Christians, when did you lower your expectations of the Bible?

[Nihilist Virus]

Consider Bobby, a fictional teenage boy who had grown up in a Christian home but had only recently become very serious about his faith (to the great delight of his parents). Bobby's understanding of the Bible is that it's the infallible word of God... because why would it be fallible, after all? He's maybe not quite sure if anyone has sat him down and explicitly told him that it was infallible, but he's vaguely confident that he's heard this from some place or another and he certainly hasn't heard anything to the contrary. He's definitely never, in all his years of attending church, heard the pastor say that such-and-such part of the Bible is probably in error. To the contrary, the Bible is always the thing that settles any debate, so how can it have errors?

He's not allowed to use the internet at home, due to how strict his parents are, but he manages to do so while at school on lunch. He inadvertently stumbles upon an atheist website—you know, that one atheist website that all us atheists get our ideas from and which automatically makes our arguments invalid because we might've gotten them from a source—and he sees it being said that there's an error in the Bible. Astonished, he opens his trusty Bible that he carries with him wherever he goes and he sees for himself, in plain print, black and white, no two ways about it, that the Bible contradicts itself.

Bobby isn't going to simply drop his entire faith right here and now, on the spot. Over a dozen years of indoctrination will linger a bit. But right now something is happening. The wheels are turning. It might take a day or it might take a month, but one of two things definitely will occur: he will either slowly begin to drop his faith and eventually become an atheist, or he will slowly begin to lower his expectations of God, the Bible, and Christianity as a whole. Sadly, it's the only way that he can remain a Christian.

We all come from different backgrounds, but most of the atheists here are former Christians and most of the Christians here were indoctrinated from childhood. Most of us here have experienced something similar to this. For those of you who remained Christian, how much did you lower your expectations, and why did you do so? How much lower can your expectations go? Just how badly cobbled together a book does the Bible have to be for you to take the other path? If you came to the conclusion that the Bible was absolutely unreliable in everything it says, would you still be Christian? If so, why? If not, how far along the spectrum will your tolerance allow?

 

[HTacianas]

Consider Bobby, a fictional teenage boy who had grown up in a Christian home but had only recently become very serious about his faith (to the great delight of his parents). Bobby's understanding of the Bible is that it's the infallible word of God... because why would it be fallible, after all? He's maybe not quite sure if anyone has sat him down and explicitly told him that it was infallible, but he's vaguely confident that he's heard this from some place or another and he certainly hasn't heard anything to the contrary. He's definitely never, in all his years of attending church, heard the pastor say that such-and-such part of the Bible is probably in error. To the contrary, the Bible is always the thing that settles any debate, so how can it have errors?

He's not allowed to use the internet at home, due to how strict his parents are, but he manages to do so while at school on lunch. He inadvertently stumbles upon an atheist website—you know, that one atheist website that all us atheists get our ideas from and which automatically makes our arguments invalid because we might've gotten them from a source—and he sees it being said that there's an error in the Bible. Astonished, he opens his trusty Bible that he carries with him wherever he goes and he sees for himself, in plain print, black and white, no two ways about it, that the Bible contradicts itself.

Bobby isn't going to simply drop his entire faith right here and now, on the spot. Over a dozen years of indoctrination will linger a bit. But right now something is happening. The wheels are turning. It might take a day or it might take a month, but one of two things definitely will occur: he will either slowly begin to drop his faith and eventually become an atheist, or he will slowly begin to lower his expectations of God, the Bible, and Christianity as a whole. Sadly, it's the only way that he can remain a Christian.

We all come from different backgrounds, but most of the atheists here are former Christians and most of the Christians here were indoctrinated from childhood. Most of us here have experienced something similar to this. For those of you who remained Christian, how much did you lower your expectations, and why did you do so? How much lower can your expectations go? Just how badly cobbled together a book does the Bible have to be for you to take the other path? If you came to the conclusion that the Bible was absolutely unreliable in everything it says, would you still be Christian? If so, why? If not, how far along the spectrum will your tolerance allow?

I personally don't "worship the bible" as many people seem to do. And I don't see how I've lowered my expectations about anything.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I personally don't "worship the bible" as many people seem to do. And I don't see how I've lowered my expectations about anything.

I don't know what post you're responding to but my post was about a naïve Christian who had no reason to expect God's word to contain errors. Nowhere do I mention worship of the Bible.

I'll tell you whose expectations are lowered. Mine: my expectations of Christians entering a conversation in good faith. I'd like to know why your natural expectations of the Bible were so low to begin with so that you were never let down when you actually decided to read it, and further, I'd like to know why you believed it all in the first place with such a naturally low opinion of the Bible. Finally, the thread asked how bad the Bible would have to be before you leave the faith, seeing as how the Bible, and not the church, is the ultimate source of the gospel. But my expectations are lowered so you won't crush me if you refuse to answer.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Consider Bobby, a fictional teenage boy who had grown up in a Christian home but had only recently become very serious about his faith (to the great delight of his parents). Bobby's understanding of the Bible is that it's the infallible word of God... because why would it be fallible, after all? He's maybe not quite sure if anyone has sat him down and explicitly told him that it was infallible, but he's vaguely confident that he's heard this from some place or another and he certainly hasn't heard anything to the contrary. He's definitely never, in all his years of attending church, heard the pastor say that such-and-such part of the Bible is probably in error. To the contrary, the Bible is always the thing that settles any debate, so how can it have errors?

He's not allowed to use the internet at home, due to how strict his parents are, but he manages to do so while at school on lunch. He inadvertently stumbles upon an atheist website—you know, that one atheist website that all us atheists get our ideas from and which automatically makes our arguments invalid because we might've gotten them from a source—and he sees it being said that there's an error in the Bible. Astonished, he opens his trusty Bible that he carries with him wherever he goes and he sees for himself, in plain print, black and white, no two ways about it, that the Bible contradicts itself.

Bobby isn't going to simply drop his entire faith right here and now, on the spot. Over a dozen years of indoctrination will linger a bit. But right now something is happening. The wheels are turning. It might take a day or it might take a month, but one of two things definitely will occur: he will either slowly begin to drop his faith and eventually become an atheist, or he will slowly begin to lower his expectations of God, the Bible, and Christianity as a whole. Sadly, it's the only way that he can remain a Christian.

We all come from different backgrounds, but most of the atheists here are former Christians and most of the Christians here were indoctrinated from childhood. Most of us here have experienced something similar to this. For those of you who remained Christian, how much did you lower your expectations, and why did you do so? How much lower can your expectations go? Just how badly cobbled together a book does the Bible have to be for you to take the other path? If you came to the conclusion that the Bible was absolutely unreliable in everything it says, would you still be Christian? If so, why? If not, how far along the spectrum will your tolerance allow?

Or Bobby could realize that faith in Christ might not 'simply' be a matter of highs or lows in personal expectation, but rather a state of being that requires one to travel an epistemological journey involving an ongoing EXPANSION of thought and interests in the Cosmos rather than remaining rutted in a 2-dimensional gutter of skepticism (whether it's logical or emotional in nature). [see Langdon Gilkey or Rolfe King]

As for myself, I never did quite fully get into any kind of 'evangelical' or charismatic mode of thought that deemed the Bible as inerrant and/or infallible as I pondered the contents of the Bible ... so I must be in an extreme minority among Christians when it comes to the way in which I've come by my faith. I'm also pretty sure that it's not because I'm as sharp as a tack. In more ways that one, I 'feel' that my faith has been a kind of serendipitous blessing, even though I've had to travel some fairly low, dark valleys along the way.

Moreover, in my estimation, it's kind of onerous for Christians and Atheists to insist that there's some kind of clear-cut dichotomy between 'the Bible' on the one side as an entity and the Church of Christ on the other as another entity. No, since the New Testament was written by men (and maybe even a woman? Who know for sure?), the Bible without equivocation needs to really be seen as a part of the Church structure--the Apostolic structure actually. Besides, we all know the Bible didn't plummet out of Heaven, bounce off the steeple of the church building, do a triple flip down through the archways and stained glass windows and onto the preacher's podium with a thud ... and into the waiting ears of devoted parishioners. I mean, C'mon!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Or Bobby could realize that faith in Christ might not 'simply' be a matter of highs or lows in personal expectation, but rather a state of being that requires one to travel an epistemological journey involving an ongoing EXPANSION of thought and interests in the Cosmos rather than remaining rutted in a 2-dimensional gutter of skepticism (whether it's logical or emotional in nature). [see Langdon Gilkey or Rolfe King]

As for myself, I never did quite fully get into any kind of 'evangelical' or charismatic mode of thought that deemed the Bible as inerrant and/or infallible as I pondered the contents of the Bible ... so I must be in an extreme minority among Christians when it comes to the way in which I've come by my faith. I'm also pretty sure that it's not because I'm as sharp as a tack. In more ways that one, I 'feel' that my faith has been a kind of serendipitous blessing, even though I've had to travel some fairly low, dark valleys along the way.

Moreover, in my estimation, it's kind of onerous for Christians and Atheists to insist that there's some kind of clear-cut dichotomy between 'the Bible' on the one side as an entity and the Church of Christ on the other as another entity. No, since the New Testament was written by men (and maybe even a woman? Who know for sure?), the Bible without equivocation needs to really be seen as a part of the Church structure--the Apostolic structure actually. Besides, we all know the Bible didn't plummet out of Heaven, bounce off the steeple of the church building, do a triple flip down through the archways and stained glass windows and onto the preacher's podium with a thud ... and into the waiting ears of devoted parishioners. I mean, C'mon!

Two things.

First, if there are no expectations for the Bible being without error, why do you believe its outlandish claims? I'd find it hard to believe that a guy ate at McDonald's on Wednesday night if the source is a compulsive liar or has a terrible memory. And eating at McDonald's on Wednesday night is not exactly an outlandish claim. So if you come to the table already accepting that the Bible contradicts itself, known science, and known history, belief in the mundane claims about Jesus would be enough of a stretch as it is. Belief that he rose from the dead should be laughed out of town... if that's where you're starting from.

Second, I'm pretty tired of this whole "the Bible isn't the main thing, but rather the church is." Sorry, are you not aware of the fact that the church destroyed heretical documents? Why would they do that if the Bible wasn't such a big deal? Also, without the Bible, what's your reason for believing in the gospel? Oral tradition from 2000 years ago?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Two things.

First, if there are no expectations for the Bible being without error, why do you believe its outlandish claims?

I suppose I believe the Bible's "outlandish claims," as you've put it, for reasons that aren't quite transferable in all respects to the minds of all other persons. In other words, in some way---although as I say this I'm not going to get all hermeneutically snuggly with Luther or Calvin---I see the process of belief becoming faith as a kind of orchestrated gift of God. I say orchestrated so as to set my epistemic view of this in a fashion that isn't quite mirroring that of the original Protestants.

So, I believe because...for me, and after living the life I've lived, thinking the things I've thought, and plowing through and mulling over hundreds of PhD level minds, both men and women, I see patterns that to me reflect coherently, even if not in otherwise EXACTING, matching, corresponding fashion, the truth of the Bible's contents. And with my own hermeneutical and relativistic understanding of biblical epistemology, I'm under no expectations that belief in God, or in Christ for that matter, comes by some kind of 'one size fits all' gift of perception. No, it comes by a more personalized orchestration by God within a person's life.

I'd find it hard to believe that a guy ate at McDonald's on Wednesday night if the source is a compulsive liar or has a terrible memory. And eating at McDonald's on Wednesday night is not exactly an outlandish claim. So if you come to the table already accepting that the Bible contradicts itself, known science, and known history, belief in the mundane claims about Jesus would be enough of a stretch as it is. Belief that he rose from the dead should be laughed out of town... if that's where you're starting from.

I don't know. Should hyperbole or various other figures of speech, or historical writings (of any kind really, and not just those account in the Bible) which are all representational in nature, NECESSARILY be seen as 'contradicting' the Bible in all cases, or that the Bible necessarily contradicts itself in all cases when hermeneutical contexts are taken into account?

At some point, on a more practical level, one finally 'decides' whether they think they can believe or they decide that they can't, and one person's final decision isn't identical in nature to another person's decision. No two atheists are the same in their disbelief, just as no two Christians are the same in either their exact beliefs or their outcome of faith.

Second, I'm pretty tired of this whole "the Bible isn't the main thing, but rather the church is." Sorry, are you not aware of the fact that the church destroyed heretical documents? Why would they do that if the Bible wasn't such a big deal? Also, without the Bible, what's your reason for believing in the gospel? Oral tradition from 2000 years ago?

And I'm pretty tired of the typical atheistic shtick. I mean, it's not like I've never been in "that state of mind" myself, but for me, it just doesn't have any staying power because it also doesn't have any final power of epistemological explanation as many a Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or Daniel Dennett like to claim for it. So, there's plenty exploratory room for belief and faith when it comes to the Christian religion.

Yes, I'm aware that Christians have at times destroyed heretical documents, in Roman fashion, similar to the way that some of the pre-Constantinian Roman Emperors and governors also banned and/or destroyed Christians writings (and some Christians along the way). And Christians who would follow suite with the emperors probably did so because they adulterated their faith with some of their newly found political philosophies (again, in suite with the Roman cultural political structures). I mean, c'mon, NV. If we take the New Testament seriously, we shouldn't be surprised to find 'bad examples' of Christians when the New Testament writers, reflecting Jesus, warned us that nin-compoops would come along and say, "Hey, I'm a Christian, and burn the heretics!!!!" It's not as if this is should be surprise to us.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Bit of a facile OP, in my opinion.

Anyway, the idea that we must necessarily 'lower expectations' when procuring a more mature understanding of something is erroneous. When a child's worship of his father goes over into realisation of the flawed humanity of him, does this lower expectations? If a good father, the knowledge of how hard he worked or his character, might actually increase regard. Puerile hero-worship is not better than mature understanding. Or when we discover Newtonian Mechanics is basically false, does this 'lower our expectations' of Science? For the cartoonish view of Science as all-knowing, or Scientists as building shrink-rays or such in their basements, held by young children, would also be a 'step-down' to a proper view thereof.
In like manner, abandoning a childish understanding for a mature catechised adult's, is not necessarily a loss thereby. We should have faith like children, but that doesn't mean lack of understanding to go with it. We must be wise as serpents, after all.

So Bobby held to an infallible Bible... what was meant by infallible? Did he understand this term?Why is he believing this human knowledge over his long-held ideas? If he is wont to search the internet, he could find just as many attempts to reconcile problematic passages as considering them therefore to be 'contradictory'. It could easily be understood that the Bible was writing within the own idiom of its time - most Fundamentalists aren't necessarily going to hold to pillars of the earth and all that. I am a former atheist, but I didn't lose faith and regain it as such. I read the Bible as an archaic religious text, that served as the grounding of Western culture, but the 'inconsistencies' are really not that marked anyway, unless you go out of your way to look for them. Even then, it is often a matter of exegesis or eisegesis, or expecting precision in a genre of literature with other aims entirely. I only feel I truly came to understand the Bible once I found faith, as if "the scales dropped from my eyes".

To my own mind, I have found investigating the history and various versions of the Bible has strengthened my faith. That the LXX has differences from the Masoretic, or that some differences accord closer with the Samaritan Pentateuch, I find fascinating. Augustine and the Church Fathers knew of such differences, and mined them to try and understand the passages in light of both. In this way, new understanding is brought to light - City of God is full of such passages. A favourite of mine, is that Amoriah is found in the LXX and Moriah in the MT, with the former also the version of the Samaritans for Isaac's sacrifice. This couples nicely with Jesus speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well (though that is another discussion in entirety).

So I don't think expectations need necessarily be lowered, as going in depth into passages could just as easily enlighten and enrich, as sow doubt. It depends upon the reader, how he apportions value or gains understanding, what biases he holds, or how willing he is to investigate context and subject matter.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I suppose I believe the Bible's "outlandish claims," as you've put it,

Is there another way to put it? I'm all ears.

for reasons that aren't quite transferable in all respects to the minds of all other persons.

So... in other words it's not based on reason. It's illogical. Your belief is illogical.

In other words,

Oh, OK, you've got in other words for me. Let's see if we're on the same page.

in some way---although as I say this I'm not going to get all hermeneutically snuggly with Luther or Calvin---I see the process of belief becoming faith as a kind of orchestrated gift of God. I say orchestrated so as to set my epistemic view of this in a fashion that isn't quite mirroring that of the original Protestants.

Hmm, yeah, see, that's a problem. First, lots of crazy people have done lots of crazy things because "God told them to". And second, you're basically admitting that your belief is illogical. A "gift from God" that you cannot actually articulate to any other human being ("nontransferable") is what is meant by "illogical." If you can't put it in words, it's illogical. There are plenty of illogical things that actually can be put into words, so we see that codification into words is a criteria that is necessary, but not sufficient, for an idea to be logical.

So, I believe because...for me, and after living the life I've lived, thinking the things I've thought, and plowing through and mulling over hundreds of PhD level minds, both men and women, I see patterns that to me reflect coherently, even if not in otherwise EXACTING, matching, corresponding fashion, the truth of the Bible's contents.

That's an extremely poor reason to believe something. Let me show you why:

So, I [love Star Wars] because...for me, and after living the life I've lived, thinking the things I've thought, and plowing through and mulling over hundreds of [Star Wars fans], both men and women, I see patterns that to me reflect coherently, even if not in otherwise EXACTING, matching, corresponding fashion, the [love of Star Wars]'s contents.

Actually I could even take that further. Some people have made Jedi-ism into a religion, and I could replace "love" above with "belief" and stuff "Jedi-ism" in there.

But at the end of it all, I shouldn't have to give you this analogy. The fact that you connect with something doesn't make it true, and I don't know why I have to explain that to you.

And with my own hermeneutical and relativistic understanding of biblical epistemology, I'm under no expectations that belief in God, or in Christ for that matter, comes by some kind of 'one size fits all' gift of perception. No, it comes by a more personalized orchestration by God within a person's life.

Physics, chemistry, and all the sciences come in a "one size fits all" package because there is only one reality and we're all in it. If God actually is real, then you have to face the fact that there is a "one size fits all" aspect to the reality of his existence. Most theologies will be wrong, and only one will be correct. Your perception, your interpretation, and your hermeneutics are simply not relevant to the actual truth of the matter. There's no "true for you but not true for me" business.

I don't know. Should hyperbole or various other figures of speech, or historical writings (of any kind really, and not just those account in the Bible) which are all representational in nature, NECESSARILY be seen as 'contradicting' the Bible in all cases, or that the Bible necessarily contradicts itself in all cases when hermeneutical contexts are taken into account?

When I say that the Bible is contradicted by known history, I'm obviously referring to the historical method. The historical method has its own way of dealing with hyperbole and figures of speech. What is this question of yours supposed to be? A straw man? Well, a straw man is an argument, and you have a list of questions which by definition is not an argument... but an argument can be inferred, and I think that's your goal here. And what a bad straw man it is.

At some point, on a more practical level, one finally 'decides' whether they think they can believe or they decide that they can't, and one person's final decision isn't identical in nature to another person's decision. No two atheists are the same in their disbelief, just as no two Christians are the same in either their exact beliefs or their outcome of faith.

Well, tell me, do you and I have different views on the theory of gravity? Probably not. And if we did, we could easily go find out who's right and who's wrong. We can easily have different views on theology, though. The reason for this is that gravity is testable whereas theology is not. There's no way for us to see whose theology is right and whose is wrong.

And I'm pretty tired of the typical atheistic shtick. I mean, it's not like I've never been in "that state of mind" myself, but for me, it just doesn't have any staying power because it also doesn't have any final power of epistemological explanation as many a Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or Daniel Dennett like to claim for it. So, there's plenty exploratory room for belief and faith when it comes to the Christian religion.

Atheism doesn't have epistemological explanatory power? Erm... what exactly are you expecting? It seems to me you've got your expectations turned around. When there's an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity making statements through his chosen people, your expectations are virtually zero; when we have a new philosophy (atheism) that has barely existed for a century (at least openly), you expect them to have all the answers... even the answers to questions they're not being asked.

Quite wacky, sir. Quite wacky indeed.

Yes, I'm aware that Christians have at times destroyed heretical documents, in Roman fashion, similar to the way that some of the pre-Constantinian Roman Emperors and governors also banned and/or destroyed Christians writings (and some Christians along the way). And Christians who would follow suite with the emperors probably did so because they adulterated their faith with some of their newly found political philosophies (again, in suite with the Roman cultural political structures). I mean, c'mon, NV. If we take the New Testament seriously, we shouldn't be surprised to find 'bad examples' of Christians when the New Testament writers, reflecting Jesus, warned us that nin-compoops would come along and say, "Hey, I'm a Christian, and burn the heretics!!!! It's not as if this is should be surprise to us.

This kind of dodges my question... unless you're saying that they destroyed the heretical documents because they were "nin-compoops"... which presumably implies that they shouldn't have done that. That's an interesting take for a Christian. Do I have you correct on this? Whether yes or no, could you elaborate?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The more one trusts Yahweh and Jesus, the higher their expectations and realizations are, not lower.
Trust in man/ men/ churches? Lower then.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The more one trusts Yahweh and Jesus, the higher their expectations and realizations are, not lower.
Trust in man/ men/ churches? Lower then.

So if your expectations are high, what happens when you find dozens upon dozens of contradictions in the Bible?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So if your expectations are high, what happens when you find dozens upon dozens of contradictions in the Bible?

Then like most people stop believing,

or like a few who get saved, thank Yahweh and turn to Him to learn the truth.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Then like most people stop believing,

or like a few who get saved, thank Yahweh and turn to Him to learn the truth.

It sounds like you're admitting that the Bible contradicts itself, and that this causes many to leave the faith. Why did God arrange it in this way? And why would you thank God for a contradictory Bible? And why would you have to look outside of the Bible for the truth? Why didn't God just put it in there, seeing as how it's the #1 best seller of all time?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There you go again assuming things not in evidence.
Men, not God, are liars.
If someone doubts God or calls Him a liar, they are the ones who will suffer and die for it.

It sounds like you're admitting that the Bible contradicts itself, and that this causes many to leave the faith. Why did God arrange it in this way? And why would you thank God for a contradictory Bible? And why would you have to look outside of the Bible for the truth? Why didn't God just put it in there, seeing as how it's the #1 best seller of all time?

 

[Steve Petersen]

The wonderful thing about kicking things up into the spiritual realm is you can say anything you like and who is going to prove it wrong? The spiritual is by definition beyond the physical, therefore beyond scrutiny.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Physics, chemistry, and all the sciences come in a "one size fits all" package because there is only one reality and we're all in it.

Bit of a stretch to make that claim. How do you determine this? Anyway, the Sciences contradict themselves on the nature of reality within their own discipline, so One Size fits All is certainly not the case. Physics for instance, has relativity theory and quantum theory which are mutually incompatible - hence the search for a 'theory of everything' or a unified theory. They certainly want this, but have never done so in practice.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Bit of a stretch to make that claim. How do you determine this? Anyway, the Sciences contradict themselves on the nature of reality within their own discipline, so One Size fits All is certainly not the case. Physics for instance, has relativity theory and quantum theory which are mutually incompatible - hence the search for a 'theory of everything' or a unified theory. They certainly want this, but have never done so in practice.

Unlike religious assertions, a scientific hypothesis is at least potentially testable and falsifiable.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Unlike religious assertions, a scientific hypothesis is at least potentially testable and falsifiable.

Yes? Point being? Which in no way impacts the veridicality of either type of assertion.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Unlike religious assertions, a scientific hypothesis is at least potentially testable and falsifiable.

In most cases, money plays more of a determining factor than truth, in the world, everywhere almost.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Yes? Point being? Which in no way impacts the veridicality of either type of assertion.

It is the difference between semantic and empirical.

 

[Steve Petersen]

In most cases, money plays more of a determining factor than truth, in the world, everywhere almost.

That gets you on my iggy list. Another conspiracy. It just never ends with you guys.