Gallup: 75% in U.S. Still See the Bible as the Word of God.

But 21%, near the 40-year high, consider it fables and history

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man. What say you OT?

I'm with the majority and say that the Bible is the word of God, but not meant to be taken literally 100% of the time. Those people are called "fundamentalists" and they can get a little crazy about how they interpret it. I've had a few conversations with one woman and it didn't turn out well. :D

So you're not supposed to take the word of god literally?

Makavelli - 7 Day Theory Killuminati is the Word of God.

There's nothing that says you're supposed to do anything. There are those that take it literally and those that don't. I'm the latter.

So why do you choose not to listen to god?

heretic

Oh Toast, you are so confrontational.

As I said, the Bible in my eyes is not meant to be taken literally 100% of the time. It all depends on the intent of the biblical author. If he intended what he wrote to be taken literally, then we should take it literally. If he meant for it to be taken symbolically, then that's how we should take it.

Some things in the Bible, such as the parables of Jesus, are clearly symbolic, but other things like Christ's word about the Eucharist are to be taken literally, at least as a Catholic it is.

+1

People can be so gullible some times

what biblical author? it all goes to back to god, doesnt it? They are just conduits for his thoughts. Any christian who does not follow the bible to the bone deserves to go to hell

@BossPerson: Biblical author such as the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc.

But you said it's the word of god, now it's just a man writing about what god thinks?

It's surprising to know that the American society is still largely religious, given how the American lifestyle doesn't relate whatsoever to religiosity, in addition to recent social legislations.

I guess people don't know what they're talking about most of the time.

This is an expression of the "progressive religious" phenomenon. It is, roughly speaking, when a religious person who adheres to a certain faith or creed lacks the balls to actually adhere to the said faith or creed because of societal needs and a desire of coalescence. I despise indecisiveness.

Well, you could argue that if God was literally speaking to the authors, on different occasions, there is the possibility God kept talking without waiting for the authors to write every single word so it fell under the discretion of the authors to put up together on the Bible what God said as best as they could according to their notes.

When you are in school, can you honestly write everything the professor dictates exactly as they said it? It isn't like they had a recorder.

That's funny because the Bible was written by people. Herp Derp.

no, i think its rather that they dont believe in it deep down and want to live according to that non-faith, but at the same time are scared of leaving the faith outright or denying it.

To be fair if they did follow it literally the world would be in chaos.

I knew this thread wasn't going to end well. Shame on me for posting in it! :D

Which is one of the things I despise more about, for example, these so called Catholic democrats (specially in Washington like Nancy Pellosi or Joe Biden). Church says no gay marriage? Who cares? Church says no contraceptive methods? Whatever dude. Church says no abortion? Who gives a ****?

They follow what God/the Church says until they don't like what it says. Asi cualquiera.

And the world is not in chaos now? Burst your bubble and look around. Besides, the world has witnessed historical epochs of prosperity and order under religious rule, at least in certain parts of the world just like it experienced the same under nonreligious/secular epochs. Regardless, the current epoch may be favorable to you, but its ruinous and immiserating for so many others.

Let me be clear about something though: I am in no way advocating for religious rule. Not because religious rule is inherently faulty, but simply because the world right now has no use for it, it does not desire it and I'm not a fan of coercion as it's self-defeating.

It should have been obvious I meant it would be in chaos more so than it currently is. If they followed the bible literally slavery would still be legal, it would be ok to kill children if they are rude to their parents, it would be ok to kill people for having a different sexuality, women would be property, it would be ok to kill those that have different religious beliefs, and it would be ok to kill a man and then force his wife to marry you.

I'm not a theologian of any sort, but I highly doubt this is what Christianity actually stands for. It may have been what the Catholic Church stood for back in medieval times though, which would be the reason of its eventual demise.

Can you cite the verses in the Bible that justify slavery, killing children, women as property, killing those of different religious beliefs, and killing a man and then forcing his wife to marry you?

That's definitely a possibility yes. Some variation of Pascal wager through which such a person would delude himself into believing that he can have the cake and eat it at the same time.

I think he's referring to the Catholic Church of medieval Europe.

im not sure the bible is the word of god but it is its does have some good morals to live life the good way. alot of it does make since though once you consider doing things the way you want.

its really all up to you how you want to live your life though. the bible was just showing us the other way our other choice on how to live life.

@GazaAli: burnt toast is a "he"? I was under the impression it was a woman.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21:2-6

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+21%3A18-21&version=KJV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:16

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2013:6-10

That last one I got wrong it seems. You kill the man wife as well and take the ones who haven't had sex yet http://biblehub.com/numbers/31-18.htm

No he is a he with a he of a partner. Got it? :3

How did you get that impression?

even jesus didnt write a book

well Jesus was supposedly god so if he did write it then you could argue that it might have been the word of god. But seeing how he didn't then no you can't say that.

There's a few things here that are worth noting. All of those excerpts are taken from the Old Testament and it appears as though you're using the "New International Version" (or NIV) for translation. The NIV is more of a dynamic translation, whereas the New American Standard or NAS version is a literal translation.

The disadvantage of dynamic translation is that there is a price to pay for readability. Dynamic translations lose precision because they omit subtle cues to the meaning of a passage that only literal translations preserve. They also run a greater risk of reading the translators’ doctrinal views into the text because of the greater liberty in how to render it.

For instance, here's the first quote you referenced from Exodus 21:2-6 in the NIV or dynamic translation:

² “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. ³ If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. ⁴ If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

⁵ “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ ⁶ then his master must take him before the judges.^[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

Now again is the NAS translation:

² “If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. ³ If he comes ^[a]alone, he shall go out ^[b]alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. ⁴ If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out ^[c]alone. ⁵ But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ ⁶ then his master shall bring him to ^[d]God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.

You'll see how the two differ in how they're interpreted. So, with so many versions out there to choose from, which are we to go by? Well, there is no definitive answer for that. Certainly, if you want to study the Bible in a literal sense, you should go by the NAS version. However, reading multiple variations of the translation can be beneficial too. There's no written code to limit yourself to one translation (as a Catholic that is, Protestants will say to follow the King James version to a T).

As a Catholic, I would read the 'Revised Standard Version Catholic' version which is a Church-approved version with some minor changes in the New Testament.

if it is true the universe is a ridiculous place.

the guy who kills millions because they don't love him is the good guy and the guy that does not want to live under the rule of a genocidal maniac is the villain.

what a farce.

Just the way you post things, I just assumed you were a chick.

Gen 9:25 – God cursed Ham, son of Noah, with perpetual slavery for the crime of seeing his father naked. (Ham was formerly considered the ancestor of all “blacks.”)

Ex 21:7 – A man may sell his daughter as a sex slave.

Eph 6:5 – Paul says slaves must obey their masters “with fear and trembling.”

*

Gen 22:2 – God accepts human sacrifices (including that of Jesus, later).

Ex 21:15, 17 – Anyone who strikes or curses a parent must be killed.

*

Ex 21:7-8 – A father may sell his daughter to be a “maidservant” (or sex slave) who must “please her master.”

1 Cor 11:3-10 – Women are inferior “because man was not created for woman, but woman was created for man.” Every woman “while praying or prophesying” must have her head covered “because of the angels,” meaning the spirits (it used to be believed that women’s hair attracts spirits).

*

Luke 19:27 – In telling a parable, Jesus insinuates that anyone who denies his rulership must be killed.

Deut 13:13-15 – If the people of any city worship other gods, you must slaughter them all, including their cattle.

just the tip of the iceburg

But we weren't talking about how you interpret the bible or how the Catholic church interprets it. And even that version you posted is still pretty messed up.

@toast_burner: Look, I'll be honest with you. I'm no Catholic scholar by any stretch of the imagination. Actually, I'm just recently starting to re-familiarize myself with the Church's teachings and Catholicism in general. I was raised in a Catholic home and attended Catholic school all of my life. My family is religious, and my brother has even taken it a bit further by teaching Theology at a high school level and earning his Masters in Theology and is in the process of going for his PhD. So, as you can see I've always been exposed to religion.

When I post on here it's never with the intent of "told you so" and to prove anyone wrong. Yes, there are times when I don't have answers to your questions, but that just makes me want to learn more about it. So, I consider it a "work in progress". I read a little bit here and there to help reinforce my beliefs and I try to contribute when I can on the boards.

The reason I tell you this is so you understand where I come from and hopefully, will make you more aware of why I feel a certain way on various issues presented on this forum.

Now, I know nothing of you or most of the people on here, but I can kind of get a feel that they lean more towards science than religion, which is fine. But, understand that no amount of someone telling me that "God doesn't exist" is going to make me stop believing. I hope that we can continue to have constructive conversations on here without having to resort to saying who is right and wrong. I enjoy most people's points of view when they're honest and not trying to make jokes just for the sake of getting a few laughs from other members.

So, does any of this help you get a better idea of who I am?

this is why we can't have nice things

You seem to misunderstand what I'm talking about. I don't care if you believe in god or anything like that. What I'm talking about here is GazaAlis idea that people should blindly follow what the book says. There's a reason why most churches such as Catholics don't do that, because the bible is full of weird shit.

Okay, but I meant that in a general sense; not specifically related to this thread. Because, you and I both know you like to question my posts quite frequently on here anytime it's in relation to religion, gay rights, etc. I was just throwing this out there as a way for you to try and gain an understanding of my thought process on certain issues pertaining to the above.

Well the gay right thing does contradict everything you just said. you want people to respect you, but you show no respect to others. If you don't want gays marrying in your church then ok, but to say they shouldn't be allowed to marry at all is unjustifiable. It's just as bad as banning religion entirely.

as for religion i don't recall questioning you much. In this thread I am genuinely curious on how you think the bible is the word of god and simultaneously not literal. Muslims also claim that the Quran is the word of god but they actually believe god spoke to Muhammad and told him what to write down. With the bible no such thing happened. There are some bits that were supposedly quotes from god but the majority of it is told by people.

@toast_burner: Not to derail this thread, but what I said about gays are my own thoughts. I don't see how that has anything to do with not being able to respect someone's opinion because it differs from your own. The fact that you think it's unequal or unjustifiable is your own opinion. I would never come down on you for thinking that. I'm sure the way you were raised is quite different from my own. So, how does my stance on that grounds for not warranting respect from others?

To me, you seem like a very angry person from your posts on here. I think having God in your life might help solve that problem. Just sayin. :)

That is very obnoxious.

And to ban religion is also just someone's views so you respect that belief as well?

How do I seem angry?

Sure, I can respect your opinion, doesn't mean I agree with it and also doesn't mean I'm going to fight you on it to make you think you're wrong. To each his own, my friend.

So you would just sit back and let religion get banned? Also that isn't my opinion, I'm strongly infavour of freedom of religion.