Rational religion.

[Elijah John]

For debate.

Is there any reasonable way to approach religion and the Bible?

If so, how if not "picking and choosing"

Also.

Is the Bible entirely evil and irrelevant? A complete anachronism?

[Divine Insight]

For debate.

Is there any reasonable way to approach religion and the Bible?

It is my conclusion that there is no reasonable way to try to hold the Bible up as being inerrant as it is written.

If so, how if not "picking and choosing"

I don't see how "picking and choosing" is a reasonable solution to the obvious problems with the Bible. The reason being that overall it's a story about a God who will condemn you if you don't get things right. Therefore there's no room for the Bible to contain errors.

Is the Bible entirely evil and irrelevant? A complete anachronism?

I see no reason to call it "evil". But I would agree that it is "irrelevant" especially in terms of having any major importance in the lives or fate of humans.

And I would completely agree that it's a collection of outdated superstitions that clearly have no validity in the real world.

Note: I just realized that it would make sense to call the Bible potentially "evil" (simply meaning harmful and/or dangerous) when it is actually believed to be the word of some God. I see the potential for great harm to come from that, even harm caused by "well-intended believers". Because after all, to even just go around teaching people that they should believe in the Bible over modern day science is itself an extremely negative and harmful thing.

So to simply "preach" that the Bible is true is a harmful behavior as well-intentioned as it might be.

[Zzyzx]

.
EJ, if one intends to make their own version of religion by picking out some good parts of the Bible, why not just start from scratch and incorporate ideas from numerous sources of inspirational material?

What is the advantage of focusing on the Bible as a source of information?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 3 by Zzyzx]

I would just like to add a clarifying comment as well.

EJ asks in the OP:

Is there any reasonable way to approach religion and the Bible?

Religion itself, in the abstract sense, is not necessarily "unreasonable" IMHO.

But if you want to build a religion based on the Bible, you've just created a far more difficult situation, which as I had already explain in Post #2, I feel cannot be done in any reasonable way. There are just too many problems in the Bible. And obviously the moment "picking and choosing" is even suggested as being required it seems pretty clear that there are indeed problems with the Biblical account of "God" that need to be rejected via a process of "picking and choosing".

So yeah, I question why there is any need to focus on the Bible at all when it's clearly got problems.

But a religion that is not based upon the Bible? I see no reason why that can't be done "reasonably". That can of course depend on what the religion in question claims to "know", and/or claims to be "truth".

I don't see what's wrong with a totally "faith-based" religion that doesn't claim to know anything, or hold any truths. A "faith-based" religion that openly confesses that it's entirely wishful thinking based on hopes and dreams is fine. At least a religion based on that can boast of being HONEST.

It's also not going to be holding anything over the heads of others proclaiming to have the ultimate truth.

[Elijah John]

.
EJ, if one intends to make their own version of religion by picking out some good parts of the Bible, why not just start from scratch and incorporate ideas from numerous sources of inspirational material?

What is the advantage of focusing on the Bible as a source of information?

And why not include the Bible and the Judeo-Christian traditon? That tradition is the heritage of most Western religous people. And why not work within the framework of that heritage?

Why reinvent the wheel?

I believe it was either Gandhi or the Dalai-Lama who advised Christians (rather than converting to Hinduism or Buddhism) to be the best Christians they could be, and Muslims to be the best Muslims they could be....etc, etc.

I think there is a lot of wisdom in that suggestion.

[Justin108]

Is there any reasonable way to approach religion and the Bible?

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

If so, how if not "picking and choosing"

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

Is the Bible entirely evil and irrelevant? A complete anachronism?

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?

[Elijah John]

Is there any reasonable way to approach religion and the Bible?

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

If so, how if not "picking and choosing"

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

Is the Bible entirely evil and irrelevant? A complete anachronism?

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?

On your spectrum, you seem to have concluded that atheism is the most rational approach to God, the Bible or religion. Why is that? Has science disproved the existence of God?

If so, I must have missed the headlines.

And you also indicated that those of us who "pick and choose" are taking a hypocritical approach.

I can counter with the assertion that those who categorically accept OR reject the Bible are being intellectually lazy.

The categorical rejection of the Bible is as intellectually lazy as the blind acceptance of fundamentalism. The flip-side of the same dogmatic coin.

Yes, I could give you examples of what I would "pick and choose" ie the Ten Commandments, but you have already answered by asking "why bring God into it"?

Well, belief in God Himself is one of the things I take from Scripture, (as well as from Creation itself)

And again, unless you have disproved the existence of God, that is not an unreasonable position ot ta

[Zzyzx]

.

Why reinvent the wheel?

Rather than reinventing the wheel, EJ, I suggest replacing the worn out tires instead of patching the old ones.

And why not include the Bible and the Judeo-Christian traditon?

Sure, take some of the Bible's 'good parts' as one of many sources rather than giving it prime billing or undue attention.

Isn't that pretty much what you suggest already?

And why not work within the framework of that heritage?

Too much baggage -- too many skeletons in closets. Time for new tires.

[JehovahsWitness]

For debate.

Is there any reasonable way to approach religion and the Bible?

These are two, different but related things.

Religion is a system of Worship: the reasonable approach would be, find out which one (if any) pleases God (if He exists), and join it.

The Bible is a collection of books written claimed to be inspired of God. The reasonable approach would be to find out if this is true, and if so, read and apply its counsel.

If so, how if not "picking and choosing" [...]?

"Picking and choosing" is an expression that means selecting from a mix of elements that which appeals according to ones personal taste. This would be a reasonable approach only IF...

a) There is no true religion and/or no way to identify it because there is in fact no God (or because there is a God but he has chosen not to communicate how he wishes to be worshiped)

and ...

b) The bible is not the word of God (or was at some point but has since been corrupted leading to an inability to know which verses are authentically the "thoughts of God" and which are not.

"Picking and choosing" would be a most unreasonable (and potentially life threatening error) IF there is a God and He has indeed communicated and protected, His thoughts, plans and requirements in the pages of the bible.


JW


[youtube][/youtube]

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 8 by JehovahsWitness]

You seem to forget that the books of the NT were themselves subject to "picking and choosing" Compiled by commitee.

Why do you think the Bible as we have it is the infallible Word of God?

Roman Catholics chose the original Christian Canon, and Protestant reformers gave you the version that JWs embrace now as the "Word of God".

Which group was infallible in their choices?