Bradley Byrne Says "Every Word" of Bible is True

niftydrifty said:

I think the point is that it was so dumb for an article to be written about it. It wasn't worth the time or space.

Click to expand...

That, and, when major news sources like MSNBC, CNN, or ABC is not picking it up and running with it to make christians look bad(and FAILING at it), then the problem meter isn't just "zilch", but in the negatives!

Redress said:

Almost all of our politicians believe in at least some of that. If it effects his job, then it is a problem, but just believing that is not in itself a problem.

Click to expand...

Believing in some of it is not the same as believing every word of it. The degree of belief is essential in determining how much influence a person's religion will have on their political career. The stronger the belief, the more influence in my opinion. I don't know about before my lifetime but during it, the more faith a politician has, the more influence his faith has on his politics.

When you have people who believe that there is modern day science in a book written 2,000 years ago and these people ignore the last 300 years of scientific progress in every field from geology to nuclear physics, that to me is a problem which I am not truly affected by. When these same people are the ones who want to run my country that to me is a serious problem which I will be affected by.

I think you are not understanding that this person is a radical. He's no different than an extremist Muslim who believes every word in the Qur'an can be applied to modern day life.

1st off, Kudos to Byrne for having the courage to ignore the hatueys and catzes and Haruno's of the world to actually stand up and not play politics, and tell people what he really thinks

Hatuey said:

Believing in some of it is not the same as believing every word of it. The degree of belief is essential in determining how much influence a person's religion will have on their political career. The stronger the belief, the more influence in my opinion. I don't know about before my lifetime but during it, the more faith a politician has, the more influence his faith has on his politics.

When you have people who believe that there is modern day science in a book written 2,000 years ago and these people ignore the last 300 years of scientific progress in every field from geology to nuclear physics, that to me is a problem which I am not truly affected by. When these same people are the ones who want to run my country that to me is a serious problem which I will be affected by.

Click to expand...

I was under the impression that, a litmus test for any christian is that they do believe the bible, the whole bible, the whole message.

Now, whether it's literal, or figurative, or any other interpretative stance on "the truth", is totally up to the individual. (for example, just look at the revelations camps in christianity. Some say the end is coming, some say it happened ~1900 years ago, but they still believe it is true)

I think you are not understanding that this person is a radical. He's no different than an extremist Muslim who believes every word in the Qur'an can be applied to modern day life.

Click to expand...

You don't believe that, do you? How many abortion clinics has this guy bombed?

Tell you what, if you call the FBI on this guy and tell them you think this guy is an extremist and he might go shoot some poor atheist, then I'll believe this. Otherwise, you're blowholing your stressful day on some random media victim.

Hatuey said:

Believing in some of it is not the same as believing every word of it. The degree of belief is essential in determining how much influence a person's religion will have on their political career. The stronger the belief, the more influence in my opinion. I don't know about before my lifetime but during it, the more faith a politician has, the more influence his faith has on his politics.

When you have people who believe that there is modern day science in a book written 2,000 years ago and these people ignore the last 300 years of scientific progress in every field from geology to nuclear physics, that to me is a problem which I am not truly affected by. When these same people are the ones who want to run my country that to me is a serious problem which I will be affected by.

I think you are not understanding that this person is a radical. He's no different than an extremist Muslim who believes every word in the Qur'an can be applied to modern day life.

Click to expand...

I think you're being very overdramatic here. He's not saying that we have to do every single thing that the bible says exactly the way it says it. He's simply saying that nothing in the bible is a lie. When you put it that way, there are probably 1.5 billion people who would agree, few of whom I would consider radicals.

American said:

You think maybe you're overanalyzing?

Click to expand...

Not in the least. If every word is true, which words?

RightinNYC said:

I think you're being very overdramatic here. He's not saying that we have to do every single thing that the bible says exactly the way it says it. He's simply saying that nothing in the bible is a lie.

Click to expand...

What's the difference?

American said:

You've become quite intolerant. :whothere: I'm disappointed.

Click to expand...

I'm intolerant because I believe its stupid to boycott a business because they allow someone to speak that says they don't believe every single solitary word in the bible is "100% true".

This is absolutely hillarious American. I never see you pissing and moaning at yourself and other conservatives for being "intolerant" for flat out calling every or most liberals idiots, hateful, disgusting, anti-american, or anything else. I don't see you calling anyone intolerant when they imply all or most muslims are evil, terrorists, insane, dangerous, or anything else. You never speak of "intolerance" then when there's at least a relative amount of broad reaching intolerance.

But I say that its ridiculous to get upset at a politician because he doesn't believe every, single, solitary word of the bible is 100% LITERALLY true and I'm so intolerant you have to make a comment.

Spare me if I don't really care, because your transparency of the reason you're saying it is crystal clear.

RightinNYC said:

I think you're being very overdramatic here. He's not saying that we have to do every single thing that the bible says exactly the way it says it. He's simply saying that nothing in the bible is a lie. When you put it that way, there are probably 1.5 billion people who would agree, few of whom I would consider radicals.

Click to expand...

I would probably disagree with you that 1.6 billion people believe that every word in the bible is LITERALLY true. I dare say there are scholars and common men and women alike that believe that there are portions of the bible that are allegory or metaphors rather than literal statements. I dare say that the majority of Christians do not believe the earth is only 6,000 or so years old which, if every word in the bible was LITERALLY true, it would be.

Hell, actually, lets take a little informal poll here....

How many people in this thread that are christian believe the bible is 100% literally true in everything it says and therefore the earth is only 6,500-ish years old?

This doesn't even come upon the idiocy of the notion of believing its 100% absolutely literally factual. If that's the case, why are they ignoring portions of it that are now antiquated? (Like stoning women that are raped)

If the books of the bible truly ARE the work of god through man, and not the work of man trying to understand god, then who the hell was it for MAN to decide that certain works of GOD himself were not allowed to be put in the bible?

misterman said:

What's the difference?

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

I would probably disagree with you that 1.6 billion people believe that every word in the bible is LITERALLY true. I dare say there are scholars and common men and women alike that believe that there are portions of the bible that are allegory or metaphors rather than literal statements. I dare say that the majority of Christians do not believe the earth is only 6,000 or so years old which, if every word in the bible was LITERALLY true, it would be.

Hell, actually, lets take a little informal poll here....

How many people in this thread that are christian believe the bible is 100% literally true in everything it says and therefore the earth is only 6,500-ish years old?

This doesn't even come upon the idiocy of the notion of believing its 100% absolutely literally factual. If that's the case, why are they ignoring portions of it that are now antiquated? (Like stoning women that are raped)

If the books of the bible truly ARE the work of god through man, and not the work of man trying to understand god, then who the hell was it for MAN to decide that certain works of GOD himself were not allowed to be put in the bible?

Click to expand...

Here are the two things he said:

"I believe there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be literally true and parts that are not."

And then after people accused him of saying that the bible was a lie, he said:

"I believe the Bible is true . . . Every word of it."

I don't take that as him saying that every single thing in the bible happened exactly the way it says it did and that the world is 6,500 years old. I take that as him saying that nothing in the Bible is a lie. As Tashah mentioned, think about the Genesis story. It's possible to look at that and conclude that the message is that no matter what you do during the week, you should respect the sabbath. That doesn't mean that you have to believe that God created the earth, waited exactly 24 hours, and then created some other stuff.

I would probably say that the bible is true, in the sense that it's an accurate recounting of the events experienced by these authors, the parables they are using to convey particular messages, or the beliefs that they had at the time.

Either way you look at it, he's certainly not alone.



One-Third of Americans Believe the Bible is Literally True

I'd say that his statement falls somewhere between the first two options, placing him squarely in the middle of Americans.

RightinNYC said:

Here are the two things he said:

"I believe there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be literally true and parts that are not."

Click to expand...

And I agree with him on this, its my view of the bible and that of many scholars. That some parts of it are true stories and others are allegories used to put across a message or belief. And its THAT comment above that made the individual in question in this story, the one I think is most ridiculous, upset.

And then after people accused him of saying that the bible was a lie, he said:

"I believe the Bible is true . . . Every word of it."

Click to expand...

Except its not. Not in the context of how the person demanding an apology meant it. By stating that everything in the bible is not LITERALLY true one is not saying that the bible is "lying". Allegory's aren't lies, they're not fact or "truth" either, they are stories.

Take your Genesis example. In that example, if that's your thought, you can't say that every word of the bible is true because the bible is literally saying in that case God Created the world in 7 days. If it is simply an allagory, a representation of an abstract idea or belief put across in the form of a story, then every word is not "True" in the sense that this person is implying and those complaining are implying. Neither is it a "lie", no more than Plato's Allegory of the Cave is a "lie". Its a work of fiction to put forward a real life message.

Additionally, the 6,500 year old earth is based off things stated as TRUTH in the bible. To believe that every word of the bible is true is to believe that every piece of information in the bible that pegs the earth as 6,500-ish years old is true. This is, scientifically, ridiculous.

I'd say his FIRST statement clearly puts him in the middle row of your chart. I'd say his SECOND statement, and the people complaining about his First Statement, is trying to be in the 1st column.

I find the first column to be absolutely positively ridiculous. Mind you, I don't even have an issue that people believe certain parts of it are literally, absolutely true. But there's portions that makes no sense, scientifically or logically, to believe are 100% literal truth not to mention I don't believe 30% of the country believes we should be stoning rape victims, which seems to go against their notion that every word of the bible word for word is literally absolutely gods word (nor is there a strong move by 30% of the population to find the other books that were rejected from the bible...I guess they didn't become literally gods word until they were chosen by men as such, or perhaps gods words that are not chosen as important by men aren't as important....)

DarkWizard12 said:

1st off, Kudos to Byrne for having the courage to ignore the hatueys and catzes and Haruno's of the world to actually stand up and not play politics, and tell people what he really thinks

Click to expand...

I agree. He deserves kudos for having enough guts to show himself as what he really is. An ignorant person clinging on to a book. Not many radical Christians are willing to be that bold.

I was under the impression that, a litmus test for any christian is that they do believe the bible, the whole bible, the whole message.

Click to expand...

That's great for whatever you thought. Show me some evidence that the majority of Christians believe every word in the Bible. You'll find few people will believe men survived inside giant fish or that a river can turn into blood. Or they will find something they simply do not believe to be true. If this wasn't true you wouldn't have dozens of denominations and hundreds of sects.

Now, whether it's literal, or figurative, or any other interpretative stance on "the truth", is totally up to the individual. (for example, just look at the revelations camps in christianity. Some say the end is coming, some say it happened ~1900 years ago, but they still believe it is true)

Click to expand...

Oh I see what you did here. You are trying to use interpretation and belief interchangeably. Not interpreting the same passages of the bible the same way is not the same as believing parts of the bible to be untrue. I know many Christians who simply do not believe every word in the Bible. They do not believe in people being created out of mud and ribs. I know some who do. See the difference? Degree of belief is not the same as interpretation.

You don't believe that, do you? How many abortion clinics has this guy bombed?

Click to expand...

I was under the impression that the Bible didn't tell Christians to bomb abortion clinics.

Tell you what, if you call the FBI on this guy and tell them you think this guy is an extremist and he might go shoot some poor atheist, then I'll believe this. Otherwise, you're blowholing your stressful day on some random media victim.

Click to expand...

So nothing to argue but an adhom? Yes. He is a radical. A person who literally believes in zombies, dragons and demons. End of story.

Hatuey said:

I agree. He deserves kudos for having enough guts to show himself as what he really is. An ignorant person clinging on to a book. Not many radical Christians are willing to be that bold.



That's great for whatever you thought. Show me some evidence that the majority of Christians believe every word in the Bible. You'll find few people will believe men survived inside giant fish or that a river can turn into blood. Or they will find something they simply do not believe to be true. If this wasn't true you wouldn't have dozens of denominations and hundreds of sects.

Click to expand...

Again, 31% of Americans believe that the bible is "the actual word of god, to be taken literally." Since 76% of Americans are Christians, if we assume that the only people to choose that option are Christians, then that means that 41% of Christians believe that.


Whatever you think of that, this guy is clearly not that far outside the mainstream. While you might choose to interpret that as saying that 41% of Christians are psychotic radical wackjobs, I think it's a lot simpler than that.

Talebangelist............. So apposite.

RightinNYC said:

Here are the two things he said:

"I believe there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be literally true and parts that are not."

And then after people accused him of saying that the bible was a lie, he said:

"I believe the Bible is true . . . Every word of it."

I don't take that as him saying that every single thing in the bible happened exactly the way it says it did and that the world is 6,500 years old. I take that as him saying that nothing in the Bible is a lie.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. Then that means his response wasn't really answering the criticism of the first statement.

Whatever. Byrne is an idiot, his state is full of idiots, and the whole stupid dispute is idiotic.

misterman said:

Hmmm. Then that means his response wasn't really answering the criticism of the first statement.

Click to expand...

You mean a politician is dodging an issue? Oh my.

The guy was defending himself from ridiculous and pointless attacks on his religious beliefs.

As a result, he is now receiving ridiculous and pointless attacks on his religious beliefs.

Ironic, huh?

RightinNYC said:

Is he saying that he believes the entire bible is true and will thus pass laws requiring everyone else to follow its rules? No.

Click to expand...

Actually, we are already being forced to follow the rules of the Bible. You see, the 10 Commandments ban murder and theivery, and today the Christian majority has imposed laws on us forcing everyone to follow these rules. ONOZ THEOCRACY!!!

Dav said:

Actually, we are already being forced to follow the rules of the Bible. You see, the 10 Commandments ban murder and theivery, and today the Christian majority has imposed laws on us forcing everyone to follow these rules. ONOZ THEOCRACY!!!

Click to expand...

Hardly. Christian didn't invent laws against murder and thievery and they aren't necessary to have them. Nations of every religion, and no religion, have the same laws.

misterman said:

Hardly. Christian didn't invent laws against murder and thievery and they aren't necessary to have them. Nations of every religion, and no religion, have the same laws.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Which is why it is ridiculous when people argue that a stance on an issue that can be in any way justified with the Bible violates the separation of church and state.

Dav said:

Exactly. Which is why it is ridiculous when people argue that a stance on an issue that can be in any way justified with the Bible violates the separation of church and state.

Click to expand...

Okay. But I don't think those people are talking about murder and thievery laws.

misterman said:

Okay. But I don't think those people are talking about murder and thievery laws.

Click to expand...

No, they are not talking about any laws at all at this point. They are supposing that he might, since he is religious, use that as a basis for how he votes, and since he might, maybe, possibly do something they don't agree with, and since he is religious, that is a problem in their eyes. Yes, it's stupid, yes, it's assinine, but that is what some are doing.

RightinNYC said:

Since when does a potential politician having religious beliefs that differ from yours = "theocracy"?

Click to expand...

I could care less what a politician's religious beliefs are as long as they don't hamper him from doing his job. That isn't the point of this article. When the man made an accurate statement of his views, he was so villified in Alabama that he's had to come in and do damage control as a literalist. THAT is theocracy, because it is requiring a litmus test of religious views for election to higher office.

niftydrifty said:

... said the woman that had a young child's understanding of the bible for several decades, and clung to it for way too long, but then got mad at everyone else but herself for not seeing the obvious much much sooner.

Click to expand...

You'd be a lot smarter if you stopped smoking dope. As it is, you're a ****ing maroon.

Catz Part Deux said:

I could care less what a politician's religious beliefs are as long as they don't hamper him from doing his job. That isn't the point of this article. When the man made an accurate statement of his views, he was so villified in Alabama that he's had to come in and do damage control as a literalist. THAT is theocracy, because it is requiring a litmus test of religious views for election to higher office.

Click to expand...

Until recently we were "not ready" for a black president. Were we a race-ocracy?

Until 1920 only men could vote. Were we a sex-ocracy?

The minimum ages for Congressmen, Senators, and Presidents are 25, 30, and 35 respectively. Are we an age-ocracy?

Poor people pretty much never hold elected office. Are we a class-ocracy?


I don't think you really understand what a theocracy is.

Dav said:

Until recently we were "not ready" for a black president. Were we a race-ocracy?

Click to expand...

We certainly were until blacks could vote.

Until 1920 only men could vote. Were we a sex-ocracy?

Click to expand...

Yes.

I get your point, but I just had to be a technical jerk about these two.