pwmartin said:
Irvine511 has assumed truths about reality (including God and humans) that are different than nbcrusader's and others' here. To you, Irvine511, their views are probably always going to seem inconsistent, and vice versa, because you are not dealing with the same set of data and assumptions. You are arguing from entirely different narratives.
Irvine511: what do you really mean by "the Bible is largely metaphoric"? Spell that out a little bit more. Have you ever seriously studied the Bible? How can you make such a broad-sweeping statement about something which you never really seem to have taken very seriously. I mean, people devote their entire lives to understanding Scripture, interpreting its metaphor and never feel that they begin to see the bottom of its well.
My hunch is that ncbrusader (and others) don't see what you've termed as "inconsistencies" precisely because they're arguing from within a narrative context that causes them to see those inconsistencies as something consistent, coherent. They could lob the same criticism of inconsistency at some other part of your belief system (and you do have one...don't fool yourself). It may not be sexuality, but it may be something else.
You hold logical consistency and the primacy of your own personal narrative in high regard (some in another narrative might even say you "worship," "idolize" those things). There may be nothing wrong with that. But I think this debate might just boil down to belief that the Bible has a story to tell that gives a different account of reality that we, apart from it, can't think up on our own.
it makes sense, and i've been thinking about it all day. we are, in some ways, talking past one another, because we are not starting at the same point. i do not accept the bible as Truth. others on this list do. so the argument must necessarily be not the specifics of the bible, since those cannot be trusted, but why and how one chooses to regard the bible as Truth.
you're right: i do worship and idolize the human capacity for thought and rationality. i don't worship my own, cause i always wish i were smarter, but i do trust it because, at the end of the day, i know it's all i have. i don't believe i'm always right, in fact i believe pretty much the opposite -- that our conclusions are always incomplete, there's always more to be discovered, and no one can ever *know*, we can only learn.
that's the attitude -- and, i would argue, a rather humble one, where you are aware of your limits but you seek to push them when you can -- that i take towards life.
when i say the bible is largely metaphoric, i think it's akin to Jesus' parables: stories meant to explain larger truths. i don't think the world was created in 7 days, i don't think eve was made from adam's rib. these things are utterly illogical and run contrary to science. since i am human, and science is a human language, i choose to use that as currency to understand the world rather than a book that was written a long time ago by many different people that much of the world doesn't know about (or care to know about). i also see the Bible as a self-referential, closed system with no need to prove itself other than by referencing itself. i've made the comparison before that it seems almost North Korean in it's circularity (at least from what i can tell): as in, "He Leads Because He is Great, and He is Great Because He Leads."
therefore, it's unimportant to me to spend years studying the specifics of the bible. i would enjoy a bible study class very much, but i'd seek to gain from that what i would in any literature or history or anthropology class. i am agnostic about the bible, but i am aware of it's importance, what i remember being taught about the new testament is, at moments, stirringly beautiful. this doesn't mean, however, that it is literally true, and i think the facts are incidental to the truth. as in, the literal sentences of the bible are a means to get at larger issues and to hopefully illuminate, in whatever way, that scary thing we call "the human condition."
in that sense, i'm not sure the Bible has any more weight than the great tomes of Western literature. is there more wisdom and knoweldge in The Bible than in, say, _Hamlet_? _Ulysses_? _Gravity's Rainbow_?
i can't say, nor would i pretend to say. but i do know that quite a lot of people take the Bible very seriously, and a lot of people view it as Truth. i cannot say, absolutely, they're wrong, nor do i think that's even important.
this is the essence of agnosticism -- humility, and the awareness of the limits to human knowledge and the awareness that we all make choices to put our faith in different places. i may put mine in rationality, you may put yours in the Bible, but the one trump card i feel entitled to pull is that i make no claims on the Truth, i profess only to know that i cannot ever know, and this strikes me as more humble and honest.
no idea if the above makes any sense.
and i agree with Dread: great discussions all around.