The Bible (and all holy texts) are full of contradictions, arguments about translations, and other issues. A wise person has two basic choices with them.
Reject them entirely
Just openly choose to reject the bad stuff and embrace the good stuff and not be embarrassed by it.
Liberation theologians basically choose to do the later if they're smart about it (some of them claim they aren't, and say what they believe is "True christianity" and I agree that that is dumb.)
I was raised in a religion (Christian Science) where I think the best part of it was that they openly said they don't take the Bible literally but instead take the "inspired word of the Bible". So I have always found Biblical literalists to be a joke. Conversely though, I have also found athiets who insist that Christians MUST take responsibility for every word thats in the Bible (or Muslims with the Quran) to be silly as well. We should want religious people to take a progressive interpretation of their religion, not try to guilt them for aspects of the text they don't actually believe in. It may strike athiets as hypocritical, but for me as someone who's experience with religion was that you're SUPPOSED to do that, its simply how you should approach religious texts. They're inherently up to interpreation.
So while I am not longer religious and only barely spiritual, I do encourage progressive interpretations of Christianity and support progressive Christians and dont think they have to answer for passages that are bad if they dont support the message those passages are sending.
Disclosure: Because my experience with religion being mostly positive despite the fact that I am no longer religious, combined with my autism, I tend to find it difficult to relate to people who have experienced religious trauma. I've been trying to adjust to this for awhile, but its been difficult.
Biblical literalists really are a fucking joke, and I don't think they're at all consistent. I just saw someone bring up a passage from the bible that I've heard before but didn't think about in this context:
"“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple."
Like lol, I'm sure every one of those dumbasses is like oh, he means it metaphori- OH NO NOT THAT
Just openly choose to reject the bad stuff and embrace the good stuff and not be embarrassed by it.
What's the basis of the moral framework you use to distinguish "good stuff" from "bad stuff"? Why is it not problematic for a document that claims to be the [inspired] word of God full of bad stuff?
What's the basis of the moral framework you use to distinguish "good stuff" from "bad stuff"?
The stuff that fits the moral framework I already have is good, the stuff that supports things I find evil are bad. I have a moral lense already, I dont rely on the text to make it for me.
Why is it not problematic for a document that claims to be the [inspired] word of God full of bad stuff?
The bible is a book written by multiple flawed human beings, not God. Some Christians call in the Word of God, but this is counter to reality. I dont support that view. My Sunday School teacher in Christian Science ACTIVLY taught us the flawed human history of the bible. For CSists "inspired word" means your OWN divine inspiration interpreting the text.
Again, I'm personally no longer religious, but I support people who take the bible and say "I know this is written by humans, so I can take what fits the moral framework I think is correct and reject the things that don't" and as long as I agree with that moral framework I will support that.
As much as I agree this is a realist perspective on what most Christians actually do, I find both the underlying perspective and the fact that you'd support it really confusing here. If your book with instructions for living a moral life consists of a mixture of good and bad advice and you have to rely on a sense of moral intuition to avoid taking the bad advice, the book seems useless at best and actively harmful if you think it's possible for moral intuition to be wrong, since you aren't provided the tools for telling when you're off track and some of the advice being provided is pretty terrible and might not occur to someone who hasn't read the book. In practice it seems like a lot of people use that moral intuition to justify an underlying or instinctive bigotry. In an environment that encourages self-interrogation and growth they might challenge and dismantle those beliefs, but instead they are prevented from doing so because they're already being told that whatever they believe is automatically correct. It seems like a disservice to those people when you offer support for the latter.
The Bible (and all holy texts) are full of contradictions, arguments about translations, and other issues. A wise person has two basic choices with them.
Liberation theologians basically choose to do the later if they're smart about it (some of them claim they aren't, and say what they believe is "True christianity" and I agree that that is dumb.)
I was raised in a religion (Christian Science) where I think the best part of it was that they openly said they don't take the Bible literally but instead take the "inspired word of the Bible". So I have always found Biblical literalists to be a joke. Conversely though, I have also found athiets who insist that Christians MUST take responsibility for every word thats in the Bible (or Muslims with the Quran) to be silly as well. We should want religious people to take a progressive interpretation of their religion, not try to guilt them for aspects of the text they don't actually believe in. It may strike athiets as hypocritical, but for me as someone who's experience with religion was that you're SUPPOSED to do that, its simply how you should approach religious texts. They're inherently up to interpreation.
So while I am not longer religious and only barely spiritual, I do encourage progressive interpretations of Christianity and support progressive Christians and dont think they have to answer for passages that are bad if they dont support the message those passages are sending.
Disclosure: Because my experience with religion being mostly positive despite the fact that I am no longer religious, combined with my autism, I tend to find it difficult to relate to people who have experienced religious trauma. I've been trying to adjust to this for awhile, but its been difficult.
Biblical literalists really are a fucking joke, and I don't think they're at all consistent. I just saw someone bring up a passage from the bible that I've heard before but didn't think about in this context:
"“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple."
Like lol, I'm sure every one of those dumbasses is like oh, he means it metaphori- OH NO NOT THAT
if you take the bible literally, then you shouldn't wear mixed fabrics lmao
What's the basis of the moral framework you use to distinguish "good stuff" from "bad stuff"? Why is it not problematic for a document that claims to be the [inspired] word of God full of bad stuff?
The stuff that fits the moral framework I already have is good, the stuff that supports things I find evil are bad. I have a moral lense already, I dont rely on the text to make it for me.
The bible is a book written by multiple flawed human beings, not God. Some Christians call in the Word of God, but this is counter to reality. I dont support that view. My Sunday School teacher in Christian Science ACTIVLY taught us the flawed human history of the bible. For CSists "inspired word" means your OWN divine inspiration interpreting the text.
Again, I'm personally no longer religious, but I support people who take the bible and say "I know this is written by humans, so I can take what fits the moral framework I think is correct and reject the things that don't" and as long as I agree with that moral framework I will support that.
As much as I agree this is a realist perspective on what most Christians actually do, I find both the underlying perspective and the fact that you'd support it really confusing here. If your book with instructions for living a moral life consists of a mixture of good and bad advice and you have to rely on a sense of moral intuition to avoid taking the bad advice, the book seems useless at best and actively harmful if you think it's possible for moral intuition to be wrong, since you aren't provided the tools for telling when you're off track and some of the advice being provided is pretty terrible and might not occur to someone who hasn't read the book. In practice it seems like a lot of people use that moral intuition to justify an underlying or instinctive bigotry. In an environment that encourages self-interrogation and growth they might challenge and dismantle those beliefs, but instead they are prevented from doing so because they're already being told that whatever they believe is automatically correct. It seems like a disservice to those people when you offer support for the latter.
I offer my support when it leads them to the right conclusions and dont when it doesnt. Its really not that complicated for me.