Who seriously can believe in bible?

[Norsemaiden]

I'm going to conclude that Christians don't really know why they believe the Bible, they just do or it just feels nice them. Other people can analyse the mental condition that makes them choose the religion, but they themselves are unable or unwilling to think that deeply. Chrisitians who have read the Bible read into it what they want to and ignore what they want to ignore. This is even though Hell allegedly awaits those who don't get it right. Concepts of God are almost entirely imagined in the human brain, have nothing to do with the written word in the Bible and fit neatly in with what the believer wants to believe. You could say they made God in their own image (in the sense of their image of what God should be.)

When I mentioned the Essenes earlier Eye of God seemed not to have heard of them so I'll explain. The Essenes wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls (as well as the Old Testament the scrolls included a new, heretical, Jewish text) at around 100BC. The Essenes were pacifists who lived in communes and believed in "the great bringer of peace". The Essenes are a well established archaeological fact, not a myth or a conspiracy theory. Theologists evade the issue of the Scrolls because they predate Christ's birth by a century. It is also a fact that the Essenes were persecuted by the other Jews.

This is where the speculation begins: the Essenes were persecuted because their pacifist creed (which is Christianity by another name) would have been the end of the Jews if it would have spread amongst them. Saul (who is said to have been one of the chief persecuters of the Essenes, and who persecutes the Christians in the Bible) had a revelation on the road to Damascus. The scales fell from his eyes and he realised the useful potential of Essene creed/Christianity (to use as a destructive new religion to spread amongst the Romans). Note that it was not the Jews that fell for it en masse, but the Romans. And it had the predicted weakening effect.

http://www.essenespirit.com/who.html
"indeed almost all the principal founders of what would later be called Christianity were Essenes: St Ann, Joseph and Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus, John the Evangelist, etc. "

 

[proglodite]

I'm going to conclude that Christians don't really know why they believe the Bible, they just do or it just feels nice them. Other people can analyse the mental condition that makes them choose the religion, but they themselves are unable or unwilling to think that deeply. Chrisitians who have read the Bible read into it what they want to and ignore what they want to ignore. This is even though Hell allegedly awaits those who don't get it right. Concepts of God are almost entirely imagined in the human brain, have nothing to do with the written word in the Bible and fit neatly in with what the believer wants to believe. You could say they made God in their own image (in the sense of their image of what God should be.)

Again: You do not believe in the bible, you live for/love God, and the bible is useful, as is prayer, and talking to other christians. Just like you do not appreciate your car's manual, but the car itself.

 

[Dushan S]

Great post man, I agree on all points.

Thanks man, appreciated.

Now, I think you're focused on a facet of a religion which consists of many members. Such attention would reveal neither an entire, mutifaceted devotion, nor its fundamental dogma. Interesting thing also, I heard recently that early Christianity was the devotion of the poor.

Ok, first we should know about percent of people that were poor at that time? I am not so sure that big percent of people was part of "middle class" So if for instance 80% of people could be classified as poor, than most of the christans were poor, so it could be then described as relligion of the poor.
Also, Christ was concentrated on changing lives of people, and one of the most important aspects was breaking of biggest attachements. Poor people have less attachements and their attachements are more of emotional nature, while rich people have more difficult task in that way. That leads to Christ mentioning (at least that was what authors of the book are telling us) how hard is for rich men to get to the kingdom of heaven, that was kind of wrong interpreted as a condemnation of being rich, while it is just stating a fact that being attached to money and possesion makes things more difficult for a person.
On the other hand, Christianity is ALL ABOUT POSSESION. It's formula that exchanged material posession with bigger reward that you can smell but you can't have, and that is waiting for you in the heavens was sure to root itself in the masses easily. So now every human being becomes a gods pyggbank, using their devotion and obediance as coins for filling it. Gods keeps counting and at the end of the game, the ones with most spiritual coins as their savings get the PRIZE. So basic human weakness about living easily, in paradise is used to attract people to new relligion.
As me being focused on a facet of a religion which consists of many members, isn't that was mass religion is all about? When you leave concept of big organisation and predefined rules, you are entering realm of selfdiscovery and spirituality that is individual, not based on any book or dead words. (I do know what root of the "relligion" word is in latin, but it is lost in today sense of word) Fact that every religion hides in itself a system of self developement, that few people know about is completely other thing. Tell me, how many people that consider themselves christians know true menings of christian rituals, and their value as spiritual tools?

Conspiracy theories about a world wide manipulation organization that is called Christianity etc

BTW, there is no conspiracy theories about christianity at all. Most of this stuff is well known, it is just that it is supressed even today. Fact that Christianity was doing this or that to manipulate and keep its power is history, not theory.

religion is so fucking stupid. I hate it, its dumb. There is no god, the bible was made so people would stay under control and their would be no chaos. Fuck the bible, and god.

Relligion is not about god.

The scales fell from his eyes and he realised the useful potential of Essene creed/Christianity (to use as a destructive new religion to spread amongst the Romans). Note that it was not the Jews that fell for it en masse, but the Romans. And it had the predicted weakening effect.

I'm not really so sure about that. Christianity has happened to be very usefull for keeping easter part of empire alive for a long time, and some of the barbarian chordes were slowed and partially kept in control by turning them into christians. I don't think that western roman empire would last any longer if it kept its polytheistic religion. Also have in mind that not all parts of Roman empire have accepted religion of romans, local religions were still alive. Numerous books have been written about fall of Roman Empire, and there are more objective reasons for it then Christian Religion. Having one unified monotheistic religion can be actually a strong, cementing force, as christianity in middle ages has been.

 

[Norsemaiden]

The main historical work about Rome's decline "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Gibbon blames Christianity.

 

[RookParliament]

The main historical work about Rome's decline "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Gibbon blames Christianity.

Main older work. Modern day scolarship has moved away from that explanation into more err... multilayered explanations.

 

[infoterror]

I'm going to conclude that Christians don't really know why they believe the Bible, they just do or it just feels nice them.

Well, look at it this way:

Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of the population has the brains for philosophical reasoning.

Most people need something pleasant to keep them in line.

You wouldn't try to get a cow into a stable by reading it Nietzsche, would you?

Even notice how most of the people in this forum -- a pretty good one, by my estimation -- have no idea what they're talking about and make constant logical errors in argument?

Half a percent.

 

[infoterror]

Modern day scolarship has moved away from that explanation into more err... multilayered explanations.

Oh, and if it's modern, it has to be good. Like our rising cancer rates, crime rates, pollution, and greater number of strip malls and convenience stores.

(Half a percent.)

 

[RookParliament]

Oh, and if it's modern, it has to be good. Like our rising cancer rates, crime rates, pollution, and greater number of strip malls and convenience stores.

(Half a percent.)

A straw man. Good times.

Gibbons put forth a well argued case that I personally believe, as a historian, is wrong. Chrisitianity was a minor component, if any at all, of the fall of the Romans.

 

[کوڈانشی]

logical errors in argument?

i’ve noticed that the three major middle eastern religions, اﺳﻼم (islam), christianity, and judaism (most of all) use ‘the fallacy of the slippery slope’ almost incessantly — i can understand why, but still…

 

[Cynical]

A straw man. Good times.

Gibbons put forth a well argued case that I personally believe, as a historian, is wrong. Chrisitianity was a minor component, if any at all, of the fall of the Romans.

Not a straw man. Your only argument as to why the newer explanation was better was simply because it was newer. He argued, successfully, that newer does not always mean better, and that your argument fails for that reason.

 

[RookParliament]

Its a straw man because he accused me of making an argument I didn't make.
I personally agree with more recent arguments, recent being a relative term, that Christianity was not a major component in the fall of the Romans. Overexpansion, corruption ,and the movement of barbarian tribes through the increasingly porous border were certainly far more important.

Edit: Not to mention the use of slave labor that created widespread unemployment. I should have thought of that sooner as I'm currently studying the build-up to the American Civil War

 

[OfManAndMetal]

i guess some people need something to believe in... some believe in science (like me...It just makes perfect sense) some believe in creation... plain and simple, people gotta believe something and although some think its ridiculous (LIKE ME) we need to respect their opinions... even if it came from a book..about a guy who walks on water and "lives" above the clouds with dead people...

 

[Cynical]

On your first post, your only argument was that it was better because it was newer. Allow me to quote it:

Main older work. Modern day scolarship has moved away from that explanation into more err... multilayered explanations.

(emphasis yours).

Note that you still have yet to post an argument as to why you think that other aspects were more important. Care to provide one?

 

[RookParliament]

Because the effect of Christianity on a strong empire would have been minor if that empire had been able to provide for the needs of its citizens. Christianity would have found no traction with a content populace.

Corruption- Fleecing the outer provinces worked when Rome was strong enough to control dissent.
- Generals creating their own power bases when the central authority is no longer strong enough to control them.
-Bribery is needed to get anything done.
Overexpansion- More territory more difficult to control; communication difficulties. If you can't take over the next tribe and take their wealth and sell them into slavery you can't go on, because the expansion was neccesary to keep the empire fiscally solvent
Increasing Poverty- Rise of land oligarchs who got a monopoly on land.

All of these are far more important. A mix of these and other reason I've left out are more important than Christianity which would only have been a disruptive force when Rome was already on its way down.

Sorry for the bullet point, but I'm currently concentrating on writing a paper on slavery in Uganda in the eighteenth century and I don't want to lose focus.

Oh and how does saying modern day scholarship has disproved Gibbon's thesis have to do with, "Like our rising cancer rates, crime rates, pollution, and greater number of strip malls and convenience stores?" (infoterror page 8 who seriously can believe in bible? UM.) Straw Man.

 

[Øjeblikket]

Ok, first we should know about percent of people that were poor at that time? I am not so sure that big percent of people was part of "middle class" So if for instance 80% of people could be classified as poor, than most of the christans were poor, so it could be then described as relligion of the poor.

Also, Christ was concentrated on changing lives of people, and one of the most important aspects was breaking of biggest attachements. Poor people have less attachements and their attachements are more of emotional nature, while rich people have more difficult task in that way.

1) what if it was a minority of people that started an underground thing? would what most people were doing matter then?

2) you've got to be kidding me. what's all that nonsense you raised earlier about controling folks with fancy words? Can it be argued by an un-sympathetic ear that true christianity is ignorance of manipulation, or do you suggest we search in the puppet master for the authentic Christian? Either way, I'm excited for some molt action!

 

[Cynical]

Because the effect of Christianity on a strong empire would have been minor if that empire had been able to provide for the needs of its citizens. Christianity would have found no traction with a content populace.

Corruption- Fleecing the outer provinces worked when Rome was strong enough to control dissent.
- Generals creating their own power bases when the central authority is no longer strong enough to control them.
-Bribery is needed to get anything done.
Overexpansion- More territory more difficult to control; communication difficulties. If you can't take over the next tribe and take their wealth and sell them into slavery you can't go on, because the expansion was neccesary to keep the empire fiscally solvent
Increasing Poverty- Rise of land oligarchs who got a monopoly on land.

All of these are far more important. A mix of these and other reason I've left out are more important than Christianity which would only have been a disruptive force when Rome was already on its way down.

Sorry for the bullet point, but I'm currently concentrating on writing a paper on slavery in Uganda in the eighteenth century and I don't want to lose focus.

Thank you kind sir, you have provided evidence to back up your point!

Anyways, you're perhaps right- in a healthy society, it does seem doubtful that christianity could take hold. This isn't saying anything positive for christianity, which is the central issue of this thread, but I don't believe that you were arguing that it was.

There is, however, the issue of whether there will always be a disgruntled undercurrent which christianity through its revenge morality appeals to. I have a hard time imagining a society where the lower classes wouldn't love the idea of being equal "in god's eyes" and "the last being first" and all of that crap.

Either way, there's no doubt that it acted as an acceleration factor. Rome would have fallen- reading Twelve Caesars leaves me with little dobut of this (go Caligula and Nero!)- but it likely would have taken longer.

Oh and how does saying modern day scholarship has disproved Gibbon's thesis have to do with, "Like our rising cancer rates, crime rates, pollution, and greater number of strip malls and convenience stores?" (infoterror page 8 who seriously can believe in bible? UM.) Straw Man.

Your argument previous to this post was reliant on newer always equalling better or more correct, which he disproved. He was simply exposing your appeal to novelty.

 

[RookParliament]

Thank you kind sir, you have provided evidence to back up your point!

Anyways, you're perhaps right- in a healthy society, it does seem doubtful that christianity could take hold. This isn't saying anything positive for christianity, which is the central issue of this thread, but I don't believe that you were arguing that it was.

There is, however, the issue of whether there will always be a disgruntled undercurrent which christianity through its revenge morality appeals to. I have a hard time imagining a society where the lower classes wouldn't love the idea of being equal "in god's eyes" and "the last being first" and all of that crap.

Either way, there's no doubt that it acted as an acceleration factor. Rome would have fallen- reading Twelve Caesars leaves me with little dobut of this (go Caligula and Nero!)- but it likely would have taken longer.

First off Twelve Caesar's was honestly a hilarious and uber-awesome read. Otherwise I agree with your statement that early Christianity does have a certain appeal to it. But all the evidence I have seen makes me believe Christianity was not a great cause of sectionalization.

Your argument previous to this post was reliant on newer always equalling better or more correct, which he disproved.

Maybe the confusion comes from me just typing one sentence. It was meant to indicate that newer research had and has been marginilazing Gibbon's thesis. Not better because its newer or "more modern," but because the more modern research is closer to the truth, with interlocking causes and events. Perhaps the briefness of my one statement led to vagueness. But infoterror disproved nothing. Nowhere in my statement do I say more modern is better.
Overreacting straw man.
Now back to my primary sources. Damn primary sources.

 

[Norsemaiden]

The Sermon on the Mount could be said to be the epitome of suicidal advice. It is advice that if people were to follow it they would tear themselves apart, destroy themselves, destroy their family and destroy their nation. (Arguably it was designed to do just that).

When you mention the Sermon on the Mount to the average person he doesn't have any idea what it's all about and thinks that it is a collection of nice, idealistic platitudes which, perhaps are not easy to accomplish, but would be nice if everyone did do those things.

In fact, the concepts contained in the Sermon on the Mount are in complete contradiction to the laws of nature, the good healthy clean instincts that nature imbued you with for your own self preservation.

It is worth bearing in mind what would happen if one group (eg Romans) were to try and play by these rules, but another group (Jews) were to stick with the laws of nature in fighting for their own preservation.

"Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." and "blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth." Once you believe in heaven/hell you would want to be blessed, so therefore you'd want to be poor in spirit and meek. This kind of person who has always in the past been a loser for having those characteristics, is upgraded to being the best by this pronouncement as he is now the future inheritor of the earth, blessed, and going to go to heaven.

"Poor in spirit" suggests low drives and lack of intelligence. "Meek" suggests: longsuffering, mild, timid, tame, weak and moderate. So there is the most desirable person in the eyes of the Lord. Such a person is so much easier to subdue than someone who is strong, bold, intelligent and courageous, who knows what his rights are and has the courage to defend his life, property, family and country (everything a Christian is told not to be.)

Everywhere in nature it is the strong, bold, quick and intelligent that survives. The weak and slow fall by the wayside.

"lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth where moth and dust doth corrupt, and where theives break through and steal: but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven". This is to advise people not to be industrious, thrifty or constructive. You are urged to forget about providing for or planning the future (as you should be like the "lilies of the fields") or creating an enterprise - and if you have done so you should get rid of it. (Somebody without that idea can take the advantage as a result). You must meekly submit to being plundered on this earth, so that you can get something in the hereafter.

Matthew 6:5 says"do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink,or about your body, what will you wear." and "do not worry about tomorrow for tomorrow will take care of itself".

Also you have to give someone anything they ask of you and offer to give them more, expecting nothing in return. If someone attacks you, don't fight back, don't resist, in fact encourage them by turning the other cheek incase he missed the fact that you had two cheeks to smash, not just the one.

If we were to follow this we would get rid of our law enforcement and get rid of the military. Not only would we let criminals run rampant, but we would encourage them, falling over ourselves to give them everything they want.

Idiotic suicidal advice! Completely contradictory to everything history and experience has taught us and completely contrary to all the laws of nature in the animal kingdom. Every animal when threatened with assault will instinctively defend itself. Even the most timid, like a wild rabbit, when cornered will defend itself.

 

[Neith]

Yeah, BUT the poem does have a point, and the varying denomenatons all believe they have the correct answer.

Well yes, most poems have a point. Even if it does, the point may never be realised anyway. Certainly with the Bible, half of the things people think about it are completely wrong, and many Christians preach lies about other branches of Christianity. This still happens today in universities, for example.

I guess my main problem with many of these discussions is that they just focus on Christianity as preached in the Bible.

 

[کوڈانشی]

I guess my main problem with many of these discussions is that they just focus on Christianity as preached in the Bible.

but surely christianity’s main focus dwells on christ’s teachings? can you .·. rely on any other source apart from your bible?