Okay, so which ideas from the Bible do we ascribe to ancient tribal societies and disregard and which to we cling to? This is my point. It's not the interpretation I don't understand: it's the selective interpretation. First of all, I'm not obsessed: I'm merely asking questions. The answer provided just seem to lead to more questions. I promise, I really am reading what you and FB are putting forth. I'm just finding it difficult to assimilate it. And the details do matter. For example: was Mary really a virgin? That's a small detail. If she wasn't does it change what Jesus did in the Bible? No. Does it change his message? No. Does it make the crucifixion story any less meaningful to Christians? No. But is it a detail that the Christian church has turned into a very, very big deal? Yes. And if, for example, the Roman Catholic church were to come out tomorrow and say, "Hey, you know what: we goofed the translation. She wasn't a virgin after all. Our bad! But hey: Jesus was still the Messiah, and everything else is accurate. We cool!", people would be up in arms. There would be riots (literally) in some cities. I would wager many people would begin to question what they were taught was truth, with many deciding to leave the church. When the details become bigger than the message within the church, it's disconcerting. Who said I'm not a believer? (see link here) I'm just a guy seeking answers. And, btw, I'm not saying you're wrong to believe what you believe, or that you don't believe it sincerely and wholeheartedly. But I don't think it's arrogance to say that the beliefs you and FB are espousing go against traditional Christian dogma. And my point remains: if following Christ's central message to love one another makes you Christian, does that mean atheists who love their fellow man are Christian? No, it doesn't. To be a Christian, you need to believe in more than just the message: you need to believe in the messenger (Jesus). And what is the source of information about Jesus? The Bible. A source that, I think we can all agree, has to be taken with a very large pillar of salt (sorry, Old Testament joke).
But as an example if in the culture of people reading the story of Mary virgin meant anyone less than 16 years old who wasn't a widow then it might make a difference. I'm not saying that's the case in the virgin birth story. But something similar is often the case when the bible talks about hell. Most of the time it means a literal garbage dump that burned near where Jesus was active. That's not how many people use it now. They see it as a place down below that burns all the time where souls go to burn forever. But that kind of place often isn't what Jesus was talking about when he mentioned hell. He meant the garbage dump and burning refuse piles outside of town where he was talking to people. It was called Gehenna. That word was used often in the bible and translated as the word hell. Other times there are different words used in the bible that are translated as hell. So it changes what people think of when the bible talks about hell based on someone who was hearing it at the time it was written and knew very well about the dump, and burning piles of refuse because they'd probably seen it, and someone who reads the word hell today and associates it with all the images that are now part of our colloquial of a deep dark place of eternal fire and brimstone. That isn't selective interpretation really, it's two different interpretations based on what kind of context and study you are coming to the biblical stories with. So again you can look at Zoroaster and see that there was a virgin birth in that religion as well. It isn't absurd to think that the device of virgin birth was a common technique that religious storytellers might have used, and that people who were hearing those stories might take as poetic license, or to be expected. It is certainly a question to be looked at whether that's actually the case or not. But it doesn't make the story any less because of that context. And because someone brings that context to their reading and understanding of the story, it doesn't mean they are being selective and tossing out parts they don't like.
do you sincerely want my answers to these questions or is this really about setting up some sort of "gotcha" counter-argument?
How about the practice of genital mutilation? "Look at this beautiful baby, now let me go grab this sharp stone..." God obviously couldn't want this to be a part of us...
"You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour." My house, my wife, my slaves, my ox and my donkey. Gee, thanks for that God... So we can't interpret any of the bible literally? Well, obviously. That's because it is full of bull****. "Picking diamonds from dunghills"
Because it was written in parable. Of course, with your obvious intellect, you probably have no concept of what parable even is, so I won't waste the bandwidth trying to explain it to you. Maybe it is you, rather than the Bible, that is full of bull****.
Parable? That is how you explain the obvious degradation of women in the bible? Shame on you for saying that. Disgusting.
Parable, like all other kind of writing, is written in context to the time period in which it was written. 2,000 years ago, slavery and degradation of women was common of all civilizations. It is only the small minded that cannot read something in the context of time and society to take something else away from it. Disgusting (see, I can do it too). I am now finished with trying to educate those who lack the ability of learning or objective thought. It must be very liberating to see only the surface of any material and to be without the shackles of critical thought or analysis.
You might think that God would have an understanding of what is moral, regardless of the time period. Slavery, sexism, homophobia... Has god changed his mind with the times? No one is debating the value of the bible as a book written by man, (Even though it is rather shoddily put together, and near all intellectual scholars would agree with that, including founding father Thomas Jefferson)
A. As a historical text, the bible is poorly composed, and ignorant with the times. B. As the word of god, the bible is downright immoral and backwards. Take your pick big guy. (Many, far more intellectual than yourself, have stated the same) For a text that claims to be the word of god, heavy scrutiny is advised. I can take something from the three little pigs too. Hoorah...
You seem to also be confusing the Old Testament with the New Testament. Not to mention the fact that nobody claims that the Bible was written by God, but by man. That is kind of a basic concept to understand.
If you're going to take that route then how can you believe that anything written in any bible is legitimately the word of god? They were all written by man, weren't they?
a prayer can be like contributing to universal collective consciousness, IMO. I prayed recently for a mother who lost her teenage son. I haven't ever prayed in my life before that as far as I know. I was just putting it out there, that maybe she will get some comfort soon. it doesn't have to be about God. I have noticed some angry and bitter atheists/agnostics lately since I discovered what I now know as God. (Universal Love and Compassion) each person's path in life, and faith journey if they wish to call it that, is their own. why put so much energy into hating something when you can put the same energy into a positive thought for someone else on the planet?
there is no hate or animosity against the loving intent. the animosity is against irrational belief... the notion that somebody thinks saying "jesus, please be with jenny's family" is going to change the situation.
I too, would enjoy an answer to this. (God only wrote the parts that make sense into today's society, I would wager)
