12-14-2009, 10:21 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-14-2009, 11:09 AM by Questioner.)
Lynette, as I woke up this morning I found myself thinking about your discussion and about what it means to "believe in the Bible."
It's impossible to "believe in the Bible" using conscious thought. The Bible is a collection of books from dozens of authors, editors, and compilers, spanning thousands of years and describing events spanning thousands of miles. As a collection, it's full of contradictions about just about every topic or theme it addresses. In particular it's contradictory about not just what the characters did, which makes sense given the range of locations, times and cultures involved. It's also contradictory about the nature of God and about human nature, which doesn't make sense given the Bible's repeated proclamations of God's consistency.
Humanity had to be destroyed, with only one family saved for a second chance. Humanity had to be warned, but even five good men would save a city. Humanity is worth warning, to the extent of making the warner suffer humiliation and terrible pain in a sea monster. Humanity is worth saving, to the extent of proactively separating and destroying a portion of God in order to offer salvation to every person. Which of these is the Bible's consistent point of view of a consistent God?
We can find the same types of contradictions about leadership, women, authority, faith, works, government, wealth, community, prayer, sacrifice, and many other themes. One can find a collection of material from the Bible, completely in context, to support genocide, incest, murder, rape, slavery, misogyny, child sacrifice, adultery, political "regime change" through violence, and countless other events as tolerated by God or even outright commanded by God. Most people today who "believe in the Bible" somehow dismiss those parts as not relevant to their lives today!
Julian Jaynes explained that much of the Bible was written without the use of rational thought as we are aware of it today. To get through many of the Bible's stories without stopping every few sentences - because it stops making sense - one has to enter a trance-like state.
I think that the primary appeal of the Bible today is for the entry into that trance-like state. This is a state in which one accepts being told what to believe, and gets to feel certain that salvation will come without the need for any work by the rational mind. It's right that salvation doesn't come through cleverness. But it's wrong that in giving up the ego's claims one has no choice but to substitute inconsistent trance channeling from thousands of years ago, selectively edited for religious and political propaganda purposes after additional hundreds or thousands of years. In a culture with such rampant disrespect for the spiritual or intuitive side of life, there are few other socially respectable ways to shut off conscious mind and reach out for spiritual truth. There are few other opportunities to try to discern truth outside the limits of the ego's grasping for proven answers.
The Bible is fairly consistent in its description of the love of the Savior. Even there one has to pick and choose which of the contradictory passages one accepts and which one sets aside.
If the answer is given that one just has to choose to believe by faith, then what reason is there to insist that others must have the same faith, rather than their choice of faith in Dawkins, Buddha, Krishna, Mohamed, Descartes, Kant, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Jim Jones, Laura Knight... or Ra? At that point one's down to this claim: "What I feel is right for me has to be what you feel is right for you." I don't mind people saying that, as long as they don't try to convince me that the claim is backed up by anything rational or consistent.
Well, I'm not sure if there is anything here helpful for you and your Mom. It is just some perceptions I have today regarding the whole topic of faith and the Bible.
It's impossible to "believe in the Bible" using conscious thought. The Bible is a collection of books from dozens of authors, editors, and compilers, spanning thousands of years and describing events spanning thousands of miles. As a collection, it's full of contradictions about just about every topic or theme it addresses. In particular it's contradictory about not just what the characters did, which makes sense given the range of locations, times and cultures involved. It's also contradictory about the nature of God and about human nature, which doesn't make sense given the Bible's repeated proclamations of God's consistency.
Humanity had to be destroyed, with only one family saved for a second chance. Humanity had to be warned, but even five good men would save a city. Humanity is worth warning, to the extent of making the warner suffer humiliation and terrible pain in a sea monster. Humanity is worth saving, to the extent of proactively separating and destroying a portion of God in order to offer salvation to every person. Which of these is the Bible's consistent point of view of a consistent God?
We can find the same types of contradictions about leadership, women, authority, faith, works, government, wealth, community, prayer, sacrifice, and many other themes. One can find a collection of material from the Bible, completely in context, to support genocide, incest, murder, rape, slavery, misogyny, child sacrifice, adultery, political "regime change" through violence, and countless other events as tolerated by God or even outright commanded by God. Most people today who "believe in the Bible" somehow dismiss those parts as not relevant to their lives today!
Julian Jaynes explained that much of the Bible was written without the use of rational thought as we are aware of it today. To get through many of the Bible's stories without stopping every few sentences - because it stops making sense - one has to enter a trance-like state.
I think that the primary appeal of the Bible today is for the entry into that trance-like state. This is a state in which one accepts being told what to believe, and gets to feel certain that salvation will come without the need for any work by the rational mind. It's right that salvation doesn't come through cleverness. But it's wrong that in giving up the ego's claims one has no choice but to substitute inconsistent trance channeling from thousands of years ago, selectively edited for religious and political propaganda purposes after additional hundreds or thousands of years. In a culture with such rampant disrespect for the spiritual or intuitive side of life, there are few other socially respectable ways to shut off conscious mind and reach out for spiritual truth. There are few other opportunities to try to discern truth outside the limits of the ego's grasping for proven answers.
The Bible is fairly consistent in its description of the love of the Savior. Even there one has to pick and choose which of the contradictory passages one accepts and which one sets aside.
If the answer is given that one just has to choose to believe by faith, then what reason is there to insist that others must have the same faith, rather than their choice of faith in Dawkins, Buddha, Krishna, Mohamed, Descartes, Kant, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Jim Jones, Laura Knight... or Ra? At that point one's down to this claim: "What I feel is right for me has to be what you feel is right for you." I don't mind people saying that, as long as they don't try to convince me that the claim is backed up by anything rational or consistent.
Well, I'm not sure if there is anything here helpful for you and your Mom. It is just some perceptions I have today regarding the whole topic of faith and the Bible.