What Parts of the Bible are Truthful?
In another post, Christiandom has come under blanket attack, because it’s clear our premises for belief are heterogeneous. I’d like to have a topical discussion about this, because blanket statements and incompatible cross-talk don’t do any good.
Christianity’s crucial (pun…intended 
work is The Bible, so I would like limit our discussion to just the book. Christiandom is too far varied, nuanced, and dynamic a topic for discussion, so I’d like to stick to what’s written, because it makes for more civil discourse.
I don’t wish for my own views to speak for the tenor of this site, so please read these assertions as if you were entering into an open discussion. I’m not going to cite each assertion. Simply comment or start Googling, if you wish to know why I might believe such heresies. I may very well change my opinion, if better evidence is brought to bear.
My view of The Bible:
Authenticity
- The Bible is a collection of different books, written by different authors, each having different theologies.
- The Bible does represent what the fourth century church found appropriate for belief; however, it does not represent a cohesive work and should not be thought of as simply The Bible when considering a moral topic addressed within its pages — even though I do this a lot, it is still wrong of me.
- Certain parts of the Bible may be regarded as historically sound inasmuch as any antique work is historically sound where they are impartial and/or aligned with contemporary sources.
- The Bible contains contradictory statements. Acknowledgement of this fact (unfortunately) brings me to opposition to not all but most American Christian beliefs.
- I personally regard most of the Bible as having been tampered with. Because the extent of tampering is unknown, it is best to treat most of the New Testament as good advice from some dude, but not as authentic, divine, or inerrant, any more than the sayings of Confucius or Emperor Aurelius. No, Bart Ehrman is not my only influence on this topic.
- In The New Testament, many pivotal books are composites of multiple and erratic sources. This wiki article is a good primer to why I would believe this — as with any wiki article, please research for yourself.
Prophesy
- Biblical prophesies clearly refer to events contemporary to authorship to make a contemporary impact.
Theology and Metaphysics
- Simply because a person calls himself a Christian, doesn’t mean he is to be held personally responsible for any crusade, inquisition, genocide, or Sarah Palin.
- The nature of God changes with each author of each book of The Bible.
- Many superstitious beliefs and practices were popularized orally and literally through external works. What talk of Heaven, Hell, angels, etc. there is in the Bible is about as good fiction as what J.R.R.Tolkien or C.S.Lewis would write; therefore, I’m into it, in the way I’m into Tolkien. There may indeed be seraphim, cherubim, arc-angels, powers, principalities, and darkness out there, but it’s not likely.
- Miracles still happen, even though I can’t figure out why.
- The theology of Christianity is incompatible with the theology of Moses, Samuel, or Elijah.
- Jesus considered The Son of Man to be someone other than himself.
- Jesus never expected to die for his religious leadership.
- The oldest codified copy Mark does not include human witness of Jesus’ resurrection. Worth reading for yourself.
Morality
- Mosaic law was likely borrowed from the Egyptians and is barbaric in a modern context; however, taken contemporaneously, Mosaic law was advanced and reasonable for the survival and advancement of a nomadic tribe.
- The morality of Christianity is incompatible with the morality of Moses, Joshua, or David.
- In the first century, the teachings of Jesus and Paul, and therefore Christianity, were radically feminist — yes, this is a good thing.
- In the first century, the teachings of Christianity were radically pacifist — also a good thing, unless you’re Roman, and you conquer the known world, because you’re a badass from a badass military culture.
I sincerely hope this does not offend anyone. If one of the above beliefs disagrees with your own beliefs, I want to know why you believe what you do, because it is important to me to know the truth about one of the most pivotal books in American culture.
Loading ...
Wow, this is a pretty meaty group of principles here. It seems like they are the result of a lot of thought and reading, which is totally rad. It really must have taken a lot of time. Being what I suppose people call a Deist, I guess I agree with all of these points except one. Seeing as how the exceptions make the intriguing talking points, I wanted to talk about that rather than just saying, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, yes, uh-huh” on each point. The part about miracles happening. I only say this since it’s the linchpin that I’m so curious about. It’s the evidential bridge between Deism and Theism that I’ve been looking for for a long time.
Since most discussions hit difficulties based on semantic differences, I guess we should start with an agreement on the term of a “miracle.” What would the definition be? A circumstance witnessed by someone that cannot be explained by current scientific knowledge? That would be the definition that I would put on it, but I think we already see the problem of equivocation in there — one word: ”current.” Here’s the problem that I see. If you take the word out, you get a definition for miracles that looks quite a lot like a lot of low-level apologetic garble, but the problem is that we can’t know what science will be able to explain in the future. It seems like we’d have to write the word “current” in there simply because we’re not psychic. For example, germ theory helped explain a lot of childbirth deaths that were happening for “unexplained reasons,” so any miracles tied in with that ignorance are now a little less miraculous. Abraham’s wife Sarah having spontaneous conception after she was thought of being barren comes to mind…
That point of contention could go on for a long time, but, in my opinion, it’s critical for approaching this topic. It isn’t a comprehensive criticism, though. What about people re-growing eyeballs, levitating in the air, or walking on the surface of water? These things aren’t unknowns, rather they’re things we know don’t occur naturally. So, seeing these things happen should rightly make us look towards a super-physical explanation, right? After eliminating a physical explanation, yes. If a psychic moves a piece of paper with his mind, you’d undoubtedly look around for a physical explanation before you called it a psychic miracle. That’s because, culturally, psychic explanations are considered ridiculous. What about miracle healers, then? Why, yes. That’s our cup of tea exactly. People won’t ridicule you when you say you know a miracle healer in the U.S. since a majority of the American population believes in them.
Wow, this is starting to get lengthy. I’ll cut it short. Basically, I think we should have a set of rules for understanding when something is a miracle or not (“miracle of childbirth” vs. “miraculously regrew an amputated limb”) Also, a miracle has a hefty connotation with it. It implies divine (not psychic, UFO, or some other thing) intervention, when the evidence only requires a non-physical explanation. No intention or source can really be attributed to it, only conjectured. Lastly, people are duped every day into seeing miracles. Just the ignorant, right? Negative. Smart people give millions to organizations based on something the scientific community is more often than not showing to be placebo effect, misinformation, distorted memory, groupthink, and common superstition. So am I against miracles? Oh hell no. I think there’s a great chance they exist, but I am consistently disappointed when I think I find one. I really, really, really would like to see one occur that isn’t an intentional hoax or a common cognitive error (that we reproduce in the laboratory literally every day across the world). Superstitious attribution is a POWERFUL effect. I can give you a stack of literature taller than I am that shows how crazy it is. In other words, people think miracles happen all the time. Almost all the time, they are wrong and will never know it. I do think miracles could (and hopefully do) happen, though. I just need to find one…
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
You are an awesome man Mr. Sage. That is a great post and I’m rereading it all right now as well as Jeremiah’s (who is also awesome, everyone is awesome, that’s math.).
I think Miracles can be summed up as supernatural interacting with the natural.
That’s a pretty basic explanation, I have my reasons.
I really just don’t think the word should or does apply to things that happen in nature. A tree falls down but the branches keep it from crushing someone. You narrowly miss a car when you slide out of control. A liver arrives in time for a transplant. Incredible? Yes. Miracle? No. I base this just off my understanding of the meaning of the word and reasoning out that if we wanted to talk about that stuff we’d be using other words. Pretty basic, Jeremiah really laid it out super well, I’m on board with everything he explained in this avenue.
Now, I’m not assuming supernatural with this explanation except I am. For there to be miracles there must be supernatural, so if we discuss the possibility of miracles the possibility of supernatural has to be included. The definition of miracles assumes the existence of a natural order of things and a supernature apart from natural nature (poor word choice but I think it makes sense).
Fake miracles are too prevalent to make this discussion very easy. When you ask someone to find you a tomato you don’t mean for them to grab a soupy, rotten one that’s mostly purple off the floor of a grocery store bathroom and bring it back to you. You expect a ripe, bright red tomato that begs for you to eat it and be happy you did. So, crappy rotten tomato isn’t a ‘tomato’ to you in the way you meant ‘tomato’. Fake miracles aren’t ‘miracles’ in the way we mean ‘miracles’. Like how Gold and Fool’s Gold have different names, pyrite, we should do away with referring to both Miracles and Fake Miracles as such, I don’t know a good idea for that, but I really do want to make sure the fakes don’t clog up our conversation about whether or not there are real ones.
I think anything we see is bound by our sense which cannot always be accurate. So how do we know when the supernatural has interacted with the natural? In what way can we measure the interaction? How would we know it when we see it? Most importantly, because I think we really can answer this with enough thought and talk; are miracles at all possible?
I’m really looking forward to this. I think we are really tied into this question of miracles. Brian’s unique experience and insight, Jeremiah’s hunt for it, and so on. My bias is that they do exist and we just don’t perceive them accurately. My philosophical hypothesis is that miracles do exist. Now… to learn why that would be right?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. I’m so happy we’re diving into a great subject like this.
2. I ALMOST spit out my dinner when I read Super B’s inclusion of Sarah Palin in his list of atrocities committed in the name of Christianity!!
3. I have even less expectation than JB of miracles, in the sense that he explains them. In a poetic, artistic way, yes. Childbirth is a miracle. True love is a miracle. Etc. But divine intervention (I think) is wishful thinking–a way of explaining circumstances that are difficult to understand. (Brian, I know you have personal experience with healing, and I don’t discount that at all–I’m grateful that it happened. I simply don’t believe “thus saith the Lord” made it happen).
4. I agree that the Bible, and other religious texts, can be a good read. I’m convinced that these scriptures tell us way more about humankind/human nature than they do about a Divine Being. In that sense, I’m fascinated by religions because I feel a connection to men and women from eons past that were trying to figure out what the heck we’re doing here and why, and how did it all start, etc. On the other hand, there’s a lot of good fiction out there that will cause a reader to examine his motives, rethink his life, turn over a new leaf. It’s the power of the STORY.
5. Brian, I love that you point out that Jesus’ morality and theology are incompatible with the big OT patriarchs. I’ve heard endless hours of sermons trying to make that all work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OK, so–miracles.
Those of you who believe you have experienced miracles: please list some examples, with details about why you think it was supernatural intervention rather than something else.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0