Dialogue on the Bible
Dialogue on the Bible
A conversation between myself and an acquiantance...
Punkerslut: Do you believe in the Bible?
Christian: Of course I do.
Punkerslut: But do you believe in slavery?
Christian: No, I don't. That's a silly question.
Punkerslut: There are various parts of the Bible which affirm
slavery to be a just method, though. Exodus 21:20-21 justifies
Christian: Well, that was the Old Testament.
Punkerslut: Ephesians 6:5 of the New Testament also justifies it.
Christian: The slavery in the Bible was different than the
slavery of the Bible.
Punkerslut: Why did the southerners use the Bible to justify it,
Christian: They didn't really understand the Bible. They
interpretted it incorrectly.
Punkerslut: So, for the past two thousand years, nobody was a
real Christian, because they didn't understand the Bible, and
therefore couldn't believe it. But for the past few decades, it
was only then that the Bible was really understood?
Christian: You don't have to understand the Bible to believe it.
Punkerslut: You don't?
Christian: No... You just have to believe it.
Punkerslut: When you don't understand something, it means that
there are parts which you may think contradict each other, or
possibly they don't properly fit together, or maybe you read or
heard something when in fact the opposite is what is implied.
For instance, if someone said, "My answer is yes and my answer
is no," you may be confused, because you were given a
contradictory answer -- but perhaps they meant a yes to one
question and a no to another question. If someone said, "Because
the knife was in Joe's locker, it means that Jacob was the
murderer." You may not understand, until you find out that Jacob
was the only one with access to Joe's locker, and Joe was out of
town for weeks. If someone said, "There is one statement I hate
more than anything: 'Slavery is right!'" and you walked in only
while he said, "Slavery is right!" you may also be confused. In
all of these instances, you didn't understand.
Christian: But you believed, and that's what counts with
Punkerslut: Precisely. If someone said something that confused
you, wouldn't you want to apply reason to it and try to
Christian: Yes, of course.
Punkerslut: So, you agree then that Christianity can only
thrive, and has only thrived, because people have placed less
importance upon reasoning and logic, particularly in religious
Christian: I didn't say that.
Punkerslut: You said that in Christianity, you need not
understand and that must only believe. You said that every
Christian up to 50 years ago didn't understand the Bible since
slavery and prejudice have been prevalent until then. And you
said that if you don't understand, attempting to comprehend is
Punkerslut: Christians accepted what they didn't understand.
Reason would ask them to investigate what they didn't
understand, but they ignored reason, even insulted and
criminalized it. As the Christians moved from the position of
being eaten by lions to being the ones who tortured others, the
only way that a person could become a Christian was by belief --
and belief in something so contradictory must be accompanied by
an abhorance of reason, correct?
Christian: You're twisting my words.
Punkerslut: No, I was actually quite simple and precise in
showing you how I went from one step of my argument to the next.
Christian: Well, whatever... Even so, reason cannot save you,
only Christ can.
Punkerslut: You're just restating your original opinion. What is
the method by which we decipher truth from falsity? Reason. If
reason indicted Christianity for hypocrisy and contradiction,
it's not trying to save you, exactly, but tell you that
Christianity cannot do that either. But then again, the idea
that you need to be saved is also a Christian idea.
Christian: I don't believe that.
Punkerslut: What part?
Christian: All of it.
Punkerslut: Could you be more specific?
Christian: Everything you say.
Punkerslut: Yes, that part was clear when you said "all of it."
For Life, Punkerslut