MadMax already talked about this. Again, it isn't about picking and choosing. Unless you want to pick and choose the parts that without context and not focusing on the overall message might seem objectionable. Yes, I agree they do, and I could only wish that serious study would follow, and hope they continue to study in order to get more out of the bible. As I said before, I disagree with those people, and agree with the atheists and others that disagree with that kind of belief. Likewise, it doesn't mean that all Christians have that belief, and it doesn't mean that those who don't have the belief that the bible is literal fact are only picking and choosing the parts of the bible that they agree with. You keep making that claim and yet ignoring any kind of context that you have been provided time and time again, which might explain a more complete way to look at the bible and its stories than the fundamental interpretation that you are latching on to. It seems to me that the whole bible as literal unerring word of God is a more narrow way of looking at the bible and provides a person with much less meaning and content. If I thought that was what Christianity was I wouldn't be a Christian either. So seeing that is how you look at the bible, I don't blame you at all for not being a Christian if indeed you aren't.
As always, a thoughtful post, enjoyable to read. While I'm not a believer, I'm glad Christians like you and Max are around. My experience is that those like you far outnumber the "crazies" out there who are fundamentalist to an extreme. Sadly, the extremists get all the attention.
How much of the bible is the "word of god" in your opinion? Do you derive your morals from the bible?
In context, I fail to see how Abraham correlates to "human sacrifice to god is never approprate"... I would like to see some more information/evidence on this point of view, though...
I am prepared to let you step back and view the bible under historical context. That is just dandy. That does make the supposed "word of god" a bit flimsy though doesn't it? As a historical document, well, all I will say is that morals would probably be better derived somewhere else. Obviously. If you take the bible literally, you are left with an empty sack. If you take a step back and view the bible from a historical perspective, you are left with an empty sack that might have been filled better by reading Confucius, etc. If you were born in India or Iran, I dare say you might think differently... Likely, you are Christian because of your parents. Likely, Christianity was shoved down your ancestor's throats by bloody force.
Your "empty sack." Honestly, could you be more judgemental? You should step back, read your post again, and look at how "superior" and egotistical you sound. I thought you were better than that.
That's funny. "You keep making that claim and yet ignoring any kind of context that you have been provided time and time again, which might explain a more complete way to look at the bible and its stories than the fundamental interpretation that you are latching on to. It seems to me that the whole bible as literal unerring word of God is a more narrow way of looking at the bible and provides a person with much less meaning and content. If I thought that was what Christianity was I wouldn't be a Christian either. So seeing that is how you look at the bible, I don't blame you at all for not being a Christian if indeed you aren't." I thought the same when I read this statement. Forgive me for being offended...
I'm not sure what you mean by "word of God". I said that I didn't think the bible was the unerring word of God, and that it was written by man. It expresses many ideas about God, and what God is, and how to follow God's will. Using historical context doesn't make anything more flimsy, it only gives someone a better idea of how to look at the book and add meaning to it. It also doesn't make it a historical document. There are some historical things in the bible, but it was never meant to be a historical document, again I believe someone would be missing the point if that's how they looked at it. If you read the bible with historical context you might also read Confucius. But I disagree you are left with an empty sack. I don't believe you should read the bible to learn history, but I believe you should learn the history in order to better read the bible. I'm not sure what that has to do with any of the kind of context and study I was talking about. Like I said if I looked at the bible like you do and resented context and study when looking at the bible, like you seem to resent it, then I wouldn't be a Christian either. I'm sorry for whatever it is that caused you have the bitterness towards it all and the view you do. You seem to ignore any amount of context, cultural and historical study that might enlighten a person's view of the bible. That's entirely up to you, but it seems odd that you feel bitter when others look at it differently than you.
That's not my experience. Perhaps you need a patch? <iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ck4uqAtK07M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I'm sorry you were offended. That wasn't my intent, and I even tried to sympathize when I said that if I had the same of looking at the bible that you do, that I wouldn't be Christian either. But time and time again in this thread historical context, and cultural study surrounding the bible were provided, and you've ignored it, or felt that somehow it lessened the bible when I feel that it only adds a great deal more. I wish there was much more of it that I knew and was able to bring to the table when reading the bible. The fact that I don't see the bible as the literal unerring word of God I would think would be something we both agree on. I just don't stop there, but try to bring study, historical, and cultural context to the mix when I read the bible so that I might try and have more understanding. Like, with the statement that offended you, I'm only sharing my experience. I'm not saying you have to have the same experience I do. But I'm trying to share how I see the bible, and why I look at it that way. I definitely don't feel you or anyone else has to do any of it the same way.
Thanks, I appreciate that. I rarely participate in these kinds of thread, but I figured I'd give it a shot this time. You are right the crazies get too much attention, and that is too bad. I have such trouble relating to where they are coming from and understanding them. Yet they get the same religious label I have. Oh well, not much to be done about that. While 3814 and I don't agree on everything, it's cool that we've been able to talk and I think without either of us taking any real offense, or at least clearing up whatever offense there was.
well google it and go read. if you're serious about finding an answer from a biblical scholar, Clutchfans probably isn't the spot. read about how ancient Jewish scholars saw it. human sacrifice...or lack thereof...was something that distinguished the Jews from other faith groups. they pointed back to this story to remind them that God didn't call for the spilling of human blood in sacrifice. that there was the substitution of the ram for the human...the Jews saw this as a bit of moral superiority, frankly, over the cultures that surrounded them.
Came across this article today and felt it fit in this thread. It isn't specifically about "prayer" but does touch on things discussed in this thread: Heal thyself: Know your purpose In a study of 50 people with advanced lung cancer, those judged by their doctors to have high "spiritual faith" responded better to chemotherapy and survived longer. Over 40 per cent were still alive after three years, compared with less than 10 per cent of those judged to have little faith (In Vivo, vol 22, p 577). Are your hackles rising? Of all the research into the healing potential of thoughts and beliefs, studies into the effects of religion are the most controversial. There are thousands of studies purporting to show a link between some aspect of religion - such as attending church or praying - and better health. Religion has been associated with lower rates of cardiovascular disease, stroke, blood pressure and metabolic disorders, better immune functioning, improved outcomes for infections such as HIV and meningitis, and lower risk of developing cancer. Critics of these studies, such as Richard Sloan of Columbia University Medical Center in New York, point out that many of them don't adequately tease out other factors. For instance, religious people often have lower-risk lifestyles and churchgoers tend to enjoy strong social support, and seriously ill people are less likely to attend church. Nonetheless, a recent analysis of studies in the area concluded, after trying to control for these factors, that "religiosity/spirituality" does have a protective effect, though only in healthy people (Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, vol 78, p 81). The authors warned there might be a publication bias, though, with researchers failing to publish negative results. Even if the link between religion and better health is genuine, there is no need to invoke divine intervention to explain it. Some researchers attribute it to the placebo effect - trusting that some deity or other will heal you may be just as effective as belief in a drug or doctor (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol 366, p 1838). Others, like Paolo Lissoni of San Gerardo Hospital in Milan, Italy, who did the lung-cancer study mentioned above, believe that the positive emotions associated with "spirituality" promote beneficial physiological responses. Yet others think that what really matters is having a sense of purpose in life, whatever it might be. Having an idea of why you are here and what is important increases our sense of control over events, rendering them less stressful. In Saron's three-month meditation study (see "Meditate", page 34), the increase in levels of the enzyme that repairs telomeres correlated with an increased sense of control and an increased sense of purpose in life. In fact, Saron argues, this psychological shift may have been more important than the meditation itself. He points out that the participants were already keen meditators, so the study gave them the chance to spend three months doing something important to them. Spending more time doing what you love, whether it's gardening or voluntary work, might have a similar effect on health. The big news from the study, Saron says, is "the profound impact of having the opportunity to live your life in a way that you find meaningful". Jo Marchant is a freelance writer based in London http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128272.100-heal-thyself-know-your-purpose.html
