for theists: Should your religious text be interpreted literally?

48 posts / 0 new

Sat, 07/16/2016 - 14:15

Deidre32

I was told I shouldn't be in this section, but...just answering this quickly. lol The Bible doesn't recommend to kill homosexuals. Not in the new covenant. Not after Jesus made that covenant. There are many confusing passages in the Bible, but upon coming back to faith,it is plain that we should love one another, and not condemn anyone, not harm anyone, not kill anyone. I also believed this as an atheist of course, but Christianity is a misunderstood faith most likely because of the problems within the OT. Sometimes I wonder if those were mere interpretations of men back then.

Sat, 07/16/2016 - 23:18

(Reply to #32) #33

charvakheresy

Sorry could you reference

Sorry could you reference where in the new testament it is written that homosexuals are normal and it is not wrong.

And an omniscient God exists why the hell did he not know that homosexuality was normal before "Jesus made a new covenant with him."

In fact what I have read of the bible is that
1 - Jesus instructs his followers to observe the old testament.
2 - the old testament asks for the stoning of Homosexuals.
3 - There is no passage to the contrary of these, none whatsoever affording the homosexuals with normal human rights or affirming it to be a natural act.

Sat, 07/16/2016 - 23:39

(Reply to #33) #34

Nyarlathotep

Deidre - "Christianity is a

Deidre - "Christianity is a misunderstood faith most likely because of the problems within the OT. Sometimes I wonder if those were mere interpretations of men back then."

It is an interesting idea, but as Charvak eluded to, the character Jesus did not repudiate these old laws, instead he doubled down on them, many times. This seems to put the New Testament into as much doubt as the old, and maybe that is OK; maybe this isn't a serious problem for your particular religious views. You seem like a pretty well grounded person; I've know many Christians that think of the bible as an ancient (but flawed) guidebook.

Sun, 07/17/2016 - 11:15

(Reply to #34) #35

ThePragmatic

@ Deidre

"I was told I shouldn't be in this section, but..."

This is the Debate Room, everyone is allowed here.
And when you did post in the "wrong" section, it was the website that failed in allowing you, not your wrong doing. Most likely because you were listed as an atheist from the beginning.

"Christianity is a misunderstood faith most likely because of the problems within the OT."

That would probably be questioned by a lot of hardcore Christians. However, if all Christians lived by the teachings of Jesus alone and threw out the OT, it would be a gigantic improvement. I only wish the teachings of Jesus would have explicitly reversed the view on homosexuals from the OT, and that it had abolished slavery.

Mon, 07/18/2016 - 04:39

(Reply to #35) #36

chimp3

Deidre: "lol The Bible doesn

Deidre: "lol The Bible doesn't recommend to kill homosexuals. Not in the new covenant. Not after Jesus made that covenant."

'If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13) "

I don't give a shit about the New Covenant. The God is the same God. He is still a god that at one time advocated killing homosexuals and "witches' ( no such thing) , sexual slavery of women , genocide, and murdering "fornicators" (Phineas) The New Testament consistently uses scripture and reference to the Old Testament as validation for the Jesus myth. Sorry my friend but you are stuck with that damned book as a whole.

Sun, 07/10/2016 - 19:52

#37

CompelledUnbeliever

Scholars are in agreement

Scholars are in agreement that we should try our best to interpret them according to the authors intent. Ancient authors/historians thought much differently than we moderns. We are inherently literalist. They were concerned with the lesson to be learned in a story there was no other purpose for telling it if there was no benefit in its hearing. The actual historical details were relatively UNIMPORTANT. Propaganda and learning were the actual motives for authorship. We now value perfect chronological accounts. If we do not take this into consideration we can not possibly begin to understand ancient text.

Sun, 07/10/2016 - 20:04

(Reply to #37) #38

Sir Random

But is it not better to

But is it not better to understand it's meaning in today's context, so as to understand why we should hasten religions demise in all ways BUT starting mass genocide or war. Or am I showing too much of my Anti-Theist side?

Sun, 07/17/2016 - 14:25

(Reply to #38) #39

mykcob4

Bullshit. I have talked to

Bullshit. I have talked to experts in theology, many in fact. All of them to a man say that the bible is NOT to be taken literally. I do agree that it was intended for a purpose but nit actually lesson, unless that lesson is to obey without question.

Sun, 07/10/2016 - 20:30

#40

CompelledUnbeliever

Sir Random I must clarify

Sir Random I must clarify myself I do not know that the bible applies to today in any context physiological or otherwise. We must simply read it with an understanding of the authors perspective as opposed reading into it our modern understanding of what we think they thought.

Sun, 07/10/2016 - 20:30

#41

CompelledUnbeliever

Sir Random I must clarify

Sun, 07/10/2016 - 20:34

(Reply to #41) #42

Sir Random

Yes, it seems I must clarify

Yes, it seems I must clarify myself as well. I wasn't saying you were wrong. I was merely saying that the fact that it doesn't apply to today should show that religion is no longer needed, and is actually detrimental due to its aged doctrine. Forgive me for my miswording.

Mon, 07/11/2016 - 10:32

(Reply to #42) #43

Dave Matson

I completely agree! The

I completely agree! The creation account of Genesis I, for example, was never merely a primitive account to factually explain the cosmos. God's creation of the stars, for example, may be a way of establishing God's dominance over things that might be worshiped in their own right as well as accounting for their origin. The waters that God moves over at the start are more than just water. It is a sanitized piece of a common theme in the ancient Middle East, that of an initial titanic fight between the creator god and the forces of chaos as represented by the primeval waters and dragons. In Genesis that theme is sanitized, but elsewhere in the Bible we see some of that battle. A lot of God's creating is actually imposing order on chaos. Some scholars see a formula that is being followed. Even so, I suspect that the ancients invested a kind of literal truth in most of these stories.

Sun, 07/10/2016 - 20:40

#44

CompelledUnbeliever

On the spot!

Sun, 07/10/2016 - 20:47

(Reply to #44) #45

Sir Random

I do wonder if you've

I do wonder if you've realized the age of the person your converting with yet. I fear my intellect may have mislead you in that regard, but I can't be certain.

Sun, 07/10/2016 - 20:49

#46

Sir Random

And please understand I'm not

And please understand I'm not trying to brag when I say that.

Sun, 07/10/2016 - 21:58

#47

CompelledUnbeliever

Send me an e-mail

Sun, 07/10/2016 - 21:58

#48

CompelledUnbeliever

Send me an e-mail

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.

You are here

Pages