Any New God-Inspired Writings?

[Neon Genesis]

I, for one, would be in favor of leaving the Bible as it is. There is an old saying that goes, "Those who don't learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them." Despite many good things found in the Bible, it is also full of mistakes of "religion" (how we connect with and treat one another and God). So though I don't pull much of my own theology out of the pastoral epistles and Revelation, those books are, IMO, useful in demonstrating where religion and theology go wrong in bearing "bad fruit."

 

 

I agree that the immoral passages should be studied as a reminder of the dangers of religious dogmatism. At the same time, if it was decided to remove the Pastoral epistles and Revelation, I wouldn't miss it. I find it ironic that so many evangelicals are offended by the mere suggestion of removing books from the bible and accuse liberals of being cherry pickers yet so many of them are unaware that the Catholic bibles came first and the Protestant bibles we have today removed books long accepted as canonical by the Catholic church and seem to have no problem with it.

[Guest billmc]

I support the idea of The Bible still being used by Christians, but I would like it to be used as a historical document, as an advanced text.

 

That's an interesting idea, Jim. I have to say that I doubt most Christians would go for it, as most Christians simply avoid teaching their children the objectional stuff in the Bible, and perhaps many of these Christians don't even know this stuff is in there. For all their loyalty to the Bible as the "Word of God", biblical illiteracy is quite high amongst most conservative Christians.

 

I would, perhaps, recommend a "God is Love" Bible for children. I'd include only the things in the Bible where God, as a deity, reflects what we call "the fruit of the Spirit" as found in 1 Corinthians 13. If this were laid as the foundation, then children could explore the "other interpretations" of God later when they could understand historical-textual criticism and the history and nuances of religion and God-images. Children are wonderfully intelligent, but they are simply not equipped to deal with the plethora of viewpoints and interpretations of God and his supposed will found in the totality of the scriptures.

 

But again, most mainline and conservative Christians would probably be against such an idea, feeling that when it comes to the scriptures, we must believe all of them or none of them.

[Migdalin]

But again, most mainline and conservative Christians would probably be against such an idea, feeling that when it comes to the scriptures, we must believe all of them or none of them.

 

This is where my confusion really kicks in, because I agree with you that conservative Christians would reject this idea without giving it a second thought. However, even moderate Christians seem unwilling to seriously contemplate an alternative to The Bible as their (define it however you want) "holy book." In other words, modern Christians seem to cling to The Bible as firmly as do fundamentalists. And this worries me.

 

From my perspective, it feels like moderate Christians are saying: "The Bible promotes genocide, slavery, religious intolerance, and bigotry, but we're not going to overtly repudiate those things by adopting an alternate holy book."

 

For me, this is a major source of confusion, and I have to wonder if I'm alone in this. Could the continued use of The Bible be one reason for the population implosion that many churches have undergone in the last few decades? I.e., the need for equivocation and denial, the active need to turn a blind eye: do these things reduce the appeal of modern Christianity?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Guest billmc]

Interesting questions, Jim, and certainly timely. I have to first say that I speak only for myself and from my experiences, not for all conservative, moderate, liberal, or progressive Christians. So all you’re getting in my responses is one person’s viewpoint – a view from a point.

 

This is where my confusion really kicks in, because I agree with you that conservative Christians would reject this idea without giving it a second thought. However, even moderate Christians seem unwilling to seriously contemplate an alternative to The Bible as their (define it however you want) "holy book." In other words, modern Christians seem to cling to The Bible as firmly as do fundamentalists. And this worries me.

 

I share your concern. And this is one of the “charges” brought against liberal and progressive Christians by the “new atheists” – that because liberal and progressive Christianity wants to recognize all faiths of the world and all forms of Christianity as valid, liberal/progressive Christianity sanctions the more conservative, fundamentalist forms of all religions and their agendas. The new atheists claim that progressive Christianity, while perhaps attempting to modernize its religion, has no prophetic voice in criticizing other religions and interpretations of Christianity that are, in fact, harmful. I think their accusation is somewhat valid.

 

From my perspective, it feels like moderate Christians are saying: "The Bible promotes genocide, slavery, religious intolerance, and bigotry, but we're not going to overtly repudiate those things by adopting an alternate holy book."

 

That’s true because 1) these are not the only things found in the Bible (it does have many good passages) and 2) more moderate or progressive Christians feel that they are connected with the past, no matter how primitive that past may be.

 

Could the continued use of The Bible be one reason for the population implosion that many churches have undergone in the last few decades? I.e., the need for equivocation and denial, the active need to turn a blind eye: do these things reduce the appeal of modern Christianity?

No doubt they do for some people. The Bible reflects an ancient cosmology where there is a three-tiered universe, where God is a person (or three persons) who live just above the clouds, where the central problem of humanity is that we don’t meet God’s standards for righteousness and require a blood sacrifice in order for God to pretend we are not sinners, and where, it is thought, the central goal is to find a way to live forevermore.

 

But there are many other stories and interpretations in this book. There is the story of a loving God who refuses to give up on humanity, who shows grace to sinners and saints alike, who empowers people to experience life, love, and the joy of being everything that we humans can be in order to make ourselves and our world a better, more compassionate place. And, IMO, the central story is that the person who tried to preach this and live it out was put to death for doing so, and yet still offered forgiveness to his executioners.

 

It’s my opinion that, just like other literature, we bring as much to the book as we take away from it. So I’m not sure that changing or discarding the Bible would necessarily solve the problem. After all, until the invention of the printing press, very few people had Bibles and religion still kept humanity in the dark. The problem, IMO, is that we haven’t matured as humans yet, we haven’t yet discovered the value and transforming power of compassion. Until we do, even without the Bible, we will still use religion or race or politics or economics to oppress and harm one another.

 

For now, I “cherry-pick” the Bible, using the parts that I think lead to love, life, and maturity. But I certainly don’t look to it as my final authority. I don’t think that one bad apple (or multiple apples) spoils the entire basket. I’m just choosy about which apples I pull out of the basket.