A Minimalist Bible

If anyone is interested I thought that it might be interesting to have a discussion about the Bible from a minimalist position. The topic would assume the theistic position, and that God is represented by a consistent, just and loving intelligence, with a sense of morality based on the Golden Rule, and that this is also the model of what it is that He wants us to image. We would also assume that God is responsible for the fact that life exists and that He continues to reach out to us through our hearts and minds, revealing Himself to us subtly inspiring our consciences, reason and understanding. I also want to assume that evolution is a fact and that all of the messiness of the evolutionary process is necessary and that suffering is a necessary evil so that we can experience joy.I would also like to assume that we consider the Bible as a book written by men inspired to write down their thoughts and experiences, but inspired in the same way that we might say that Beethoven was inspired when he wrote his symphonies. This would mean of course that what they wrote would be coloured by their personal, political and cultural biases. However, at the same time though God does touch their hearts and minds, and as a result we wind up with a blend of all the various ideas that were rattling around in the head of all the various authors.The time line in the Bible is relatively chronological and so from this I think it is safe to conclude that the later writers would be influenced by what their predecessors had written just as today’s theologians refer back to their predecessors. Based on the assumptions that I have used then we should over long enough periods of time be gaining a more accurate and clearer image of the nature of God and His desires for us.Talking to a friend the other day I mentioned that I was a Christian. His response was that he couldn’t believe himself because of all the various atrocities in the world. When we go back to the Old Testament era I think it is largely pretty clear that that wouldn’t have been an objection people would usually have. People primarily viewed their god(s) as an entity that was to be reached out to in order to serve their own purposes which would include creating death and destruction for their enemies. My friend assumed that if God did exist He wouldn`t cause or even allow for these atrocities. My point in relating this is that we can see that people who are completely non-religious hold a view of what God should be that people centuries of god wouldn’t have held.However of course we can see that this isn’t universal. I would say that the reason is that we are still encumbered with what C S Lewis calls the great human sin which is at the root of all sin and that is the sin of pride. Out of pride of course comes our lust for power and influence along with our desire to be admired and recognized. There is still the on-going tug of war between good and evil, selfishness and un-selfishness and truth and lies.One of the dangers inherent with taking religious texts as being essentially dictated by God is that it provides an avenue, still undergirded by pride, to revert back to the ancient beliefs where God is an entity that can be used to gain power and recognition. However so as we can see that craving for power and recognition crosses over people of all religious and secular beliefs.So, what can we understand from the Bible, if we understand it as a narrative, and if we assume that it is written by fallible theologians, historians and story tellers trying to unravel the story of our evolving understanding of what God has done, is doing and what He is planning to do with and for our world?I have mentioned that I assume that God reaches out to us through our hearts and minds but I also believe myself that The Bible is a very important tool that God uses to touch and inform. In that regard, as a Christian, I believe that it is absolutely crucial that we do gain an understanding of just how it is that we should interpret what it is that we read in the Bible. From that point of view I don’t personally hold as minimalist a view of the Bible as I have outlined. I believe that it is more than just another theological text. I believe that it is a book used and blessed by God to guide and inform us.Does understanding of the Bible this way, based on the theistic assumptions that I outlined, reasonably fit with what we conclude through basic logic and reason.I have only given a very general synopsis of my own thoughts on this and I can add more detail but I suggest that it is better to just use broad brush strokes for the OP.I imagine that if anyone wants to promote this it should be in Faith and Belief.

Thread copied here from the A Minimalist Bible thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Personally, I can't imagine relating to GOD without Jesus. How minimalist is this proposed Bible? A few more questions---1) Are people basically good-basically "fallen" or a combination of the two?2) Do humans by nature want a God?(assuming they could be gently persuaded that One is possible)?

Jesus is certainly part of the Bible. What we would have to do is to read the Bible, without thinking of it being inerrant in order to come to our conclusion about who He is/was and what if anything God wants us to learn through Him. If we are to read the Bible as being the story of God revealing Himself to us through an imperfect human lens, and combine that with things that are pretty obvious to us anyway then I would conclude this. Genesis tells us that we have the knowledge of good and evil, and I think that ties in with the idea of us being God's image bearing creatures. I think that we can all agree that we do have the ability to choose between right and wrong, or between selfishness and unselfishness but that as new born we start out as being survival machines making it all about us. As we grow and we get a picture of fairness as tiny children we seem to develop as sense of fairness into a more complex moral code.My answer then is that essentially as our consciousness develops we have the potential for both, or to narrow it down to your wording I'd answer a combination. It is hard to answer that because it is different for everyone. I would assume that some people want there to be one in order for there to be an ultimate purpose to life, whereas others would hate the idea as it we want to set our own boundaries and be in control of our own destinies.

I think it can work as long as God isn't also all-powerful. If God is all-powerful, then this simply isn't true.
However, if God isn't all-powerful, then this is quite possible and remains logical and reasonable (assuming that God exists... anyway).It is very reasonable that:-God exists
-God is just and loving and consistent
-God created life
-God reaches to humanity
-Evolution is necessary
-The suffering shown in our world is necessary in order to experience joy...as long as God isn't powerful enough to do "whatever He pleases."If suffering is required in order to experience joy... then this is a restriction that God cannot overcome. (God isn't powerful enough to setup a system where humans can experience joy without suffering.)
If God cannot overcome this restriction... what other restrictions exist that God cannot overcome?Maybe God can't answer all our prayers.
Maybe God can't answer some prayers at all.This would explain the Bible very well. If God's power wasn't absolute, then it's quite possible that He did whatever He could and the inconsistencies/issues with the Bible are simply things that were out of God's control.But, all-in-all, yes. The assumptions you're presenting seem very logical and reasonable within each other as long as God isn't "all-powerful."

Thanks for a thoughtful post. You have obviously hit on the key to all of this. In the first place the words all-powerful or omnipotent are rather meaningless in a human sense anyway. Essentially, when applied to God it is declaring that He has infinite power, and I don’t think that the majority of Christians really think that through when they say it. What on earth does infinite of limitless power look like? As I said, it is meaningless to us.If however we consider God powerful enough to be responsible for all that we are able to perceive, and maybe much more, then from my perspective that is certainly powerful enough to impress me.I contend that our lives are themselves a gift from God and one aspect of the gift of life is that we have intelligence that enables to reason things out. To just simply accept that God is God and worship Him as He is all powerful without using our gift of logic and reason is a disservice to the gift of life that we have been given.Again on the assumption that God exists, we can I think by using the accumulated reason of the centuries come to a couple of conclusions in this regard. Interestingly enough I think that the key to what God is doing is most clearly identified by the scientific study of evolution. We have evolved from existing matter to all of the miraculous life forms we see today. I think that we can then take this evolutionary template and overlay it over virtually all aspects of human experience.1/ As individuals we evolve starting out at conception through birth childhood adulthood and eventually physical death.2/We can look at our whole universe and realize that our universe has evolved from something, probably a singularity, to what it is today.3/A book that influenced my thinking on this is a book I’ve mentioned numerous times before, and that is secularist Robert Wright’s book The Evolution of God. Our understanding of the nature of God has evolved from over the centuries in a general sense, (with still unfortunately many exceptions), from a god who could be controlled through sacrifices, burnt offerings etc to a god who essentially asks that we live by the Golden Rule.4/We have evolved from societies where brutal slavery was the norm, through the Roman period where watching death was entertainment to where slavery to where we are today. This particular evolutionary process unfortunately still has a long way to go.5/ Even look at the Exodus story in the Bible. Exodus denotes a journey as does evolution. In a very real sense the early Hebrews evolved from slavery in Egypt into the Promised Land.It also seems reasonable to me to think that if something is evolving then it has a destination. We can look at the evolution of our universe and science tells us that as far as we can see it has a finite existence. We can see that as well of course in our physical lives but in these cases if death is the final destination, it would seem that evolution might have a conclusion but it is rather empty or pointless one.If we consider our own lives we normally find purpose. We set goals and find purpose in our jobs, in our families and other relationships, and it holds true for nearly all aspects of our lives. It seems to me that if we have been created as creatures that find purpose then it is reasonable to expect that God had a purpose for bringing us into existence.As a Christian I contend that God has given us in advance the one fully evolved prototype for all of creation and that was done in the man Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus evolved as a man, like the rest of us that have been fortunate enough to get to adulthood, and then suffered physical death. But this time it was different. Jesus in some way perfectly embodied the Word, Spirit or Nature of God and God validated Christ’s life by making Him the first fully evolved human being. Jesus evolved through physical life into a fully real finished human, or the final destination of the evolutionary process.The Bible indicates that at the end all things will be resurrected in the final act of the evolutionary creative process, and that all will be made new and eternal. The final destination for our evolving universe is one where the suffering and death are no more and the pains of the evolutionary process no longer exist. Certainly there are issues about how God deals with those who want to hang onto what we know, (just like the Hebrews who wanted to stay in Egypt), but I’m simply prepared to trust in God’s love and justice to work that out.So, back to being all-powerful. Reason shows us that in order to get to the final destination God, for whatever reason required an evolutionary process for us to get there. Maybe instead of saying that God is all powerful we should say that God has unimaginable power. How,s that?

I don't have a logical or reason-based issue with that.And all the stuff you posted about seems valid as a possibility as well.The only issue is, as soon as God isn't all-powerful, it begs the question... what are God's limits?The big one being... does He even still exist or did God die?
Then there starts to be all sort of questions and we end up knowing nothing about God.Is the Bible entirely from God? Or only what God was able to get through to us?
Can God keep the promises made in the Bible? Are those promises even from God?If God is restricted... what is restricting God?
Another god-like being? If so, how can we ever attribute anything to God... it may be from something else.
Just a "the-way-things-are" kind of deal? If so, how can we know what's really from God, and what's a restriction that only made it "half-way" to us?We can ponder and create scenarios like the one you provided... but there's nothing to say it's true vs a bunch of other scenarios that could result in the world we live in today:
-God died billions of years ago and we're on our own now
-God was able to create us, but is now held captive by some other being/situation that is even more powerful
-God is constantly trying to communicate/reach us but whatever the restrictions that do exist... nothing gets through in the way we think it doesSo it comes down to "yes, it's possible in the sense that it's all internally consistent."
But there's nothing to distinguish any one possible scenario (regardless of it's popularity) from any other possible scenario that also lines up with the way things are in the world today.Maybe we do get a sense of "this really feels right" when we get a correct message from God.
Maybe we don't.I don't see anything worth risking even a year of my life for... let alone my possibly-eternal soul and those of my family/friends.
Such things are rather important, and need more support then being "internally consistent" and "it would be nice if this were true."

I think that if I start with this from post I can cover the most of the rest of it. Regardless of the root cause for morality I think that we can agree that human morality has evolved over the centuries as I outlined in my last post. We can see in our societies that in general, all else being equal, that people who are loving, generous, kind, altruistic and forgiving are happier and more contented than those who lack those qualities. I think that it is safe to conclude that whether God exists or not that those traits are desirable and that they work for us.If we are assuming that God does exist, or even to go your point existed then died, then I think that we can assume that as these traits are positive for creation it should follow that these are the traits of God. The Golden Rule does seem to be a universal truth and can be found as a universal standard in the vast majority of human organizations that consider these things, either religious or secular.Did God create and then die? As a Christian I believe that the N T writers were not mistaken in their accounts of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I have read a considerable amount on the resurrection from, as near as I can tell all points of view, and I am absolutely convinced that they believed what they were writing. It makes no sense otherwise. The question then is did they get it right. That being the case God was still around 2000 years ago.I find the case that they did get it right compelling and if I no longer believed that to be true I would cease calling myself a Christian, and simply say that I was theistic. I also recognize that these writers are only human and have their own individual biases and faults. Certainly there are inconsistencies in the timing and location of some accounts and there may well be some legendary stories being told that sound like they are to be taken as historical, but are actually metaphorical or representative of a greater truth to make a point.However, if the NT writers did get it wrong it does not mean that God doesn’t exist or that He isn’t loving.
As I said, our world view has to be based on something. I’m not clear on your point. Maybe the best answer is just to ask you to read my signature.

Very true. By the same token... even if the NT writers got whatever-information-was-available-to-them completely right, that does not mean God is currently watching over us and trying to reach us.If God has limitations, it's possible those limitations prevented Him in the past, and/or are preventing Him now.Everything you mentioned is completely internally consistent.
There's just no reason to actually consider it as true.I don't mean that there's no desire or curiosity about it being true.
I'm talking about a valid reason for considering it to be "the way things are" rather than just another imaginative idea.We can stand around all day and think of imaginative ideas that don't contradict anything in this world.
Like God being dead or unable to reach us because a bigger-God is constraining Him.
Each of those ideas works exactly as well with the way we see the world today as the explanation you provide.
What is difficult is to think of an imaginative idea that actually explains something in this world.What is the difference?A non-contradiction is un-falsifiable (there's no way to show that it's wrong).
An actual explanation reveals something testable about the world that shows us we really are correct when employing that explanation.One allows for possible progress. The other is sterile. My point:If we can't distinguish an idea from fantasy or reality, what good is the idea when dealing with anything important?

I don’t agree with that. If the NT writers were right about the resurrection then we can have a great deal more confidence that they accurately reflected the views of Jesus. Again, if they were right about the resurrection then we can have confidence that Jesus accurately espoused the views of God. Jesus certainly taught that God continues to care for and reach out to us. I think what is limiting to God is that with the evolutionary process He is stuck with having to work through all of us fallible humans. That is all true. However, what we can know is, as I said earlier, that morality and altruism work. It produces happier more contented people and societies. So we can at least put our faith in that. My signature tells us that what God wants of us in that we love kindness,(some translations have mercy) that we do justice and that we walk humbly with whoever we feel responsible to. If we truly have faith and desire those things in our heart, whether or not we attribute them to God, then we absolutely can make progress and it is anything but sterile. In spite of what some Christians espouse, the NT message is very clear. We are to have faith that God is a god of love and that what He wants of all of us is that we reflect that love into the world. We should have faith that we are to love neighbour and enemy, have faith that we should be quick to forgive, have faith that we should generous and merciful, have faith that we should behave unselfishly or essentially that we have faith that the Golden Rule’ is the gold standard and the we have a genuine desire to live up to it. That is to have Faith in God whether we want to put a name to Him or not.For example here are some sayings by the Dalai Lama.

quote:

---

Whether you believe in God or not does not matter so much, whether you believe in Buddha or not does not matter so much; as a Buddhist, whether you believe in reincarnation or not does not matter so much. You must lead a good life. And a good life does not mean just good food, good clothes, good shelter. These are not sufficient. A good motivation is what is needed: compassion, without dogmatism, without complicated philosophy; just understanding that others are human brothers and sisters and respecting their rights and human dignity.

---

quote:

---

The essence of any religion is good heart. Sometimes I call love and compassion a universal religion. This is my religion.

---

quote:

---

The essence of any religion is good heart. Sometimes I call love and compassion a universal religion. This is my religion.

​

It seems that scientific research reaches deeper and deeper. But it also seems that more and more people, at least scientists, are beginning to realize that the spiritual factor is important. I say ‘spiritual’ without meaning any particular religion or faith, just simple warmhearted compassion, human affection, and gentleness. It is as if such warmhearted people are a bit more humble, a little bit more content. I consider spiritual values primary, and religion secondary. As I see it, the various religions strengthen these basic human qualities. As a practitioner of Buddhism, my practice of compassion and my practice of Buddhism are actually one and the same. But the practice of compassion does not require religious devotion or religious faith; it can be independent from the practice of religion. Therefore, the ultimate source of happiness for human society very much depends on the human spirit, on spiritual values. If we do not combine science and these basic human values, then scientific knowledge may sometimes create troubles, even disaster.

---

quote:

---

Despite all philosophical differences, all major world religions have the same potential to create good human beings.

---

If you look at the NT holistically those views are completely reflective of what Jesus taught us about God. Yes, I think theology is interesting and important but none of us have it all right. If everything was clear and there was no ambiguity we would lose the ability to freely choose the path He wants to.I do believe however, that if we intentionally choose to align ourselves with God, and in the case of Christianity through Jesus, then we have opened ourselves up more to God’s influence through His Spirit. My personal experience tells me that this is true.

Yea if you want a minimalist bible, or Koran, or Torah all you need is a piece of paper with the words:"Don't be a cunt" written on them.

This is true. And if they're wrong, we can have a great deal more confidence that they don't accurately reflect the views of Jesus.
The problem is that we have no way of showing if they were right or wrong. There's no way to tell. Could be.
Could be not.Again, the thought is sterile because we have no way to know. Absolutely true. Right. We can make progress in our understanding of morality and how it works with humans in society.
We cannot, however, make any progress about God being the source or not of our morality... that idea is sterile because there is no way to know one way or the other. I agree that this is the message of the NT.
However, if God has restrictions on Him... we don't know if God was able to put the NT together, or if He was restricted and it's just some talk from humans.
The idea that we should get along as humans in a society and learn, as humans, how to treat each other well is a great area of study, and we can make progress.
The idea that God wants us to follow the NT or that the plans come from God is sterile. We have no way to know one way or the other.We can imagine that it's from God... and make consistent plans from there. But we'll never know whether or not we're on the right track.
We can imagine that it's from the greater-than-God being that is holding God captive and it's actually a trick... and make consistent plans from there. But we'll never know whether or not we're on the right track.
We can imagine a million different possible non-contradictory scenarios... and make consistent plans from there. But we'll never know whether or not we're on the right track.
We can imagine that it's not from God... and make consistent plans from there. But we'll never know whether or not we're on the right track. Maybe.Or maybe if everything was clear and there was no ambiguity it would show that God was actually real.
Or maybe if everything was clear and there was no ambiguity it would show that God was being held captive and another being is tricking us.
Or maybe if everything was clear and there was no ambiguity it would show that humans are able to get along with one another.
Or maybe if everything was clear and there was no ambiguity it would show a million different possible non-contradictory scenarios that could all equally be valid.Or maybe not.The point is that non-contradictory "what if" scenarios don't mean anything in a practical world.
They're interesting to think about... but they simply don't teach us anything. They're sterile because we can't learn anything from them because we can't know whether or not they're valid for building anything on them. Could very well be true.
And I absolutely think you're being honest about your personal experience.But it's also possible that it's false.
And it's also possible that many other people have many other personal experiences telling them otherwise.How do we know what to build our foundation on?
How do we know if what we "feel to be true" really is true?If the foundation is a house of cards... then I'm just not okay with applying the ideas towards anything significant.Everything you've mentioned is quite possibly true. But there's no way to verify it, and there's plenty of other explanations that fit equally well or better.A minimalist Bible makes it easier to swallow because it's assuming less and less un-falsifiable ideas.
But the fatal flaw is that the Bible itself (as with any religious ideas of today) is un-falsifiable no matter what parts you keep.
Even a minimal number of un-falsifiable ideas is still some un-falsifiable ideas.
The only way the progress isn't sterile is if there are no un-falsifiable ideas at all. This point is non-negotiable. It took humanity thousands of years to figure it out, but once they did progress became unstoppable.If we can verify everything we base our ideas on... then we can test those ideas, learn whether or not they are valid, and make progress.
If we let in even a single, simple un-falsifiable idea... we'll never know if any of our concepts are true or not because they can all be supported by the un-falsifiable concept.

I'd prefer this one: reference

also works

You’re right of course that we can’t know for sure. However there are two ways of forming our conclusion. Firstly we simply read the accounts we have. The best arguments both pro and con I believe are find in the debates between N T Wright & Robert Borg and N T Wright and Dom Crossan.Secondly we can start with the message that Jesus espoused and go at it from that angle. Jesus was a first century Jew living in a land occupied, taxed and ruled, (partially through a puppet government of brutal quizzlings), by a foreign power. In the midst of all this we have a man going around telling people to love their enemy, turn the other cheek and to even go the extra mile in service to the occupying soldiers. He is telling us that the enemy isn’t the Romans per se, but that the enemy is evil itself and that the weapon that is going to defeat the Romans, or any other enemy is love. His message was that in the end it isn’t about swords but about changing heartsI contend that this message makes sense and is consistent with what we know deep down to be true. We can have all the battles without, but the only way conflict ever ends is when we truly establish relationship with our former enemies. As one poster on this forum once said — the Christian message is that we are all one tribe. Look what happened after WW I. The enemy was forced to sign a punitive treaty. The relationship was not formed and we went through WW II. After WW II the enemy was given assistance to rebuild and normalized relations were formed and we are all now allies. The point is that the message Jesus espoused rings true with what we know.So if the message of Jesus has proven to be reliable then it gives credence to the idea that God would honour and validate this message. The Christian belief is that God did that by resurrecting Jesus.Now again, we can’t know but we do have information available to us to allow us to come to a reasonable subjective conclusion based on some form of knowledge. Of course, we can take the position that we know that natural law does not allow for resurrection and so it is a complete non-starter which is a reasonable position to take as well, so we won’t all come to the same conclusion. In the end it is a matter of trust and faith but I contend it is much more than simply blind faith to believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Exactly, except it is anything but sterile. This is where Jesus tells us that we are to have FAITH. It isn’t about having faith in a specific doctrine, it is about having faith in the Word of God as found in Jesus, regardless of our doctrine. The Word of God can be boiled down again to the Golden Rule. And even then it isn’t exactly about what we do but it is our motivation for what we do. If you look at my signature it says that we are to love kindness, in other words we are to find our joy in our kindness to others. We are to love kindness when we experience it not only in our own lives but also when we see kindness being exhibited by others.We are called to have Faith, without certainty, that the message of love, kindness, justice and humility should be the motivation for how we live our lives, regardless of how imperfectly we follow through. I contend that view is anything but sterile.I would also add that we shouldn’t require certainty anyway as even if the account of the resurrection is wrong then shouldn’t we as humans with an evolutionary past be evolving towards that world view anyway? In the end then, all the evidence we need is there to know that we are on the right track. But we can look back over the centuries and see that what Jesus espoused holds true in life, so there is no reason not to have confidence even without certainty.