Answers for Sandalstraps' "Bible as the Word of God"
I have been exposed to the Sandalstraps' Sanctuary blog recently. He's one of the few Christian bloggers I've seen who discuss theism and Christianity without resorting to insults to skeptics like myself, and in my spiritual journey, I sincerely appreciate that.
One of his comments to an earlier post of mine linked to his blog's Exodus as a Macro Story. At the end of that post, he lists a few questions about how freethinkers (and I include people who still call themselves Christians, as I sometimes do) view the Bible.
I'd like to respond to his questions here. It's funny: on some days I consider myself a liberal Christian, on others, an agnostic. So I'll answer all three of these questions, as I've been in all three places recently:
If you say that the Bible is somehow the Word of God, what do you mean by that?
This is one of the points that lead me away from Christianity. I don't believe the Bible is inerrant, and that has caused the whole house of cards to topple in my mind. Part of me still thinks that part of the Bible is somehow the Word of God, but I certainly don't think it was divinely inspired and translated to page without error. So how much of it was misunderstood or simply made up by the original authors or subsequent translators? I think God is in there somewhere, but probably isn't recognizable.
If you are within the Christian tradition, and do not use that phrase to describe the Bible, why don't you use it? What phrases do you use to describe the Bible? How do you approach the Bible?
The Bible is a holy book that many people believe verbatim. I used to approach it as a place to prove Christianity. Now I don't trust the veracity of just about anything in it. It may be a decent place to go to for metaphorical truth (similar to Sandalstraps' point in his post), but I can't get away from the feeling that all Christians pick and choose which parts to follow and which parts to ignore. And that destroys the notion of absolute truth.
If you are outside the Christian tradition, what do you think of a group holding up a work like the Bible as in some form a communication of God and from God?
Even inside the Christian tradition, I'm not sure it's a good idea to elevate the Bible to its current standing. It lets people think and act irrationally.
One of his comments to an earlier post of mine linked to his blog's Exodus as a Macro Story. At the end of that post, he lists a few questions about how freethinkers (and I include people who still call themselves Christians, as I sometimes do) view the Bible.
I'd like to respond to his questions here. It's funny: on some days I consider myself a liberal Christian, on others, an agnostic. So I'll answer all three of these questions, as I've been in all three places recently:
If you say that the Bible is somehow the Word of God, what do you mean by that?
This is one of the points that lead me away from Christianity. I don't believe the Bible is inerrant, and that has caused the whole house of cards to topple in my mind. Part of me still thinks that part of the Bible is somehow the Word of God, but I certainly don't think it was divinely inspired and translated to page without error. So how much of it was misunderstood or simply made up by the original authors or subsequent translators? I think God is in there somewhere, but probably isn't recognizable.
If you are within the Christian tradition, and do not use that phrase to describe the Bible, why don't you use it? What phrases do you use to describe the Bible? How do you approach the Bible?
The Bible is a holy book that many people believe verbatim. I used to approach it as a place to prove Christianity. Now I don't trust the veracity of just about anything in it. It may be a decent place to go to for metaphorical truth (similar to Sandalstraps' point in his post), but I can't get away from the feeling that all Christians pick and choose which parts to follow and which parts to ignore. And that destroys the notion of absolute truth.
If you are outside the Christian tradition, what do you think of a group holding up a work like the Bible as in some form a communication of God and from God?
Even inside the Christian tradition, I'm not sure it's a good idea to elevate the Bible to its current standing. It lets people think and act irrationally.
posted by SuperSkeptic at 4:26 PM
1 Comments:
Superskeptic,
I found you via Sandalstraps. Oddly, you and I work in the same corner of the USA.
I too struggle with the Bible. I'm going to read some of the books Sandalstraps recently recommended on his blog. The bible as the inerrant word of God thing doesn't fit for me either. I'm Episcopalian now, though, and many people in my church feel that way. We still worship Christ, but we understand Scripture is not the product of a single divine mind. I don't have many clear answers, but I do believe it's possible to see the human component of the Bible, yet hear the Jesus of the gospels. That's how it worked for me, at least. There are an awful lot of Christians who feel that way. Shoot, the famous C.S. Lewis, in Reflections on the Psalms, feels that way: the Bible is human literature which God uses.
I think, also, that as you note in your post below, God is surely Other with a capital O. To speculate on God's mind is impossible.
May God help you in your search.
Post a Comment
<< Home