Should the Bible be taken literally?
Yes, it should be.
Side Score: 17
|
 |
No, absolutely not.
Side Score: 11
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
The Bible should be taken literally if you claim to be a Christian. There is of course symbolic wording in the Bible not meant to be taken literally. There is common acceptance from Bible scholars and believers which verses are obviously symbolic. As a Christian you accept the Bible as being God's inspired words, or you choose to follow your own beliefs and make up your own new age religion. If so called Christians pick and choose what parts of the Bible they want to believe, then God's word becomes whatever people want it to be. That's called a cult! Should the theory of evolution be taken literally? Those on the Left would force feed their humanist beliefs onto our children no matter the lack of proof to their theories. Side: Yes, it should be.
|
The position of religious teachers and preachers , priests , Parsons and vicars has changed over time regarding this. 50 years ago the words of the Bible were taken literally by followers of Christianity in fact to question was seen as sinful. Religion has to evolve or die that’s why homosexuality is tolerted , couples living together which used to be termed “living In sin “ discrimination against others of different religion etc ,etc , Incidentally Islam is also doing the self same dance although a lot slower as they are also moving away by various devices from taking every word of the Quran literally If religions don’t evolve they die and there goes the loot There are moral teachings in religious books but the gods put forward are deeply immoral entities and why people would follow such after a reading of sacred books is beyond me Side: No, absolutely not.
I agree. If religion doesn't evolve it grows stagnant and rots. But there are people who take translations in the verse as literal. I've really enjoyed reading about some scientific instances of a great flood. While I do not believe it covered the world, I do know there have been instances of a great flood in parts of the world, that to those living there at the time, would have though it was the world. There are many religions out there that speak of a flood, the Bible, Gilgamesh, most of which lead credence to a massive drop in land. Doggerland was flooded around 6,500 - 6,200 BC. The Black Sea deluge hypothesis that places a flood event around 7,200 BC. I don't believe in the traditional view of a flood that covers the entire Earth and destroyed all life which is what many who take the Bible literally believe. Side: Yes, it should be.
1
point
I agree. If religion doesn't evolve it grows stagnant and rots. When you say "religion" you know that you're talking about a type of mental illness, right? I read something a while ago which was very interesting. I think it might have been Jon Pilger. During British colonial times, a vessel arrived at an island somewhere extremely remote and the British sailors who went ashore were revered as Gods. Anyway, to cut a long story short, when the vessel returned some years later it was discovered that an entire religion had sprung up on the island which believed the captain was God. Side: Yes, it should be.
I agree. If religion doesn't evolve it grows stagnant and rots There are over 30,000 denominations of Christianity and they all disagree with each other , do you never ask yourself if an intelligent being had a way of putting his message across he could have done slightly better , come on even Stephen King can manage Side: No, absolutely not.
The Bible was written by a number of well meaning scholars of their day who referred to the very limited available knowledge in an attempt to explain the awe inspiring mysteries of the Heavens/Universe. The ten commands were probably the best attempt at establishing a code of moral principles for all people to live by and represents a set of ethical standards which, even today, has never been improved upon. Side: No, absolutely not.
Really let’s look at them again in the spirit of enquiry? Three of them say death to those who do not adore the Christian god , the fourth says death to those who do not keep the sabbath even Hitler and Stalin didn’t go that far 1st. Commandment, Exodus 20:3 “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”. Genocide. Entire cities with men, women, children and animals must be killed. (Deuteronomy 2:33-34, Numbers 21:34-35, 1 Samuel 15:2-3, Joshua 6:21. Joshua 10:40) In some cases you can keep the girls alive for raping. (Numbers 31:15-18) 2nd. Commandment, Exodus 20:4 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water below.” Genocide. Entire cities with men, women, children and animals must be killed. (See above.) 3rd. Commandment, Exodus 20:7 “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain”. Capital punishment (Leviticus 24:16, Deuteronomy 18:20, Mark 3:28-29) 4th. Commandment, Exodus 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy”. Capital punishment (Exodus 31:14, Exodus 31:15, Exodus 35:2) 5th. Commandment, Exodus 20:12 “Honour thy father and thy mother”. Capital punishment (Exodus 21:15, Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9) 6th. Commandment, Exodus 20:13 “Thou shalt not kill”. Capital punishment in some cases (For killing Cain, yes, for killing Abel, no: Genesis 4:15) 7th. Commandment, Exodus 20:14 “Thou shalt not commit adultery”. Capital punishment (Leviticus 20:10) 8th. Commandment, Exodus 20:15 "Thou shalt not steal." Excessive fines or slavery: (Exodus 22:1-3). Only in rare cases such as stealing slaves, capital punishment (Exodus 21:16). Thieves caught in the night are to be executed (Exodus 22:1-3) 9th. Commandment, Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." Despisement and scorn (Proverbs 12:8) 10th. Commandment, Exodus 20:17 "Thou shalt not covet...". Despisement and scorn (Romans 7:7-8) Side: Yes, it should be.
The ten commands were probably the best attempt at establishing a code of moral principles for all people to live by and represents a set of ethical standards which, even today, has never been improved upon. Don't you find it rather interesting that when the Commandments were allegedly written, it was right after the exodus from Egypt in which the Pharoahs allegedly kept Hebrew slaves for about four centuries, yes? Then, why is there nothing mentioned in the Commandments about keeping slaves? One would suspect that woud be in the top three especially after what the Hebrews were put through, at the very least, don't ya think? Side: Yes, it should be.
1
point
The ten commands were probably the best attempt at establishing a code of moral principles for all people to live by This is factually untrue because the ten commandments were given to Jews and were supposed to only concern Jews. They were never intended to apply to everybody. This is obvious just by reading the rest of the damned book you are getting your information from in the first place, because God orders countless slaughters of non-Jews. Side: Yes, it should be.
The Bible was little more than a snapshot of life in those times, how people behaved, what they believed and how much they knew about the world around them. Islam was a snapshot of the Arab world and the Arab mindset back then. It would seem though that most scriptures, whether they were the OT, NT or Quran were written in times of great strife, oppression and evil in the world when people were looking for someone to give them hope. Each character represents that someone; Moses with the OT, Jesus with the NT and Muhammad with the Quran. Side: No, absolutely not.
0
points
It's scientifically false, so no. Yes and no. They believe Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed by an asteroid. So, while yes the explanation was less scientific and more belief based, it also isn't scientifically false as it was in a location provided by the Bible and explains what went on when the meteor collided. But instead of taking it literally as an act of God (which hey, the jury isn't fully out on it) there is a scientific explanation for the destruction of the cities if one DOESN'T take it literally but still searches for answers on the history. Biblical archaeology and the science within is pretty fascinating. Side: Yes, it should be.
But instead of taking it literally as an act of God (which hey, the jury isn't fully out on it) Side: Yes, it should be.
0
points
Yes and no. That's precisely the unreasonable mindset which popularised the Bible in the first place. Either the Bible is scientifically false or it isn't. It can't be both simultaneously. Even if everything in it is true up until the last sentence, then that still means it is scientifically false. You can't give opposite answers to the same question simultaneously. I hate it when people do that because it's a complete aberration of reason. Side: Yes, it should be.
0
points
They believe Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed by an asteroid. There is no scientific evidence Sodom or Gomorrah even existed. I just told you the book is scientifically inaccurate so why are you using it as the sole basis for a claim? Sodom and Gomorrah (/ˈsɒdəm ... ɡəˈmɒrə/)[1] were cities mentioned in the Book of Genesis[2] and throughout the Hebrew Bible,[3] the New Testament, and in the deuterocanonical books, as well as in the Quran and the hadith.[4] There are other stories and historical names which bear a resemblance to the biblical stories of Sodom and Gomorrah. Side: Yes, it should be.
|
