have peace and joy without observing any religious laws.

Then you either are not living contrary to God’s law or I suggest you might be gilding the lily.

With the multitude of religious laws, I'm sure that I by chance observe some of them. I use reason to decide which of those rules to go by. I think it's foolish to go by what some self-appointed prophet or savior tells me to do.

Have you ever gone without Christianity to check to see if it really makes that much difference for you?

Yep, the first half of my life.

So what difference did Christianity make for you?

Allow me to point out, I often use the general term Christian for conversation purposes. It is a term that we can take to mean those who believe in Jesus, but make no mistake I do not consider all Christians good/right/on the right track/living as Christ taught, etc. Quite frankly, I think pretty much every Christian who isn’t Catholic and many Catholics as well are getting lots of things wrong. But again, using the term Christian is for discussion purposes.

I'm not sure if you're addressing the issue I raised. I'm not asking why you use "the general term Christian." I'm asking why you think that generalizing Christians in a positive way is fine, but generalizing suddenly is objectionable when it is uncomplimentary. Back on Post 31 you stated:

• A. If you know Christ, you know He opposed slavery, which is why Christians were at the forefront in putting an end to slavery.
  B. ...do not lump lukewarm Christians with other Christians. It is dishonest.

In statement A you lump all Christians together as putting an end to slavery, and then in statement B you suddenly complain that I allegedly lump all Christians together! Generalizing Christians is fine if it's positive, but generalizing is not to be tolerated if it is negative.

Someone can claim they killed someone because of they thought that is what some television show they watches was telling them to do. That doesn’t mean it’s true. It means the individual got it very wrong.

In that case, we would need to examine the content of the TV show to see if it advocates violence. I've examined the content of the Bible, and yes, it advocates violence.

And I already explained I have no obligation to show the Bible is relevant in ending slavery (although, in my opinion there is a great deal of evidence showing Christ taught exactly the message that helped people realize we need to do a much better job in how we treat one another).

Nothing in the Bible prohibits slavery. You've posted no passages from the Bible that do so because there are none.

You misunderstand what the Bible is.

Some spell it as "Buy-bull."

First, not sure what you mean by “without penalty�.

I can live my life without the Bible trouble-free.

Also, why would what others do have to do with what I find relevant?

Those others can disregard the Bible because they don't need it. I'm wondering why you may be different.

[Overcomer]

Jagella wrote:

I've noticed that a lot of Christian apologists like to take credit for Christ for abolishing slavery while modern secularism should get the credit.

In what way did modern secularism end slavery?