And focus on economic justice. That's it, really. And, of course, the Pope is just as good at ignoring the terrible parts of the Bible or even their own bigoted views with large enough doses of cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty, but that's something most all believers have in common.

Terribly boring stuff.

Or they rationalize it away terribly if they don't ignore it, since I don't know how anyone could believe it otherwise, as terrible as it is.

God sanctions rape, slavery, torture, genocide, infinite punishment for finite crimes, misogyny and bigotry. God slaughters millions of people himself, babies included.

Yes, the majority of believers are completely disingenuous, and most never even read the Bible they claim to believe. That's how it's so easy to engage in cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty.

to what they believe is the truth. These stories are colored by the times they live in.

I don't ignore the stuff that is eye popping but I accept it as the practice of the times. Yes some will come back and say well why weren't the Prophets and Jesus clearer then. The fact is what we got in the bible is what we got.
I wish things could be clearer as well but we are talking about documents that are 2-3 thousand years old.

And I don't understand why anyone who thinks parts of the Bible are false would think other parts are true, or why the fact that it was written thousands of years ago would make god any less immoral, since god is not bound by time supposedly.

I mean, there is no way to spin that god killing everything on earth except one boat of people just because they did not do what he said is moral. Heck, they're making a giant motion picture out of it, and few who see it understand that perspective. Part of my indoctrination into religion was that story, and how the people were wicked, and somehow I came away understanding Noah's flood as a show of how much God loved the world, because he was willing to spare one family.

think was divine revelation.

I do not believe God takes life.

You keep the parts you agree with and disregard the rest, just as MellowDem said.

The problem comes in the arbitrary declarations of what an individual believer takes literally from their holy book. There are absolutely terrible, horrible things in the bible that most liberal Christians reject. But I've never heard a good reason why they feel justified in doing so. Is there an external moral reference they are using? Something outside their religion?

If it were just a matter of an individual finding personal comfort or validation in select passages, I suppose I wouldn't have a problem with it. But I fear the situation isn't that simple. In pretending that the Bible doesn't say the things it says, or pretending the Bible says things it does not, one inhibits an honest discussion of the Bible and whatever deleterious effects it may have on our social ethics.

Whether or not moderates acknowledge the nastier Biblical passages as divinely-inspired is wholly beside the point. I'm glad they don't, but many influential and powerful Christians do, and moderates, provided they lend divine legitimacy, however selective and arbitrary that legitimacy may be, to the same text as do the conservatives, have absolutely no argumentation to use against the fundies and theocrats. They offer no compelling reason to believe as they do, and no compelling reason not to believe as the fundies do.

The one tried-and-true weapon we may wield against the fundies is the Bible itself, in all its horrid, barbaric awfulness. But we can't seem to do that without offending the delicate sensibilities of some moderate believer who thinks the Bible is a glowing endorsement of whatever their preexisting political beliefs may be.

some grossly contradictory statements and those who claim literalism place themselves in untenable positions. But do you think that most believers are really like that?

Cherry picking is used as a negative when it comes to this, but, in reality, picking the good cherries is not a bad thing.

Anyone who does otherwise is going to find themselves in a very tight corner (see letter to Dr. Laura).

There is nothing wrong with recognizing that the bible is a collection of books written by men, AND believing that some of it may have been divinely inspired. Although not a believer, when I listen to Handel's the Messiah I have a difficult time fully dismissing the whole inspiration thing, FWIW.

I can't support wielding the bible as a weapon. That's as fundamentalist idea as may of theirs are. Of course there are horrid, barbaric and awful parts to it. But there are other parts that are beautiful, inspirational, enlightening, profound. The inability to cherry pick is the problem and if you can't do it, you get no cherries at all.

And do the parts really hold up, apart from the whole?

someone is a believer or a christian.

Just as atheists can boil it down to "no belief in god", I think christians can boil it down to "belief in Christ".

When you have a set of books that wildly contradict each other and contain culturally based information which is totally outdated at this time, you can't take it whole. That's what fundamentalist do and they rapidly find themselves in a corner.

One might even propose that examining the bible critically is one thing that makes a christian a christian.

And you're begging the question. "...picking the good cherries is not a bad thing." Who decides what is a good cherry? What are they basing that decision on?

Liberal and conservative cherry-pickers both find themselves in that same tight corner, cbayer.

to use against fundies and theocrats. "They're not real Christians!"

How many times have we heard that notion repeated here?

There are parts of the bible you take literally.

I'm simply stating what happens in the Bible. Me pointing that out isn't dissonance.

The dissonance is believing the Bible is the word of god, and yet being against all those listed things god sanctions in the Bible.

Constitution sanctions most of those things, too, and still sanctions misogyny. Ah, you say, we've amended the Constitution--or a rabbi might say that the various amendments and SCOTUS findings, most of them not written retrospectively into the document, are midrash, commentary and carifications on the original text. They are, in fact, what Jewish, Christian and Muslim teachers and theologians have been doing for the last 2000 years. There are strict constructionists and Biblical literalists. What's odd is to find a self-identified liberal among them.

Who WERE a product of their times. That argument cannot be used for the Bible unless you're conceding that it was also written entirely by men, with no involvement or inspiration whatsoever by any god. No "god" worth listening to is bound by the moral strictures or failings of a gang of Middle Eastern tribes from 3000 years ago.

The various books of the Bible likewise were written by men of their times, which is why you have an apparent change in the nature of Yahweh over time as well as changing mores. It's a considerable distance in time and mind from the warrior/storm god Yah to the compassionate good shepherd of Isaiah.

But you've got the facts wrong. The earliest books of the Bible were composed around the 7th. century BCE, by a literate and sophisticated urban priestly class. The "Bronze Age goatherders" as authors of the Bible are a myth--though far be it from me to question your deeply held beliefs..

Show me where I said anything about the Bible being written by "Bronze Age goatherders". I didn't, so why you're pretending I believe that is a mystery. And speaking of facts, the earliest books of the Bible were composed in the 8th century BCE (not that your quibbling about dates is remotely relevant to the real point, which is that people who attribute the Bible to divine revelation can't use the excuse for god that you tried to).

in the 7th. century BCE reign of King Josiah, as a part of his monotheistic reform movement. Speaking of facts, since you bring up the subject.

Your "3000" date and reference to tribal society echo the myth, even if those weren't your exact words.

"No, you didn't really say what I claimed you said, but I'm reading your mind and pretending that you were thinking it"

That's your own favorite tactic.

Ta.

nt