The Bible and Love and Christians

[frogboy4]

The thing is, Jesus wasn't the only one who seemed to be single. John the Baptist was a loner and considered very much a wierdo in his community, yet at the same time he was respected by many as a prophet. So I don't think it's out of the question that Jesus would have been looked upon in the same way as outside of the norm and devoting himself entirely to God.

The Bible in its current form went through much editing over the years. People probably did view his single status as odd, but not everything made it into the final Bible. Ultimately there's more important things to cover. The Bible is not meant to be Jesus' biography with all the People magazine details. It's primarily a record of his teachings.



If it was found to be true, I'd have no problem with it. But at the moment I reject it because it's purely conspiracy theory with no real evidence, that's all.

You said it right there. John the Baptist was single and considered a weirdo. Why wasn't the same said for Jesus? It all comes down to the concept of his virginity, potential procreation and subsequent lineage. Respectfully of course, all of this just seems like convenient explanation for something that's supposed to be perfect therefore I reject all of it except for the general, universal theme of renewal of one's life. Jesus is human in these ways, but not others. The Bible is perfect, but some things can be misconstrued, seen as ambiguous or omitted. Still, I can't believe in an actual virgin birth in the first place so anything else stemming from that doesn't make sense to me. It's just that there are so many areas of the Bible where it doesn't seem to abide by its own logic or has Swiss cheese holes missing in said logic. Personally, I view Jesus as an historical figure and one that probably had a wife and kids that just didn't make the cut when it came to writing about his life.

 

[CensoredAlso]

You said it right there. John the Baptist was single and considered a weirdo. Why wasn't the same said for Jesus?

I already addressed that though. The same might very well have been said for Jesus. But The Bible is not a play by play of Jesus' life, it's just a collection of various stories.

The Bible is perfect, but some things can be misconstrued, seen as ambiguous or omitted.

I've actually never thought the Bible was perfect. Of course there are inconsistencies. I read it to learn about morality, not to get a history lesson. Plus if you reject something simply because it's not perfect, you'll soon find yourself rejecting everything.

Personally, I view Jesus as an historical figure and one that probably had a wife and kids that just didn't make the cut when it came to writing about his life.

It's possible, but like I say, the evidence for it at the moment is about the same as the evidence for Big Foot.

 

[frogboy4]

I already addressed that though. The same might very well have been said for Jesus. But The Bible is not a play by play of Jesus' life, it's just a collection of various stories.



I've actually never thought the Bible was perfect. Of course there are inconsistencies. I read it to learn about morality, not to get a history lesson. Plus if you reject something simply because it's not perfect, you'll soon find yourself rejecting everything.




It's possible, but like I say, the evidence for it at the moment is about the same as the evidence for Big Foot.

I only reject the Bible because it's not perfect and it's supposed to be divinely inspired. That is the reason I don't think it should have so many holes or inconsistencies. The leap of faith should lie elsewhere. In fact, it should be in one particular place. Personally, I see the Bible not only as imperfect but as a great big mess. I'm already enough of a mess so my spiritual search has led me elsewhere.

The broad stroke of renewal, *some* of the basic morals and a few of the interesting stories are what give the Bible its value to me. I keep that, but the rest is bathwater and tossed out as such.

 

[CensoredAlso]

I only reject the Bible because it's not perfect and it's supposed to be divinely inspired. That is the reason I don't think it should have so many holes or inconsistencies.

Yeah but why does divinely inspired have to equal perfect? The way I see it, God reveals himself to people in a real, imperfect, messy world. He doesn't force the world into perfection just so we can perceive him.

Are you saying you personally need some kind of perfection in spirituality? Just asking. : )

The broad stroke of renewal, *some* of the basic morals and a few of the interesting stories are what give the Bible its value to me. I keep that, but the rest is bathwater and tossed out as such.

Well don't you think there are practicing Christians who are able to toss the bathwater out and yet still remain practicing Christians? I know several myself, lol.

 

[frogboy4]

Yeah but why does divinely inspired have to equal perfect? The way I see it, God reveals himself to people in a real, imperfect, messy world. He doesn't force the world into perfection just so we can perceive him.

Are you saying you personally need some kind of perfection in spirituality? Just asking. : )



Well don't you think there are practicing Christians who are able to toss the bathwater out and yet still remain practicing Christians? I know several myself, lol.

No, I'm saying that the Bible (i.e. the word of God) should be perfect. I mean no more and no less than exactly what I said. If the scripture is a road map and that map is incomplete or flawed then I think there's a big problem. Christians can decide to overlook that, but I can't. I used find myself making all sorts of rationalizations for Biblical inconsistencies. It makes sense to some people and I can respect that, but it never really did for me.

I believe that Jesus was a real historical figure who reformed modern religion through leading by example therefore making him the bridge between God and man. I don't believe in virgin birth, wild miracles or actual literal resurrection. I do believe that Jesus likely did assume many of the appropriate customs like marriage and procreation. I also feel that many people who claim to follow him understand his message less than many non-believers. That's seen in how they treat others. I'm not saying most or all and I'm certainly not adding you to that list, of course. We disagree a lot on these details and dogma, but not the fundamental message.

I always find it strange how both main political parties claim Jesus as their own. To me it comes down to caring for the needy. Democrats suck at helping the poor because they keep throwing money at a broken system. Republicans want to cut all programs and leave funding to communities and the private sector that can't and won't ever do enough. Then we have the Libertarians who don't care about anyone but their own self-interest. So personally I side with the Democrats (yes I'm an Obama Boy even though I do find fault in some of his politics), but don't see Jesus in either party. One thing's for certain - he sure as heck isn't a Libertarian!

 

[CensoredAlso]

No, I'm saying that the Bible (i.e. the word of God) should be perfect. I used find myself making all sorts of rationalizations for Biblical inconsistencies. It makes sense to some people and I can respect that, but it never really did for me.

I think in its own way, it is perfect. I don't see it as rationalizing. I see it as recogizing that the Bible was written by human beings and will have some inconsistencies. That doesn't mean it's not what God intended. I think God operates in our world, which is imperfect.

About the only thing the Star Wars prequels got right: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." As a Christian, I don't want to consider the Bible just to be "perfect." God wants us to learn over time and use our heads.

I don't believe in virgin birth, wild miracles or actual literal resurrection.

Well I do agree the morality lessons are ten times more important than the miracle stories. Though some of the miracle stories are simply metaphors to aid the morality tales.

To me it comes down to caring for the needy. Democrats suck at helping the poor because they keep throwing money at a broken system. Republicans want to cut all programs and leave funding to communities and the private sector that can't and won't ever do enough.

Yeah that pretty much sums it up, lol.

So personally I side with the Democrats (yes I'm an Obama Boy even though I do find fault in some of his politics), but don't see Jesus in either party.

I can't side with either of them at this point; there's too much corruption in both parties, they're useless.

I think Jesus was a liberal and Jesus was a conservative. In the end, you need both. I'd be terrified if either ideology got complete control of the country, heh.

 

[frogboy4]

I think in its own way, it is perfect. I don't see it as rationalizing. I see it as recogizing that the Bible was written by human beings and will have some inconsistencies. That doesn't mean it's not what God intended. I think God operates in our world, which is imperfect.

About the only thing the Star Wars prequels got right: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." As a Christian, I don't want to consider the Bible just to be "perfect." God wants us to learn over time and use our heads.



Well I do agree the morality lessons are ten times more important than the miracle stories. Though some of the miracle stories are simply metaphors to aid the morality tales.

I can agree with you about the danger of absolutes. I've been taught by several denominations and the one point where they all agree is that a believer can't pick and choose and re-frame scripture based on their own personal impressions. The idea is that the Bible was written by man, but divinely inspired by God so it's precisely what He wants us to know - no more and no less - - every "i" dotted, every "t" crossed. That's the heart of why I don't like that or any religion. Some Christians are more thoughtful, but I know that the main denominations, including Catholicism, aren't supposed to believe in a buffet Bible either. It's supposed to be as-is or nothing and that's why people must study the Bible in order to make sense of all of the difficult portions rather than dismiss any of it as defunct artifacts of a different age.

 

[CensoredAlso]

but I know that the main denominations, including Catholicism, aren't supposed to believe in a buffet Bible either. It's supposed to be as-is or nothing and that's why people must study the Bible in order to make sense of all of the difficult portions rather than dismiss any of it as defunct artifacts of a different age.

I have to disagree with that somewhat. I went to Catholic school my whole life and we were always taught evolution, even though it obviously contradicted the Bible. And in High School they told us about "Tradition" which means our understanding of the faith can evolve over time, despite what the Bible says. And my own Religion textbook discussed the sexist attitudes in the Bible!

I'm not saying you haven't encountered an "all or nothing" attitude. Just saying my own experience was different.

 

[frogboy4]

I have to disagree with that somewhat. I went to Catholic school my whole life and we were always taught evolution, even though it obviously contradicted the Bible. And in High School they told us about "Tradition" which means our understanding of the faith can evolve over time, despite what the Bible says.

Portions of evolution do fit into Genesis - the order of things. Fish and foul coming first etc. It's when man comes along that things become complicated. I don't think the Catholic Church endorses the idea that man and ape shared a common ancestor. That sounds remarkably progressive for the Vatican to approve. The tradition thing I get. While I agree with how you must manage the scripture to make sense of it, I still stand by my statement that the leadership of the main Christian denominations do not endorse that practice.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Portions of evolution do fit into Genesis - the order of things. Fish and foul coming first etc.

Heh, I actually hadn't really thought about that before! Again, it's incredible how people were making these connections as early as the first century!

I don't think the Catholic Church endorses the idea that man and ape shared a common ancestor. That sounds remarkably progressive for the Vatican to approve.

Actually I wondered about this too and this is what I found:

The Telegraph, April 28, 2011: The Vatican Claims Darwin's Theory of Evolution is Compatible with Christianity

"Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said while the Church had been hostile to Darwin's theory in the past, the idea of evolution could be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas.

Monsignor Ravasi said Darwin's theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, pointing to comments more than 50 years ago, when Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...volution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html

That does explain why my school was allowed to teach evolution. Plus, my father says he was taught evolution in Catholic school even in the 1960's! Technically the Church never really outlawed it.