Those 10 Commandments haven't changed, nor are they hard to understand.
Maybe you can explain exactly what honoring one's parents entails? Obeying them? Glorifying with rituals or banquets or speeches to recognize or reward achievement. Just kidding. You'd be guessing like I would. One can choose either of those or something else if he likes, and that's my point. You say it isn't hard to understand the Ten Commandments, but that one is ambiguous, as is thou shalt not kill. Taken literally, that forbids hunting, cutting down trees, and picking vegetables.
the spiritual discernment will definitely arise even if it was not there at the beginning, so long as one sincerely seeks.
I translate that as, "As one continues training himself to think without skepticism, he will eventually no longer experience cognitive dissonance at the ambiguity and contradiction in scripture." The tip-off is the word sincerely. Sincerity here means abandoning critical thought. If one allows himself to continue judging scripture as an outsider would, he is not sincerely seeking by this way of thinking.
Shoghi Effendi determined that King James English was the best form to portray Persian and Arabic to English speakers.
That audience is pre-wired to respond to that kind of language as if it were of divine provenance. Just change verbs like give to giveth or givest, you to thou, and add a lot of flowery imagery and pomp: "O! Thou who givest the light of eternal wisdom art holy."
The natural man says, "you think too much. Life should be fun, so let us go chase some skirts and have a few beers. You can think all you want tomorrow."
That's a cartoonish depiction. I presume by natural man you mean somebody who hasn't conformed to religious rules about self-denial. This exchange took place here on RF yesterday, and I think it applies here as well:
He: "Hedonism destroys good character - no matter who you are."
Me: "I suspect that your definition of hedonism is the pursuit of happiness and satisfaction. Along with life and liberty, that's actually considered a worthy pursuit according to the Declaration of Independence, and I agree.
"I've been called a hedonist by many believers simply because I live outside of religion, which is often described as an immoral attempt to live a libertine life free from accountability and to rebelliously establish myself as a god. I leave that guilt trip to those willing to believe it. I'm anticipating a morning of leisure with my wife and dogs in our home followed by an afternoon of bridge at the bridge club and a nice dinner afterward with another couple followed by a return home to watch the sun go down on our terrace while watching the news, Jeopardy, Kimmel and Colbert's monologues, and then music videos over wine. I'm certain that you disapprove.
"Christianity is all about getting you to sacrifice your own pleasure for others. You're to raise a slew of children however impoverished that makes you and them, and to give to the church until it hurts. You're to forsake pleasure that costs money and to feel guilty about spending money on yourself. As I said, I leave that to people that will buy into that mindset."
Sex is for Procreation purposes only.
Here's one of those irrational rules commanding self-denial and implying that sexual pleasure is immoral. Our bodies were obviously made to enjoy sex. It is a perversion of nature to attempt to suppress that.
Men/Women Abuse themselves and others because of Inherited Rebellion Against Elohim/God.
And another. It's such a dour perspective. How sad for those who have never lived free from those kinds of thoughts. What you call abuse and rebellion is whatever you religion commands that is ignored.
The Bible teaches SPIRITUAL TRUTHS.
Whenever I've encountered that claim in the past, I used to ask for examples of some of these spiritual truths, but all ever got was crickets, so these days, I don't ask. I tell. I simply state that you have no such spiritual truths to offer as evidence in support of your claim.
The term spiritual truth actually has no meaning. Truth is the quality that correct ideas possess, and ideas are know to be (or known not to be) correct empirically (science, the experience of daily life) or using pure reason (mathematics, syllogism, the laws of thought).
The authentic spiritual experience isn't a claim that can be true or not. It's a warm psychological experience of connection and belonging associated with awe, a sense of mystery, and a sense of gratitude. It isn't true or false. Analogous psychological experiences are the experience of beauty and of humor. Just as the spiritual experience tells us what we find transcendent, the others tell us what is beautiful and funny to us, two experiences that border on the spiritual experience. A beautiful sunset or a great belly laugh also recreate that sense of belonging and contentment.
Looking for scientific facts and/or literal history clearly shows that you have no idea what the Bible is about. An example: You wrote, 1) "Of course, the authors of the Pentateuch, believed them to be accurate history" and 2) "There is no reason I can come up with that the authors believed otherwise. The authors made no reference to 3) the writings being symbolic or anecdotal or subject to personal interpretation." So, your own words have proven my point! YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE.
Actually, it's you who doesn't understand scripture. Of course those stories were told as literal accounts of natural history (creation myth) and human history (Garden story, flood story, Exodus, virgin birth and resurrection). Nobody knew and few if any claimed that the stories were wrong for centuries, and they were believed to have come from an honest, loving god.
Today, we know better, and this is why the believer is not the one to go to about what scripture means. One should trust his own judgment if he is an open-minded skeptic. The believer reads scripture with the assumption that it contains no mistakes and that the god depicted therein is perfectly good, then proceeds to generate any number of just-so corrections to try to make it seem so. The most glaring place to do that is with biblical natural and human history, and one begins by claiming that the Bible writers didn't mean what they wrote, that a day isn't a day, and that these stories were meant as allegory and contain deep hidden truths. No they weren't and no they don't
which other parts of God's written word do you believe are inaccurate?
I'd start with attributing any of it to a god.
Why do you think that the Bible is a historical and/or scientific textbook?
It isn't, but it tried to do that. It tried to tell man what happened in the past and how the world works. For example our world is flat, immovable, set on pillars and domed in which dome the stars are rotating around earth and through which dome the rain leaks
I don't care at all what you think of my "agenda".
You don't need to. I do. Your agenda, which I described, above is very relevant to me regarding understanding why you say the things you say about scripture and unbelievers. You're anxious to disqualify dissenting opinion, but can't. You can only say that you consider those opinions wrong, that those who hold them are unqualified to hold or express them, and that you don't care what others believe anyway.
I used to collect examples of the faithful trying to disqualify dissenting opinions. Here's the tail end of that list. These people weren't any more successful in stifling dissent than you have been:
[55] You are a heretic with little if any understanding of Scripture. If you did study the Bible it was in a Laurel and Hardy College in Tijuana
[56] Like I say there are no errors in the bible only skeptics that can't read and comprehend.
[57] You're a Biblical ignoramus.
[58] You need Jehovah’s approval to understand His word.
[59] Please don't say, 'how can I trust it? The Bible contradicts itself'. That will only be evidence to me that you don't understand what it's ancient writers meant, and don't
want to.
[60] I guess the issue here is, one of us has studied the original languages of the Bible, and has a degree in biblical studies and religion.
[61] You need a spiritual susceptibility to recognize Him through His verses, if not, you're out of luck.
[62] You lack the basic knowledge needed for a debate
[63] If you do not believe in God, His things will be beyond your comprehension.
[64] Your interpretation is invalid, as your intention appears to be insincere.
[65]the typical oblivious understanding of an atheist, in their incessant attempt to try and undermine the wisdom of the Bible.
[66] Since you weren't raised religious, and seem not to have ever rec'd any real religious education, and you only had some fun trying on Christianity in the military. It's probaby good to accept your ignorance on these matters.
