It is commonly asserted by the faithful that only if you actually believe in the faith then you can have an accurate understanding of it. This is completely flawed. Nowhere in any other context would this be accepted.
The faithful like to argue that atheists/non-believers don't have a good understanding of the Bible/scripture to criticise it. But I could just as well argue the opposite.
It is just as easily argued, or even more so, that the reason why believers 'believe it' is because they don't have a good understanding of the Bible and its origins.
The Bible is almost certainly not the word of an all-loving god, given that one exists. The more amicable verses demonstrating love and tolerance are oases compared to the fast desert of bronze aged barbarism, slavery endorsement, sexism, racism, infanticide, genocide, and superstition.
It appears blatantly obvious that one's answer to the question 'Would Would Jesus Do?' is no more than a reflection of one's own ethical deposition. If we were asking really what Jesus would do, then it is just as logical to condemn entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for Jesus' preaching (Matthew 11:20), or why Jesus speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell (Mark 4:11-12), or how killing disobedient children is in accordance to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7).
There is a very good reason why many so-called 'Liberal' Christians say as I have heard them say "We don't need the Bible to have a relationship with Jesus Christ." And that reason is because even to them, they know that the Bible is a pack of lies or at least very unreliable in seeking guidance.
The faithful like to argue that atheists/non-believers don't have a good understanding of the Bible/scripture to criticise it. But I could just as well argue the opposite.
It is just as easily argued, or even more so, that the reason why believers 'believe it' is because they don't have a good understanding of the Bible and its origins.
The Bible is almost certainly not the word of an all-loving god, given that one exists. The more amicable verses demonstrating love and tolerance are oases compared to the fast desert of bronze aged barbarism, slavery endorsement, sexism, racism, infanticide, genocide, and superstition.
It appears blatantly obvious that one's answer to the question 'Would Would Jesus Do?' is no more than a reflection of one's own ethical deposition. If we were asking really what Jesus would do, then it is just as logical to condemn entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for Jesus' preaching (Matthew 11:20), or why Jesus speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell (Mark 4:11-12), or how killing disobedient children is in accordance to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7).
There is a very good reason why many so-called 'Liberal' Christians say as I have heard them say "We don't need the Bible to have a relationship with Jesus Christ." And that reason is because even to them, they know that the Bible is a pack of lies or at least very unreliable in seeking guidance.
I concur, I am always amused by this vacuous question; wwjd? Well Jesus would uphold the laws of his father which means death to homosexuals and women who don't cry out during rape...
ReplyDelete