Do religious people ACTUALLY believe in their books?

[Poki]

I wise woman...I am stereotyping here...can use her heart to differentiate between the good and bad. I believe a woman can be wise as I have pinned to a man and a man wise as I have pinned to a woman.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Do you accept Noah, the flood, and the ark as literal history?

Not really. The Hebrew story is deeply symbolic within a framework of fact if one has eyes to see.

I believe it is based on facts that likely happened. How I think of it is this: God saw His chosen people--His SONS--trying to serve Him as He intended, but becoming overtaken by evil from the peoples around them who only cared about stealing and coveting. So God sent rain in such quantities as to make life miserable for the bad while somehow delivering the good unto a better life.

Just like He does now, if you look closely.

Did the Sea part into 2 walls of water? Not literally, no. But it might as well have, because God delivered, against all odds, the Hebrew people from pharaoh's army.

 

[Lark]

It was sarcasm and a progression of the thought pattern of disposing of the burning the bad tree not to mention irony of that which is good comes from god. The irony of that whole saying is funny and sad.

I do believe that good does come from God, that God IS good, I know there is an argument made that good is sovereign and not God but I think that is to hopelessly confuse the matter.

Even if you dont believe in God as a supernatural being apart from and over and above creation and believe in any of the "diminished" conceptions of God, such as Erich Fromm's "universal (hu)man" or some sort of pseudo-marxist biophilia working out through history, it is still the case.

 

[Lark]

I don't think He realized it was a mistake at all. God does not make mistakes.

He segregated His chosen ones by undoing Day 3 of creation, essentially, because He was ashamed that man had only wickedness in his heart all the day long. It was after Noah and His sons built an altar to God and sacrificed and gave thanks to God for saving them that God smelled the aroma of their sacrifice and promised to never destroy life on the earth again, because He was pleased that His people would now have a chance to live and flourish in His will upon the earth.

"While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.” ~Genesis 8:22

That sort of thinking strikes me as being too close to Chariots of The Gods style thinking.

I find Jung's considerations more credible, of a kind of reciprocal developmental causal relationship between God and his creation, particularly man.

Scriptures are full of God "rethinking" things, such as his recommendation to Israel/mankind not to harden their hearts as he (sic) did in his own dealings with them.

There's a great essay about it written by Erich Fromm reflecting on the story of Pharaoh and Moses but I dont remember exactly what book it was, maybe You Shall Be Gods.

 

[Poki]

I do believe that good does come from God, that God IS good, I know there is an argument made that good is sovereign and not God but I think that is to hopelessly confuse the matter.

Even if you dont believe in God as a supernatural being apart from and over and above creation and believe in any of the "diminished" conceptions of God, such as Erich Fromm's "universal (hu)man" or some sort of pseudo-marxist biophilia working out through history, it is still the case.

I am neutral on the subject of God himself. I will figure it out when i die. If you watch, i will not talk crap about god because until i meet him i dont know him. I will make statements along the lines of...if that is how god is...I will not follow him. Which is funny because that when his followers will back down and support who he is positively which i cant argue with because its what i believe should be.

Now when it comes to religion I don't like it as a whole. To many negative thought patterns. That revolve around hate and judgement and such which are human qualities and makes me question how much of what the apostles, or whoever, superimposed themselves in their word. Superimposed human qualities on God's word. Which is the biggest part of my questioning towards lack of belief. Hence my lack of complete belief in the books.

To me it is sovereign because of religion...now whether it all stems from god irregardless of religion is a different story...good is independent of religious beliefs.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Not really. The Hebrew story is deeply symbolic within a framework of fact if one has eyes to see.

I believe it is based on facts that likely happened. How I think of it is this: God saw His chosen people--His SONS--trying to serve Him as He intended, but becoming overtaken by evil from the peoples around them who only cared about stealing and coveting. So God sent rain in such quantities as to make life miserable for the bad while somehow delivering the good unto a better life.

Just like He does now, if you look closely.

Did the Sea part into 2 walls of water? Not literally, no. But it might as well have, because God delivered, against all odds, the Hebrew people from pharaoh's army.

What do you think about Noah's story being inspired from earlier Mesopotamian flood myths? What would you say to people that claim that the Hebrews were never captive in Egypt and never spent 40 days in the desert?

 

[OrangeAppled]

A lot of people don't, and often they have not even read the whole holy book they claim to follow.
Both believers and unbelievers typically do not grasp spiritual concepts well.
They ether have to make it all literal or all symbolic. They become too legalistic or too permissive. They are seeking to reconcile their society's ideals with the spiritual concepts, and it cannot be done, IMO.

For example, many will see Biblical God (especially in the Hebrew OT) as demanding and/or allowing/causing/condoning atrocities instead of yielding to humans, aka, giving us the freedom to be wrong and discover why (the book of Judges is a good example this).
When I shifted away from the knee-jerk reactions many get stuck on, then I deepened my understanding in a way that

Most of the points people try to make about the Bible fail to grasp it, IMO, such as arguments that it gives slavery a positive value or the misunderstanding that the Mosaic Law was not intended to be universal or timeless or perfect (how can imperfect people be governed by a perfect law? instead, their imperfection is being mitigated perfectly), but existed within a very specific culture and time period. Basically, others are arguing against a strawman, which is why they have no effect on me. When people try to tell me how I feel or what I think, the I admittedly shut off to them. People trying to tell me how I understand something is ridiculous. Usually they are arguing stuff I don't believe and is not my understanding of scripture, and most of the time I am better versed in it than they are, because they tend to "cherry pick".

I certainly have had my own doubt, currently have doubts crop up, etc, and I usually resolve them by shifting my viewpoint, often shifting it away from the usual interpretations. Doing this requires I detach myself from current social mores also, and I try to understand the Bible in its own context. This has left me with views very different from most of mainstream Christianity in some ways. However, I do not form an acceptance of trendy values at all, because I don't seek to reconcile "progressive" ideas of morality and ethics with the Bible. Instead, I take both a less legalistic and a less permissive view and see it more about spiritual principles (understanding the dynamics of the spiritual aspect of reality and why certain actions cause certain outcomes, which is why they can be assigned moral values; my metaphor for this is the law of gravity). I am less focused on understanding "what" than "why".

I also find there is a lot of human arrogance regarding "facts", asserting things as true that 20 years from now will change. When it comes to pre-history and holy books, such as the Bible, I see no reason to try and resolve its accounts with "facts", as the facts are not static; but I find the spiritual principles to be timeless. The timelessness is hard for others to grasp, even if they recognize it to a degree, which is why they are always trying to reconcile it to their particular society. They see value in it, but they don't grasp it well enough to not take it too literally, which presents obvious conflicts.

So I don't regard the Bible as a scientific nor historical book, although that doesn't mean I think it is a book of fables. I simply don't believe history and science to be static either, but rather very contextual and shifting as our collective perspective shifts (and this is certainly true of religion also, which I don't equate with the Bible or spirituality itself; see above about people trying to "reconcile"). It is something of a paradox that to understand the spiritual principles in the Bible outside of its context, you have to first grasp it within its context. It is something of a paradox in that to believe, you have to admit that humans (including yourself) don't really know much at all.

For example... Did Noah's flood really happen? Well, I don't know. I wasn't there. The way people understood and presented things back then is pretty different from how reality is interpreted now. The current & past facts become irrelevant, but the spiritual lesson stands. There is no need to reconcile present understanding of the physical world and history with the past understanding of the physical world and history. So when it comes to belief, I believe fully in the Bible as a book of spiritual truths. I have no need to believe it as "factual" in a physical sense, as that would miss the point of it anyway.

I am not looking to debate here, but this is simply my perspective.

 

[ceecee]

Christians would not engage in human trafficking. Human trafficking is a sin.

This is so ridiculously wrong that I'm laughing. But I shouldn't because there are too many delusional people that think just like you.

 

[Passacaglia]

Just this week I had a great conversation with a Baptist, who mentioned that he hadn't actually read the Bible because he knows it's full of nonsense and doesn't want to deal with all the cognitive dissonance that would come with doing so. And mind you, he's a big 'Christian values' guy...not quite sure what to make of that.

With all the cherry-picking and rationalization that goes into scriptural faith, it sure seems that those theists 'of the book' who I respect are decent and reasonable people despite their book of choice.

 

[Bush]

They do to varying degrees. Many follow the books literally at some parts and figuratively at others, and they dismiss some stuff as "outdated" or otherwise irrelevant. On its face, that's just fine -- some stuff is likely figurative, some is likely literal, and some is likely outdated.

Some carry that division out in a self-serving manner. Some carry it out honestly. Cynicism dictates degrees of both.

Just this week I had a great conversation with a Baptist, who mentioned that he hadn't actually read the Bible because he knows it's full of nonsense and doesn't want to deal with all the cognitive dissonance that would come with doing so.

Damn, this is interesting. I've never heard of anyone doing this.

And mind you, he's a big 'Christian values' guy...not quite sure what to make of that.

Perhaps he gets inspiration mostly from within, following his own understanding of Christian values? I'd totally respect that.

(The ultimate figurative, abstracted translation of the Bible could just be "love one another." I'd be down for that.)

 

[Beorn]

I do.

Should people feel superior because they ACTUALLY follow the beliefs of the zeitgeist whichever way it flits and flies?

 

[gromit]

Not sure if youre being serious [MENTION=5643]EcK[/MENTION] or just trying to prove how wrong and silly religious people are.

I am not a bible literalist. I think there is a lot of good in there. But we are all imperfect in understanding the truth and we especially must take the bible in context of the time and culture in which it was written.

I will always go with my own conscience over anything in the bible or from religious leaders. If something feels wrong or cruel, then I stay away from it.

That said, I think there's a lot of good wisdom and parables and things to consider in terms of personal reflection and growth. That is important to me, and I do look to the bible and other outside sources for insight and advice.

 

[prplchknz]

my mom goes to church every sunday and told me recently she goes not because she believes in a lot of the evangelical christian stuff and doesn't always pays attention to the sermon after the gospel, she goes "well sometimes i do it depends on which priest is giving the homily but i usually zone out. i go because after i feel a sense of peace" and says its good for her spirtuality and hey it works for her so thats good. so no she does not believe everything in the bible i don't think most christians do either

 

[Rasofy]

The most gifted Christian I know (a Catholic who used to be an Atheist) once told me (his words) that the old testament was meant as a sketch of sorts, while the new testament is the real deal. This is a guy that actually read Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and was very into Scholasticism in general.

 

[Lark]

Not sure if youre being serious [MENTION=5643]EcK[/MENTION] or just trying to prove how wrong and silly religious people are.

I am not a bible literalist. I think there is a lot of good in there. But we are all imperfect in understanding the truth and we especially must take the bible in context of the time and culture in which it was written.

I will always go with my own conscience over anything in the bible or from religious leaders. If something feels wrong or cruel, then I stay away from it.

That said, I think there's a lot of good wisdom and parables and things to consider in terms of personal reflection and growth. That is important to me, and I do look to the bible and other outside sources for insight and advice.

Conscience can be a reflection of natural law, although I would say that conscience ought to take a steer from tradition, I'm not a bible literalist either and I dont think anyone at all can be complicit about any authority in this day and age, the abuse of power and authority by cynical, callous, deviant types is too well documented but the experience of thousands of years surely stands up better to the experience on a single person of, say in my case, 36 years?

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure if youre being serious [MENTION=5643]EcK[/MENTION] or just trying to prove how wrong and silly religious people are.

I am not a bible literalist. I think there is a lot of good in there. But we are all imperfect in understanding the truth and we especially must take the bible in context of the time and culture in which it was written.

I will always go with my own conscience over anything in the bible or from religious leaders. If something feels wrong or cruel, then I stay away from it.

That said, I think there's a lot of good wisdom and parables and things to consider in terms of personal reflection and growth. That is important to me, and I do look to the bible and other outside sources for insight and advice.

Conscience can be a reflection of natural law, although I would say that conscience ought to take a steer from tradition, I'm not a bible literalist either and I dont think anyone at all can be complicit about any authority in this day and age, the abuse of power and authority by cynical, callous, deviant types is too well documented but the experience of thousands of years surely stands up better to the experience on a single person of, say in my case, 36 years?

 

[EcK]

Not sure if youre being serious [MENTION=5643]EcK[/MENTION] or just trying to prove how wrong and silly religious people are.

I am not a bible literalist. I think there is a lot of good in there. But we are all imperfect in understanding the truth and we especially must take the bible in context of the time and culture in which it was written.

I will always go with my own conscience over anything in the bible or from religious leaders. If something feels wrong or cruel, then I stay away from it.

That said, I think there's a lot of good wisdom and parables and things to consider in terms of personal reflection and growth. That is important to me, and I do look to the bible and other outside sources for insight and advice.

No I'm serious. What makes you think I'm not. The OP seems like a legitimate question to ask.

 

[gromit]

No I'm serious. What makes you think I'm not. The OP seems like a legitimate question to ask.

ah ok, just from how you've talked about religion in other threads.

 

[Lark]

The most gifted Christian I know (a Catholic who used to be an Atheist) once told me (his words) that the old testament was meant as a sketch of sorts, while the new testament is the real deal. This is a guy that actually read Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and was very into Scholasticism in general.

I dont remember talking to you.

 

[Mole]

The Magic of the Manuscript

In a spoken culture the book is a magical artefact. It is as though liquid speech has been made solid, permanent, and authoritative. So it makes sense for a spoken culture to worship the God of the Book. And the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam worship the God of the Book.

And until 1440 the Book was actually a manuscript, a script that was written and copied manually by scribes in Scriptoriums.

But after the invention of the printing press we now have millions upon millions of books and the magic of one authoritative manuscript was diluted.

But worse, the electric telegraph was invented in 1840, followed by the telephone, the wireless, the television, and the internet. And all these millions of books are being digitalised for the internet.

So first the magic manuscript was diluted by the printing press, and now the book itself has been relegated to merely the content of the internet.

So the sacred texts have been diluted and relegated. And so naturally the God of the sacred texts has been diluted and relegated.

And notice, dear Christians, that none of you read your sacred text in the language in which it was written, namely, Ancient Greek. Your sacred text has been diluted and relegated and you don't even bother to read it in the language in which it was written.

This has led to the famous poetic expression: God is dead.

 

[Passacaglia]

Damn, this is interesting. I've never heard of anyone doing this.

He phrased it as "I've never read the Bible because I know that if I did, my mortal brain wouldn't be able to understand it." When I asked what he meant by that, he clarified "Like walking on water...if I read that part of the Bible, I'd start thinking through the physics of that and I wouldn't be able to understand it." From there, I put 2 and 2 together.

Perhaps he gets inspiration mostly from within, following his own understanding of Christian values? I'd totally respect that.

Possibly, I don't think he's the spiritual type though. I get the sense that he's a cultural Baptist because that's what he was indoctrinated into.

(The ultimate figurative, abstracted translation of the Bible could just be "love one another." I'd be down for that.)

Here, here! Those are the Christians I respect. "Do unto others as you would have done unto you," the good samaritan parable, that's good stuff. I'm not clear on why anyone needs a particular ancient book to explain how to be a decent person, but if it works for them, whatever I guess.