Thoughts on the Bible I

The Bible.
The Word of God.
Written largely by man.

Viewpoint # 1:
The Bible is perfect.
This stance takes the view that the Bible and all its' contents should be taken literally, without interpretation.
My problem with this view?
This is the view that describes the world has flat, the sun revovling around the Earth, that murder is okay and often the answer, homosexuality is a sin, the Earth is about 6,000 years old, etc.
This is the stance that many radical, fundamental Christians take, often who are also known as Young-Earth Creationists.

Viewpoint #2:
The Bible has a lot of perfection.
This is the stance that most of what the Bible says should be taken literally, but that there are some examples of symbolism and room for interpretation.
Is the Earth flat? No, the "flatness" of the Earth is symbolic.
Does the sun revolve around the Earth? No, science has dis-proven this and it was an interpretation by the people of the times.
Genocide and mass killings are to be symbolic in nature, perhaps of hell.
My problem with this view?
Although it clarifies a lot of the inconsistencies with the Bible, everyone has different interpretations.
It's almost like people pick and choose what is to be interpreted as symbolic or represented as the true Word of God.

Viewpoint #3:
The Bible has a lot of imperfection.
This is the stance that also the Bible is the Word of God, it was written by man, passed down and re-written over the centuries and is subject to many errors, inconsistencies and flaws.
My problem with this view?
If the Bible has so many problems, but is supposed to be the Word of God, why has God allowed for something of such imperfection to exist and guide mankind?
God wants people to believe and trust in him, but it is hard when His Word is too confusing, inaccurate and imperfect.

Viewpoint #4:
The Bible is not the Word of God.
This stance generally looks at the Bible as a collection of fiction and not one of historical documentation.
Although there may be some stories in the Bible that can be quite helpful to mankind, there is also parts of it that should only be taken as fiction.
My problem with this view?
I don't have a problem with this view! I agree with this view!

---

The Bible has a lot of inconsistencies.
I do not see how anyone can logically or rationally dispute this.
Does this necessarily make it not the Word of God, or not a book to follow?
No.
It was one of the first thoughts on my mind that really led me to try to reassure myself that Christianity was the way.
In the end, the more research I did and the more that I read the Bible, the more I began to question and doubt Christianity.

The bible does speak of genocide, murder, hate, violence, greed, jealousy, etc.
What is wrong and what is right?
It is all up for interpretation.
The Word of God should not be unclear, ambiguous and imperfect.
That alone may lead one to seriously question the overall value of the Bible.

I have many problems with the Bible and it would take, literally, hundreds upon hundreds of blogs to address all of those problems.

Perhaps for now, I ask this to all of you who are Christians.
How do you feel about the bible?
Respond with your thoughts!
I will post specific problems in future posts.

Quincy

Why I am an Atheist once again

For those who want a quick introduction and summary of my path from Christianity to Atheism to Agnosticism, please check out my videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/quincyq03
You can find the information in the three part series, My Story.

Now, why have I gone back to Atheism?
An agnostic believes that the existence or non-existence of a God cannot be proven.
I still stand by this belief, but I know theists and non-theists alike who also agree with this statement. In fact, I think that most would agree that no one can totally, beyond the shadow of a doubt, prove or disprove the existence of God.
(let’s further consider God to be the “traditional” Christian God)
However, I have had a strong belief, since about the age of 13, that God does not exist.
I am open-minded in admitting that I cannot prove this non-existence beyond the shadow of a doubt, but there is more to it than that…
I believe that the evidence against a God is much more substantial, credible, logical and rational, than the evidence for God.
This is what has brought me to now consider myself, once again, an atheist.

Just as anyone who believes in God, BELIEVES that God exists, I believe that God does NOT exist.
I do not "know" that he does not exist, so I now feel the best way to label my beliefs is by calling myself an atheist.

If anyone has any further comments on this or any questions regarding any aspect of this post, my beliefs or my history, please feel free to respond!

Quincy