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.
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.