Terry:
I continue to search to see if there is anything of value in the Bible. From the start I need to make it clear that I’m not doing this as an apologist I’m doing this as a person who has spent a lifetime assimilating Bible interpretations of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Along with this is the experience of disappointment from putting too much confidence in what a body of men claiming godly authority have decided.
At this point in time I am basically agnostic. I believe in evolution. I believe the Bible can be discredited as being the work of someone who created everything in the universe, understands everything , knows all, and if it is a work of such an entity it is not reflected in the many narratives and accounts in the Bible.
But at the same time I want to avoid the mistake of certainty. A lot of people out of frustration and disappointment find it so easy to throw the whole thing out, and consider the Bible as a total waste of time. If you’re going to do that you are buying into the idea that either it is ALL true or NONE of it is true. It’s either useful in all of its pages or its useless or of minimal use as any kind of moral guide or history. The main idea of religion, from my perspective is a system of salvation or survival. Religion has always claimed there is some greater reward for doing good and that there is survival in knowing the sacred communications. So it is in the spirit of looking for something in the book or collection of books we call the Bible, that in some way leads to a salvation of some sort.
The Bible doesn’t have a consistent moral theme. There are various chapters that appear to be immoral and highlight the inconsistencies of the people. Lot and his wife , Judah with Tamar, various acts of polygamy, having sexual relations with one’s maid servant. The abuse of people they conquered. Enslaving and having sex against the will of the women that were captured. A lot of apologists will say there was a moderating effect of certain rules but we’re not just talking about people who ought to stand out amongst their contemporaries - they should be exemplary, And if God is indeed shaping the culture and has the power to punish and the power to read hearts he should have been able to effect a much better situation.
So there is no need to go to the Bible. The Bible is not defensibile or useful as a moral guide any more than the common sense - you’re going to get in trouble with someone if you take someone’s wife/property, stealing is wrong, lying is wrong murder is wrong. There is nothing unique in these conclusions. All of the religious books and tribal elders on earth have reached very similar conclusions. So morality is not a unique or special benefit from reading and believing in the Bible.
The history is not completely trustworthy because it is not verifiable. Places, general time periods, may be established but whether the Red Sea actually parted or whether Moses was able to bring water out of a rock or any of these other things - who can say. There is no way of verifying these events unless you assume to begin with what you are trying to prove namely that the Bible is God’s Word. This is no different from the Moslems and the Koran the Hindu’s and their Vedas. If you want to believe in miracles there are a lot of miracles that you can believe in.
I want to proceed with the idea that the Watchtower is wrong for all the right reasons.
Once you separate the Bible from the concept of an Almighty God you do away with all those other "Why didn’t he do it this way" issues. Why wasn’t he more explicit if he’s all powerful. All these questions that are dependent on the notion of a supreme being create insurmountable difficulties in trying to accept anything in the context of the Bible.
Of course then if you don’t accept that these words were authored by a supreme being – GOD – then you still have to come up with an explanation other than God. I don’ believe that would be too hard. If something is not from a human/earthly source and its not from some imaginary construct such as a deity then you are left with everything else that might exist in the universe. And then if you raise the same questions at that point you’re off the hook. You don’t have to stand there with your mouth hanging open when someone asks why didn’t these aliens extraterrestrial aliens do it another way? The point is either they didn’t choose to do it another way or this is this is the most expedient way and therefore they couldn’t do it any other way. It keeps all of those questions from being raised. Perhaps it doesn’t keep them from being raised but it allows you to address them and reach a certain point where you can proceed even though you don’t have the answers.
