How to justify ignoring the unpleasant parts of the bible?

[rschanke]

As the thread title more or less tries to ask - How do you, as a believing christian, justify ignoring much of what is written in the bible? How can you deal with the glaring contradictions present in the text? I’ll get back to what exactly I am referring to in a moment, but first i’d like a few rules to be clear in an attempt to filter out any potential fanatics without real arguments.

1.) The Bible itself can not be referred to as proof of anything.
2.) Faith has no place in your argument. Faith is the blind belief in seemingly irrational thoughts and no matter how much faith someone has in something, and regardless of whether what is believed is true or not, it has no value in a discussion between people of different beliefs.
3.) Suggesting that everything happens due to some grand, mysterious plan is not allowed.

Great. Now that this is out of the way, let me explain what my problem is exactly.

Claim #1 - The bible is the words of god, and is as such perfect.

Fact - FIrst of all, in the first Chapter of Genesis, God creates Adam and Eve. Then in the second chapter, Adam is lonely, and god creates Eve out of a rib. These are two completely different creation stories. You cannot create Adam and Eve, and then later on pretend they are gone and create Eve again.

Conclusion #1 - There are two different writers at work here. This means that the bible cannot be taken literally, as the story changes from writer to writer, while only one of the stories can be considered true.

or

Conclusion #2 - God wrote the bible, but wrote the two first chapters of Genesis with a glaring contradiction.

Regardless of which conclusion we land on, this shows that the bible cannot be taken literally all the time. You cannot take two contradicting stories and interpret both literally.

Claim #2 - God is kind and forgiving. If you believe in god and follow his guidelines, you will get to heaven.

Fact - If you believe this, you have not understood the Bible. Below follows examples of god’s kindness, and guidelines that must be followed to make it into heaven. These are taken directly from the bible, word by word.

Exodus 35:2-3 - For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.

Conclusion: Ever worked on a Saturday? Tough luck. How about lighting up your fireplace on a saturday evening? Off to the gallows you go.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 - If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Conclusion: If your kids, disobey you to great extent, they shall be stoned, so that he dies. Even if we interpret stoning as the way of the past, there is no getting away from the “that he die” part. If your kid wont listen, he has to die.

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.

Conclusion: Are you gay? Have a friend that is? Believe its okay to be gay? Too bad. The Bible that is your guide in live clearly states that the act of lieing with another male is an abominable deed, which shall be punished with death.

Corinthians 11:14 - Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Conclusion: God isnt even tolerant enough to accept men with long hair? Didnt Jesus have long hair? He does in pictures in churches for sure.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 - Long one, but in short it states that girls who arent virgins when they marry, needs to die.

All in all, I believe these lines, the words of god himself, proves he is not as benevolent, forgiving , accepting and loving as many would have it. If we add to this the story of Moses, and how god punished the egyptian king by murdering every first-born child in Egypt, we’re looking at a downright evil bastard. Why couldnt he just punish the Pharao?

So, to end all this off, my question returns; How do you justify ignoring these lines of the bible? Why do they weigh less than others?

If you believe this god is your god, and god is infallible, you -cannot- take out some parts just because you dont like them.

[Uccisore]

As the thread title more or less tries to ask - How do you, as a believing christian, justify ignoring much of what is written in the bible? How can you deal with the glaring contradictions present in the text?

Are you still beating your wife?

[rschanke]

Excuse me? I am trying to make sense of your post, but I can’t. The only logical interpretation of it is that you somehow believe I uphold everything the bible requires. You, with all your posts on this forum, show surprisingly little insight in the ways of discussion.

I am an atheist, this thread is directed at christians who pick and choose the parts of the bible that they like, undermining the authority of their omnipotent god.

[Uccisore]

What I’m saying is, you opened your thread with a presumption of accusation- you just assumed that all Christians are guilty of this grossly irrational behavior, and then demanded they justify themselves to you. It just seems to me that if you wanted to garner responses from those of us that have put a lot of thought into the issue, another approach would have worked better.
I mean, your examples of ‘contradictions’ and problems in the Scriptures are rather poor, and I can’t help but wonder if the shoddy details are somehow related to your presumption of superiority. Maybe if you thought of Christians as your intellectual equals, you would have tried a little harder?

[rschanke]

@Uccisore

What I’m saying is, you opened your thread with a presumption of accusation- you just assumed that all Christians are guilty of this grossly irrational behavior, and then demanded they justify themselves to you. It just seems to me that if you wanted to garner responses from those of us that have put a lot of thought into the issue, another approach would have worked better.
I mean, your examples of ‘contradictions’ and problems in the Scriptures are rather poor, and I can’t help but wonder if the shoddy details are somehow related to your presumption of superiority. Maybe if you thought of Christians as your intellectual equals, you would have tried a little harder?

I accuse christians of not being consistent in their belief. This a reasonable enough accusation, as a believing christian, you most likely believe that a man should not lie with another man’s wife, but I doubt you bring your children in front of any authority to be killed if they are disobedient. I could have tried harder, and certainly included many other contradictions and issues of morality deriving from the bible, but why would I? These contradictions alone, in fact the last one mentioned alone, is enough to warrant serious thought on the side of any self-respecting christian.

In any other context than a religious one, this one single issue would be enough to damn the whole book.

So if you are my “intellectual equal” and a believing christian, can you even explain why you follow one line and ignore the next? Do you know better than god himself? How can you convince yourself to be a believer when you do not follow ALL the scriptures? And what the HELL is that about the scriptures being poor? Arent they all the word of god?

[Uccisore]

I accuse christians of not being consistent in their belief. This a reasonable enough accusation, as a believing christian, you most likely believe that a man should not lie with another man’s wife, but I doubt you bring your children in front of any authority to be killed if they are disobedient.

Obviously. These are questions that might be more interesting posed to an Orthodox Jew than a Christian, since pretty much the entire point of the Christian message, i.e., the reasons why we don't call ourselves Jews anymore, deals with why we don't do things like that.  That's what I mean when I say that you're examples are poor.  It's really, really easy to get the answers to these questions to yourself.  Posting them here is one way, certainly, but posting them with the tone that they are unanswerable is just bizarre!
Do you know why Christians consider it ok to eat pork and shellfish?  I'll give you a hint- it's not because we all forgot to read Leviticus, or because we pretend it's not there.  I guess what I'm saying is, not knowing the answers to these questions is more your problem than Christianity's. 

These contradictions alone, in fact the last one mentioned alone, is enough to warrant serious thought on the side of any self-respecting christian.

Maybe if he’s 12 years old. Most self respecting Christians, especially the sort you’re likely to find on a philosophy message board, already know that the New Covenant with Christ eliminates the need to do things like stone our children and etc.

In any other context than a religious one, this one single issue would be enough to damn the whole book.

Actually, quite the opposite. In any other context, an alleged occurrence of moral ambiguity or contradiction wouldn’t be that big of a deal at all. There’s certainly parts of the America’s founding documents we all interpret differently, and if there was a contradiction, I doubt we’d throw them away. It’s specifically because of the religious context that people tend to think that every little thing has to be perfect, and so issues like this are raised and assumed to be a big deal.

So if you are my “intellectual equal” and a believing christian, can you even explain why you follow one line and ignore the next?

Again, do you still beat your wife? That’s my way of saying, “I DON’T follow one line and ignore the next, and your presumption that I do, is your error, and not mine”. But yeah, here:

Fact - FIrst of all, in the first Chapter of Genesis, God creates Adam and Eve. Then in the second chapter, Adam is lonely, and god creates Eve out of a rib. These are two completely different creation stories. You cannot create Adam and Eve, and then later on pretend they are gone and create Eve again.

Conclusion #1 - There are two different writers at work here. This means that the bible cannot be taken literally, as the story changes from writer to writer, while only one of the stories can be considered true.

or

Conclusion #2 - God wrote the bible, but wrote the two first chapters of Genesis with a glaring contradiction.

Or conclusion 3, the first story simply states that God created man and woman, the second story goes into details about the particulars of how. Or, conclusion 4, both stories are allegories that aren’t intended to be taken literally, and the theological message they convey is what’s true. Both those understandings have been around for ages.

Claim #2 - God is kind and forgiving. If you believe in god and follow his guidelines, you will get to heaven.

Fact - If you believe this, you have not understood the Bible. Below follows examples of god’s kindness, and guidelines that must be followed to make it into heaven. These are taken directly from the bible, word by word.

The first series of quotes you presented are all from the Old Testament. As such, Christians do try to do things like maintain the Sabbath, keep their kids respectful, be respectful to their own parents, and teach that homosexual acts are sinful. I don’t even know what sort of contradiction you’re alleging that there should be.

If you’re talking about the punishments, see the New Covenant. Christians have generally not considered the recommended punishments in the Old Testament to apply to the Christian way of life, indeed, Jesus seems to have specifically taught that they don’t, especially in the case of ‘Stoning the Adulteress’. So if Christians are ‘ignoring parts of the Bible’, you have to admit that Jesus is doing it too, so at least they’re in good company. However, more to the point, what we Christians are actually doing is acknowledging a different sort of relationship we have with God than we did before, because of the Resurrection and such. Even if you disagree with the theology, your original accusation that we’re ‘ignoring parts of the Bible’ is just facile.

Corinthians 11:14 is an interesting case. As you’ve pointed out, some of the very oldest pictures (icons) of Christ have Him in long hair, and certainly many other important figures as well. So, what’s YOU’RE explanation, I’m curious to know? 2nd century icon painters were ‘choosing to ignore’ parts of the Bible so long ago that they hadn’t even officially declared them to be canon yet? That doesn’t seem very plausible. Here:

orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/clergy_hair.aspx

You’ll notice that in the link I provided, we have good reason to believe that Paul himself (the guy who wrote the passage you cite) had long hair. That should be a clue to you that there’s more to this.
Again, doesn’t matter if you agree with the theology or not, but this should suffice to show you that Christians aren’t choosing to ignore these things.

[d0rkyd00d]

rschanke, I think if you haven’t already, you owe it to yourself to look up some speeches and debates by Christopher Hitchens on google video. The points he brings up against Christianity are far more effective than those you’ve brought up here, which can be deflected quite easily as Uccisore has done.

[Uccisore]

Yar, raising the bar is what it’s all about.

[rschanke]

Obviously. These are questions that might be more interesting posed to an Orthodox Jew than a Christian, since pretty much the entire point of the Christian message, i.e., the reasons why we don’t call ourselves Jews anymore, deals with why we don’t do things like that. That’s what I mean when I say that you’re examples are poor. It’s really, really easy to get the answers to these questions to yourself. Posting them here is one way, certainly, but posting them with the tone that they are unanswerable is just bizarre!
Do you know why Christians consider it ok to eat pork and shellfish? I’ll give you a hint- it’s not because we all forgot to read Leviticus, or because we pretend it’s not there. I guess what I’m saying is, not knowing the answers to these questions is more your problem than Christianity’s.

As long as Christians use The Bible as their guide and consider it the word of god, other factors are largely irrelevant. If god is perfect and omnipotent, it is not up to you to decide what parts to follow.

Maybe if he’s 12 years old. Most self respecting Christians, especially the sort you’re likely to find on a philosophy message board, already know that the New Covenant with Christ eliminates the need to do things like stone our children and etc.

It just doesnt work that way. Again you are using the bible as your holy book. The bible clearly includes these negative aspects. If christians want to conveniently let all the negative parts in the bible go away through the new covenant, they need to acknowledge that the bible is wrong and full of misinformation. You cant have it both ways.

Again, do you still beat your wife? That’s my way of saying, “I DON’T follow one line and ignore the next, and your presumption that I do, is your error, and not mine”. But yeah, here:

Actually it is not an error. The Bible includes so many rules and guidelines to get into heaven and on how to live your life that no one can possibly fullfill all of it. The laws of the Pharisee’s come to mind. As for the new covenant, its garbage as long as you consider the bible your source of divine wisdom.

Or conclusion 3, the first story simply states that God created man and woman, the second story goes into details about the particulars of how. Or, conclusion 4, both stories are allegories that aren’t intended to be taken literally, and the theological message they convey is what’s true. Both those understandings have been around for ages.

Fine. You admit that the bible is not to be taken literally. Ever. You can just as easily say that christs resurrection is an allegory for dying, but living on in our hearts and mind. In fact you admit that the words of the bible can basically be twisted into whatever it is you want. It just doesnt work that way. If the bible is the divine word of god, it is not up to us to interpret them. They have to be taken literally. Why? Because God obviously had a message to share, and as an omnipotent god it would make no sense to allow your words to be interpreted into anything the reader likes. This defeats the purpose of a message.

[Uccisore]

As long as Christians use The Bible as their guide and consider it the word of god, other factors are largely irrelevant. If god is perfect and omnipotent, it is not up to you to decide what parts to follow.

That’s not your call to make. The ideas of God being perfect and omnipotent are something you’re getting from Christian dogma. Christian dogma, then, also sets the rules on how the Bible is to be interpreted. I’ve giving you a straightforward assessment of how Christianity addresses the questions you’ve raised.

Fine. You admit that the bible is not to be taken literally. Ever. You can just as easily say that christs resurrection is an allegory for dying, but living on in our hearts and mind.

Anyone can SAY anything, and yes, that is a Christian heresy. Frankly, the standard you're applying of "If one part of the Bible isn't taken literally, then it's all allegory!" is something that young earth creationist pundits invented, handed to you, and now you're playing by their rules.  I'm not any more interested in hearing that kind of horrible hermeneutics  from a skeptic than I am in hearing it from them. 

You ought to take Dorkydood’s advice. Just because you ought to abandon this particular argument doesn’t mean you have to abandon your position over all. It just happens that the “OMG, Christians don’t stone people!!!” argument is really, really bad- so bad, in fact, that it demonstrates a total ignorance over the foundational beliefs of Christianity itself.

If the bible is the divine word of god, it is not up to us to interpret them. They have to be taken literally. Why? Because God obviously had a message to share, and as an omnipotent god it would make no sense to allow your words to be interpreted into anything the reader likes. This defeats the purpose of a message.

Take it up with a Young Earth Creationist, then. I’m just telling you how the Bible has been interpreted for pretty much as long as it has existed, that’s all.
Besides, your original point was that Christians IGNORE these parts of the Bible. I’ve already proven to you that’s not the case. What this new argument of yours, that Christian doctrine doesn’t rise to atheistic standards of theological rigor?

[Iosepusmagus]

Well said Ucci, may I add that Christians are not the people of the book but the people of the Word. Meaning, the texts are holy and infallible, sure, but how we see it that change, how we apply it, how we live it. It does not mean we ignore it, we just read it in another light, we mature as a reader. In short, Christianity must not be ONLY seen as a religion based on the scriptures BUT a religion based on a living and breathing tradition.

You see there is the Bible and also the Christian tradition.There are also human writers of the Bible addressing what they written to a particular audience (i.e. 5th century BCE Jew or 1st century Greek) so I think taking the Bible out of its historical and cultural context and replacing it with your 21st century atheistic context will do great injustice on interpreting the text, don’t you think?

[Uccisore]

Thanks, Iosepusmagus. I’d be quick to add that I’m no modernist, either. I’m not trying to answer these questions with 21st century Biblical interpretations we’ve been forced into because ‘now we know better’. I strive to be an old school traditionalist, and I think there’s at least a millennium’s worth of tenure behind the ideas I put forward here.