Why I am a member here even though I am a Christian

[Ruth Harris]

theists, why not test your faith instead of proclaiming it?

I am not sure what you want tested about my faith since it is a personal viewpoint. Let's turn this around; can you test your atheism? And how?

Ruth

- - - Updated - - -

Welcome. This is a forum for skeptics and free thinkers. Not necessarily atheists. If you're willing to go wherever your interpretations of the evidence takes you, then you more than enough qualify to this forum. The world would be a boring place if everybody just agreed with one another.

Well, I have always considered myself a free thinker. And I despise being bored so this place keeps me interested. Thanks.

Ruth

 

[Lion IRC]

Non-skeptics would also have to be welcome here if it really is a Freethought forum.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Hi funinspace!

No, not a YEC believer here.

As for an overall view of my stance on the historicity of the Bible, I am not one of those who thinks that the Bible should be read literally. The overwhelming majority of the scripture was written by Jews; it is pretty common knowledge that they were likely to embellish actual occurrences to mythological levels and use the resulting tales as a more interesting way to teach principles. So given that, here are my answers to your questions:

1. The flood? Well, I think there was probably something that happened. There are flood stories in many different cultures - the Genesis narrative, Gilgamesh, Sumerian tales of creation and even the Inuit and Hopi have their own flood tales among many others. But I am not convinced of a singular worldwide flood as told in the Noah story. Honestly, we don't know for sure where humans were even located at that time, so it could have been a localized flood which appeared to the people to cover the earth.

2. Did the earth or sun stand still for Joshua? Again, here we have an event which is mentioned in multiple cultures. In this case, however, it may actually have happened close to the way it is stated - the earth actually did stop its normal rotation. There is some scientific evidence that this could have been caused by the earth's crust "slipping" due to a close encounter with a planet or large object of some kind. Whether this was caused by God or not is the real question - and since I am a believer I can't rule that out. But I don't demand that everyone agree with me about Him causing this.

3. The Exodus? Once again, I think that something probably happened - but not exactly as told in the scripture. There was probably a migration of what was to become Israel but I don't think it was the massive movement of people as described; other writings about that period specifically mention the small size of Israel's population. Plus the Exodus tale itself bears a remarkable resemblance to the inscriptions about pharaoh Ramesses II and the battle of Kadesh including the parting of the sea for passage and the drowning of their enemies. So in my opinion - yes, there was an exodus but it was another one of the things that was embellished to mythological levels by the writers.

To sum up, I don't think that the Bible should be read as history. It does contain elements of historical truth but should not be accepted as absolutely historically accurate as portrayed. Hope this answers your questions.

Ruth

Thanks and fair enough. So does the Bible become more historically accurate during King Solomon's time (like the wisest dude around)?
Does it become more historically solid within the Gospels? Do you see historical conflicts and/or internal contradictions within synoptic gospels (thinking of things like the census that made Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem; and birthing narratives; among others)?

I don't know that you could pinpoint any given period where I would consider the Bible to become more historically accurate. Historical accuracy depends on physical proof, and until it is found we don't really have any idea which things are solid fact and which are just embellishments.

There are apparent contradictions in the gospel narratives but we don't know if they are simply due to human error or a rewriting of the gospel to make it fit someone's preconceptions. But none of these conflicts is sufficient to cause me doubt about my faith. The scriptures were written by men, and this is one of the things where I part company with the Southern Baptists; I don't think that these men's writings were simply "narrated" to them by God. They were men writing about things happening around them and they imparted these occurrences as best they could given their knowledge.

Ruth

 

[Ruth Harris]

So (don't hit me please...) I attend a Southern Baptist church. They know that I don't agree with all of their denominational stances. But the one good thing about the Southern Baptist denomination is that they do not demand you agree with a particular set of biblical interpretations to be a member.

I'd never hit anyone for their religious choices. Southern Baptist is a perfectly comprehensible, mainstream sect. One of the challenges I've faced with the various christians that do come in here, is that they do not consider themselves bound by any particular theological position, so when you argue a point with them from the point of view of the mainstream christian beliefs, they will deny they believe in that particular thing. Or otherwise they will start these extremely loopy discussions that frankly aren't worth our time, as these views are unique to them.

I think I and my colleagues are trying to establish what, precisely, we can be expected to discuss should you choose to stick around.

Fair enough. For the most part, the Southern Baptist denomination is compatible with my beliefs. The things I know for sure that do not match their faith statement are:

1. I do not believe in the "infallible, inerrant scriptures" in their way. They believe in the complete historical and scientific accuracy of the Bible and I do not.
2. I do not believe that women should be forbidden leadership or ordination. And just in case you want to know - I am not at all interested in being a pastor or deacon.
3. I think they over emphasize the importance of baptism by immersion. We do not know for sure that immersion was required, and in all likelihood it was not since most streams were not deep enough for that which is where they did their baptisms. The Jewish faith requires what they call "living" water - which is running water. So pouring water over someone would be considered acceptable.

These are some things that most Southern Baptists believe and I do not:

1. I am not a YEC as stated before.
2. I am not a pre, mid, or post tribulationist. I am a pan tribulationist - which means it will all pan out in the end
3. I am not convinced that there will be a rapture as such.
4. I don't believe that the diaconates are considered leadership positions. The early church considered them servants to the others.

That is all that comes to mind at the moment. Not guaranteeing that I have remembered everything, but this is the major stuff.

Ruth

Edit: Forgot a couple of biggies!

1. I don't believe in male headship of the home. Marriage is a partnership, not a theocracy.
2. I firmly do not believe that sexual orientation is a choice; this is how we are born. And I am not convinced that stable, loving same sex relationships are sinful. I suspect that Paul was simply imposing his personal beliefs in this regard. He also said it was better to stay single and women should cover their hair "because of the angels" whatever that is supposed to mean.

 

[none]

I am not sure what you want tested about my faith since it is a personal viewpoint. Let's turn this around; can you test your atheism? And how?

Ruth

atheism is not a belief to be tested; it's not a belief
it's your faith you should be able to test it for validity yourself

 

[blastula]

Non-skeptics would also have to be welcome here if it really is a Freethought forum.

You're here.

 

[blastula]

There are apparent contradictions in the gospel narratives but we don't know if they are simply due to human error or a rewriting of the gospel to make it fit someone's preconceptions. But none of these conflicts is sufficient to cause me doubt about my faith. The scriptures were written by men, and this is one of the things where I part company with the Southern Baptists; I don't think that these men's writings were simply "narrated" to them by God. They were men writing about things happening around them and they imparted these occurrences as best they could given their knowledge.

Why trust the writings at all, especially for its boldest claims?

 

[Ruth Harris]

There are apparent contradictions in the gospel narratives but we don't know if they are simply due to human error or a rewriting of the gospel to make it fit someone's preconceptions. But none of these conflicts is sufficient to cause me doubt about my faith. The scriptures were written by men, and this is one of the things where I part company with the Southern Baptists; I don't think that these men's writings were simply "narrated" to them by God. They were men writing about things happening around them and they imparted these occurrences as best they could given their knowledge.

Why trust the writings at all, especially for its boldest claims?

That is a really good question. I wish I had a really good answer for you, but I don't. All I can say is this is most definitely a matter of faith and not determined by hard facts.

I do know that the writings of Josephus mentioned the death of James being related to his defense of Jesus, and I find it difficult to believe that someone would die for something he knew was false even if Jesus was his brother. Plus it is very odd that the first witnesses of the resurrection were women, who were considered less than second class citizens in that era. It just seems to me that the writer would have wanted to put the best possible face on a lie so male witnesses would have been a more reasonable choice.

Ruth

 

[funinspace]

Thanks and fair enough. So does the Bible become more historically accurate during King Solomon's time (like the wisest dude around)?
Does it become more historically solid within the Gospels? Do you see historical conflicts and/or internal contradictions within synoptic gospels (thinking of things like the census that made Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem; and birthing narratives; among others)?

I don't know that you could pinpoint any given period where I would consider the Bible to become more historically accurate. Historical accuracy depends on physical proof, and until it is found we don't really have any idea which things are solid fact and which are just embellishments.

Personally, I don't care for the word 'proof' in studying history, I much prefer my friends: possible; plausible; & probable. But I get your thinking.

There are apparent contradictions in the gospel narratives but we don't know if they are simply due to human error or a rewriting of the gospel to make it fit someone's preconceptions. But none of these conflicts is sufficient to cause me doubt about my faith. The scriptures were written by men, and this is one of the things where I part company with the Southern Baptists; I don't think that these men's writings were simply "narrated" to them by God. They were men writing about things happening around them and they imparted these occurrences as best they could given their knowledge.

Ruth

Yep, the whole God-breathed Bible thingy. You sound a lot like a UMC or ELCA theological type if I may say... Anywho, thanks again.

 

[funinspace]

Non-skeptics would also have to be welcome here if it really is a Freethought forum.

People of all stripes are generally welcome here. People who are cocky and cagey generally find their welcome mat get kind of soiled over time. We even had a died in the TULIP Calvinist preacher here for a number years (though he struggled not to preach and got dinged for it; occupational hazard I think...)

 

[blastula]

Why trust the writings at all, especially for its boldest claims?

That is a really good question. I wish I had a really good answer for you, but I don't. All I can say is this is most definitely a matter of faith and not determined by hard facts.

I do know that the writings of Josephus mentioned the death of James being related to his defense of Jesus, and I find it difficult to believe that someone would die for something he knew was false even if Jesus was his brother. Plus it is very odd that the first witnesses of the resurrection were women, who were considered less than second class citizens in that era. It just seems to me that the writer would have wanted to put the best possible face on a lie so male witnesses would have been a more reasonable choice.

Thanks for your reply. I don't think the women were touted as eyewitness evidence rather than being a story device within the text, and I would re-check your information on James if it matters.

If it's about faith, does it matter at all that there's a Bible or what's in it? Would you have your faith without the Bible?

 

[Ruth Harris]

I don't know that you could pinpoint any given period where I would consider the Bible to become more historically accurate. Historical accuracy depends on physical proof, and until it is found we don't really have any idea which things are solid fact and which are just embellishments.

Personally, I don't care for the word 'proof' in studying history, I much prefer my friends: possible; plausible; & probable. But I get your thinking.

There are apparent contradictions in the gospel narratives but we don't know if they are simply due to human error or a rewriting of the gospel to make it fit someone's preconceptions. But none of these conflicts is sufficient to cause me doubt about my faith. The scriptures were written by men, and this is one of the things where I part company with the Southern Baptists; I don't think that these men's writings were simply "narrated" to them by God. They were men writing about things happening around them and they imparted these occurrences as best they could given their knowledge.

Ruth

Yep, the whole God-breathed Bible thingy. You sound a lot like a UMC or ELCA theological type if I may say... Anywho, thanks again.

You are welcome. But the "God-breathed" part is not really accurate for me; I totally disagree with it due to the whole inerrancy stance based on it. And yes, the ELCA comes very close to my beliefs - but there is that "top down leadership" thing that I don't much like.

Ruth

 

[Ruth Harris]

That is a really good question. I wish I had a really good answer for you, but I don't. All I can say is this is most definitely a matter of faith and not determined by hard facts.

I do know that the writings of Josephus mentioned the death of James being related to his defense of Jesus, and I find it difficult to believe that someone would die for something he knew was false even if Jesus was his brother. Plus it is very odd that the first witnesses of the resurrection were women, who were considered less than second class citizens in that era. It just seems to me that the writer would have wanted to put the best possible face on a lie so male witnesses would have been a more reasonable choice.

Thanks for your reply. I don't think the women were touted as eyewitness evidence rather than being a story device within the text, and I would re-check your information on James if it matters.

If it's about faith, does it matter at all that there's a Bible or what's in it? Would you have your faith without the Bible?

Story device? Not sure that resonates with me since it made it less likely to be accepted, but I will think on that.

And oops I conflated the Josephus writings about James with something else. Thanks for catching that.

Would I have my faith without the Bible? Well, no way to know for sure but I suspect I would have faith - but probably not quite the same as I have now. I honestly can't imagine not believing in some kind of deity, no matter whether there was a written Bible or not.

Ruth

 

[abaddon]

I honestly can't imagine not believing in some kind of deity, no matter whether there was a written Bible or not.

Can you hazard a guess as to why a life without a god in it seems impossible for you?

 

[Ruth Harris]

I honestly can't imagine not believing in some kind of deity, no matter whether there was a written Bible or not.

Can you hazard a guess as to why a life without a god in it seems impossible for you?

Another really good question that I can't answer. I have been thinking about this since I got the notification of a new post on this thread.

I know the term has been overused and abused, but irreducible complexity does seem to be a real possibility to me. I also have problems imagining the universe springing into existence from nothing - or that it has been in existence eternally, ignoring that there are signs of an aging universe being discovered every day which should not happen if it is eternal. To me, those ideas just seems like random theories to keep from acknowledging that SOMETHING had to initiate creation. And from my point of view, that something is God.

Keep in mind that you are discussing this with a die hard science fiction fanatic who reads hard scifi, not the fantasy stuff (I know, I know - you are just dying to ask what I think God is? But to me, he is not a fantasy). There are innumerable theories abounding in those books but none of them washes with me even at their best. And I sincerely admire Stephen Hawking for his brainpower. But I do disagree with him when he starts talking about the existence or lack thereof of a God. There are times he almost seems strident in his denial and I do find that very odd since it would have no impact on most of his theories excluding, of course, his theory of the universe coming from a singularity (but where did the singularity come from?).

And that is as close as I can come to answering your question.

Ruth

 

[another1]

World is too perfect. Has to be something behind that, abaddon. Sorry to interrupt, carry on.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I am not sure what you want tested about my faith since it is a personal viewpoint. Let's turn this around; can you test your atheism? And how?

Ruth

Atheism doesn't need to be tested for. It's what you arrive at if you found none of the existing religions convincing.

Also, you can answer it youself. You're mostly atheist. There's about 6000 known gods. Your atheist about 5999. How did you arrive at the conclusion that they were false? All gods are supported by the same arguments. If your god is true while they are false based on the same evidence then something ain't right.

 

[DrZoidberg]

World is too perfect. Has to be something behind that, abaddon. Sorry to interrupt, carry on.

That's one road to happiness. Lower your standards. If you think this is perfect you're a sad sad man. We live in a world where almost everything will kill us in an instant. We have a tiny sliver of land where our chances are better. Still not good.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Hi Ruth,

Snowing like blazes outside. Just got home. I'm sure to have some questions when I can read through the thread. Four pages in 12 hours?! Impressive! Give a man an audience...

After a read through I'll tell you I am a scientific naturalist, which for me means stars and planets don't stand still and then start moving again. Too Velikovskian.

The Sun does "stand still," however, for three days at the winter solstice after which it begins it's return journey. Of course it keeps moving the whole time and the ancients didn't know we were on a planet, tilted, spinning, rotating around an ordinary star like billions of others, etc. So we can cut them some slack for doing their best.

As to your Christian lean, I do the same thing, just leave religion and gods and demigods and impossible stories about visiting spacemen out of it. To me a god is like the trillion dollars I have in my basement. Everything I possess down to the penny on my dresser came from my having that trillion dollars. It's all visible, tangible proof that it's there. So why not believe in my trillion dollars?

 

[Lion IRC]

Non-skeptics would also have to be welcome here if it really is a Freethought forum.

You're here.

I'm a freethinker and a skeptic.