[besson3c]

I mean this in a completely non-inflammatory way. I guess the title sounds a little inflammatory, but that's only to create some sex appeal

What I mean is this...

There are some who advocate for a literal interpretation of all of the bible. Does this include the talking snake part and the living in a whale part? I've heard the argument that these were intended to be metaphors, but how does one know which parts of the bible to take literally?

Please answer the following honestly, and I don't mean this as an attack in any way, shape, or form... We all struggle with our faiths or lack of a faith, I think that doubt is perfectly natural: do you Christians ever read parts of the bible and sort of get a sinking feeling in your stomach that something is just a little too hard to believe and/or a little too uncomfortable? How do you deal with these sorts of things without questioning your own faith?

The same question certainly applies to any other faith too, I'm only centering out Christianity since I know that there are many Christians here that can answer these questions...

[besson3c]

Second question... If Atheists make up more of the population than Blacks, Jews or Gays, do you think they deserve any special treatment in the form of political clout or special recognition?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There are some who advocate for a literal interpretation of all of the bible. Does this include the talking snake part and the living in a whale part? I've heard the argument that these were intended to be metaphors, but how does one know which parts of the bible to take literally?

Let me just give you this little nugget:

There are always the two sides, one that thinks that literal interpretation comes close to the meaning, and one that puts it all into metaphor/fairy-tale land.

It's like with the Constitution. The more people just take it as metaphors that need to be "re-interpreted" and "reviewed in light of our culture", there more it is losing its power, and we end up in the current clusterf*ck of big government, inept and corrupt politicians and our nation being the joke of the free world.

Let me tell you: taking the Bible all as metaphors will get you into the same predicament.

-t

[besson3c]

So you are defending the literal interpretation of the Bible Turtle?

[reader50]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I mean this in a completely non-inflammatory way.

Oh yes, we believe you. Nothing to get excited about here ...

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Second question... If Atheists make up more of the population than Blacks, Jews or Gays, do you think they deserve any special treatment in the form of political clout or special recognition?

Your premise is in reverse. You'd want Atheists to be a smaller group than others, in order to qualify for minority / affirmative action status.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Let me just give you this little nugget:

There are always the two sides, one that thinks that literal interpretation comes close to the meaning, and one that puts it all into metaphor/fairy-tale land.

It's like with the Constitution. The more people just take it as metaphors that need to be "re-interpreted" and "reviewed in light of our culture", there more it is losing its power, and we end up in the current clusterf*ck of big government, inept and corrupt politicians and our nation being the joke of the free world.

Let me tell you: taking the Bible all as metaphors will get you into the same predicament.

-t

How about taking the parts that seem obviously fanciful as being exactly what they seem and taking the more realistic parts as what they seem?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

How about taking the parts that seem obviously fanciful as being exactly what they seem and taking the more realistic parts as what they seem?

I'm not advocating a strict either / or. Many things factor into good exegesis and interpretation.

-t

[Big Mac]

I easily guessed this to be a besson thread.

I think a much better question is, how can atheists deal with the illogical aspects of their lack of faith?

[Chuckit]

That question is far worse, as it indirectly refers to something that isn't well-understood. I don't see how lacking faith can be illogical. If something can be logically justified, I don't need to take it on faith. If it requires faith, then it isn't logically proven. So you'll need to do a much better job explaining what you mean if you want any kind of meaningful answer to this question that you apparently think is very good.

[besson3c]

A lack of faith usually suggests doubt, it is not at all illogical to doubt answers to questions we do not have definitive answers to and do not universally agree upon.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Oh yes, we believe you. Nothing to get excited about here ...

I really intended from the get go to be gentle and not to go for the jugular... At the time I couldn't come up with a better way to phrase the question.

Your premise is in reverse. You'd want Atheists to be a smaller group than others, in order to qualify for minority / affirmative action status.

Whichever way, I'm more so interested in the general question of whether Atheists should be granted special rights/status/lobby power/etc. as many of these other groups?

[Chuckit]

It seems to me we already have special rights/status/power — we're the bulk of the educated.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

A lack of faith usually suggests doubt.

I disagree. There can be no true faith w/o true doubt.

If you just believe because it was indoctrinated, it's not faith, it's brainwashing.

-t

[imitchellg5]

They probably deal with illogical aspects in the same way that those without a faith deal with illogical aspects of their faith.

You can't interpret the entire Bible literally. There are parts of the Bible that SHOULD NEVER be interpreted literally; such as Jesus' parables. Jesus said that they weren't true stories, just made up stories with a moral value. But many parts of the Bible should be taken literally because they are literal historical interpretations. You can always tell if a Bible passage is literal or not by looking at the context.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I easily guessed this to be a besson thread.

Me too. The topics list clearly listed besson as the thread starter.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

They probably deal with illogical aspects in the same way that those without a faith deal with illogical aspects of their faith.

Much like car owners deal with car problems in the same way that people without cars deal with car problems.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Much like car owners deal with car problems in the same way that people without cars deal with car problems.

I don't get it... Sorry it's early

EDIT: Never mind. I just meant that even if you claim to have no faith, you have faith in your claim to not have faith.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It seems to me we already have special rights/status/power — we're the bulk of the educated.

Maybe a little, but Congress is stacked with politicians who claim to be Christian. You have a number of Republican presidential hopefuls last election that didn't believe in evolution, a powerful Christian lobby, a number of religious organizations, the whole "value voters" crowd, etc. Is there anything remotely comparable?

I'm not suggesting necessarily that the two groups should be equal if there are many more Christians than there are Atheists, but is the power in proper proportion?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I disagree. There can be no true faith w/o true doubt.

If you just believe because it was indoctrinated, it's not faith, it's brainwashing.

-t

Do you believe that religious indoctrination goes on? If so, to what extent?

In other words, how many people that claim to be Christian are *thoroughly* secure with their faith, and how many are Christian because they feel that they ought to be?

I ask this in the most genuine way possible. I'm particularly thinking of politicians. I would not be at all surprised if a large number of them that claimed to be Christian were really just using this claim as a political tool. I know that this isn't indoctrination, but isn't indoctrination itself a political tool in a way?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

They probably deal with illogical aspects in the same way that those without a faith deal with illogical aspects of their faith.

You can't interpret the entire Bible literally. There are parts of the Bible that SHOULD NEVER be interpreted literally; such as Jesus' parables. Jesus said that they weren't true stories, just made up stories with a moral value. But many parts of the Bible should be taken literally because they are literal historical interpretations. You can always tell if a Bible passage is literal or not by looking at the context.

Do you think that there is widespread agreement on what should be taken literally and what shouldn't be?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "They probably deal with illogical aspects in the same way that those without a faith deal with illogical aspects of their faith." How can those without a faith deal with illogical aspects of something they don't have?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How do religious people deal with illogical aspects to their faith?

Religious people and non-religious people have different definitions of "logic".

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I just meant that even if you claim to have no faith, you have faith in your claim to not have faith.

Reread this sentence and tell me if you still think it makes sense, because it doesn't to me. I have to have faith in my claim that I don't have faith? Why? I am me. I can read my mind. I know whether or not I have faith.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

In other words, how many people that claim to be Christian are *thoroughly* secure with their faith, and how many are Christian because they feel that they ought to be?

The majority of Christians in the Western world are "cultural" Christians. Their faith is part of their cultural upbringing, and nothing they chose after careful consideration of all the options.

They are Christians by profession only, but not by their actions.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The majority of Christians in the Western world are "cultural" Christians. Their faith is part of their cultural upbringing, and nothing they chose after careful consideration of all the options.

They are Christians by profession only, but not by their actions.

-t

That is my perception too, I agree with this. Isn't it odd then that we seem to demand that our politicians be Christians, and that there are so many topics of conversation that seem to be heavily influenced by Christianity?

If you had to wager a guess, what percentage of Americans are devout, practicing, committed Christians?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That is my perception too, I agree with this. Isn't it odd then that we seem to demand that our politicians be Christians, and that there are so many topics of conversation that seem to be heavily influenced by Christianity?

Well, the "we" that demand politicians to be Christians are mostly lukewarm Christians themselves. I don't even know what they exactly want from those "Christian" politicians, since they wouldn't like what many real Christians would have to say.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If you had to wager a guess, what percentage of Americans are devout, practicing, committed Christians?

Sorry, pass.

-t

[besson3c]

They just sort of think that Christianity = morality, and want (as we all do) for the politicians they elect to be moral individuals?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

They just sort of think that Christianity = morality, and want (as we all do) for the politicians they elect to be moral individuals?

I guess. I don't know what exactly those cultural Christians expect in a similar minded "Christian" Morality. maybe. Conservatism, whatever that means to them ?

-t

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Reread this sentence and tell me if you still think it makes sense, because it doesn't to me. I have to have faith in my claim that I don't have faith? Why? I am me. I can read my mind. I know whether or not I have faith.

Also, I know what I meant

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I guess. I don't know what exactly those cultural Christians expect in a similar minded "Christian" Morality. maybe. Conservatism, whatever that means to them ?

-t

That's as good a theory as any, but it still seems incomplete to me.

Mathematically speaking, the probability is pretty low that a politician will both be in favor of all of the far right wing sorts of issues that solidify the base (anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, anti-evolution, abstinence education, etc.) and for the individual to simultaneously be in support of all of these issues too.

In reality, most people are a sort of grab bag of conservative, moderate, and liberal ideas. Statistically speaking there are more moderates than any other political ideology. The chances seem about the same to me that somebody that is not religious at all would have a similar grab bag of stances on issues, and probably just about as likely for these to fall in line with the voter.

In other words, Christianity is not some sort of just-add-water, we now have a model candidate that fits perfectly in line with everybody's personal ideals sort of thing. Maybe it is more likely that a Christian would be in support of many of these conservative ideals, but again, it just doesn't seem to jive with the really heavy proportion of politicians that claim to be Christian, nor the roughly 50% of the population that generally don't vote for Conservatives (some percentage of this population I'm assuming not being for these conservative ideals).

If 16% of the population is Atheist like Bill Mahr claims in Religulous (I have no idea whether this is true or not), why aren't 16% of our politicians Atheist? I believe the numbers are nowhere close to this...

I don't know if this makes sense or not...

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

In other words, Christianity is not some sort of just-add-water, we now have a model candidate that fits perfectly in line with everybody's personal ideals sort of thing. Maybe it is more likely that a Christian would be in support of many of these conservative ideals, but again, it just doesn't seem to jive with the really heavy proportion of politicians that claim to be Christian, nor the roughly 50% of the population that generally don't vote for Conservatives (some percentage of this population I'm assuming not being for these conservative ideals).

I think that "Christian" is just a term that politicians give themselves to show an appearance of moral "goodness." You're right in saying that a Christian would probably support many conservative ideals, but those ideals don't make one a Christian. I think that most people you meet on the street have good ideals anyway. I'm guessing that out of all the politicians claiming to be Christian, maybe 5% of them actually practice Christianity (church, prayer, fellowship, etc.). It should be noted that being a Christian doesn't always go hand-in-hand with being conservative. Yes, there are some liberal issues that Christians can't stand for (without becoming hypocritical to the faith), but there are also many Christians who have a liberal mindset open to new ideas (look at the whole Jesus vs. Pharisees).

[lpkmckenna]

Back when I was a believer, dealing with biblical absurdities was easy: if God can create the world, why can't he create talking snakes?

Ultimately, you have to realize that "God made the universe" is a far greater absurdity than talking animals, virgin births, or casting lots. Nitpicking the small stuff is pointless when you're avoiding the big issues.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I think that "Christian" is just a term that politicians give themselves to show an appearance of moral "goodness." You're right in saying that a Christian would probably support many conservative ideals, but those ideals don't make one a Christian. I think that most people you meet on the street have good ideals anyway. I'm guessing that out of all the politicians claiming to be Christian, maybe 5% of them actually practice Christianity (church, prayer, fellowship, etc.). It should be noted that being a Christian doesn't always go hand-in-hand with being conservative. Yes, there are some liberal issues that Christians can't stand for (without becoming hypocritical to the faith), but there are also many Christians who have a liberal mindset open to new ideas (look at the whole Jesus vs. Pharisees).

There are also Christian values that seem completely incompatible with Conservative economic ideals: the notion of caring for the poor, looking out for the little guy, tending to the sick, etc.

When I say "completely" I mean mostly the common perception.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, the "we" that demand politicians to be Christians are mostly lukewarm Christians themselves. I don't even know what they exactly want from those "Christian" politicians, since they wouldn't like what many real Christians would have to say.

Phrases like "lukewarm Christians" or "real Christians" make me shiver.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Phrases like "lukewarm Christians" or "real Christians" make me shiver.

Yeah... Is this sort of like the "real" America idea?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I easily guessed this to be a besson thread.

Because it ends in a question mark?

I think a much better question is, how can atheists deal with the illogical aspects of their lack of faith?

No one expects any followup from you on this point.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yeah... Is this sort of like the "real" America idea?

Exactly.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There are also Christian values that seem completely incompatible with Conservative economic ideals: the notion of caring for the poor, looking out for the little guy, tending to the sick, etc.

When I say "completely" I mean mostly the common perception.

Yes, definitely. Really, the same rule goes with any religion. I guess that's what happens when a population diversifies.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Phrases like "lukewarm Christians" or "real Christians" make me shiver.

Why? Some people really aren't all that pious. Would you let George W. Bush get away with calling himself a pacifist?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There are also Christian values that seem completely incompatible with Conservative economic ideals: the notion of caring for the poor, looking out for the little guy, tending to the sick, etc.

When I say "completely" I mean mostly the common perception.

None of those things are opposed to conservative ideals. We simply don't believe the government should force people to do these things on its terms.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

None of those things are opposed to conservative ideals. We simply don't believe the government should force people to do these things on its terms.

That's besides the point, really. The perception is that the Democratic party is the party you want to flock to if you care about extending welfare, addressing poverty, and building an economy from the bottom-up. Do you disagree with this?

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but we are talking about what makes the lay person do and think what he/she does, so these perceptions are relevant.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Why? Some people really aren't all that pious. Would you let George W. Bush get away with calling himself a pacifist?

You're suggesting there is a known and appropriate amount of piety. For instance, Doofy doesn't go to church, but thinks of himself as a real Christian. On the other hand, many go to church and do the necessary rituals, but aren't very public about it. Is there any point in making decisions on who the "real Christians" are?

Besides, phrases like "real Christians" or "real Americans" are used mostly to condemn the ideology of everyone else; i.e., fungelicals or Mormons or Catholics who claim to be the real church, while everyone else are heretics or whatever.

[auto_immune]

Organized religion is something I am not fond of at all - and the Bible is probably one of the most misinterpreted and misquoted books in existence.


That being said........to date, God has seen fit to make me aware of his presence as a guiding force in my life on four separate occasions. As a direct result of this, I have placed my total faith and trust in God with no reservations whatsoever.

*interestingly enough, my initial arrogance in demanding actual proof from God that he existed should have been enough to ensure that I would never be the recipient of any such proof.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Because it ends in a question mark?

Heh, I like that!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by auto_immune 

Organized religion is something I am not fond of at all - and the Bible is probably one of the most misinterpreted and misquoted books in existence.


That being said........to date, God has seen fit to make me aware of his presence as a guiding force in my life on four separate occasions. As a direct result of this, I have placed my total faith and trust in God with no reservations whatsoever.

*interestingly enough, my initial arrogance in demanding actual proof from God that he existed should have been enough to ensure that I would never be the recipient of any such proof.

Interesting... I have questions

Do you sort of mostly recognize the relevance and existence of God in your life as more of a spiritual thing, or do you feel that a belief in God has to go hand in hand with some sort of mix of literal/non-literal interpretation of the bible?

See, I've never thought the former was responsible for any of the global problems associated with various global religions, it was always the dogma associated with a particular interpretation. I can actually understand the former to some extent, but I still haven't figured out how people can hold to some sort of literal religious biblical interpretation while reconciling the parts of the bible that address talking snakes, living in a while, putting animals on a boat, virgin births, etc. or having to reject the Old Testament as some sort of oops... All religions seem to have these sorts of fantastical sorts of aspects to them that if you took completely out of context would seem crazy.

Moreover, to me in many ways it pays proper homage and respect to the complexities of life and the wonderment of nature to have doubt and disbelief in the notion of talking snakes et all. This doubt doesn't have to equate to a rejection of Christianity or any other religion, but simply an acknowledgment that you don't fully understand or know something, and are open to the possibility that hey, maybe there really wasn't literally a talking snake.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

They probably deal with illogical aspects in the same way that those without a faith deal with illogical aspects of their faith.

Excellent point.

It's weird how people think that as soon as someone is non-religious, he would suddenly act 100% logical in all is choices and beliefs.

-t

[besson3c]

Maybe you can share with us how you interpret imitchell's comment, turtle? It still doesn't make sense to me.

[auto_immune]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Interesting... I have questions
Do you sort of mostly recognize the relevance and existence of God in your life as more of a spiritual thing, or do you feel that a belief in God has to go hand in hand with some sort of mix of literal/non-literal interpretation of the bible?

Definitely a spiritual thing - my karma runs all over the dogma (lol!)
I am frequently tempted to declare the bible to be a flawed document that has been perverted and changed from its original meaning and purpose by greedy, unethical, and dishonest people, but I am not really qualified to make that call. Maybe someday I will actually manage to read the bible in its entirety.

See, I've never thought the former was responsible for any of the global problems associated with various global religions, it was always the dogma associated with a particular interpretation. I can actually understand the former to some extent, but I still haven't figured out how people can hold to some sort of literal religious biblical interpretation while reconciling the parts of the bible that address talking snakes, living in a while, putting animals on a boat, virgin births, etc. All religions seem to have these sorts of fantastical sorts of aspects to them that if you took completely out of context would seem crazy.

Moreover, to me in many ways it pays proper homage and respect to the complexities of life and the wonderment of nature to have doubt and disbelief in the notion of talking snakes et all. This doubt doesn't have to equate to a rejection of Christianity or any other religion, but simply an acknowledgment that you don't fully understand or know something, and are open to the possibility that hey, maybe there really wasn't literally a talking snake.

I am going to be lazy and just agree with that entire paragraph.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by auto_immune 

Definitely a spiritual thing - my karma runs all over the dogma (lol!)
I am frequently tempted to declare the bible to be a flawed document that has been perverted and changed from its original meaning and purpose by greedy, unethical, and dishonest people, but I am not really qualified to make that call. Maybe someday I will actually manage to read the bible in its entirety.



I am going to be lazy and just agree with that entire paragraph.

So, what would you say to those that would tell you that you are less of a Christian, or somehow your faith is tainted by not upholding the bible the way that they do?

[auto_immune]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, what would you say to those that would tell you that you are less of a Christian, or somehow your faith is tainted by not upholding the bible the way that they do?

I would smile at them, shake my head, and tell them they were sadly mistaken.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Maybe you can share with us how you interpret imitchell's comment, turtle? It still doesn't make sense to me.

How I understand mitchell's comment is like this:

EVERY person acts illogically in some are of their life, it's not an exclusive feature of religious people.

In addition, there will always be some sort of justification (faith, world view, gut feeling) that's used to reconcile illogical behavior with rational thought.

-t