Christian Fundamentalism/Taking the Bible Literally

[MrFun]

So, the same people who pick and choose passages in the Bible for their convenience in pursuing a political agenda by claiming strict adherence to the Bible are guilty of interpreting the Bible just as everyone else. They really are NOT fundamentalists, for examples:

Adam and Eve - if their children had to reproduce in order to begin creating the world human population, this means God condoned incest if one really believed in taking the Bible literally

Leviticus - today, people wear clothing of mixed fibers and many people who choose the Leviticus passages regarding sexual behavior are the same ones who eat pork

[Jon Miller]

People need to read the Bible (both the OT and the NT) with their mind open and thinking about what was going on at the time, and what was going on in the overall narrative.

Isolating one text or one word (or a sampling of texts or words) is mistreating the Bible.

JM

[Kidlicious]

Eating pork

The Bible

[chequita guevara]

mmmmm, pork

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
mmmmm, pork

[Dry]

Re: Christian Fundamentalism/Taking the Bible Literally

Originally posted by MrFun
So, the same people who pick and choose passages in the Bible for their convenience in pursuing a political agenda by claiming strict adherence to the Bible are guilty of interpreting the Bible just as everyone else. They really are NOT fundamentalists, for examples:

You are right about agenda, but I still call them fundamentalists.

Adam and Eve - if their siblings had to reproduce in order to begin creating the world human population, this means God condoned incest if one really believed in taking the Bible literally

I remember a youtube video from the (in)famous Kent Hovind where he justifies incest, not only for Adam and Eve, but also for Noah's children. For Hovind, after a few generations, God decided that it wasn't ok anymore.

Leviticus - today, people wear clothing of mixed fibers and many people who choose the Leviticus passages regarding sexual behavior are the same ones who eat pork

Indeed. I don't know how they justify that this one is no more valid.

[Nikolai]

I believe that everything in the Bible is true. In that way I could be called a fundamentalist that takes the Bible literally, if that's how you define it. I do however not believe everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, as there are much in there that is clearly meant figuratively. And in the OT there are passages that are universal and there are passages that are given to the Jews at that time for their time. Much of the rules in the books of Moses are also made obsolete for Christians of today, as Jesus fullfilled them on the cross. The rules in question were made to help us meet the requrements of God, who is perfect, holy and allergic to sin. Jesus met those requirements for us on the cross as long as we accept his sacrifice in our life. This is something atheists discussing the Bible must understand, and also something a Christian or thousand should remember too.

[SlowwHand]

Do yourselves a favor. Stop taking the bait.

[Nikolai]

Me? I like these discussions.

[Agathon]

The Bible cannot bear the historical weight put on it. It was OK back a couple of hundred years ago when people couldn't spend their time looking for the evidence, but once you start treating things like the Gospel with the same rigour you would treat any other ancient text (this being something I am familiar with in my line of work), the evidence for any of it being anything like accurate just isn't there. The Gospels were written long after Jesus supposedly lived (and there is very little independent evidence of his existence once you weed out the forged stuff like the Flavian testimony) and they look like what they are: cobbled together sets of aphorisms touched up with a story familiar from the mythologies of the area. There's no independent reason for believing any of it, and plenty of reasons from the texts themselves to be sceptical.

Look, you can believe in a divine being and not be a total numbnuts, but believing in the Bible is like believing in a Superman comic. The only reason people who do believe in the Bible aren't treated as lunatics is that there are an awful lot of them.

Hell, there are a load of people that bought the **** and bull story of an angel and gold plates that Joseph Smith made up so that he'd have an excuse for his failures and to screw every girl he could get his hands on. The founding events of Mormonism occurred less than 200 years ago in a mostly literate culture with a mass media and yet people still believe what has to be one of the most ridiculous stories ever committed to paper.

Christianity is no different to Mormonism, except the Mormons aren't quite so down on sex. You'd have to be a freaking lunatic to believe in either.

[MikeH]

You can't argue with any of that, it's all factual.

[Kuciwalker]

I appreciate how clever and original the ideas presented in this thread are.

[Nikolai]

It's clear Agathon haven't studied religion. It's no doubt among scholars that Jesus existed. But of course nothing can be said sure about who he was, the only testimonials about his life and philosophy, are the gospels.

[Elok]

How does this have four views and thirteen posts from eleven different people? Hands up if you posted in this thread without looking at it!

[Kuciwalker]

The forum software stops counting views when it gets heavy load, IIRC.