The great and all powerful religion thread!

[skeptik]

Again, you are adding to what I said. You said How do those little quotes prove that nobody has anything to gain from exploiting the bible as it is written. Are you saying that it was written or compiled in an effort to present something that people would misinterpret and misuse to take advantage of others? It must be evaluated as written and compiled.

I am just showing that there is no group that has any motivation to make up the writings or select the books that would make up the Bible based on their own selfish or power hungry motivations.

EDIT: The Bible does call homosexuality sin, but it also calls murder and theft and adultry and lust and coveting and lying and getting drunk and ripping people off and many other things sin. Everyone has done or thought things that make them guilty of sin. So in reality it just levels the playing field. A gay person is to be considered no worse off than any other "sinner". I will grant you that those who call themselves Christians can get ugly about certain things, and are very wrong in their approaches all too often. It's really an emarassment to be honest.

What the hell else did you mean by "nothing to gain from the Bible" if you didn't imply exploiting the Bible for your own gains?You don't consider an anti-gay group citing the Bible as a precedent for homosexuality as something that is inherently wrong as exploiting the Bible?

As far as the compilation of the book itself, obviously those who did it had something to gain or they wouldn't have curiously excluding so many of the apocryphal books that would have inconvenienced the message that they were trying to convey. What makes the books that WERE selected the word of God and not the other books? How did these people know? The reality is that none of them are and they chose the stories that best suited their agenda. Their motivation was for people to follow the beliefs that they wanted them to believe.

 

[AchrisK]

What the hell else did you mean by "nothing to gain from the Bible" if you didn't imply exploiting the Bible for your own gains?You don't consider an anti-gay group citing the Bible as a precedent for homosexuality as something that is inherently wrong as exploiting the Bible?

Exploiting and misrepresenting the Bible is wrong. I already said that it says homosexuality is a sin, along with many other things. Again, it basically says we are all guilty of sin. But this doesn't mean that people should be making anti-gay groups and hating homosexual people. That is against what the Bible says. Many people mistake the moral teachings and admonitions and commands as their free pass for feeling self-righteous and hating others. Yes, the bible says to share the message of the gospel with others, but it never tells Christians to moralize the world or to try to change people by telling them what is wrong with them. Of course everyone should vote according to their own convictions, and try to love and positively affect those around us (like our children, for example). But there is nothing wrong with that.

As far as the compilation of the book itself, obviously those who did it had something to gain or they wouldn't have curiously excluding so many of the apocryphal books that would have inconvenienced the message that they were trying to convey. What makes the books that WERE selected the word of God and not the other books? How did these people know? The reality is that none of them are and they chose the stories that best suited their agenda. Their motivation was for people to follow the beliefs that they wanted them to believe.

What I mean it that the Bible, as written and compiled, does not give place for power or money hungry people, churches or societies to abuse others based on what it says. Obviously this means that to not abuse, you must know what it says and follow it. Similarly to not be abused, you have to know what it says and doesn't say.

Now you do hit on a key point, which I have not stated. Yes, there was a motive, but it was not greed or power or anything like that. I agree that it is written and compiled in a way to lead people to a certain conclusion.

Now this conclusion, again, only benefits the individual, and based on WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS, cannot be used to gain power over and manipulate people for personal gain.

All this is to simply say that this is one of the evidences I have for believing what I believe. Simply stated, the only motivation that exists for the writing and compiling of the bible is to tell the truth about God and his plans, and this points to its writings and how it was put together being inspired by God.

If it was man-made, it would have been written much differently.

As for what was chosen and how it was chosen and all that, my knowledge is pretty lacking. I personally need to read up on that, because I want to know more about it. But that doesn’t change the conclusion on what is in there now.

 

[skeptik]

I suggest you get more acquainted with the apocryphal texts before you conclude that there were no less than pure motives in selecting certain texts over others to place in THE GOOD BOOK, all infallible, all fucking awesome. Actually I believe The History Channel had a couple of documentaries about it, maybe you can look that up.

Also, do you believe that there were giants?

 

[Hatebreeder]

Man, the Jews must be incredibly pissed that their holy text has been so bastardized over the years. No wonder they don't give a shit about the New Testament and most of the Old.

 

[skeptik]

Christianity was a "pick and choose" religion from the very beginning.

 

[AchrisK]

I suggest you get more acquainted with the apocryphal texts before you conclude that there were no less than pure motives in selecting certain texts over others to place in THE GOOD BOOK, all infallible, all fucking awesome. Actually I believe The History Channel had a couple of documentaries about it, maybe you can look that up.

Also, do you believe that there were giants?

I plan to. But regardless, as it exists, it doesn't read like a manipulative, man-made book.

I haven't given giants much thought. I know the bible talks about them, and that there is some confusing stuff about how they were supposed to have come about. But I haven't read much on the subject.

 

[AchrisK]

Man, the Jews must be incredibly pissed that their holy text has been so bastardized over the years. No wonder they don't give a shit about the New Testament and most of the Old.

How have they been bastardized?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

If it was man-made, it would have been written much differently.

How do you know that?

I think the fact that it contains so many outdated passages and contradictions illustrates quite clearly that it was man-made.

And anyway, you're saying the exact same thing that a member of any other religion would say about their own holy text -- and by your standards for belief, any of those claims are just as valid as yours.

 

[GEEsu5]

In Canada?
You should worship the mighty polar bear!

actually they worship moose

 

[Hatebreeder]

How have they been bastardized?

If you read the original interpretations of the Torah in the Talmud (ancient Rabbinical discussions on Jewish law and such), they differ greatly from most Christian interpretations because they actually know what the fuck they're talking about. Jews and Christians have a vastly contrasting view of most Biblical teachings because the early Christians did not associate Jesus' messages with classic Jewish methods.

 

[AchrisK]

How do you know that?

I think the fact that it contains so many outdated passages and contradictions illustrates quite clearly that it was man-made.

And anyway, you're saying the exact same thing that a member of any other religion would say about their own holy text -- and by your standards for belief, any of those claims are just as valid as yours.

There had to be a motivation for writing and compiling the scriptures. The Bible offers no personal gain to anyone but individuals. So the motivation was not power. It was not riches. what was it? It only seems to be to present the conclusion of Christianity. Now Christianity (as defined by the Bible) also only benefits the individual. So the motivation appears pure.

What are the contradictions? Yes, it was written long ago in a different society, and understanding that society helps to understand its intentions.

I am not sure that other religions can say that. I haven't studied them enough. I know many of them are based on performance and set up some people with more power.

But this doesn't negate what I have said.

Also, this is just one of many pieces of evidence that I have evaluated in my overall conclusion of what I believe*, so your last paragraph is incorrect.


*I am not, and probably never will be, finished studying and reading things in relation to my beliefs, including more about evolution, other religions, history, etc.

 

[AchrisK]

If you read the original interpretations of the Torah in the Talmud (ancient Rabbinical discussions on Jewish law and such), they differ greatly from most Christian interpretations because they actually know what the fuck they're talking about. Jews and Christians have a vastly contrasting view of most Biblical teachings because the early Christians did not associate Jesus' messages with classic Jewish methods.

Yeah, I have heard of that type of thing. Wasn't there even interpretations of the interpretations too? I gotta look into that stuff. Man, there is so much information out there, and so little time.

 

[skeptik]

There was a book written a few years ago about the various alterations that the Bible has undergone over the years, some thousands of manuscripts that differ from one another. Granted, I'm sure that many of those differences are minute, but some of them are substantial. Does anyone recall the book that I have in mind?

 

[Pessimism]

Yeah, I have heard of that type of thing. Wasn't there even interpretations of the interpretations too? I gotta look into that stuff. Man, there is so much information out there, and so little time.

There are, and it should be noted that many of the conservative and reformed Judaic communities are actually in the process of adding more texts/commentary to the Talmud/Halakha in an attempt to understand how the religion itself works ethnically, socially, religiously, etc. in a global world.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

There had to be a motivation for writing and compiling the scriptures. The Bible offers no personal gain to anyone but individuals. So the motivation was not power. It was not riches. what was it? It only seems to be to present the conclusion of Christianity. Now Christianity (as defined by the Bible) also only benefits the individual. So the motivation appears pure.

For someone who claims to understand the "if not A then B" fallacy, you sure resort to it a lot.

Since when the hell does ruling out power and riches leave only Christianity? There are at least 5 godzillion other books out there that weren't written for power or riches -- not to mention all those other holy texts which you seem to love ignoring. And I'm pretty sure a few of those weren't written for the purpose of Christianity. How about artistic impulse, or love, or just a desire to get one's feelings out onto paper? As you can see, there are plenty of alternative motivations besides power, riches, and God.

What are the contradictions? Yes, it was written long ago in a different society, and understanding that society helps to understand its intentions.

I just gave you a webpage full of Biblical contradictions. Here's another one, if you're interested.

I know many of them are based on performance and set up some people with more power.

I bet that any follower of another faith will say, just as you have, that their holy text itself is pure, but that people misinterpret it for material gain. Again you're playing favorites with Christianity, knowing next to nothing about other faiths, and you're completely fine with that.

At any rate, the Bible does give certain people power over others. Just look at all the passages that assert men's superiority to women, and give them the 'right' to rule over them. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm

Also, this is just one of many pieces of evidence that I have evaluated in my overall conclusion of what I believe*, so your last paragraph is incorrect.

What evidence? All I saw above this line was just your favoritist opinions on Christianity. As long as you continue to consider your opinions and perceptions to be evidence, your evidence is going to be no stronger than that of any other faith.

*I am not, and probably never will be, finished studying and reading things in relation to my beliefs, including more about evolution, other religions, history, etc.

Glad to hear it. But as long as you continue to hold the Bible as perfect and unquestionable, all the outside sources in the world are going to be meaningless to you, because you're not going to pay attention to them.

 

[Hatebreeder]

Yeah, I have heard of that type of thing. Wasn't there even interpretations of the interpretations too? I gotta look into that stuff. Man, there is so much information out there, and so little time.

All of the answers you need are in the Talmud. Pick up a copy. Mind you, it's best to learn Hebrew to get the full experience, but a translation is really just as valid, just without the Jewish colloquialisms.

 

[Hatebreeder]

This site is very interesting for those who wish to uncover the oft-mentioned inconsistencies in the Bible that no one ever cites:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

 

[Thoth-Amon]

1 Timothy 4:14
Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.

1 Tim. 3:1
1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,[a] he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.


Those positions *may* have evolved from the positions mentioned in the Bible, but they in no way represent the intention of those positions. To claim this is just to be argumentative, and you know that.

Nowhere is any man set up as an intermedeary between God and man. Nowhere does it say that we have to confess out sins to a man for forgiveness (as is the case with the Catholic priets). Nowhere does it tell the church to set up one man as more holy or authorative than everyone else.

So my assertion is still valid, that there is no one group, especially an organized religion, that has anything to gain (i.e. power, money and things like that) from the bible as it is written. Don't neglect those last four words, because everything else is irrelevant regarding this point.

This just speaks of motivation. Who would write or compile such a book?

I think you are missing the following passages... Matt. 16:18; 18:18; John 20:23. Here in these passages Jesus clearly gives the apostles the power to bind or loose sins. It was the understanding of the early Church that the Bishops inherited these powers from the Apostles as the Bishops were their successors. So whether you like it or not there is a biblical and historical basis for Catholic belief here.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

Donar protects Midgard from the giants

 

[Thoth-Amon]

There was a book written a few years ago about the various alterations that the Bible has undergone over the years, some thousands of manuscripts that differ from one another. Granted, I'm sure that many of those differences are minute, but some of them are substantial. Does anyone recall the book that I have in mind?

I think you are referring to Ehrman's books. "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" and "Misqouting Jesus".