I never stated that I rejected the Bible. I still hold it as having potential. The reason I don't follow it fanatically is because there are things in there that were meant to be interpreted instead of literally carried out. I.e. "Gouge your eyes out if they see sin."...
I mean really? I'm not taking that kitchen knife and gouging my eyes out because I've been to 4chan or something.
Those particular reasons are why I don't have full belief and put full faith into the Bible. Again, I'm not rejecting it, as some of the things in there are intended to teach humans good, and don't bring up how "it only has anti such-and-such", because the Bible isn't filled to the brim with atrocities.
I just can't come to accept the fact that the Bible is the direct word of God, because, again, God is the omnibenevolent being here, and having some of the words and paragraphs in this book be His word just can't happen.
Here's my problem. I find a logical contradiction in accepting only pieces of a book which both by its very nature and its content demands that you accept the entire thing. This makes no sense to me; you could do this to literally anything and get almost whatever you want out of it. I'm willing to bet I could get similar results by using your strategy on Mein Kampf; would that make my new strain of National Socialism legitimate? No, of course not! It would not
be National Socialism! The individual words/verses in a book do not make up its content, and your picture of "semi-biblical faith" seems to be based, for the most part, on removing anything in a book which itself claims to be perfect and an absolute moral code that you dislike... And using the rest as a moral code. This is
amazingly bad reasoning. Again, I ask: at this point,
why even bother with the bible? If you have to throw out half of the damn thing to get anywhere at all, it's a good sign that something is wrong.
I get the idea of a metaphor; I understand that that verse is meant to be interpreted. But then there are the things which make absolutely no sense if not taken literally. Most of Deuteronomy and Leviticus belongs to this category. Care to reinterpret "Homosexuality is an abomination"?
And I don't see why you're continuing this "belonging to a religion with a violent background" argument. You can apply that to nations and other affiliations as well. What Sucumbio said, if I recall.
Even if I drop that, the problems of faith persist. And furthermore, associating this with nations or affiliations is fallacious for various reasons:
-Movement. Can you change "America" on your own? Could a massive group do it? Not really likely. You cannot move the term away from its associated location.
-Ease of change. If you dislike America to the point that you cannot morally associate yourself with it, you go to other countries... and you're
still an american. Some can't even go to other countries, due to the prohibiting expenses and culture shock involved. This gets even better when you consider
race, which absolutely cannot be changed at all.
-etc.
Again, me disagreeing with parts of the Bible. Guess that makes me not a Christian. My friend also disagrees with this, along with many other Christians I've met. Guess we're not Christians.
I don't understand why you would begin to call yourselves Christians. If I may, again, it's like taking only the parts of Mein Kampf that you like and calling yourselves Nazis. You may be wonderful, wonderful people, and you may hold on to the belief in the moderate and loving parts of the book at hand, but guess what:
you're still a nazi. And you still have to deal with all the rest. Instead of, you know, taking the good out of the bible and founding a new religion off of it that doesn't contain the sickening history of the old.
Where I can understand someone calling themselves christians are, for the most part, the bible fundamentalists, who (at least to some degree) take the bible very seriously. But the rest, the people who are kind of ho-hum about it... Yes, I find the Nazi comparison fair.
It just seems you're condemning Christians these days because of past atrocities. That just doesn't work, man.
Sure it does! If you choose to affiliate yourself with a group which is known for pushing intolerance, slavery, and genocide, IN THE NAME OF SAID GROUP'S MORAL AUTHORITY, then it is
entirely your fault when you get a poor name because of it. And I see no reason why you should begin to associate yourself with this group.
for hypocracy
