The gruesome world of a Bible literalist

[TSO]

In other words you are looking for a way to generalise and shit on Christians..you know, like talk about the worst possible thing a so called "Christian" could do, then give your "respect" to him because "that's what true Christianity is all about"

In other words you are a sad , hateful man :icon_neut

Pointing out how people act when they follow all the rules of a religion forces the rational person to come to the realization that the religion is ridiculous.

I do it often to point out how most people that call themselves (insert random religion here) ignore more of it's laws than they follow. It isn't to make fun of you guys. it's to point out that even someone dumb enough to call themselves religious isn't dumb enough to actually act religious.

 

[TSO]

Anti-Christians do the same thing. Find a passage that has several possible interpretations and accept the one that makes Christianity look the worst, and ignore what biblical scholar have to say about it.

Jesus said there is no interpreting the gospels. Your take on it says you're a better authority on it than he is since you disagree with him.

 

[Medusas Weave]

That's so convenient. Don't like what the bible tells you to do? Parable. Change the interpretation. Someone else does something you don't like? Bible's clearly against it. It says so literally right here.

I guess I'm just a Christian who thinks the divinity of Christ and the existence of god in general is a parable rather than something to be taken literally, since by this 'parable' rubric apparently the bible can mean anything you want it to. Which I suppose has always been the case.

It is so convenient that Jesus who spoke in parables and even says he speaks in parables and his disciples say that Jesus speaks in parables---actually speaks in parables is some convenience to you?
I take what the bible says very seriously and try to learn what the bible actually means.

How about this, dumb as fuck atheists have to take things literally that are not meant to be taken literally to attack christianity because that is how fucking weak your dumb ass argument is.
Jesus told Peter not to cut the person laying hands on jesus to arrest him, but he is going to tell people to literally maim themselves?
If you look at where this occurs in the bible it is surrounded by Jesus giving parables.

And yes they did not have medical science like they do today, but back then they would blame sin on 1) your mind 2) your heart 3) satan/demons

All your arguments on Christianity are dumb as fuck and most educated christian apologists would agree with you on a lot of your points.

Any one who takes it as literally cut out your eye is a simpleton dumbfuck. period.

 

[TSO]

Question: "Can / Should we interpret the Bible as literal?"

Answer: Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally. This is the only way to determine what God really is trying to communicate to us. When we read any piece of literature, but especially the Bible, we must determine what the author intended to communicate. Many today will read a verse or passage of Scripture and then give their own definitions to the words, phrases, or paragraphs, ignoring the context and author

 

[Medusas Weave]

Ban Christianity.

Worked for the USSR.

 

[dontsnitch]

Although we take the Bible literally, there are still figures of speech within its pages. An example of a figure of speech would be that if someone said "it is raining cats and dogs outside...

I wonder if cutting off your hand or plucking out your eye is a figure of speech?

 

[5H3RD0G]

The bible has been changed so many times to favor certain folks. I would study history instead and judge the domino effect actions that have lead us to present time. :icon_chee Unfortunately history books have been altered to favor once again the same villains.

 

[TSO]

I wonder if cutting off your hand or plucking out your eye is a figure of speech?

Seeing as how it was common to do so at the time I'd say that is a literal part. Self mutilation has only been taboo for about a century and is making a comeback.

 

[The ScorpioN]

Worked for the USSR.

Along with banning gay marriage. Good thing the US moved away from that commie practice.

 

[TSO]

Worked for the USSR.

Revisionist history. Stalin commissioned over 25,000 Russian Orthodox churches at the same time our propaganda was declaring him an Atheist.

 

[The ScorpioN]

Revisionist history. Stalin commissioned over 25,000 Russian Orthodox churches at the same time our propaganda was declaring him an Atheist.

Had no clue about this, good post.

 

[dontsnitch]

Seeing as how it was common to do so at the time I'd say that is a literal part. Self mutilation has only been taboo for about a century and is making a comeback.

After a cursory search, I found many references from scholars that disagree with you. They claim that it's not meant to be literal, but an obvious exaggeration to show how important the point is.

No denomination has ever taken this literally, and it is noted that the mention of the right eye (and not the left) makes it clear it's figurative, as the left eye would also cause you to sin.

"Pluck it out ... It cannot be supposed that Christ intended this to be taken literally. His design was to teach that the dearest objects, if they cause us to sin, are to be abandoned; that by all sacrifices and self-denials we must overcome the evil propensities of our nature, and resist our wanton imaginations. Some of the fathers, however, took this commandment literally. " - Albert Barnes.

Here are some other references that explain it's figurative:

The Gospel According to Matthew: an Introduction and Commentary, by France.
The Gospel According to St. Matthew, by Alexander Jones.
The Gospel of Matthew: a commentary on the Greek text, by John Nolland.

 

[Zankou]

That's so convenient. Don't like what the bible tells you to do? Parable. Change the interpretation. Someone else does something you don't like? Bible's clearly against it. It says so literally right here.

I guess I'm just a Christian who thinks the divinity of Christ and the existence of god in general is a parable rather than something to be taken literally, since by this 'parable' rubric apparently the bible can mean anything you want it to. Which I suppose has always been the case.

Actually it very much has always been the case. The idea that there is a "Bible" in the sense of a text which has normative authority is a relatively late innovation ... particularly in Judaism (contrary to popular belief!).

Coincidentally, I am almost finished with this awesome new book, which I highly recommend for anyone interested in how the Bible became conceived as a holy book with normative authority. Modern scholarship sees this process as VERY different than most people think of it nowadays.

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Became-...=1439254920&sr=8-1&keywords=satlow+bible+holy

One of the more interesting parts is how little concept anybody had in Antiquity of a a religious text that had binding normative authority. This seems to us nowadays to so obviously be the intended meaning and function of a religious text that it's hard to even grasp how irrelevant and fanciful such an idea would have seemed in Antiquity ... where the primary significance of written scripture was seen as *oracular*, not normative.

Cliffs, the idea that the Bible was written with the intent to impose normative written Laws and imperative obligations on people, in a 'literal' sense, was not even conceptually coherent until very late. Essentially nobody ever understood the texts that way, including their composers.

 

[Medusas Weave]

Revisionist history. Stalin commissioned over 25,000 Russian Orthodox churches at the same time our propaganda was declaring him an Atheist.

How does this prove he was not an atheist?

I love it how atheists cannot accept their own. I love how atheists try to post what you did as proof of his christianity. sad.
Get smart. Get a better argument.

 

[Medusas Weave]

Cliffs, the idea that the Bible was written with the intent to impose normative written Laws and imperative obligations on people, in a 'literal' sense, was not even conceptually coherent until very late. Essentially nobody ever understood the texts that way, including their composers.

cliffs: one guy wrote some shit about the bible, just like many did, and for some reason we are to take his word over all others.

 

[Medusas Weave]

And just to continue on the eye thing not being literal and a parable
Lets look at the next line of that passage

"And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
"
Matthew 5:30

So, now is it easier to see that it was a parable?
Or are we really big fans of the movie
The Hand starring Michael Caine?

[YT]DTFCF4EqM14[/YT]

Uchi watches a trailer and thinks he saw the movie. He reads the blurb on the back jacket of a novel and does a book report on it.
He reads one sentence of the bible and thinks he can speak on its meaning.

lol, just pathetic. Hopefully he sorts out why he is so ashamed of himself and stops blaming it all on God being against him.

 

[H0nkey K0ng]

From the books I've read in the Old Testament (I haven't read them all yet), I came to the conclusion, that the strict statutes and commandments were necessary in order to keep purity within the tribes of Israel following their liberation from their more wicked opposition. I believe that the commandments kept getting reduced because they were impossible to be kept by the people as tribes continued to split and population continued to increase. There were hundreds of commandments before- Moses reduced them to 10- then Jesus brought them down to 2. If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate correction from those who know the book better than I. cue ripskater, TCK, and Medusas Weave

 

[Michaelangelo]

should've converted to islam

 

[dontsnitch]

From the books I've read in the Old Testament (I haven't read them all yet), I came to the conclusion, that the strict statutes and commandments were necessary in order to keep purity within the tribes of Israel following their liberation from their more wicked opposition. I believe that the commandments kept getting reduced because they were impossible to be kept by the people as tribes continued to split and population continued to increase. There were hundreds of commandments before- Moses reduced them to 10- then Jesus brought them down to 2. If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate correction from those who know the book better than I. cue ripskater, TCK, and Medusas Weave

Moses didn't reduce them to ten, the ten commandments can be seen as the core of the commands, but they were still under the rest of the law (seen in Exodus 20 - 25) which numbered over 600 in total.

 

[Zankou]

cliffs: one guy wrote some shit about the bible, just like many did, and for some reason we are to take his word over all others.

Well, he is an eminent expert in the field (professor at Brown), summarizing the best modern scholarship via book published by Yale press. So saying "one guy" wrote some shit is kind of like picking up a textbook on calculus and saying it involves "one guy" writing some shit about mathematics or something. Who is to say what's right or wrong, really? That's just your opinion.

Obviously religious studies is far more variable and contested than calculus, but that doesn't make religious history a bunch of completely indeterminate gibberish where nobody knows anything and anybody's word is just as informed and valid an observation as anybody else's.