We had some lively discussion Saturday night at the Freethinkers meetup. We kicked off the evening with everyone’s sharing his/her story. It was like old-fashioned testimony time at church, only most stories ended with some variation of, “and that’s why I left the church.” This time there were two of us who still believe in God plus one ex-pastor (now atheist), so there were a variety of viewpoints.
One of the discussions that grew out of the conversation was about the Bible and the Jesus in the Bible. I was not surprised by the strong and diverse opinions, though with that many people in the room, it’s not always easy for everyone to express thoughts. I contributed to the discussion, but ideas continued to race through my head all night, so I’m going to share now some of what’s been on my mind.
Some people shared that not only do they disagree with the Bible, but also that the book makes no sense and that the Jesus in it is not a likeable guy. Ok, everyone’s entitled to opinions, and I do appreciate that many there had at least taken the time to read the book, but if you are going to argue with it, you have to go a few steps further.
Please do not make the same mistakes that millions of Christians do- approaching the ancient text with a modern mindset and modern expectations. Many think, “It’s the Word of God. Everything it says is true, so all I have to do is sit down and read it and I’ll know the truth. It’s just that simple.” Many atheists think, “I don’t believe in God, this is all nonsense, so I’m going to read it to find all the flaws.” Both end up in the same place: not allowing the text to speak for itself first before forming an opinion.
It is an ancient piece of literature and must be understood and respected as that before you can place judgment on it. You would never read Plato the same way you would read today’s newspaper, a best selling novel, or a modern biography. You would expect to have to study it, to understand something of the history and purpose behind it, the setting, the audience, and the genre. Those who do the same with the Biblical text will be miles ahead of most others.
For example, in the narrative of Jesus in the book of John, the author writes that Jesus’ first miracle was turning water into wine at a wedding. Keep in mind that the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) are not, and were never intended to be understood as, eyewitness accounts, nor were they written haphazardly. The author has a very specific message and so tells the story in a way to convey that message effectively. Everything from the shape of the plot to the language used aims to drive home this message to a specific audience at a specific time. So, a scholar would read this story and ask herself, “Knowing what I do about the intentions of the author, the intended audience, and the historical situation, why did the author not only include this Jesus miracle story but place it as his first miracle? What purpose does it serve?” After understanding all of that, you may commence to debate the truth in the text.
The Bible also must be understood at least as literature that is 2000+ years old representing several authors, many cultures, and even different belief systems. Of course it contains contradictions and inconsistencies. Does that mean it should be automatically discounted? Not necessarily. If it were a Biology or Physics textbook, maybe (unless the Physics textbook included both Newtonian and Quantum Physics, which do appear to contradict). However, a compilation of 66 separate writings across thousands of years recording various people’s experiences and ideas about God must contain inconsistencies if it’s to be taken seriously.
I am not taking sides on the debate here, just trying to raise the intellectual level of the conversation on both sides.