TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

What the Bible Says

Go To

abstractematics Since: May, 2011
#26: Feb 26th 2012 at 10:28:34 PM

@Chimaera

I've checked both NIV and New American and I don't see "her choice" part.

Now using Trivialis handle.
Carciofus Is that cake frosting? from Alpha Tucanae I Since: May, 2010
Is that cake frosting?
#27: Feb 26th 2012 at 11:34:08 PM

although it still makes the Bible FIRMLY not perfect or infallible.
Depends on what you mean by "perfect or infallible".

If you mean that anything that is written in the Bible is literally true if read in an entirely mechanic fashion and with no taste for metaphors, and that likewise anything that the Bible tells to do should be done without question and without attempting to understand its context and relevance, then yeah, the Bible is not infallible.

But while there is considerable disagreement among Christianity about the exact significance of the Bible, I am pretty sure that no denomination holds to the interpretation that you are suggesting. Why, yesterday's lecture was about God putting his bow in the sky as a reminder not to flood the Earth again, and I am pretty sure that He is not that absentminded to forget about something like that... tongue

edited 26th Feb '12 11:34:50 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
GameGuruGG Vampire Hunter from Castlevania (Before Recorded History)
Vampire Hunter
#28: Feb 27th 2012 at 2:12:48 AM

I think one of the best examples of Jesus' own opinion of those particular laws is actually from the Gospel of John.

An adulterous woman is brought before Jesus, and the Jewish people there point out that under the Mosaic Law, the woman should be stoned to death. Jesus, being the God of Loophole Abuse among other things, began writing something on the ground and said, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." Of course, no man is without sin, so everyone left without invoking the law and then Jesus told the woman to sin no more. (A summary of John 7:53-8:11)

According to one interpretation, Jesus wrote on the ground the names of the people in the crowd who sinned, but the point is that Jesus was pretty much famous for his treatment of the Mosaic Law, and he chooses one of the laws from Deuteronomy 22 to make an example of. While he does not deny that it is the Law, he does pretty much call everyone there out on their own sin, if you believe the Christian interpretation of the passage. As mentioned before, it was common for Jesus to bend the Mosaic Law if he had a point to make, and this passage from the Gospel of John is one such bending.

Wizard Needs Food Badly
Qeise Professional Smartass from sqrt(-inf)/0 Since: Jan, 2011 Relationship Status: Waiting for you *wink*
Professional Smartass
#29: Feb 27th 2012 at 4:20:36 AM

My understanding of the "you raped her, you marry her" bit is that it's forcing the rapist to provide for the woman (since by ancient standards a woman who lost her virginity outside of marriage, even if it wasn't consensual, was considered "defiled" and nobody would want to marry her) - obvious values dissonance now, but that passage definitely wasn't intended to mean "rape is a-okay" like I sometimes see people say nowadays...
Then why not instead put in a law saying it's not the victims fault, and makes her no worse? The word of God should not need to comply to the will of the followers.

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.
Yej (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
#30: Feb 27th 2012 at 4:34:29 AM

[up][up] I'm sorry, but that just reminds me of the Lord High Executioner from The Mikado, except this time it's not on purpose. The laws aren't very effective if there's nobody to enforce them. (which God must know...)

edited 27th Feb '12 4:37:39 AM by Yej

Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#31: Feb 27th 2012 at 5:24:56 AM

[up][up]To me, it's more that this part of the Bible was written to compensate for the existing victim-blaming, not to encourage it.

That makes the passage Fair for Its Day.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
Karmakin Moar and Moar and Moar Since: Aug, 2009
Moar and Moar and Moar
#32: Feb 27th 2012 at 6:57:14 AM

And because of that, what the Bible actually says is far less important than the memes, tropes and thought patterns that come out of religion to the society at large. It's not really that important...either positively or negatively...about the actual words. It's much more important how we today place importance and a sense of scale upon them.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve
TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#33: Feb 27th 2012 at 7:12:41 AM

All I'm saying is that I, as a nonbeliever, have no way of determining who is or is not following the tenets of Christianity other than by looking at those who represent the religion. It's not like you can do a blood test, after all.

Lawyerdude, you've brought up one of the core questions in Christianity. Jesus himself knew that many would have the same exact question.

This is what I mean when I say "true" Christians, and go into a frothing rage over the hypocrites who use Scripture. The Bible actually does say that while no Christian is perfect (in fact many of the Bible's stalwarts pulled some seriously heinous shit; see: David, King) there are certain telltale signs.

Spending more time on condemnation and derision than on affirmation and peaceability is a dead giveaway that someone is faking the Christian funk, and faking it badly.

It was an honor
Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#34: Feb 27th 2012 at 7:30:31 AM

Can I assume you're referring to something like this, from Matthew 7:

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
(ESV)

Sure, but look at the most prominent, important and influential Christians in this country. Remember, they don't exist in a vacuum. Without naming names, you can probably imagine the people that I'm thinking of. If they are what Christianity stands for, then my response is a resounding, "No thank you."

Somebody once asked me if I was a Christian. I responded that I believed how we treated people was more important. She responded, "Well that won't get you into heaven." Looking back, I think that was what deconverted me.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
pvtnum11 OMG NO NOSECONES from Kerbin low orbit Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: We finish each other's sandwiches
OMG NO NOSECONES
#35: Feb 27th 2012 at 8:06:52 AM

Well, she was correct, and so are you, to varying degrees.

A person's good works without faith in God will not save them, just as neither faith without good works. Neither can exist without the other; you need both. There are various epistles and verses of scripture that explain that.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.
Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#36: Feb 27th 2012 at 8:34:13 AM

A person's good works without faith in God will not save them, just as neither faith without good works.

Save them from what?

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
Iaculus Pronounced YAK-you-luss from England Since: May, 2010
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
#37: Feb 27th 2012 at 8:36:22 AM

Of course, most Christians would be offended by being called Communists because, you know, the Communists murdered Christians.

If you're talking about Stalin, the Communists murdered Communists too.

Sometimes with icepicks.

edited 27th Feb '12 8:36:34 AM by Iaculus

What's precedent ever done for us?
Aondeug Oh My from Our Dreams Since: Jun, 2009
Oh My
#38: Feb 27th 2012 at 8:43:57 AM

^^Separation from God and eternal bliss. Whether this bliss is an actual place or becoming one with God or both is up to debate. Also Hell. Which may or may not be fire and brimstone depending on the sect.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah
Madrugada Since: Jan, 2001
#39: Feb 27th 2012 at 8:44:40 AM

Most Christians would be offended by being called "Communists" because "Communist" does not simply mean "a person who believes in or practices communal living". It means "a member or supporter of the Communist Party or the political philosophy the Communist Party espouses."

Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#40: Feb 27th 2012 at 8:49:02 AM

Or as the great and wonderful Glenn Beck tells us, anybody who endorses the ideas of "social justice" and "empathy" is a Commie-Nazi. I would think that "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" are principles of social justice and empathy that Jesus is said to have espoused. Therefore, because Jesus supported social justice, Jesus was a Commie-Nazi.

Of course, since actual Marxist/Leninist Communism is avowedly atheist, I don't see how one could be both a Christian and a Communist, but such mysteries are not for us lesser mortals to ponder.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#41: Feb 27th 2012 at 8:52:42 AM

It's worth pointing out (or perhaps overly pedantic, but whatever) that "Love thy neighbor" and "Do unto others" are not necessarily associated with social justice; a man who hates himself and takes a Randian, dog-eat-dog worldview would be entirely consistent in using those statements to apply the same rules to other people.

edited 27th Feb '12 8:53:03 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Heatth (X-Troper) Relationship Status: In Spades with myself
#42: Feb 27th 2012 at 8:53:26 AM

Jesus was a Commie-Nazi.

And he was awesome because of that. It is sad how a few people can completely fuck off the perception of other people with unrelated actions.

However, political discussion is irrelevant here, I believe. How about moving on?

Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#43: Feb 27th 2012 at 9:11:15 AM

a man who hates himself and takes a Randian, dog-eat-dog worldview would be entirely consistent in using those statements to apply the same rules to other people.

Maybe, but doubtful. Even if I were a masochist, I would recognize that I don't want people hurting me without warning every hour of every day. So I'd only want to be hurt if I were in the mood for it and I consented to it. Even the most hardcore masochist can apply that rule to everybody. "I don't want to be hurt unless I consent, so I shouldn't hurt him unless he consents."

edited 27th Feb '12 9:11:32 AM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#44: Feb 27th 2012 at 9:19:55 AM

I'm not speaking about masochism per se, but let's take libertarianism, or at least the "grouchy neighbor" variant. The idea is that you trust your neighbor exactly as far as you'd trust yourself in the same circumstances. He stays off your lawn and you stay off his. Either of you crosses that line without permission and you have full faith that whichever does it might get a bullet in the head.

That's consistent: you're applying the same rules to everybody that you are applying to yourself. Seems that those passages can be read as condemning hypocrisy more than prescribing a specific code of behavior.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Octo Prince of Dorne from Germany Since: Mar, 2011
Prince of Dorne
#45: Feb 27th 2012 at 9:21:51 AM

Well, yes. But Jesus also says/admits that it's impossible to fully follow the Law. So if you have not been lenient in life, you will be judged to the full extent of the law after life, and you will be condemned.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic
Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#46: Feb 27th 2012 at 9:32:31 AM

That's consistent: you're applying the same rules to everybody that you are applying to yourself. Seems that those passages can be read as condemning hypocrisy more than prescribing a specific code of behavior.

Jesus is recorded as railing against hypocrisy a great deal. Specifically it says that he targeted the religious and political authorities of his time, "Woe unto you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!" (Matthew 23)

And not being a hypocrite is part of a code of behavior. But it says that Jesus went on to call out the Pharisees and scribes for being caught up in legalism while neglecting what he said are more important, namely "justice, mercy and faithfulness" (Matthew 23:23)

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
pvtnum11 OMG NO NOSECONES from Kerbin low orbit Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: We finish each other's sandwiches
OMG NO NOSECONES
#47: Feb 27th 2012 at 11:13:19 AM

Exactly - the scribes were wrapped up in appearances and looking the part. "I thank Thee, that I'm not like that sinner there" versus "be merciful to me, a sinner". Guess which one walked away with their prayers answered?

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.
Carciofus Is that cake frosting? from Alpha Tucanae I Since: May, 2010
Is that cake frosting?
#48: Feb 27th 2012 at 11:23:09 AM

A person's good works without faith in God will not save them, just as neither faith without good works.
I would rather say that good works are just plain impossible without some degree if faith in God, however implicit. I'm pretty sure that no one of us has an idea of God that is even close to being particularly accurate.

Just as some people don't recognize that the thing that they call "God" and have "faith" in has very little to do with the One True God, others, I think, don't recognize that what they have faith in is an image, however imperfect, of Him.

You know, what Lewis wrote about Aslan and Tash, basically. tongue

Remember, they don't exist in a vacuum. Without naming names, you can probably imagine the people that I'm thinking of. If they are what Christianity stands for, then my response is a resounding, "No thank you."
This reminds me of what Chesterton wrote about Christianity: sounds like a good idea, but the problem with it is that it's never been tried tongue

edited 27th Feb '12 11:31:37 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
JHM Apparition in the Woods from Niemandswasser Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: Hounds of love are hunting
Apparition in the Woods
#49: Feb 27th 2012 at 11:29:50 AM

Most Christians would be offended by being called "Communists" because "Communist" does not simply mean "a person who believes in or practices communal living". It means "a member or supporter of the Communist Party or the political philosophy the Communist Party espouses."

Well, actually, a "communist" is, by the original definition, a commune-oriented socialist, as any good student of Proudhon would tell you. But the term, especially when capitalised, does carry the specific implication of adherence to the tenets set out in Marx and Engels' The Communist Manifesto—an aggressively secular tract indeed, albeit one more focused on cultural secularity than that of the individual. The problem is, most people assume that "communist" automatically means "Communist," which they in turn assume means "Leninist," which in and of itself is a different problem (most self-identified Communists are Trotskyists)...

So, yes, even if they shouldn't be offended, they might be. "Socialist" used to be safe, but now the kooks seem intent upon demonising that as well, so I have no idea what sounds least confrontational here.

I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.
feotakahari Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer from Looking out at the city Since: Sep, 2009
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
#50: Feb 27th 2012 at 11:33:30 AM

^^ While that is not the single most offensive sentiment I've heard religious people express towards atheists and agnostics, I believe it is the single most patronizing. If you must make the comparison, say that some people follow God as a way of knowingly searching for goodness, not that other people follow goodness as a way of unknowingly searching for God.

(Please don't respond to that by saying that God and goodness are one and the same. God may be perfectly good, according to some definition of good, but that means that he fits the definition, not that he is the definition. To draw an analogy, there exist weights by which other weights may be standardized, but that only means that those weights perfectly fit the definitions for their measurements.)

edited 27th Feb '12 11:38:30 AM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Total posts: 795
Top