or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Does the Bible rub you the wrong way?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Does the Bible rub you the wrong way? - Page 6

post #101 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by magstphil View Post
DH and i were just talking about how others are uncomfortable (to put it lightly ) with the killings going on in the Bible that are condoned and even commanded by God. when one reads the Bible (and i'm sure any other religious text) one really has to take into account the eternal scheme of things, not just the here and now. to God it is not killing them and that's the end of them- He is simply moving those souls from one plane to another. that is purely His choice to make and none of us would be in the clear for going on a murderous rampage without His direct go ahead but when He does it it's just a change of venue for these souls. it doesn't end there for them, their lives go on someplace else. so yeah, i guess what i am saying is that the killings commanded by God don't really rub me the wrong way at all because He's waiting there for them on the other side. not only that but the killings that do go on are for a reason for the "greater good" but again you have to think of the eternal scheme of things not just in that moment. JMO, though.
:

I dont know if this belongs here...but as a Christian reading the Bible, Do the "sinners" in the OT go to heaven? (OMG-that may need its own thread...LOL)

Are their different thoughts on this through the denominations or is it a universal "Yes" or "no"

Taking souls to a different plane is one thing.

Taking them to heaven or hell is entirely another.

That is important to the context I think. (And important to whether or not I am disturbed by the killings or commands.)
post #102 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by transformed View Post
:

I dont know if this belongs here...but as a Christian reading the Bible, Do the "sinners" in the OT go to heaven? (OMG-that may need its own thread...LOL)

Are their different thoughts on this through the denominations or is it a universal "Yes" or "no"

Taking souls to a different plane is one thing.

Taking them to heaven or hell is entirely another.

That is important to the context I think. (And important to whether or not I am disturbed by the killings or commands.)
you're right, Jenny. in Mormonism there is no simple "yes" or "no". frankly if someone has done something harsh enough to deserve hell like mass murder than why are we upset to see the Lord kill them off? but in my belief system children go directly back to their Father in Heaven. i can't help but think that if the Lord has taken a sacrifice from the innocent in the form of their life or loved one that that will have immense leverage come judgment day.
post #103 of 126
There's an interesting story behind the idea of biblical inerrancy (which is a new idea, and has always been a minority opinion) and whether the bible is the word of God, inspired, literal, or not. But that story may be just a little too specific and geeky for me to go into just here. Say something if you're interested. :
post #104 of 126
::

Tell Away BSD.
post #105 of 126
Well I'm reviewing Reformation theology right now...*looking over notes*...a lot of people blame Luther for biblical fundamentalism because he coined sola scriptura but in actuality it came about much later. Luther was trying to combat the practice of rampant allegorical readings, he said that reading allegorically you could put any words you wanted into the bible's mouth, essentially. He wanted to strip away those layers and get back to the texts and the languages and the original meanings.

(It also surprised and amused me to learn that he didn't like several of the minor books of the New Testament at all and said that he could "find no evidence" that the book of Revelations was inspired by the Holy Spirit!)

For Luther the value of scripture was in the gospel message. Also, at no point did Luther or his immediate followers intend to throw away the traditions of the church and the creeds (which to some degree will mitigate any tendencies towards strict literalism.) The Calvinists are another story but I'm not reading about them right now.

Some Protestants ended up taking the extreme position of just the bible, only the bible, and every bit of it literally, to the exclusion of everything else. This only started in the early 19th century, though, and while it has always been a strong movement it has never really been a popular one.

So the idea that to be a Christian one has to take the bible literally or as inerrant is kind of like the idea that if you're a theist you believe there's a guy in a toga playing us like marionettes. It's a fallacy and an overgeneralization. The Catholic church has always read the bible on multiple levels, including allegorical. Luther questioned if certain parts of the bible had anything at all to do with God's will. Most mainline Protestants today believe that while the bible contains the inspired word of God, it also contains the errors and flaws of many human hands. It's really very few people who take the bible literally.

And most of them are atheists. :
post #106 of 126
Hi

Several posts have been removed from this thread that either were a bit snarky, or were issues of a personal nature that needed to be resolved in pm...I think it's great to have resolved your issues, for clarity though, they don't need to be in this thread. If anyone wants to edit please pm me.

Thank you
post #107 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelgianSheepDog View Post
It's really very few people who take the bible literally.

And most of them are atheists. :
post #108 of 126
That's an interesting bit of christian history, BSD. I need to find more time to read this kind of thing.... so many books... so little time.
post #109 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by transformed View Post
:

I dont know if this belongs here...but as a Christian reading the Bible, Do the "sinners" in the OT go to heaven? (OMG-that may need its own thread...LOL)

Are their different thoughts on this through the denominations or is it a universal "Yes" or "no"

Taking souls to a different plane is one thing.

Taking them to heaven or hell is entirely another.

That is important to the context I think. (And important to whether or not I am disturbed by the killings or commands.)

Since you're asking about something specific to the so-called "OT," are you asking for the perspective of those for whom that set of scriptures is their only Bible (aka Jews), or for the perspective of those for whom that set of scriptures has been surpassed/superceded (aka Christians)?
post #110 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by merpk View Post
Since you're asking about something specific to the so-called "OT," are you asking for the perspective of those for whom that set of scriptures is their only Bible (aka Jews), or for the perspective of those for whom that set of scriptures has been surpassed/superceded (aka Christians)?
I hadnt thought about that. I was actually directing it to Mag, and Christians....but I dont want to disclude anyone from answering! So yeah, it probably needsd its own topic....but then again, that sounds like a good question to fight over and I dont want to start anything.

BSD-interesting research you are doing. Martin Luther was a rebel! I might need to do some reading on him!
post #111 of 126
I don't think the Bible is much better or worse than any other collection of myths.
post #112 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkpear View Post
I don't think the Bible is much better or worse than any other collection of myths.


My brother calls the Bible myths too! He's an athiest I think. Are you? If so, welcome! I am not sure if we have heard from any athiests on the subject. :

So do you think that the historical facts in the bible are wrong? (There is ALOT of history that is also recorded elsewhere)
post #113 of 126
I'm an agnostic apatheist. I don't believe in personified gods, but I have some deist and panentheist leanings. If anything, I see God as a sort of goal or ideal, rather than an extant entity. The religious impulse itself is an artifact of the way our brains function.

When I say myth, I don't mean it's a pack of lies. Myth is typically some combination of history, legend, parable/fable, instruction, etc. Certain parts of the Bible are indeed corroborated by other sources and thus are likely historical. Other parts are in direct contradiction with other sources and thus seem unlikely to be historical. Some bits are clearly a prescientific attempt to explain the origin and workings of life and of the universe, and I do find it hard to relate to the folks who take those bits literally in this modern age when we have much more understanding of how things actually work, but I suppose that's OT.
post #114 of 126
It's not the bible itself that irks me. It's the people who use it to cut others at the knees for beliefs that don't fit that person's or group of people's beliefs.

The bible is a great historical piece of literature. I may not believe in it per say but the fundamental ideals of the bible (harm no one, treat others as you want to be treated, love you fellow man) I do believe in and tie in closely to my own belief systems.

Sheal
post #115 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain crunchy View Post

... and if anyone is blaming the Bible for the "patriarchal structure", I would suggest some Anthropology, History, and Sociology courses. Really, because long before the Bible was ever published or widely used, there was a *patriarchal* structure in place... BIGTIME.
<snip>

...or, here is a novel idea. Stop the blame matrix and get off your butt and try to change the things you want changed instead of pointing fingers at every system or book or diety or group that has *failed* you and humanity.

Be the change you want to see in the world -- Gandhi.
I am currently taking the sociology of deviance, first nation's sociology and first nations literature. I have taken numerous other anthropology courses and sociology courses, as well as studies on the philosophy of religion. I was raised under the rule of the christian church attending mass every sunday for a good 15 years. I am working on a degree is social work and run a co-operative anti-authoritarian, non-profit bookstore as well as work doing volunteer anti-poverty outreach. I am not arguing that there was no patriarchal structure ever in the world until the publication of the christian bible. But I am arguing that it cements the hierarchal structure we live under in western societies. Comparisons between the cosmogeny in the bible and the cosmogenies in first nations community illustrate the differences beautifully. There is a patriarchal hierarchy implicit in the genesis story that simply doesn't exist in any of the first nation creation stories I have studied. Those stories really are universally the spring from which rivers of thought in each culture have grown.

It took the enlightenment and its emphasis on rationality and empericism to inspire the acknowledgement of the social contract. When biblical scholarship was law and the church ruled Europe, approximately 8million people (mostly women) were tortured and killed for being 'witches'---misogyny in action ( to name but one attrocity). People were either excorsised or tortured and/or executed for crimes. Deviant behaviour was considered a crime against the laws of nature and caused by possession by evil spirits or temptation by the devil.

With rationalism came the idea that deviant behaviour was caused by a number of mitigating factors and punishments should be fair. This is when the term 'cruel and unusual punishment' was first coined. Crimes were measured on their demonstrable harm to the greater good. Homosexuality, for example, was no longer viewed as an action punishable by public burning but rather viewed as a behaviour which did not negatively impact the greater good of society.

It is certainly not the bible that caused all the atrocities carried out in its name. It is a inanimate object afterall. But it is a document of patriarchy and hierarchy and has been used to defend and uphold those structures since it was first written down.
post #116 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamajama View Post
I am currently taking the sociology of deviance, first nation's sociology and first nations literature. I have taken numerous other anthropology courses and sociology courses, as well as studies on the philosophy of religion. I was raised under the rule of the Christian church attending mass every Sunday for a good 15 years. I am working on a degree is social work and run a co-operative anti-authoritarian, non-profit bookstore as well as work doing volunteer anti-poverty outreach.

I am not arguing that there was no patriarchal structure ever in the world until the publication of the Christian bible. But I am arguing that it cements the hierarchal structure we live under in western societies. Comparisons between the cosmogony in the bible and the cosmogonies in First Nations community illustrate the differences beautifully. There is a patriarchal hierarchy implicit in the genesis story that simply doesn't exist in any of the first nation creation stories I have studied. Those stories really are universally the spring from which rivers of thought in each culture have grown.

It took the enlightenment and its emphasis on rationality and empiricism to inspire the acknowledgment of the social contract. When biblical scholarship was law and the church ruled Europe, approximately 8 million people (mostly women) were tortured and killed for being 'witches'---misogyny in action ( to name but one atrocity). People were either exorcised or tortured and/or executed for crimes. Deviant behaviour was considered a crime against the laws of nature and caused by possession by evil spirits or temptation by the devil.

With rationalism came the idea that deviant behaviour was caused by a number of mitigating factors and punishments should be fair. This is when the term 'cruel and unusual punishment' was first coined. Crimes were measured on their demonstrable harm to the greater good. Homosexuality, for example, was no longer viewed as an action punishable by public burning but rather viewed as a behaviour which did not negatively impact the greater good of society.

It is certainly not the bible that caused all the atrocities carried out in its name. It is a inanimate object after all. But it is a document of patriarchy and hierarchy and has been used to defend and uphold those structures since it was first written down.

Very eloquently put.
post #117 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheal View Post
It's not the bible itself that irks me. It's the people who use it to cut others at the knees for beliefs that don't fit that person's or group of people's beliefs.

The bible is a great historical piece of literature. I may not believe in it per say but the fundamental ideals of the bible (harm no one, treat others as you want to be treated, love you fellow man) I do believe in and tie in closely to my own belief systems.

Sheal
Agreed. It's not the Bible that irks me, it's what people have done with what's in it, and have done to it, that irks me. (Things getting lost in translation, deciding what was put in, and left out, etc.)
post #118 of 126
Thanks Katreena
post #119 of 126
I have enjoyed reading some posts here- BSD, mamajama, darkpear- really well written and thought out!

Quote:
Originally Posted by BelgianSheepDog View Post
It's really very few people who take the bible literally.

And most of them are atheists. :
I wish this were true! Did you happen to watch the recent edition of Bill Moyers Journal about the Christians United for Israel? We're talking about millions and millions (50 million?!?!) of people and they very much take the bible literally.
post #120 of 126
What rubs me the wrong way is when people get all high and mighty and horrified over how awful the Old Testament/Hebrew scriptures are; it reeks of anti-semitism, imo.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Spirituality
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Does the Bible rub you the wrong way?