Lets get back to the bible...

bahhh, this was never meant to offend anyone like that. Only a few of these are contradictions out of context, and i know people have seen them before, i dont think im the only one.

My point is there is so much information regaurding the bible, good and bad. But people dont always take it that way. Sometimes people take the whole thing literally, that everything in it happened, just like its told, instead of taking it as moral guidelines and answers to personal problems told from people long ago with the same ones... To think that moses (which people arent even sure if even existed) parted a sea is ridiculous ( to me ). But a story of a guy who saved his people isnt.

All im trying to do is to get people to think a lil outside the box instead of just saying "yeah i believe in the bible" So you believe moses did that? You believe in god? You believe in noahs flood? You believe in buying and selling slaves by the way god has said? You believe homos should die? You believe in good moral ethics that are presented in it? A lot of people DONT believe everything in the bible, but if its the word of god, i dont see how anyone can not agree with EVERY LAST WORD of it...

And I dont think christians are irrational and stupid.
 
A few? Only a few? Ha! You have it backwards!


And then --

Okay, thanks for backpeddling. I made my point. We'll leave it at that.
 
Why is it rediculous? OK, obviously Moses wouldn't have been able to do such a miracle on his own but the Bible says that God was with him. When you put God into the picture it isn't rediculous because God is all powerful and can therefore do anything. However, if the idea of God is rediculous to you then of course this story is going to be rediculous. But then if God doesn't exist then we might as well ignore the Bible completely. Personally I do believe that God exists and take the Bible in most cases literally (however there are parts which are obviously metaphorical).
 
which is fine, the whole miracle thing is just my opinion... But anyways, i dont know, its like myths, logically, most stories or exaggerated over time you know? And you say that a few parts are obviously metaphorical... so why cant moses be metaphorical? Why cant the whole book be that way?

A good example i read in another thread about ninja and samurai, they used to wear those masks that look like tengu and rip peopls face off with some hand claws, and to the enemy, it looked like they were being attacked by a demon, but does that mean they were demons? And there is evidence of a place, near where moses was supposed to have been, called the Reed Sea. Which is a wide shallow river where if the wind blew hard enough, it would dry out the land... Why couldnt it be that?

Im not saying things are wrong or right, thats not the meaning of this thread, im just trying to see why people can believe that its the word of god on some parts, and its just "metaphorical" on others... Maybe the parts y ou think are right are wrong, and that parts you think are wrong are right? I dunno, i guess im really not making threads about anything, i just like discussing different viewpoints, even tho we'll never know who is right or wrong
 
You're giving me the impression that you haven't read the parts that you're talking about.



Why does it have to be either/or? Couldn't God's Word include metaphors and similes and the other figures of speech and modes of writing that people normally use? And, of course, couldn't some of it be literal too, because we often write literally, right?
 
That's exactly right!

When the Bible talks about the land of Canaan (the promised land) being a land that is "flowing with milk and honey" surely we aren't maent to take it literally as a land with milk and honey slurping down the streets. It's stating that the land was fruitful and rich. On another level it's stating that life lived in submission to your creator is rich and fruitful too.
Literal - the actual land of Canaan being fruitful
Metaphorical - flowing with milk and honey

No problem for me. They both work without conflicting.
 
from my perspective it is because buddhism and esp. zen do not involve the practice of worship and the use of the buddha's as deities is much misunderstood.

when a buddhist lights insence for a buddha and sits in meditation or comtemplation of that buddha, they are not asking the deity to intervene in their life, they are trying to attune with the particular qualities of that buddha (for example, contemplation of the buddha of compassion will lead to the development of the individuals own compassionate qualities)

Essentially, buddhism, as a religion, grew out of the personal philosophy of that indian prince sat under the tree all those years ago.

His message, like Christs message, was one about their personal understanding and gives advice on how others could reach the same level of understanding within themselves. Hence true buddhism IS a philosophy and not a religion. It is about the individual's relationship with the wider world, not the individuals membership of a church and the hierarchy 'interpreting' the wider world for the lowly faithful.

Religion is created around a viable philosophy by those who wish to heard the sheep and keep the blinkers on the general population.

Hence those people who are spiritual (by accident or design) and appreciate that spirituality is an extension of the physical world, not an alternate reality where we can escape from the physical world, do not call the philosophy they adhere to a religion.

Final point; Yoda, you said;



being the pedantic SOB i am,

religion 1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny

from the dictionary...i only mention it because despite what buddhism has been labled, in truth it should not have been maligned into a psuedo-religious hybrid...it was just a set of principles and a bit of common sense advice.
 
From your statement you have a warped view of what Christianity is about. Christianity is about an individual's relationship with their creator, not their church membership! I would be surprised if there were anyone besides non-Christians who believed this about Christianity. Also the "heirachy" is not there to interpret what the Bible says but rather there to minister to the people in the Church and encourage them. I'm sure there are some people in the churches out there who want to keep people ignorant so that they seem more knowledgeable and powerful than those around them. But that is a problem with those people not with Christanity. Christians are definately not better people than others. I've met some absolute bastards who are Christians, and some lovely pelple who aren't. The church is full of humans - and that's why it will never be perfect while in this world.
 
"It's possible to have a story based partially on fact and partially on fiction." --> you've already made up your mind, haven't you?

The Bible is a book about God's communications and interactions with people. Of course it contains supernatural events. Come on, if it didn't contain supernatural events, it could not be a book about God's communications and interactions with people.

Of course the historical accuracy of the Bible gives credence to the whole book. What are we supposed to say, "No, I believe the Bible less because it is historically accurate." ??
 
i agree, i do have a warped view of what christianity is about.

This view has arisen as i have looked into the methods used in the past to spread the Christian doctrine. I'm not out to bash Christianity, I have similiar views about, for example, the Islamic fundamentalist view of jihad.

While the proffet Mohammed may have put forward a concept of Holy War, I would be surprised if he did so to allow those individuals with a lust for violence to take this concept as a divine impunity to commit gross acts of terror. More likely, the inclusion of such a concept in the Koran was to provide the true followers of the Islamic faith with the freedom to take action, which under normal circumstances would violate the tennants of their faith, under extreme cases of persecution. While it could be argued that the foreign policy of the US does persecute the Islamic Middle East, I would be most surprised if Mohammed would have condoned the actions of Al'Quaeda on september 11th 2001.

In the same vein, George Bush's continual reference to the acts he is authorising being based upon his Christian faith is morally repugnant. Both sides are lying to the faithful and manipulating the truth of the religions they follow for their own maligned purposes.

This has gone on for hundreds, if not thousands of years and it is this attitude of corruption which cannot be divorced from the institutions of religion which is what causes many of us to turn away from such institutions and seek our own independant and individual communion with whatever we conceptualise as being our creator.

Yes, there are good people and bad people, good churches and bad churches, but over time the tendancy seems to be that an organised religion is more about control of the masses for the benefit of the powerful as opposed to following the true message upon which the religion was originally based.
 
Xen..you've read my mind exactly...

Have not opened the bible in a long time, but I do recall it say "beware of false prophets."

I'm not a scholar like most of you here, but IMO, the Bible is just a guide on how to better ourselves and should not to be taken literally. I think it's dangerous to do so and it just confuses everybody...as you can tell from the different posts. Some find the little bits of flaws and some defend the little bits of truth in its "written" words (literally).

Why can't we all just get along and be kind to one another? I think that's what the Bible's message is all about anyways of which a lot of us so called Christians, miss anyway....just my two cents.
 
Good point. The trouble is that unlike all the other major religions, Christianity cannot co-exist as one among equals because it claims to be the only true religion, and dismisses all the others as being false. Everyone else is damned to Hell if they aren't Christians.

You can dress it up a bit nicer than that, but that's what it boils down to. Your Jewish friends? All damned! Your Muslim friends? All damned! Your Sikh friends? All damned!

And even if you are a Christian, you probably think that everyone who isn't in your particular denomination is damned too. Catholics believe that Protestants are damned. A lot of Protestants believe that Catholics are damned.

What a happy religion! I'm sure it didn't start out that way, but at some point it seems to have got seriously screwed up. Probably when politics started creeping in. Politics is the real evil - it messes everything up.

Rant over. I'll go and take my medication.
 
ditto silat,

i hadn't even brought consideration of the damnation of all other faiths into my reasoning...now that johnno has reminded us of that little gem from the Christian faith, i'd be interested if our Christian cousins could take the mike and defend that particular aspect of their doctrine...
 
And just where is it that Jewish doctrine says that non-jews can get to heaven? It's got to be something new in the last 2,000 years, if it's in there. As for muslims, they only believe that certain other religions can get into heaven, not every non-muslim. It's pretty easy to say that Buddhism and Hinduism don't say you'll go to hell for not following their religions when they don't even have such a thing.



Stop making assumptions about things you know nothing about. The official view held by all Christian churches is that all denominations are part of the Christian church and that all Christian baptisms are the same.
 
so why do the Jehova's Witness's insist on knocking on my door and telling me that unless I am one of them I will burn in the fires of hell for all eternity?

They certainly believe that if you are outside their circle, regardless of whether you are Christian or not, you will go to hell.

And to be fair, my earlier point about organised religion in general has just been strengthened by your post. You imply that all major religions are based around intolerance to other faiths. Yet they all sing about peace to our fellow man. Hypocracy and lies.

Instead of saying, "It's okay to be intolerant, cos they are too", is there anyone out there who can justify this intolerance with direct reference to the teachings of the founders of their faith?
 
It goes back to something i already posted.

God is like a unicorn. Try to prove that it doesnt exist. You cant, you can do studies of horse tracks, and stories and such, and this big bear that is supposed to eat unicorns, but you'll never prove that unicorns don't exist.

But if you wanted to prove that unicorns DO exist, all you have to do is find one, or find a guy who has "seen" one.
 
First of all, are you Christian? If not, that could be the reason.

Second of all, Jehovas witnesses and Mormons are the two groups that *aren't* considered to be Christian by Christians because they have very significant theological differences. But for example, Catholics, Methodists, Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans, Evangellicals, etc. all accept eachother's baptisms.



Yes, it is easily referenced with quotes from the bible, but you (or others) seems to want to pick and choose which portions you think are real and which aren't.
 
Although I was christened as a child by the Church of England I am not now religious, in the sense that I desire or need to be a member of an organised church, although I have no problem with those who are/do.

I have empathy with all faiths, because I see common truths in them all and I have alot of respect for people with faith, because life without it can be lonely and difficult and to maintain a faithful life in this day and age shows considerable fortitude and an enduring spirit.

I do have a belief in "god" though i hesitate to use that term because of the images the word invokes in peoples minds, my belief is comprehensive, logical and personal (the last thing I want is Xenmasterianity to be born and people start killing in my name once i'm no longer around to stop it )

I don't pick and choose from the bible, I have no interest in it whatsoever, I have not read it, do not claim to have read it and I do not quote it (i may mention things i remember from RE lessons as a kid)

Appologies, but because intolerance to other faiths can be justified with reference to the bible does not make it right, just or acceptable. In fact (IMO) it further negates the validity of the bible and proves to me that organised religion based upon a doctrine or a creed is a warm nest where true evil can hide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Correcting misconceptions
Replies
5
Views
2K
eninn
E
A
Critics question if longtime Democratic congressman from Georgia is too old for reelection
Replies
0
Views
1
admin
A
G
Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power trailer reveals season two release date
Replies
0
Views
9
Geek
G
A
Greater Vancouver home sales rise as inventory reaches levels not seen since pandemic
Replies
0
Views
1
admin
A
A
Supreme Court orders new trial for B.C. francophone who was not given French option
Replies
0
Views
6
admin
A
Back
Top