Christianity has painted itself into a corner

[Courtesy Flush]

I've been giving this some thought lately. It seems that Christianity is looking more and more foolish because of one critical flaw, their stubborn insistence that the Bible is historical fact. There's no need in going into detail about this, as you all know what I'm talking about.

Let's say you approach a Buddhist and show him concrete proof that Buddha never lived, or that he never sat under a tree of any kind. How would he respond? I'm pretty sure he'd say that it doesn't matter in the least. Buddhism still works, even if it's based on fictitious stories.

A Christian, on the other hand, cannot allow that his religion is valid even if the stories behind it aren't. Their dogmatic insistence that every story is the absolute truth is causing their very belief system to lose credibility at an alarming rate. Noah's Ark is a good story from a mythological point of view. But when you ask how Noah went to Australia for kangaroos and the Arctic for polar bears BEFORE the flood, and how did he manage to return them after the waters receded, Christians still make up all kinds of rationalizations for how God pulled it off.

What today's Christians fail to recognize is that the stories of the Bible should be the least important elements of their religion. Does it really matter whether God created the Earth in seven days, or seven billion years? Does it really matter if there were twelve apostles, or nineteen, or none at all? Instead, there are believers who spend their lives trying to prove that these stories are facts. What if they aren't? Would you stop believing? Is your faith so weak that it hinges on niggling details in a story book?

I think I could respect a Christian who honestly says that he would live his life the same, and have the same faith, even if the entire Bible is fiction. Unfortunately, the vast majority seem to live in fear that pulling a single thread will unravel the entire religion. They try to pass laws opposing teaching of science, for fear that it contradicts one of their stories, and the whole house of cards will collapse.

In other words, Christians have built their house on sand, not stone. Buddhism works independent of any storybook. A good religion shouldn't fall apart if its record book is inaccurate.

Thoughts?

[GirlinContempt]

1. Wow, that was ignorant.

And, reading it over just made it even more offensive.
"I think I could respect a Christian who honestly says ..."
:eyes:

[Burma Jones]

2. Not all Christians are as you describe......

Just the crazy ones.

There are plenty of Christians, indeed a majority, that reject the literal truth of the Bible.

[Katina]

3. wow, that's using a broad brush to paint

one or two denominations of Christians. Talk about being condescending and ignorant. :eyes:

[scarlet_owl]

4. I'm a Catholic, and I don't take the bible literally.

And most of the other Catholics I know don't take it literally. I worship God, not the bible.

[kwassa]

5. Thoughts? This should be in the Religion and Theology forum, not here.

Your basic premise is false, too.

"It seems that Christianity is looking more and more foolish because of one critical flaw, their stubborn insistence that the Bible is historical fact."

I don't think this is true of the vast majority of Christians, simply the minority that believes the Bible is inerrant.

[Left Is Write]

6. You do know there are lots of Christian denominations that do not take a literal view of the Bible?

"Christianity" is a pretty big umbrella.

I have never viewed the Bible as a literal, factual, historical document. And there are many more like me.

[Courtesy Flush]

9. Admittedly, I'm preaching to the choir here

Since DUers don't really fit the description. But the fact that large groups of people feel this way, and they have managed to have laws changed to reflect their beliefs bears out my observation.

I stand by my statements, though. Set aside the implausible stories. What if Jesus had never lived? That's pretty major. What if he himself was a parable. What if the idea of salvation, heaven and hell were just illustrations of man's internal struggle, and not actual states where you go at death. How many Christians, even liberal ones, can say that this might well be true, but have no bearing on their beliefs?

[skygazer]

13. A lot of them do

I don't think you know much about christians and christian belief if you really think that they believe it all literally. There are very few christians I know who believe absolutely in any of the things you just listed - yes, even the existence of jesus as a real man. There are plenty of believers who are quite able to look at the bible and even at jesus as a means to teach rather than a literal truth.

I recognize that and I'm a frigging atheist. But I don't mock and belittle my christian friends and they don't do that to me.

Fundies are a minority group. They're just vocal.

[mikelewis]

7. You should be a buddhist then... since you clearly have little respect Christians...

You should also make sure everyone knows just how cool Buddhism is and how lame Christianity is... that would be cool. Then I bet people would think you rock!!!! They would say, "You... dude... are the awesomest"... and I'm not just saying that because Jesus tells me I shouldn't call you an asshole... I really mean it... you should be the poster child for Buddhism... sort of like the Golden Child with Eddie Murphy... which btw was a terrible movie.

[xchrom]

8. catholics, lutherans, episcopalians, many congretionalists, quakers,

etc -- don't think of the bible as historical fact --

just thought you should know.

[Critters2]

35. Just for the record, nearly all Congregationalists (and/or UCCs)

Critters
a UCC Congregationalist
and not a literalist

[JerseygirlCT]

37. Orthodox too.

It's mainly the Johnny come lately Protestant denominations that have taken to literalism with a vengeance.

[Rabrrrrrr]

10. Maybe you should take a remedial course on Christianity before spewing bullshit

:eyes:

Your vision is so narrow that if someone gave you horse blinders, it would expand your field of vision.

:eyes:

[Shell Beau]

11. I think this is flame bait. Really, there are several Christians here at DU and

you pretty much just dogged them all.

[Blue-Jay]

12. I'm an atheist, and even *I* think most of your post is horseshit.

[Jo March]

14. Wow. What an ignorant post.

Ignorant.

Is your life so empty that you have to make it more meaningful by attacking the faith of others?

[Jade Fox]

15. You've hit the nail on the head, but.....

it's not just Christians who take the bible literally that do this. All Fundamentalists, regardless of religion, tend to locate absolute truth exclusively in ancient texts whose validity is unprovable. This allows Fundamentalists to act without having to justify their actions with something as mundane as reality.

[Courtesy Flush]

16. Yeah, I really screwed up. Sorry.

When I think of Christians, I usually think of fundamentalists. That's the word I should have used.

Oh I do stick my foot in my mouth sometimes!

[Jade Fox]

18. Your post seems fine to me.....

I'm not sure why it invoked such hostility. For some reason, when religion is criticized, people take it a little too personally.

It is an important point to make that it is foolish to decide all Truth is located in unprovable texts.

[Shell Beau]

22. It invoked hostility because it was offensive.

[Jade Fox]

23. I don't think most people read it very carefully.

[Shell Beau]

26. I read it and then re-read it and was still offended. I read it carefully.

It was offensive.

[Dorian Gray]

43. I read it.

I was not offended. I did think it was FULL of mistaken assumptions and, completely, wrong conclusions. It was a mess, and the responses to the OP are warranted.

The argument could be made for fundamentalism, of course, but it's an unfair broadbrushing of Christianity. It's full of error-filled assumptions, and it reads as though it's written by someone who knows little of Christianity.

[SPKrazy]

24. it was at least ignorant and condescending

thereby i'm sure many might find it offensive

[Courtesy Flush]

25. Thanks

It's interesting that here on DU it's okay to slice and dice someone's deeply held political views, but religious views, even irrational ones, are still off the table. We often paint all republicans with a broad brush (admit it), but doing the same to Christians is not allowed.

That said, I repeat my earlier apology. I was really talking about fundies. I live in the bible belt, and forget that there are non-kooky christians in other parts of the country.

[kwassa]

41. You need to read further

kdusa:
"It's interesting that here on DU it's okay to slice and dice someone's deeply held political views, but religious views, even irrational ones, are still off the table."

You clearly haven't been reading the Religion and Theology forum, where such slicing and dicing goes on. You need to get out more, really, because you are not in a position to make this statement if you don't know what is going on here.

"We often paint all republicans with a broad brush (admit it), but doing the same to Christians is not allowed."

Nor should it be allowed. There are many liberal Democratic Christians out there.

[GirlinContempt]

28. It invoked hostility

because it was unfairly and ignorantly painting all Christians as crazy zealots.
When someone is a Christian, and reads things like:
"Their dogmatic insistence that every story is the absolute truth is causing their very belief system to lose credibility at an alarming rate."
"Is your faith so weak that it hinges on niggling details in a story book?"
"I think I could respect a Christian who honestly says that he would live his life the same, and have the same faith, even if the entire Bible is fiction."
I am really not surprised it's being taken personally.
If the OP did not mean to attack ALL Christians, it should have been worded VERY differently.
As long as it reads the way it does, people will take it personally because it is personal.

[deepthought42]

19. Very true...

one more reason I stay away from religion...

[billyskank]

17. You should remember when criticising Christianity

that America has given birth to a particularly nasty and fucked-up form of the religion, and it may not be fair to mar the entire thing on the actions/beliefs of the religious right wing in America.

I'm not a Christian so I can't say what's what, but I just think it is worth bearing in mind.

[SPKrazy]

20. Jesus H. Christ!

that is a broad brush you are using to portray Christians!

I have come to define myself as probably more of a Paganistic believer than a Christian

I kinda stop after "I believe..." with the Nicene creed

I think that while yes, there are bible literalists they are not the status quo

even then, their literalism is selective at best.

To me, if Jesus did not exist, then it would make no difference to me, the lessons of Christ are sound.

As for the bible as inerrant, wow, if that were true, we'd all be living in some weird assed world!

Oh, wait, we do :P

:shrug:

your post is condescending and a broad brush statement of description of sects of Christianity and fails at the core of it's thesis to provide the knockout blow you'd need to succeed at making such a broad brush statement!

[wildhorses]

21. one think about the lounge-- you ask for thoughts

you get'em

nobody shy around here:P

:hi:

[LanternWaste]

27. While I have no doubt...

While I have no doubt that there are many Christians who believe the Bible does not contain poetry, allegory, metaphor and parable, I would think they are in an extreme minority position within the greater Church.

To be honest, I've never known a Christian who thinks that the Bible can be interpreted on the Literal plane alone, and I've spent my entire life with and around many different Christian churches.

Might I suggest 'Mere Christianity' by C.S. Lewis for a very in-depth and fascinating view of this topic.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

29. I totally agree.

Organized religion is so far down the tubes in some areas that it doesn't remember what the light of day feels like.

[Rabrrrrrr]

30. Know who I hate? Fuckin' oxygen breathers. They've started every war,

they've destroyed the planet, they've fucked over our education system.

I tell ya, if you're gonna hate anyone, hate the oxygen breathers.

[ZombieNixon]

31. No, hate the plants.

They created breathable oxygen on this planet. Without that pollution, there would be no oxygen breathers.

[JVS]

32. You're spouting garbage.

[Imperialism Inc.]

33. Wow. Quite a response you got there.

I hear liberal Christians often say that they don't believe in the Bible literally , but when pressed on specific issues they often do indeed defend the Bible as historically accurate. Part of the problem may be that most Christians have never actually read the Bible so that it being non-literal is kind of a theoretical thing. That if they read it they are pretty sure they would consider parts of it as fiction but since they haven't they don't really know which parts.

I would be very interested to hear from our liberal Christians which parts they personally consider to be fiction. I'm really not trying to put anyone on the spot here. I truly am curious. I've sort of been through this with one person close to me. My girlfriend was nominally a Christian when we met but as we made our way through the Bible it turns out she doesn't believe any of supernatural stuff can be true. She still held on to the resurrection part for a while until she decided that if the rest of it was fiction then that probably was as well. She still believes in God though. She's a deist now basically.

I would put forward a few top suggestions for fiction (though I believe that it is pretty close to 100% fiction). These would either be based on evidence we have or just on sheer improbability or both. I would love to hear input from our liberal Christians on the following and any of their own they would like to add:

1) The virgin birth: The genealogies leading in to the nativity stories do not match at all. The birth story itself is only in two of the four gospels (missing in Mark which is the earliest and John). The stories in the two it is in differ drastically.

2) The miracle stories: Some are inconsistent (only Matthew mentions that Peter walked on water for a bit as well). Mostly though is just the fact that telling those types of stories about heroes was the cultural norm at the time. Jesus uses the same techniques (spit in the eyes, call out the demon's name to gain control over him etc etc) as the pagan healers and heroes did so if it worked for him it surely worked for the pagans as well.

3) The trial: The details of Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin (Jewish council) and Pilate are so at odds with how we know those courts would have been run that it is almost impossible that this can be a factual account. Not to mention that bits of it happen out of view of everyone that knew Jesus so how can someone report it? Did he fill them in on al lthe details when he came back from the dead or something?

4) Settings of Jesus' speeches: I'm not saying the words necessarily but the settings. Matthew and Luke both include material that Mark does not but, often times they have Jesus saying the same thing in totally different settings. Off the top of my head the one that springs to mind is when Jesus tells the disciples they will sit on the 12 thrones of Israel or some such. One (Luke I think) has it happen at the last supper. Matthew has it somewhere else entirely. Matthew has a sermon on the mount. Luke has the sermon on a plain. This (along with other evidence) is why scholars think they were both cribbing from a common document, with sayings only, that is now lost to us. Again, whether the sayings themselves actually happened is another issue entirely but it strongly suggest that Matthew and Luke were just making up the settings themselves.

I'll stop there because , in my view, it could go on and on. Would love to hear input.

I'm also curious what liberals feel the meaning of the religion is if the above and others aren't literally true. But let's go further. What if Jesus is not the son of God and didn't really rise from the dead? Do any liberal Christians subscribe to that point of view? If so what is the meaning of the religion? Is it just that Jesus said to be nice to people and help people? Those sound like great sentiments but what makes it worthy of religious worship? Is it? (or perhaps I should say would it be?)

I hope you'll all take this as intended. As an attempt to understand where fellow liberals are coming from. I have honestly always had a hard time understanding how one can consider Jesus worthy of worship (admiration yes, worship though?) if a lot, or even most, of the stories about him are fiction.

[Spearman87]

46. For many people, it's probably more about results

<<"I have honestly always had a hard time understanding how one can consider Jesus worthy of worship (admiration yes, worship though?) if a lot, or even most, of the stories about him are fiction.">>

Many Christians pray to God/Jesus, and see results in their lives. They receive emotional comfort or even see changes in events and in their own lives that show God answered the prayer. That is obviously a subuective perception....but then so are some aspects that make Bhuddism fulfilling. In their personal realities, those things are actually happening (and maybe God is really at work--neither of us could prove otherwise). It's definitely possible to believe in the reality of God and in a reality where he works in our lives, regardless of any belief in the literalness of biblical stories. If someone believes that, there is your "worthiness" right there.

[DeSwiss]

34. Irrespective of the bible's validity....

....what is at conflict is the notion that some parts of the bible should be adhered to, while other parts are to be ignored.

For centuries, the bible was advanced as "The Word of God." Then as science began to threaten that position, the church first attempted to rewrite science, or at minimum, skew the message to support the insupportable. When this finally failed, the church adopted the position that some aspects of the bible were metaphorical and others literal. And as democratic principles began to slowly inch their way into civilian life (e.g., Magna Carta) the church found itself again forced to reconsider the bible, as human rights trumped biblical edicts.

Do we stone for adultery? Do we stone disobedient children? Do we stone men who lie with men like a woman? Do we stone the wife who sews disallowed fabrics together? Do we rape, kidnap and enslave all the young girls we capture? Do we kill all the conquered adults? Do we allow wild animals to kill kids who tease bald-headed men of God? Can we touch our wives while they are on their periods? Can we eat animals that don't chew their cud?

Well obviously, these particular biblical requirements are now ignored. Most of them. But who decided that? And who is to decide the ones that are still in effect? Who will decide the one's we'll ignore in the future? Was God lying or just kidding around when he put the stuff in the bible that we now ignore? Did God update the bible and we just didn't get the memo?

Since the dawn of humanity, we have tried to understand why we are here. And we have created one religion after another religion to serve as the official mouth organ of where we were in this quest. We started out with human sacrifices and graduated up to animals and crops. Then just money. We went from anthropomorphic gods with arms and limbs and bodies that looked just like ours, and who represented the various aspects of human personality and the characteristics of nature. Gods of love. Gods of hate. Gods of rain. Gods of crops. Gods of fortune. Gods of the sun and moon. Gods of the female aspects. Gods of the warrior male. Yahweh started out jealous, vengeful and petty, and apparently "evolved" into a compassionate loving god. Sort of.

Somehow we have gotten stuck here with this storyline for the past 2,000 years, with these inexplicable fanciful tales and we're afraid to move any further. We're afraid to just say "this is all bunk!" Because then we have to wonder -- what comes after??? Our literal/intelligent selves tell us that we know much of this isn't true. And it becomes even more difficult when there is an admixture of truisms included in the bible and in the overall message. So, we're afraid that if we chuck the whole thing we'll end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yet, the best that can be said today about religion, is that there appears to be some truth in it. A little.

But one must remember that the bible and the religions were all created and developed at a time when there was no one who had any way to contest or disprove these stories. And even had there been, who would have done so on pain of death for being a heretic and challenging the church??? Who would impeach these beliefs??? And so today, most believers put on their religious blinders and simply ignore everything that doesn't fit. That is the state of religion today.

IMHO

~DeSwiss

[struggle4progress]

36. I think your theology is a hundred to a hundred fifty years out of date.

You don't seem to realize that the German theologians went over the issue of the historicity of Jesus exhaustively in the late Victorian era. The project of studying the "historical Jesus" collapsed in failure before WWI. Nor do you seem to understand that since the very beginning of the Christian era, there have been a number of Christians who recognized the problems associated with reading the Bible as a historical document.

There are about 2 billion folk calling themselves Christians in the world, perhaps 150 million in the United States alone. Due to (sometimes important) disagreements about what the texts actually mean, these people are organized into over 30K different groups, with over 1000 in this country alone. Please forgive me for doubting that you yourself have talked to enough people to understand the different views represented or to accurately summarize what views are held in common. :eyes:

[Imperialism Inc.]

39. Can I get you to elaborate?

I hear this response quite often but I've never had anyone tell me what has replaced the historical view? If the Bible is bunk then who is Jesus? And why is he important? In the modern view. And where are all these people that believe this hiding as I have never met one in person. I am certainly not saying they don't exist and I am also certainly not a Christian anthropologist that has met all varieties but I would really like to hear what has replaced the view of Bible as history.

[struggle4progress]

44. Uh, I didn't say the Bible was "bunk" -- I simply noted that there are ...

... Christian positions treating the Bible as something other than a collection of historical texts. Here, for example, should you care to read it, is Albert Schweitzer in 1910. If you don't want to read the whole thing, then by using the search function you should be able to find excerpts I've posted in this forum

The Quest of the Historical Jesus
A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede
By Albert Schweitzer
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/

Allegorical views of such texts have a long history. The Jewish scholar, Philo of Alexandria at the beginning of the Christian era, wrote interpretive material that was much admired by a number of early Christians.

The Works of Philo Judaeus
The contemporary of Josephus, translated from the Greek
By Charles Duke Yonge
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/

I doubt whether I can provide any simple insight into the nonliteralistic views, using language you find acceptable. Many of my posts in this forum have been intended to provide such insight, but I seem not to have been successful in this regard. Nevertheless, here are some of my prior posts, which usually link elsewhere:

Now the green blade rises from the buried grain
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=120443

Jesus Christ (Woody Guthrie / 1940)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=101691

Seeing the Crucified in the Real World
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=119760

Poll question: Marx's Critique of Hegel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=95315

The Christian-Marxist dialogue of the 1960s
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=117452

The theology of Walter Wink
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=115969

The Gospel of Christian Atheism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=101301

Can a Commitment to Secularization be a Religious Duty?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=81818

Father Red is ordered to give up his church for the poor
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=119761

Henry Groues, beloved priest to the ragpickers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=112405

Church embraces youths who tried to carjack pastor
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=111741

Redmond church faces fines for hosting Tent City
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=111588

Westminster: Bishops call for total nuclear disarmament
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=97696

Do you believe in "Love"? Does "Love" exist? Are these the same question?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=94302

Real v. True v. Provable
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=88332

On the language of angels
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=90217

Poll question: Virgin Birth
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=85441

What popular religious ideas are not usually considered religious?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=85993

[Imperialism Inc.]

45. Thanks. That is exactly the kind of thing I was asking for. NT

[mudesi]

38. If this OP is ignorant, I would like to see Christians say Jesus did NOT walk on water

Let's see how many of you who call this OP ignorant admit to me right now that it is absolutely, positively, physically impossible that Jesus ever walked on water. Or how about that Jesus did not bodily ascend from the dead, because there existed gravity in the year 40 A.D.?

And if you can't do that (because "there's no way to disprove it because 'you weren't there'"), let's see how many can admit that every Sunday, during the consecration, nothing is happening to the little wafer in the priest's hand, that it is not being converted into the actual body of Christ, that if you put it under a microscope and did tests on it you'd find that it is the exact same wafer it was beforehand.

The OP is a little bit over the top and generalizes Christians to be all fundamentalists, but it is nonetheless essentially correct in its premise if you look at it in the context of very specific tenets of the Christian faith.

[EstimatedProphet]

40. I disagree. FUNDAMENTALISTS have done that, not Christians

There's enough Christians that see metaphor in the Bible that your point about them believing it is literally true is bogus.

[Dorian Gray]

42. Your first sentence is flawed.

While some Christian sects believe that the Bible is historical fact, there are many churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, who have repeatedly and publicly stated that many stories in the Bible are a mixture of symbolism, allegory and history. I don't think that the church upholds Noah's Ark to be true. Rather, much like Jesus used parable to deliver a message, Noah and his ark are to be read in a similar vein. Much like Lot. Much like Job.

Only certain churches believe that the Bible is inerrable historic fact. And I don't believe that it is the majority of Christian believers.