the Bible

[ParisInTheAutumn]

Quoting Mr Comedy from 10:09, 2nd May 2007
You are confusing the issue here.

I believe in an infallable Bible.

However, if certain tenants of the Bible were disproved (which they haven't), the message of the Bible remains unchanged (e.g that of an omnipotent God who died for sins etc).

These two are stand alone points. I haven't shifted the goalposts, but, if you were able to disprove some small area of the Bible then it doesn't invalidate the entire message.

[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung

I'm confused. The message of the bible is that God died for our sins? I thought Jesus was the son of God and that God couldn't die?

[Senethro]

Quoting Super Jock from 10:52, 2nd May 2007
Senethro, I'm non christian too, but I don't for a minute say I'm more likely to be correct than someone who has actually done research on the matter. Your only argument is to make Mr Comedy who is making a perfectly legitimate argument by presenting facts, look foolish, and it's not working, so please try something new.

What facts? How do these facts support his argument? What legitimacy? There is a paucity of sourced facts in his posts.

And all the research in the world won't make him right if his sources contains little truth about reality (while acknowledging whatever historical/cultural/philosophical truth may be present).

I'm reading the old testiment at the moment, though very slowly, and what ever is the truth, i'm pretty sure it's not the old testiment taken in a completely literal sence. But reading between the lines still allows some of it's story to be worth the read. So like Mr Comedy said at the start I think, yeah give the bible a read sometime.

Why are you reading the old testament? Because you're a white european. Or you've been colonised by one. Cultural bias. Why Jehovah and not Odin, Apollo, Vishnu or the rest?

Regarding the supernatural, theres not likely to be any more truth in one than the other.

And given that we regard "heathen" gods with the correct skepticism, why do you criticise me for applying this to the Christian one?

[exnihilo]

Presumably because the adherents of any one god will always view the adherents of another (or of none) as wrong, it's part of believing.

[Gubbins]

Quoting exnihilo from 10:19, 2nd May 2007
The similarity between the Babylonian flood story and that of Genesis is easily explained.

Furthermore, this can likely be traced to one or more real-life events. For example, the reconnection of the Black Sea to the Meditteranean and probably of the Meditteranean to that Atlantic would have caused catastrophic flooding on the margins of both seas.

The Australian Aboriginal account is somewhat different, and I'd like to hear the original story as Aboriginal mythology tends to be considerably more abstract. However, remember that sea level rises were going on all over the world between 22000 and 8000 years ago, particularly in an epoch around 14000 years ago, where the sea level rose by 30 metres in a few centuries - this would certainly appear as a worldwide flood to many, albeit a slower one than the Biblical source.

[hr]

...but then again, that is only my opinion.

[Gubbins]

While I'm on the subject: those who believe in an infallable record must therefore believe that there is one authoratitive source. Although I'm no expert on either, Judaism and Islam appear to go back to exact copies of the original sources and are taught how to interpret them (please correct me if I am wrong). The Bible, on the other hand, has been translated several times, and changes have undoubtedly occurred in each translation. Not to mention Constantine's editing process.

For all religious texts, it must also be remembered that they tend to represent a collection of accounts, most of which tend to be contradictory in important details, and many of which were not written as a first-hand account. Crucially, they do not include all contemporary sources and typically include only those made to "fit the case" as the editor(s) saw fit.

[hr]

...but then again, that is only my opinion.

[Swiss]

Senethro says:
"Wow...

I mean...

Did you see that?

Actual non-ironic doublethink. "

Spot on.

[nighteyes]

Its been a while since we had a good ol' faith bashing. It's been quiet without Paul (AND I DONT WANT HIM BACK). But I will say that I was brought up Roman Catholic and actually read the bible of my own accord (serveral times) and after careful consideration I decided that there was no way I was going to take it word for word.

I will agree the messages of "do unto others" and all that jazz, are a good. But I have issue with the contradiction rife in the bible. Shock horror, again, I agree with exnihilo and the old and the new should be seperate things. Personally I find the old a better read. On one hand you have an "eye for an eye" and on the other you have "turn the other cheek" (which christians rarely pay attention to anyways) and the two do not mesh.

Personally I have no faith and I object to people preaching at me so I try not to force my un-faith on others. Hence the not wanting Pauls return. But these threads do make interesting reading.

[hr]

i didnt say i was consistant, just right!

[Insight]

Regarding the contradictory nature of the Old & New testaments, I read an interestign theory about the existence of 2 Gods in the Christian faith.

The God of the Old testament was vengeful & full of wrath but after sending Jesus to Earth, he faded/passed on/quit & Jesus himself became or spawned the loving, forgiving God of the New Testament.

It's definitely intruiging.

[hr]

Former SRC Member for Sexualities & Gender
Current Dumbfounded fool of Hospital-Land
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37101378

[exnihilo]

That doesn't work. Because the God before Jesus was not a Christian God, there being no Christians.

[Frank]

A more practical take on matters (and, as far as my experience tells me) seems to be espoused by local catholics, both of the vocation (ie priests/canons/cardinals) and the laypersons (me! and others...). That is: Jesus left a very distinct message about his record keeping- that it be passed through his church (not being Paul, this escapes me entirely!), ie "Do this in memory of me" etc.

Now, I believe this is why the Catholic Church (as best I am aware) looks to the church and not the bible as the presiding authority on ...well, the religion and everything else (save God Himself, of course!). So in that respect, whilst it is somewhat wrong of Catholics to say "You're wrong!" the running opinion (as far as I've encountered it from Christians and specifically Catholics) is that it matters whether you try lead your life as Jesus taught. You repent and you forgive.

Living 'by the book' is also probably a very good way to stay a good person properly in God's eyes, but it is second to living properly in God's eyes, and as part of Jesus' church (not just the Roman Catholic Church, whether they like it or not, the vast bulk of Christianity is following Jesus' teachings in one form or another, with schisms amongst the Catholics, not just between denominations!)

So from a 'Catholic' perspective (though I do not claim to be any sort of authority here, merely remarking [anecdotally] based on what I have observed) it would seem to me that taking the bible literally would lead to a bad way. We can analyse and examine it, oh yes. We can think on it and we can take messages from it, but let's not be too mad in our estimations of it!

That might be a sin, but the truth of the matter is: We can't be sure! Faith that it is right, certainly! But we do know there exists a fair few reasons it might've went wrong somewhere along the line.

Frank

(I'm sure Paul would have an excellent quote in this regard, maybe something fragmentary and spread across a couple of books from the bible that directly tell us why we must believe every word it says)

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."

[Senethro]

stop invoking the devils name!

[Science is Fun]

Quoting Mr Comedy from 22:48, 1st May 2007


However, there is solid non-Biblical evidence for other stories, such as the Israelite exodus through the Red Sea, a worldwide flood (as seen by virtually every other ancient culture having an account of a flood event embedded in their mythology), the collapse of the walls of Jericho etc.

[hr]

Apparently you haven't kept up to date with your facts. More recent findings show that the walls fell at a time impossibly different than the story of the walls falling and thus doesn't support the story. Their is no evidence of a world flood, just because other cultures had myths does not mean that it happened, lots of cultures have myths about giants who could eat people whole it doesn't mean the existed. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Hebrews where ever even slaves in Egypt much less that they crossed the red sea.

Biblical historians are relatively unanimous these days that Jesus was a Jewish Apcoliptisus. So to people in his generation his sayings had entirely different meanings than they do to us and thus are not as insightfully as you and many others give them credit for being.

[Mr Comedy]

What the blazes is a Apcoliptisus?

[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung

[exnihilo]

D'you know, I was wondering the same thing. It gets precisely zero hits on Google...

As for the Hebrews being in Egypt, it's pretty clear that they were, their precise position as slaves or ancient gastarbeiter is perhaps less clear, but they were most certainly living and working there.

[Adam Fellows]

Quoting Insight from 22:45, 2nd May 2007
Regarding the contradictory nature of the Old & New testaments, I read an interestign theory about the existence of 2 Gods in the Christian faith...

William Blake did his best to explain that in his poetry, taking the metaphysical philosophy and theology of people like Emanuel Swedenborg and incorporating his own slants and visions of angels into it all. It was all really quite interesting, but a proper understanding of it all does seem to require a fractured mind.

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100367

[exnihilo]

Certainly to believe fundamentally in the Old and New Testaments as being wholly and irrefutably true (in translation, no less) seems to require the sort of mental agility (or psychosis) that I certainly can't muster.

[Hmmm]

Quoting science is fun from 08:13, 3rd May 2007

Biblical historians are relatively unanimous these days that Jesus was a Jewish Apcoliptisus. So to people in his generation his sayings had entirely different meanings than they do to us and thus are not as insightfully as you and many others give them credit for being.

Um, reference please?

[Senethro]

Quoting exnihilo from 11:47, 3rd May 2007
As for the Hebrews being in Egypt, it's pretty clear that they were, their precise position as slaves or ancient gastarbeiter is perhaps less clear, but they were most certainly living and working there.

I thought I heard different. Hows that then?

[inshaala]

It's all a conspiracy... blame the illuminati...

but on a more serious note - do you think that whole cradle of mankind and oral tradition might have a part to play in the worldwide global flood phenomenon? Man had spread across the globe before writing emerged, yet surely it is possible that when they were all in africa something massive happened and thus the oral tradition kept it alive until it was written down?

also didnt the red sea, mediterranean, and black sea use to be dry and flooded a few times in geological history - did any of that coincide with the existence of man?

And i love how people forget that religions are so similar when they aspire to one and unfalteringly follow its message; religions like Christianity and Islam are fundamentally the same if you are talking about the "message" rather than the pedantic details... why a Christian and not a Muslim then? Ever thought it might just be because your parents are and that it was the culture you were brought up in which "gave" you Christianity? Because essentially most religions preach the same message as Christianity... they arent "wrong" either.

Now that is the main reason i am a non-believer - religions are just organised and codified social conduct guidelines/contracts, coupled with an answer to "the question". Take away the need to want to know the answer and you are pretty much talking common social sense...


edit: oh and that wasnt a personal attack, just some mind to keyboard action - follow whatever religion you want, i have no problem with that. It is when people talk about how they are right about following a certain religion (and thus by extension everyone else is wrong and should seek the same path) which just annoys me, you are only right within the confines of your own body.
[hr]

Ich will dass ihr mich versteht

[LonelyPilgrim]

Correct me if I'm wrong 'science is fun', but I was under the impression that the 'latest' facts or findings point to the Hebrews (under a different name at the time) living in Egypt as a client tribe on the Hittite border - not as slaves but as what the Romans would later refer to as foederatii... sort of part tenant/part mercenary force. The Exodus then occuring after the Egyptians, afraid of growing Hebrew power, tried to change the terms of settlement and disarm them and force them to become farmers.

At the least, I recall running across that theory and hearing that it was gaining some acceptance.

[hr]

Arma virumque cano...