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.
10 comments:
Dagney,
What was your opinion of the "testimony" of the former pastor/now atheist?
As for "reading the book" through the eyes of the "times it was written", OK, I agree, but you can also read about Zeus, Poseidon, Rha and Thore and they will make as a compelling case as Jesus in "relative" terms, but you would not of course claim that Thore is "the god", would you?
We actually, were thinking about "Bible Thumpers" session where we'd sit down with the Bible and parse verses left and right depending on where it goes. The format will be the same conversational format and anyting goes but we will all have a Bible, also comptuer and projector on the wall and can look up passages and references.
Would that be of interest to you? We tried it last year around Thanksgiving and Xmas but it was too busy for folks then, so we postponed it and never picked it up.
There is another humanist group that is going to be discussing "Faces of God" - I posted about it today on Bill Tammeus' blog. Check it out, you may be interested.
Also, Fred Heeren is setting up a "Provocatours" group - of dechurched, seeking, disallusioned people as well as atheists and agnostics. They arleady had a meeting and I think next month will be "Where do the Morals Come from?" - I missed the previous one, but hope to show up for this one.
My favorite site on contradictions in the Bible is http://www.SkepticsAnnotatedBible.com - it's broken down by categories, books.
Prophesies are specifically important. But to me it is "scientific" facts of the bible that make absolutely no sense, plus all the inconsistencies, plus Yawheh building up a super race of "chosen" people.
I really don't care for a god like this even if he was real. There are pleny of assholes in life already to worry about. Another bully in the after life? - OK, he knows what I need to convince me he is real. Will I worship him? - don't think so. Will I accept him? - Sure, why not.
Iggy, you are a liar.
By your own admission, although someone told me you are actually a RAELIAN.
That said, why do you pretend to be reasonable here when you have told people to SHUT UP AND DIE on the Tammeus blog and told people to keep their "religious underwear" to themselves?
You know you don't want discussion, you want disruption and silence.
Oh, and we know you have been posting on other blogs under other names.
You are quite right, Dagney, I was wrong and I jumped the gun and I apologize.
When I see guys like Iggy coming on here acting like they want discussion, and then see what they have done to Bill's blog over a period of two years, I tend to over react.
That said, their atheism is unfalsifiable.
By that I mean, that given their assumptions that all existence, life, and mind can be explained by undirected processes (which is an undemonstrable self refuting proposition) then there is nothing that would constitute proof.
Iggy almost admits as much when he says that he wouldn't follow God even if he were to admit he exists.
If you get to know Iggy better, and he was not at the meeting, he is a RAELIAN who believes in space aliens and that his body will be cryogenically preserved for future resurrection.
It is simply his version of the afterlife.
Iggy,
I found his story very interesting. He remained in ministry years after he realized he didn't believe in God because he loved the people so much and loved ministering to them. He said that in his denomination it wasn't really that difficult to preach about goodness and love without making clear statements about belief. Makes me wonder how many ministers out there believe in and love their people more than God. Not that any would confess until after they have retired or left the church.
Dagney,
Daniel Dennet (check out his lecture on this recently at http://www.RichardDawkins.net) is conducting research on 6 active ministers who have contacted him - they are atheists/agnostics. It's 1 hour lecture.
I don't understand personally how can someone who doesn't believe in god still be working as pastor, but hey, apparently, this atheist/ex-minister learnt being a Xian that it's all "morally relative" :o)
I'd be curious to know more about ministers in KC who are atheists. Maybe we'll set up an e-mail group online where they can "anonymously" post and share and may later come to our meetup?
To me this is "fascinating" - truly. I don't think I'd be able to lie.
I have to agree with Iggy on this one!
What shock to my system!
But he is right, Dagney, those pastors who don't believe are lying to their people.
And I think this comes out in other ways; it is one reason why the church is rife with corruption...there are "wolves in sheeps clothing", which the gospels warn about, who keep the form of the faith but don't have faith.
Which means, that blaming Christianity, as Iggy does, for corruption is misplaced...if he is indeed right that there are many ministers who don't really believe it.
No wonder the church has had such problems.
The amazing thing is that it has survived for two millenia in the face of this...or perhaps not amazing when you remember who founded it.
HOwever, Iggy, I don't think you would have many of the ministers who are presently in this situation...I know of two although I can't, at present, prove it...come to your meetups.
We all know that those who come to your meetups are photographed and recorded, like you did you know who.
Dagney,
What I found interesting about that former minister that I think he makes a point that the books of the Bible is "literature" and "arguing" about it as if it was a "truth" and "reality" based thinking is short of "silly."
He doesn't go as far as saying "delusional" as I would say, but I think he finds it interesting to make a distinction.
This kind of goes together with your post recently on "literature" in the Bible.
So, if this is "literature" then why not use other ancient literature that worships other gods or build your life on Wiccan or Druid principles?
This always baffles me about religous people who understand the origins of the Bible just like you.
But you stop short of one more god. Or three gods (four if you include Satan). I just go one more god fruther - which makes you as well an atheist :o) - when it comes to other gods.
So, what makes "your" literature so speacial that it is "the shit" so to speak?
P.S. I think you may want to come to Fred's "Provocateurs" meetup this month - he's the Xian who is a science writer and got kicked out of his church for acceptance of evolution.
The topic will be "origins of morality" - this sould be fun.
A "Provacateur" is one whose agenda is to disrupt and spread disinformation.
An EXCELLENT name for your group, I couldn't have come up with a better one myself!
Dagney, here is the info on the new group I was talking to you about. Worth attending. I have a free group on Meetup.com available under one of my accounts and I'll offer it to Fred so he can run it on his own and attract people to his group.
NEW DISCUSSION GROUP: THE PROVOCATEURS
I’m a science journalist who writes about evolution, and also a Christian who has made a number of atheistic and agnostic friends recently at Midwest Skeptics and other meetings. I want to invite any who might be interested to come check out our new Provocateurs group this Wednesday night, Dec. 9.
Attendees so far are mostly de-churched people interested in furthering their intellectual journey through discussion (and figuring out whether a spiritual journey makes any sense). We’re also interested in dialogue between people of differing belief systems. We meet monthly, and this Wednesday night’s provocative topic is a double feature: “The source of morality—what’s moral and what’s not and how do we know?” And: “If there was no god, would we really have to invent one?” And there always seems to be a need to revisit: “Is Jesus an invention of Fred’s mind (and of those like him)?”
We’ll meet at 7:00 p.m. at a home near 119th and K-7 in Olathe, where our host will provide drinks and dip, and each attendee should bring one piece of fruit. If you’d like to come, RSVP by email to me (fred@day-star.org) and I’ll send you directions.
Fred
913-768-9318
Post a Comment