Do you believe in god?

[Ack]

Eh, I'm getting away from the point of this thread, but I have to ask: are his incorrect beliefs unacceptable because they're springing from his religion, or is his religion unacceptable because it holds incorrect beliefs?

Somewhat of a loaded question there Ack. The first choice implies that all religious beliefs are bad, and the second condemns religion for having a few wrong beliefs. I actually have more respect for the people who take every word of the bible literally than I do for people like him. As has been pointed out there are a lot of things in the bible that most creationists agree aren't true, or are simply poetic devices. So if we've established that not everything in the bible is correct, doesn't that make the whole thing suspect? Now I'm not saying there aren't true things in the bible, but they're going with "Creation happened" without evidence to back it up. At people who take every word as gospel are consistent.

I was worried it might get taken that way, and I honestly didn't mean for it to be. But I think it makes for an interesting question to pose concerning the topic. I don't consider one answer to be correct, and I feel it actually stems back to other interesting questions about why the man in question believes what he believes: Does he think this solely for his religion, when there are parts of it he doesn't accept as truth? Or does he find that these inaccuracies make his devotion to his religion stronger?

Unfortunately I don't think we'll ever know.

[Octopod]

Don't conservative Christians believe in the literal word of the bible?

[s1mplehumar]

Don't conservative Christians believe in the literal word of the bible?

As a Christian, I definitely believe in the Bible literally. Each word in the scriptures inspired by God and preserved in its entirety. This is all assuming all nuances, symbolism, poetics, social norms of the times, and different grammatical styles are taken into account when reading the Bible. As old as the Holy Scriptures are, I believe the principles and instruction given transcend time and cultural shifts.

I also believe that a literal interpretation of the Bible is understood in two different ways. The first interpretation would be from a secular view, and the second being of a Christian point of view. The Bible clearly says that the natural man cannot understand the words of the Bible for it is a divine book. A divine book given by divine instruction. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto
him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:14.

[Jrecee]

If natural man can't understand the bible, why bother with it at all?

[MrPopo]

Don't conservative Christians believe in the literal word of the bible?

As a Christian, I definitely believe in the Bible literally. Each word in the scriptures inspired by God and preserved in its entirety. This is all assuming all nuances, symbolism, poetics, social norms of the times, and different grammatical styles are taken into account when reading the Bible. As old as the Holy Scriptures are, I believe the principles and instruction given transcend time and cultural shifts.

I also believe that a literal interpretation of the Bible is understood in two different ways. The first interpretation would be from a secular view, and the second being of a Christian point of view. The Bible clearly says that the natural man cannot understand the words of the Bible for it is a divine book. A divine book given by divine instruction. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto
him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:14.

I'm not sure you actually answered the question. Let me take out the two pieces:

Each word in the scriptures inspired by God and preserved in its entirety. This is all assuming all nuances, symbolism, poetics, social norms of the times, and different grammatical styles are taken into account when reading the Bible. As old as the Holy Scriptures are, I believe the principles and instruction given transcend time and cultural shifts.

So in this, if I might paraphrase, you say that the scriptures were laid down by God (whether directly or through an agent on earth) and have been kept in the same state through the years. Except you make allowances for changes through the ages based on things as secular as social norms. And then you cap it off with "the basic message transcends time". This is a confliting message, either it's changed or it hasn't through the years. And if it has, can you still take it literally?

I also believe that a literal interpretation of the Bible is understood in two different ways. The first interpretation would be from a secular view, and the second being of a Christian point of view.

Not to be pedantic, but there is only one meaning of literal, which is what you would define as the secular view. When anyone asks if you take the bible literally that's what they're talking about. And if you don't take that view then you are offering it up to interpretation, which is what it sounded like you were saying (with the whole "man cannot understand the divine"). Which then begs the obvious question as to why are certain parts taken very literally and other parts are more up for interpretation.

[Octopod]

The thing that I do not understand is that there were many early christian writings. The books put into the bible and others including the Dead Seas Scrolls and other "gnostic" writings. Hell, there was another 47 known apocalyptic books in addition to Revelations. The early Catholic church leaders chose which books to include when they compiled the bible. Obviously they were all inspired by god but does that mean they are all true or only the ones that the early Catholic church decided to include? What makes the ones chosen for the bible special besides the fact that some old dudes decided to include them?

[Limewater]

Each word in the scriptures inspired by God and preserved in its entirety. This is all assuming all nuances, symbolism, poetics, social norms of the times, and different grammatical styles are taken into account when reading the Bible. As old as the Holy Scriptures are, I believe the principles and instruction given transcend time and cultural shifts.

So in this, if I might paraphrase, you say that the scriptures were laid down by God (whether directly or through an agent on earth) and have been kept in the same state through the years. Except you make allowances for changes through the ages based on things as secular as social norms. And then you cap it off with "the basic message transcends time". This is a confliting message, either it's changed or it hasn't through the years. And if it has, can you still take it literally?

I think you're misunderstanding his use of the word "of the times." I believe he is speaking specifically about the times when scripture were written. For instance (and this one is somewhat controversial), it is written that, to become a deacon, a man must be the husband of one wife. A purely modern view would look at that and say that this means that a man who is divorced and re-married cannot be a deacon. A (in my opinion) more accurate interpretation would look at social customs in the first century and say that the man should literally have only one wife, as opposed to two or more.

[Limewater]

I'm home. I understand what you are saying about the internet but I assure you I am familiar with the bible. No, I do not remember where everything is located necessarily, what chapter or passage, so yes I do look things up.

I did miss your initial point, and I apologize for that. That's what I get for reading the forums at work.

Like I said though, I never said it was done with gods blessing however it was not against his wishes either. Without looking it up now in Judges 18 or 19 they explain the reason the other tribes of the Israelites were not allowed to married their daughters off to the Benjamites. God was mad at the actions they had taken and he made it know. God did not care about the wholesale slaughter of non-Israelites though. And this is after the ten commandments were laid out, of course the ten commandments only apply to Israelites and their behaviors toward each other, not outsiders.

This is not accurate. The Israelites were not allowed to marry their daughters to Benjamites because of an oath that they made themselves. There is no record of them having been commanded to do so. In fact, people taking oaths is generally portrayed negatively and against G_d's will through most of scripture. Also the people slaughtered in Judges 21 were Israelites.

Again, the actions in Judges 21 are not shown to have the blessing of G_d, and a reading of other scripture shows they indeed conflict with commands that were previously established.

I would love to have some bible study with you dude but I was just trying to point out to jp1 that people who believe in god sometimes act on shaky ground morally since it seemed to me that he was trying to imply that atheist have no morals or no reason to be moral since they do not believe in god or gods. That is the only reason I even mentioned that as an example.

Again, I think you're coming at jp1's initial question with a lot of preconceived notions. *EDIT* It's probably also worth mentioning that a Christian having some self-perception of being a good person is bad theology.

[Octopod]

This is not accurate. The Israelites were not allowed to marry their daughters to Benjamites because of an oath that they made themselves. There is no record of them having been commanded to do so. In fact, people taking oaths is generally portrayed negatively and against G_d's will through most of scripture. Also the people slaughtered in Judges 21 were Israelites.

Again, the actions in Judges 21 are not shown to have the blessing of G_d, and a reading of other scripture shows they indeed conflict with commands that were previously established.

You're correct. My point still stands though. People who believe in god doing immoral things.

[Limewater]

You're correct. My point still stands though. People who believe in god doing immoral things.

Sure. You didn't even have to reference scripture for that one.