Many Christians claim that their bible is the source of morality and that it is something of a guide for Christians to determine how to live their lives. If we accept this claim (i.e., that they believe this to be the case), the implications are terr…..

Any approach to the Bible other than a literal reading (which I actually don’t encourage - much the opposite) is picking and choosing, as I said. Now, if you’re interpreting the parts you agree with as “the word of God”, and acting according to them (and, quite often, attempting to impose those parts on others, too), and ignoring the parts you don’t agree with as “non-divine primitive bigotry”, “translation errors”, and so on… then why use the Bible at all?

Yet this is what, I believe, every Christian does. It’s understandable, in a way, as following the dietary rules in Leviticus would probably make anyone insane, and following Deuteronomy would get one quickly arrested for murder and other hate crimes.

And what about when one part flatly contradicts another? Did God change his mind? If the explanation is that one part didn’t come from God at all… how do you tell which?

I’m perfectly aware that a fundamentalist Christian will ignore my posts (and probably leave a rude comment, too), much like he or she will ignore anything, including their own eyes, that may ever cause the slightest doubt in their “holy calling”, which gives their life meaning. But there may be Christians “in the fence”, who’ve started to think critically about Christianity, the Bible, and so on. There is hope for those - even if they don’t leave Christianity for good, they may at least get rid of literal interpretations, “gays are an abomination” bigotry, young earth creationism, and other garbage.

And they may wonder about the paradox of having to ignore most of their supposed “holy” book in order not to be a criminal and a monster…

Again, I really like your post. I think you’ve thought through this quite a bit. Personally, I can’t say that I completely agree with you, though I see some of your points. I guess I wonder if you think there might possibly be a different way of approaching the “holy bible” then the way you currently expect a “christian” to.

I’m also curious of what your motivation for writing a post like this is? Are you hoping to convert so-called Christians to the truth? Are you debating specific people? Are you questioning these things for yourself?

just curious

Not again! Any suggestions? I kind of like it as it is now, but I’m always open to new ideas, as long as it isn’t “white background with black text and light green titles”, which describes virtually every web site created in 2006.

Care to give an example?

You know, the problem is that Christians selectively pick passages as they please: “this is literal”, “that is a metaphor”, “this one doesn’t really mean what it says”, and so on. That makes it easy, doesn’t it? Take the ones you agree with literally, and the others as mere metaphors, and, what do you know, the Bible fully agrees with you!

Case in point: “homosexuals are an abomination” - that’s literal. “Shrimp are an abomination” (those passages in Leviticus are pretty close to each other, by the way) - oh, that one should be seen from an historical perspective, it isn’t really literal, it doesn’t apply to modern Christians, etc., etc….

SCNR.

Anyway you do have a nice site man, keep up the good work!

Jesus’ message, as you say, has nothing to do with the rest of the Bible - including Paul’s writings (that is, most of the New Testament), which ignore everything that Jesus said, and just focus on “accepting him as your personal savior in order to be saved”.

Even today many christians give no heed to many of the books that are contained in the King James Version, and its many sister versions that are todays bibles. ‘Real Christians’ follow the doctrine recorded in the gospels, (the first four books of the New Testament) laid out Jesus of Nazareth. As you said yourself, it would be naieve to belive that the bible has not been altered since the orginal texts were recorded, much less when they were compiled by the most politically motivated roman catholic church. Even barring intentional manipulation, many of these books, especially the old testament were passed on by word of mouth for centuries before they were ever recorded on paper.

A large number of christians I know belive the New Testament, and even the gospels themselves have been altered over the years, but Jesus makes it very clear that his message is simple, Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as you love god. Show me one example where history has not distorted accounts and records of events and texts even half the age of biblical texts.

So yes, “those” christians do think the 90% of the bible is crap, because it is not from christ but from man.

Any christian that belives that he/she in anyway is more righteous than anyone else is ignoring fundamental “christian” doctrine, and should not be considered to represent true christian ideas. Nor, should any christian that claims christian absolutism.

The philosophy that jesus preaches,is so stark in contrast to the rest of the Bible, that i can only belive that mans additions are to be looked at, not as doctrine, but as a history of the church.
Indeed, the writings of early christians in the church already show that even they had already begun to lose the message that jesus tried to teach them, bending and manipulating the teachings for personal gain, or promotion of personal belifes.

It is naieve to think that a book, changed so much over time would NOT take the shape of the will of men who edited it, and that the original message would NOT distorted.

Think of it this way, if Jerry Falwell wrote a book, does it become christian doctrine because he is a self proclaimed christian? Or what if the American Protestant churches decided to add it to their bible, does that text automatically govern all who profess a belife in christ, or those who live in accordance with his teachings?

But what’s wrong with filtering the Bible’s content? Isn’t that what we have “freedom of thought” for? It’s not like they’re trying to convert someone else into a christian, is it?

I can’t speak for the whole “liberal” christian population, so I won’t, but I think some have read through the Bible, from one end to the other, but rather chose not to follow its every “command” because it’s out-of-date, it no longer makes sense (and it may never have made, I really don’t know) in our society.

Let me give an extreme example (like I usually do): imagine your (grand)father ran a Nazi concentration camp. Do you go around rounding up jewish people in a similar fashion just because someone who is important to you “says” (or in this case, did) so?

Aren’t you responsible for your actions after a certain age?

Of course, if it’s denial we’re talking about, then it’s a whole different matter, but I really won’t go out on a limb and speak for “everyone” or “the whole ‘liberal’ christian populace”, it’d be arrogant of me.