Bible Origins -- discussion

[Bernie Sanders]

Thank you for that link Bernie, I notice that the fact Jesuits all take a vow not to seek political power is not mentioned at all. But alot of the information there is fabricated, seriously the Jesuits were responsible for both Lincoln's and Kennedy's assassinations, and conspiracy theorists haven't jumped on this awesome info, go figure. Oh btw another tidbit, since recorded history men have claimed over and over Armageddon is just around the corner, and some new nutcase comes out about once a month with a new prediction of when it will happen, and so far no winner's. Now I will give you mine, the end will come when the Creator decides it, not a minute before or after, you can take that prediction to the bank. No man knows the mind of God, if you believe me wrong, prove it.

So much drama when you guys discuss religion.

I can't prove you wrong my friend.

...and you can't prove me wrong, now calm down and take a deep breath and relax.

[warmonger1981]

@Duk

You know damn well that most of those civilizations didn't have contact with each other in respect to the time period of their religious symbolisms being used. The reason music is played during war is because the ancients knew what certain tones and rhythms do to the psyche. Just like what soft color tones compared to bright neon colors do to the subconscious. Yes cultures have had floods but why would these religions have similar stories about building an ark or boat and being afloat for many, many days? I can understand if oral tradition and written manuscript has been passed down through the generations and a religion like Catholicism takes small parts of previous pagan religions and incorporates them. But some religions that had no know contact with each other have similarities. The cross is a good example of it being used throughout recorded time as some sort of religious symbol by religions that had no contact with each other. Gold is another example of a metal being worshipped.

The reason all civilizations have used certain shapes as religious symbols is because the high priests knew geometry. They found that natural shapes came from mathematics. These shapes form building blocks to natures creation.

[mrswdk]

The reason music is played during war is because the ancients knew what certain tones and rhythms do to the psyche. Just like what soft color tones compared to bright neon colors do to the subconscious.

Wrong. Music was played in the old days because it did things like make city walls collapse. Now buildings have more structural integrity, and so the impact of directing music at them is too minimal to be worth the effort.

[riskllama]

[riskllama]

i bet the contemporary "drone" band, sunnO))), could make walls collapse.

OO VOID or the GrimmRobe demos would do it, i would think...

[AndyDufresne]

@Duk

You know damn well that most of those civilizations didn't have contact with each other in respect to the time period of their religious symbolisms being used.

--Andy

[Bernie Sanders]

We must stop this madness!

[waauw]

The reason music is played during war is because the ancients knew what certain tones and rhythms do to the psyche. Just like what soft color tones compared to bright neon colors do to the subconscious.

Wrong. Music was played in the old days because it did things like make city walls collapse. Now buildings have more structural integrity, and so the impact of directing music at them is too minimal to be worth the effort.

lol! Someone's been watching 'ancient aliens'.

[tzor]

So we are supposed to believe the "consensus opinion" of people who lived 1500 years ago?

How about earlier. The early church fathers wrote almost 2000 years ago.

And really, what makes you think you are superior to them? Has human nature changed in these thousands of years? You know what happens when an ego reaches critical mass? You better deflate it before it explodes.

[tzor]

Wrong. Music was played in the old days because it did things like make city walls collapse. Now buildings have more structural integrity, and so the impact of directing music at them is too minimal to be worth the effort.

I don't know, the proper application of bad heavy metal music could drive anyone within the walls to insanity.

Applied at the level of Hotblack Desiato it might even destroy whole planets.

[jimboston]

So we are supposed to believe the "consensus opinion" of people who lived 1500 years ago?

How about earlier. The early church fathers wrote almost 2000 years ago.

And really, what makes you think you are superior to them? Has human nature changed in these thousands of years? You know what happens when an ego reaches critical mass? You better deflate it before it explodes.

I don't claim to be superior.

I do believe that if the Bible is "open to interpretation", then it is free game and open to ANYONE'S interpretation.

I may not be their superior... but I know they are not my superior.

Why should some other person's interpretation be more valid than mine???
Because they are "Theologians", and are "trained to study the Bible". Fine... I don't buy that, but fine.

Compared to Past Theologians...
I may not be the superior of these people who lived 1500 or 2000 years ago; but I do have knowledge that they did not. Thus my frame of reference for Live and the Universe is greater. So I am able to look at things in ways they could not.

Compared to Contemporary Theologians...
These Bible scholars have access to the same knowledge as I, and have training I don't have. However, there are any people trained to study the Bible today agree with me.

[tzor]

So we are supposed to believe the "consensus opinion" of people who lived 1500 years ago?

How about earlier. The early church fathers wrote almost 2000 years ago.

And really, what makes you think you are superior to them? Has human nature changed in these thousands of years? You know what happens when an ego reaches critical mass? You better deflate it before it explodes.

I don't claim to be superior.

OK we can work with this then ...

I do believe that if the Bible is "open to interpretation", then it is free game and open to ANYONE'S interpretation.

This is the general PROTESTANT argument, which is why you have so many protestant denominations.

So let's look at this from the simple argument of TIME. This really doesn't have anything to do with "theologians." If we are talking about "interpretation" it really helps to know the context of the text you are interpreting. Just consider the constitution, as an example. It's only a couple of hundred years old. What's a "high crime and misdemeanor?" (It has nothing to do with crimes under the influence of pot.) What's a "natural born" citizen? (C-Section babies can run for president.)

This context gets weaker over the decades and centuries.

I may not be the superior of these people who lived 1500 or 2000 years ago; but I do have knowledge that they did not.

That may be interesting, but what specific knowledge applies to "interpenetration" of text.

We do know, for example, that the "disease" mentioned in the Old Testament, commonly thought to be a disease given the name "leprosy" was in fact "psoriasis." (The "heartbreak" of psoriasis ... get out of our community!) But I don't really see any significant "interpretation" differences from people who thought a disease was one thing and those who thought it was another thing.

Now when you get to the "Church" and "Christianity" there is the notion of the "Holy Spirit" guiding the church. Of course that's the Church's interpretation.

[hotfire]

geology

[hotfire]

don't make me bring geology's friend biology into this party (she is literally a party animal)

[tzor]

As long as you don't invite quantum mechanics. Sometimes she's there and sometimes she's not ... you can never tell with her if she will show up.

[jimboston]

I do believe that if the Bible is "open to interpretation", then it is free game and open to ANYONE'S interpretation.

This is the general PROTESTANT argument, which is why you have so many protestant denominations.

So let's look at this from the simple argument of TIME. This really doesn't have anything to do with "theologians." If we are talking about "interpretation" it really helps to know the context of the text you are interpreting. Just consider the constitution, as an example. It's only a couple of hundred years old. What's a "high crime and misdemeanor?" (It has nothing to do with crimes under the influence of pot.) What's a "natural born" citizen? (C-Section babies can run for president.)

This context gets weaker over the decades and centuries.

The point you make is irrelevant to my point.

Either the Bible is FACT or it is ALLEGORY.

If you think it is all FACT... then you are an idiot and I can't speak with you.
If you think any part is ALLEGORY, then you concede that these allegories must be interpreted. That means it's someone's opinion. Now you can claim that some people are "trained", so maybe their opinion should be weighed more heavily than mine. Fine... but now we come to the point of who decides how to weigh these THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS.

I weight my own opinion higher than most I've read. You can weigh some THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS more than you weigh my opinion. That is your prerogative in a free society. I'll continue to weigh mine more heavily.

I think I've presented several logical conundrums that you have ignored; or answered by saying something like "Oh, the Church addressed that years ago." Then maybe you have a link or not.... but if you go to the link it's still just people OPINION.

I may not be the superior of these people who lived 1500 or 2000 years ago; but I do have knowledge that they did not.

That may be interesting, but what specific knowledge applies to "interpenetration" of text.

*Science applies to the interpretation.
*Records from societies that existed at the time of some BIble stories are available to us now in ways that they were not to contemporaries... i.e. we can see "the other side" of the story.
*Records of stories that pre-date the Bible exist... and we can study these and see how some are nearly identical to Bible stories.
*Personal interactions with people of different faiths from all over the world is also related; throughout much of the Church's history, the great mass of people only interacted with people of the same faith. It was easier for them to think of some distant people as "heathens" who were hell-bound. How can I work/socialize with a cool, friendly, nice INSERT NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGION HERE person... and believe that said person is destined for Hell??? All Christian Religions believe that only Christians can go to Heaven.

You've ignored most of the points I've made.

[PLAYER57832]

Player you disassemble again or have short memory, here you are saying that the bible was not meant to be taken LITERALLY,in case you forgot in the other thread you said the bible was against homosexuality and gave reference to sections that proved this to be true. Now Admit that is your Personal opinion, or quit changing what you say to fit the moment. Quit using the bible and the creator as a sheild for your religions hate agenda.

How about showing me where I said that, then I can answer.

Otherwise, there are a few sections generally cited. The rules in Leviticus, for example. We don't follow the letter of these old Testament laws because our society has changed so much they no longer apply in the same way.

Romans has a segment listing homosexuality essentially as one of many consequences for a sinful society. That involves a more lenghtly discussion, but basically its not much different than saying that while the Bible refers to God putting illness on people who have sinned, most Christians and Jews understand that does not mean all illness is the result of sin, at least not in a direct sense.

etc.

I have no need of an agenda, my faith is mine, but it is humorous that you take such great offense at my disagreeing with you and wind up resulting to slurs and misstatements instead of just plain honest discussion.

[PLAYER57832]

Everything else are valid arguments.

Not against my words, no.

If you wish honest debate, you have to read what I actually say rather than simply providing pat answers to what you believe I should say.

but let's take just one point.. you claim that if the entire Bible is not to be taken literally (and mind you, there is disagreement over what that means), it must therefore be allegory. Huh?

A good part of the Bible is "simple" history. Other parts are laws for a society that no longer exists today in full form. Christ came to fulfill the law, not to do away with it. However, he did make clear that the exact legalism of the pharisees and such was plain wrong. A classic example is the admonition against him for healing on the Sabbath. HIs response? Was to say that they would leap into a well to save a lamb on the Sabbath, and is not healing humans more imperative? Many of the prohibitions you put forward are of men, not God.

Just because God gives us words does not mean humanity will perfectly understand them.

My issue with your words was that you stated to be fact things that are opinion. You are welcome to your opinion, but say they are fact and I will dispute.

What exactly did I state as fact something that is opinion?

That the Bible was written without witnesses.. the statement I began by refuting. You have since spun off in various directions.


MORE:

Bible Old Testament - Copied from previous religions... fiction.

Bible New Testament - Nice work of Fiction
Modified at the order of the Roman Emperor Constantine to help him better control his Empire.
He may very well have believed his victories were assisted by God.

Again, opinions.

I have actually disputed each of these. You ignore or dismiss as just not sensible any ideas you do not agree with. The problem? Your disbelief does not make my beliefs false. You claim proof when what you really mean is either you disagree or you don't believe my version.

[PLAYER57832]

if you say the "Bible is the Word of God". Then you must believe EVERYTHING in the Bible. You can't believe the Bible is God's word... and then only believe parts of it that you like. It's illogical. So if there is even ONE LITTLE THING wrong with the Bible... then you must accept that it's not 100% God's word... in which case how do you know which parts are "really" God's word, and which parts aren't.

Not even close to true and here is why:

What exactly is "not even close to true"?

Do you believe the Bible is "the Word of God" or not?

If yes... Everything in there is True.
If no... Then which parts are true, and which parts are not?
If not... Then who decides which parts are true, and which parts are not?

That's actually the point of Theology and councils and people coming together to study Christ. No one person can decide so things are decided by rhetoric and agreement. Is it really all that alien to you that people might form a consensus opinion?

Except it wasn't a consensus opinion. The African and Asian bishops who represented most Christians at the time were a tiny minority.

Huh?

There have always been several churches, and there has been disagreement from the start, even among the apostles, but your wording suggests revisionism.

The Ethiopian church, in particular, still has an honored place within the church . Constantine's reign/power is certainly a matter for discussion, but the real point is that despite all of this, the Bible still persists and, with only minor issues survives challenging Christian/Theological scholarship. (I make this distinction because I am not referring to absolutely verified scientific proof that the events occurred exactly as described, rather that the current Bible is consistent with earlier texts and records).

[PLAYER57832]

My point out in both threads has been, do not follow any faith blindly, believe in the almighty, but don't follow just because you feel obligation to your specific faith, learn for yourselves what is correct.and don't espouse any form of hate of any type in the name of religion. That can't be what was meant.

OK, regarding the hate.. absolutely agree, but of course, the problem is that humanity too often fails to distinguish at what point making people do things "for their own good" goes from love to hate. Or, maybe I should say that what you believe to be love might easily be perceived by others as hatred.

Anyway, per your initial point... thank you for your concern, but I assure you that very few Christian believe that faith means putting their brains and heart on a shelf. That is, truly, why we have so many churches even though many of us claim the same leader(s) and God. For that matter, Jesus was a Jew, and though Christianity has gone through some horrific times of ideas, Jesus made clear that the Jews would always be God's chosen people, even if they did not embrace him as savior.

This forum actually gives a pretty good idea of the diversity and range of thinking within Christianity. There absolutely are some mind-denying followers. That is true of any belief, but it is a function of humanity, not religion -- except in cults. (my definition of cults, the definition I have learned some 40 years ago, is that a cult is any ideology where the leader demands full control, controls money, controls thoughts, does not allow followers to discuss full or to leave, and often is actually just a criminal. Note that the ideology is independent. You can have a cult within any belief system.)

[mrswdk]

If Jesus was a Jew and thought Jews were great then why did he and his followers found a new religion?

[jimboston]

but let's take just one point.. you claim that if the entire Bible is not to be taken literally (and mind you, there is disagreement over what that means), it must therefore be allegory. Huh?

How can there be disagreement over what the word "literally" means?

What is there to be "huh?" about in my statement.

It's either literal/true.. or it's allegorical... or just fiction.

A good part of the Bible is "simple" history.

OK... so if this history is true (or if you believe it's true) then that is a literal interpretation of these sections.

Other parts are laws for a society that no longer exists today in full form.

If you are supposed to obey the laws to the letter... that is a literal interpretation of these sections.

The laws are the laws... unless God decrees some change in the law, I'm not sure why it would matter if time has passed.

Christ came to fulfill the law, not to do away with it. However, he did make clear that the exact legalism of the pharisees and such was plain wrong. A classic example is the admonition against him for healing on the Sabbath. HIs response? Was to say that they would leap into a well to save a lamb on the Sabbath, and is not healing humans more imperative? Many of the prohibitions you put forward are of men, not God.

So you are saying that the Pharisees interpreted the laws incorrectly. Fine.
So then the laws are open to interpretation, and we are at the mercy of those people (religious leaders) whose job it is to make these interpretations. So if I'm following the interpretations made by the religious leaders, and these are wrong, I'm going to hell???

Just because God gives us words does not mean humanity will perfectly understand them.

So if we can't understand WTF God is trying to tell us... why bother?

Don't you think that an Omnipotent God is capable of communicating with us in a manner we understand? Wouldn't it make sense for God to communicate effectively if He/She really wanted us to follow these "Laws"?

... and if the we are misunderstanding basic things like simple "Laws"... what else are we failing to understand?

The whole Bible is now open to interpretation.

My issue with your words was that you stated to be fact things that are opinion. You are welcome to your opinion, but say they are fact and I will dispute.

Bible Old Testament - Copied from previous religions... fiction.

Bible New Testament - Nice work of Fiction
Modified at the order of the Roman Emperor Constantine to help him better control his Empire.
He may very well have believed his victories were assisted by God.

I have actually disputed each of these. You ignore or dismiss as just not sensible any ideas you do not agree with. The problem? Your disbelief does not make my beliefs false. You claim proof when what you really mean is either you disagree or you don't believe my version.

Me calling them "fiction" may be opinion. I'll concede that word.

Me stating that parts of the Old Testament are actually copied stories from other religions is fact.
Me stating that Constantine formed the Council of Nicaea and ordered them to come up with a unified Bible is fact.

You can surely find links on religious websites that dispute these facts. That doesn't make them not facts.
You can find likes on religious websites that dispute the existence of Dinosaurs too... just because you can find a link disputing facts; that doesn't mean something isn't a fact.

[jimboston]

If Jesus was a Jew and thought Jews were great then why did he and his followers found a new religion?

Jesus didn't "found" a new religion.

His followers did, and his followers-followers perpetuated it.

I think they just wanted to modified Judaism... not start a new religion.
Course, anytime you try that; some people will go with you and many will not.

Why did they do it?
Some did it because they believed in what they were doing was right.
Some probably did it for selfish reasons.

The why is moot.

[mrswdk]

The why is moot.

The 'why' was my entire question, so it is the opposite of moot.