Adequate Accuracy of Literal Literacy

How accurate is The Bible? How thorough, direct, literal and how true? 

Maybe just as much as it needs to be, to accomplish the task at hand? People will often refer to specific lines of the bible in attempt to discredit its validity, assuming its description should be 100% direct, thorough, literal, and distinguished. Would this be realistically practical for the Bible? In order for the Bible to be completely thorough and accurate, I would think there would end up being 100+ times the quantity of literacy in order to completely accurately and thoroughly describe every situation, scenario, and occurrence, as well as every intended lesson to be imparted which is described. As far as I know, there were many more scriptures eligible for the Bible but which were sorted through and reduced. It seems it would simply be impractical to include all potential elements, as the quantity would be excessive, making it much more difficult to translate and reproduce. It would also make the task of reading the Bible seem even much more daunting than it already is, as well as time consuming to complete. Therefore, it seems apparent the Bible is not 100% thorough, but more summarized and generalized.

                This doesn’t necessarily mean it is not 100% true. Something can easily still be completely true, even if every aspect and element of the account is not described to an absolute specific. So, in the scenario where something is true but generalized, some individual discretion is required for effective interpretation. By deductive reasoning, The Bible is not completely thorough, but could potentially still be true, with the requirement of interpretation. Many variables can come into play regarding interpretation, considering the context of the specific scenario being described, the customs, culture, rules, and regulations of the location and time period, and accuracy of vocabulary used –including translation. Considering the amount of variables -and potential drastic misinterpretation, as a result of misunderstanding even a small variable, to a small degree-, comprehending and accurately understanding the Bible could therein likely be a difficult and challenging process. Within the task of interpreting meaning, come the additional variables of literalness and directness to be deciphered and assumed, by method of regarding the context. With such a significant and theoretically-regarded influential element of life, the margin for mistake in interpretation would be potentially dangerous, which seems to have been proven repeatedly in the past –as well as occurring presently-, by mislead, off-track “Christians”.

So before believing someone who claims there’s a contradiction based on 2 separate specific lines of text they found, and before altering your life after reading about a rule in 1 specific circumstance, take into consideration the interpretation needed for understanding something as complex as The Bible.

Denominator

What is the common denominator? What is the uncommon divisor? Is there only one correct result?

Of denominations of Christianity, I would say the common denominator is God of Christ, the uncommon divisor is belief of details and details of belief in regards to God, and the expanse of correct results is the question.

I think most denominations have the (uncommon divisor) detailed belief that there is only one correct result. Which does seem to be common, but the uncommonality is which divisor causes the correct result, since each denomination believes their own divising details of belief –regarding God and Jesus- are the correct divisor to come to the correct result. The correct result in life and belief, would be assumitively, living how God would want and ultimately ending up in heaven. So, each denomination theoretically believes only their detailed beliefs of Gods preferred methods of lifestyle will lead them to heaven. Most denominations are detailed enough on specific lifestyle, to restrict only that detailed method as the appropriate method. Based on this belief system, the majority of people, would not be living correctly (and therein, not reach the result of heaven), only because of a few detailed differences in lifestyle. These detailed differences of lifestyle are majoritively based on life circumstance. The effecting circumstances of life –being either fluke or intent of God-, would be basically every element of life which a person is born into. The elements would include general surrounding influences of culture and family. These would play the profound role of influencing a person in method and temperament of general ways of thinking, as well as more specific available -and degree of push of- information and knowledge.

It could be argued that natural acquirement of capabilities of determining the (hypothetically) correct details of lifestyle, overpower circumstance of upbringing, allowing the possibility of finding the correct details of lifestyle regardless of circumstances. This would be the argument that nature is overpowering of nurture, but even if this were the case 100% of the time, a vast amount of circumstances would land people in scenarios with the complete lack of availability of information required to come to the determination of the hypothetical correct lifestyle, therefore a significant amount of situations would happen that the person cannot come to the correct result no matter their potential capabilities of nature.

Basically, most people don’t have the available resources in their life to come to a specified detailed determination of lifestyle based on most denominational beliefs of required detailed lifestyle. In less technical terms; according to most denominations, God wants people to live their specific way, which you would need to learn from that denomination. This doesn’t seem likely to me, that God would require a specific lifestyle method, which can only be known by circumstantially being born into an environment which will press upon the person that specific lifestyle method. There doesn’t seem to be any reason to think God would have a specific detailed way of life of which only some people might happen to be born into the potential to know of, and out of those people, only the ones who choose to follow those specific rules (including the possible obedience based on fear) are the ones reaching the correct result.

 In contrast, if the divisor belief is that there is not only one correct result –but a range of correct results-, based on the prospect that the correct result is not so specific because the divising detail is not so specific. Without such a specific detailed lifestyle required, this allows the possibility that many lifestyles (which may happen to be detailed based on any circumstances) still end in a correct result. This allows the possibility of reaching the correct result, with any plausible circumstances whether nature or nurture takes the forefront. Again, in less technical terms; if the belief is that a more general way of life is the only requirement to achieve the correct result, many other denominations would also be a correct way of life –as they would also fit the general correct lifestyle-, and any person born into any life-stance has the potential to be correct.

In the end, it seems to me that the specificity of lifestyle to reach the correct result is quite general, and a plausible description of lifestyle might simply be; be considerate of others. Or in other terms, as I think most denominations would agree, love one another as you love yourself, also as Jesus tried to infer –happening to be one of the main commonalities of belief between denominations, to follow Jesus-. Perhaps the specifity of divisors –being denominations details- aren’t so important, but more so the simple, more general range of divisors. After all, regarding the divisors, that which is in common, is God as the denominator.  

Principles, Preached or Practical

How do practical, logical, objective, calculated decisions compare to preached, religious moral, principles?

I’ve come to the perceived idea that they are almost equivalent in result and effect from a general point of view. The general principles of religion tend to be aligned with rational and logical decision making from my experience. It depends on your interpretation of religious principles, but I’m basing this theory on a lot of what I’ve learned about general Christian principles formed by following the Bible.

The basic general principles based off of the Bible could be summarised as treat others kindly –as you would want to be treated. From this, many scenarios with many variables can be handled. The same scenarios and factors of variables would be handled the same way if the method of action was led by logical calculation. A Christian would tell the truth despite the chance to gain something, just as a robot programmed to make logical calculated decisions likely would. It would theoretically calculate the requirements of a presumably equivalent being, to be equivalent, and therefore no reason to alter the possession of a positive element, from 1 being to another of equivalent value. This general perspective of equation evaluation can be applied to many scenarios and circumstances of variables, just like the basic moral of Christianity. This equationalistic view is the extreme of objective decision making, and therefore likely a good comparison –as comparing the most extreme of 2 terms is likely to show the most extreme differences. Taking either of these basic generalised principles, the result will theoretically be the same when applied to many life discrepancies. Examples which I have analysed would be; contribution, judgement, pride and honesty.

In any case, it seems principles of logical practicality are in essence, the same as principles of religious preaching.

Morally Religious

Do you believe in your religion because you know it’s what is right, or is it just because you were born and raised to believe it?

Whatever childhood you were born into and raised from was by chance in my opinion. If you believe it’s fate or specifically predetermined, then why would some people be born into such horrible situations as some are? But assuming it’s chance, there is a significant chance that you would have been born and raised to believe a different, and therefore contradicting religion. Therefore it would be blind luck that you now believe and live in the way that your religion portrays is the specific way that you believe is correct. How is that fair for the significant and majorative percentage of people born outside of your religion, without the privileges of the opportunity of being informed of the specifications of your religion? In that case, the eternal judgement of your very existence is based on blind chance.

It’s my belief that rather, the case is that all those specifications of regulations in life -attempted to have been translated and interpreted multiple times over from ancient text- are only a specific example or sample of a beneficial lifestyle, relayed to a group of people in a specific culture and time, in their situation, under those circumstances. All of the examples of portrayed decent methods and rules of living are a sample of what should be derived from the more general basic principles, under those circumstances. The more general principals could be adaptable to any situation, but the specific application of regulations would vary depending on specific variables and any situation. These general principles are what I would consider morals.

It would be generically opportunistically equal, if these principles were the simple, naturally and instinctively known or understood methods of living (and loving -as I happened to have initially mistakenly typed) to follow in order to be what we would consider a good individual. AKA Morals. A basic summarization of the application of morals, I think would be to, consider others as you would consider yourself.

By applying these standards to any possible outcome of situational upbringing of any individual capable of understanding basic morals, all potential circumstances would have equal opportunity. So, in lamens terms (or applying the term on itself (since I seem to have ironically spelt it wrong), in a more simple basic description), the main rules in life that are necessary to follow, are basic morals.