Who seriously can believe in bible?

[Thoth-Amon]

I hate to say this, especially in a thread like this, but you got me there.

But there's still one thing that throws me off though, that I brought up before in this thread. If the Bible is, in actuality, just a coroboration o short stories, and people seem to know this, then why do people still trust it so much as truth? Did Jesus Christ himself actually say to his disciples "Worship me, and you will all go to heaven, but don't, and you will burn in the fires of hell!!!"? Did Jesus actually say those words? Or did he just talk about the basics, such as "Be good to one's neighbor", or "He who is without sin throws the first stone"? I don't think Jesus, who was praised as a really good, peaceful, and nice guy, could've possibly thought of such things as "Hell" or "Satan". I'm sure maybe he could've after his "resurrection", because no human, mortal or immortal, could possibly return, without holding a grudge of some sort.

Well in the Gospels Jesus speaks of hell numerous times. Not only that but he makes numerous claims to deity as well. He also claims to be the sole way to heaven (John 14:6). Of course if the Gospels are untrustworthy we can't know whether or not he spoke on these subjects or whether these sayings were merely attributed to him by his followers after his death.

 

[Dushan S]

Jesus speaks about lot of things...(actually he does not speaks, we just read what some people were half-guessing he was talking) But it seems that people assume that what he was thinking is actually what church says he was thinking. Also even without mentioning all gospels that were excluded from bible from political reasons, current new testament has a lot of materials that are in direct collision with church doctrine. I mean bible is even in collision with itself in numerous ways. For instance, go to church, and just say "Hi man" to the priest, and see how he will react. Then you can try to explain to him that in Matthew is written that Jesus says: we should not call anyone our father because we have only one father and he is on heavens (something like that). It is not really nice considering patriachal family relationships and usual respect to priests, right?

So when Jesus says hell, does he really thinks about place from christian mithology? When he says devil, how could he think about devil that is portrayed centuries later, and intentionaly pictured by church as being made of gods and godesses of pagan relligions?
When he says he is sole way to heaven, does he means that Muslims (that do not exist yet) are wrong and buddhist are wrong? Or he is saying this because he is against old relligion at that time and he wants to say that going to temples and worshipping god formally is not spiritually effective, while following living master-teacher is only way that person can do something for his soul?
Jesus word have to be first put into its time and situation that he was someone that was making spiritual and political revolution in Judeia. He is not talking to readers of the bible in X, XV or XXI century, he is talking to his pupils, or to people coming to see him, and his words are pointed at them, and are in form that is understandable for those people at that time.

What good could have his pupils if he would say something like this:
"What you call father or god is a oness of all forms of matter-energy substance. By transcedencing my own limitations and by having new powerfull awareness I have became free of psychological programs society has built into me. So now I want to help you all to be free. That is why you should not believe those priests because all they want is your money, but to meditate with me, leave your projections and attachment to material things behind, and work on your spiritual being, so you can also perceive reality in a way I am perceiving it now"
I guess saying, "I have only one father and it is holy father, follow me and I will show you a path to heaven" or something similar is a much more simple, easier to get and better for motivating his pupils. I mean, he is talking to simple uneducated people, not philosophers. It is idiotic to take what he says literrary in XXI century after all this change and evolution of human kind.

 

[proglodite]

For instance, go to church, and just say "Hi man" to the priest, and see how he will react.

On two seperate occasions in the last couple of months, I have had a problem with a sermon that the minister has given at my church. Each time, I've talked to him straight after the service finished - I address him by his first name, he wears only black pants and an open collar shirt - about my opinions, and he has since incorporated my points into a sermon, building on his original work. He's just a man.

What good could have his pupils if he would say something like this:
"What you call father or god is a oness of all forms of matter-energy substance. By transcedencing my own limitations and by having new powerfull awareness I have became free of psychological programs society has built into me. So now I want to help you all to be free. That is why you should not believe those priests because all they want is your money, but to meditate with me, leave your projections and attachment to material things behind, and work on your spiritual being, so you can also perceive reality in a way I am perceiving it now"

But that's what he IS saying!!

 

[Thoth-Amon]

I mean bible is even in collision with itself in numerous ways. For instance, go to church, and just say "Hi man" to the priest, and see how he will react. Then you can try to explain to him that in Matthew is written that Jesus says: we should not call anyone our father because we have only one father and he is on heavens (something like that). It is not really nice considering patriachal family relationships and usual respect to priests, right?

-Interestingly in one of his epistles Paul refers to himself as a spiritual father.

So when Jesus says hell, does he really thinks about place from christian mithology? When he says devil, how could he think about devil that is portrayed centuries later, and intentionaly pictured by church as being made of gods and godesses of pagan relligions?

-Well certainly the NT does not portray Satan in the ways that later medieval artists did, but it does describe him with all of the evil, satanic characteristics that we normally attribute to him.

When he says he is sole way to heaven, does he means that Muslims (that do not exist yet) are wrong and buddhist are wrong? Or he is saying this because he is against old relligion at that time and he wants to say that going to temples and worshipping god formally is not spiritually effective, while following living master-teacher is only way that person can do something for his soul?

-Well I think its pretty clear when it says "No man comes to the Father but by ME", not by Buddha, or Vishnu, or any other prophet that might come later, but by me.

 

[Narg n Lamb]

I think way too much thought is wasted on what happens after we die. We'll all find out very soon...

This may sound weird, but I can't wait until I die to see what happends next, hehe

 

[joeysmaggott666]

personally i dnt descriminate a person due to their religious beleifs, but i do not beleive in god. i beleive the the 'bible' is a way of escapism from the reality of death and a way of running form the fact the the masses could not handle the thought the in 80 years time they will be but a memory. this is why i put my faith in metal. i know damn well ill b gone in 60 years but i wna have fun and leave my mark whilst im still here... keep on rockin!

 

[Thoth-Amon]

This may sound weird, but I can't wait until I die to see what happends next, hehe

Unless nothing happens and then you won't know anything.

 

[Horus]

Well in the Gospels Jesus speaks of hell numerous times. Not only that but he makes numerous claims to deity as well. He also claims to be the sole way to heaven (John 14:6). Of course if the Gospels are untrustworthy we can't know whether or not he spoke on these subjects or whether these sayings were merely attributed to him by his followers after his death.

But it's the fact that the Apostles chronicled Jesus' teachings in such a biased manner, that who the hell knows what the hell they could've added. Alot of things in history I really don't trust, because until a few hundred years ago, people chronicled things in such a biased manner that it made any other point of view seem completely illogical. I'd accept the bible as what Jesus actually said, if I saw other documentation from other sources, like from the ROMANS that crucified him. Also, like I said above, the New Testament is a big coroboration of stories that the Apostles thought up, and I gave an example a few pages back about the Apocalypse of John and the Apocalypse of Peter, how John's Apocalypse was cooler and more interesting than Peter's.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

But it's the fact that the Apostles chronicled Jesus' teachings in such a biased manner, that who the hell knows what the hell they could've added. Alot of things in history I really don't trust, because until a few hundred years ago, people chronicled things in such a biased manner that it made any other point of view seem completely illogical. I'd accept the bible as what Jesus actually said, if I saw other documentation from other sources, like from the ROMANS that crucified him. Also, like I said above, the New Testament is a big coroboration of stories that the Apostles thought up, and I gave an example a few pages back about the Apocalypse of John and the Apocalypse of Peter, how John's Apocalypse was cooler and more interesting than Peter's.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'd go one step further actually, we don't even know if the apostles wrote those books that they supposedly wrote. I was merely reporting what the bible as it now stands does in fact say.

 

[profskett]

It's easy to say that you don't believe in the Torah because it's not backed by "Divine Mandate", but it's also just as easy to say that you can't trust The Bible, because so much of the New Testament seems so wildly exaggerated and exasporated. Also, many common Christian beliefs aren't even an actual part of the Bible. Seriously, are the stories of Dante's Inferno or Paradise Lost actual parts of the Bible? As far as I know, no.

How do you know whether the New Testament (or the Old Testament, for that matter) was 'wildly exaggerated'? Were you there to see the events it describes when it was written? That is the only way we can be certain of the truth of anything. As it is, other than the fact some of the things described are 'hard to believe', there is no reason to disbelieve the New Testament accounts of Jesus life, work, death and even resurrection in my opinion. For those with a historical type of mindset, there is plenty of evidence backing up the gospels, just read Josh McDowell's 'The Resurrection Factor' and you'll see what you mean.

And no, Paradise Lost and Dante's Inferno never have and never will be part of the Bible, and tbh I don't think they really influence current Christian belief that much for that matter - they were certainly influenced by the beliefs of the time when they were written, but that doesn't make them holy texts.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

How do you know whether the New Testament (or the Old Testament, for that matter) was 'wildly exaggerated'? Were you there to see the events it describes when it was written? That is the only way we can be certain of the truth of anything. As it is, other than the fact some of the things described are 'hard to believe', there is no reason to disbelieve the New Testament accounts of Jesus life, work, death and even resurrection in my opinion. For those with a historical type of mindset, there is plenty of evidence backing up the gospels, just read Josh McDowell's 'The Resurrection Factor' and you'll see what you mean.

-Actually there are reasons to disbelieve the New Testament accounts. Some examples would be contradictions, forged history/prophecies, false prophecies, incorporation of pagan elements into the Jesus story, etc. You can start by looking here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Precisely. Which precisely why I reject Islam and Judaism as well.

+1

 

[BloodSword]

I tell you this; Open your eyes the next time you view a snow-capped mountain, or an open field of flowers and trees, a cyrstal-blue running stream and a crisp,beautiful Autumn day. Ask yourself, where did all this glorius beauty come from, that is mine to enjoy. Oh, a scientist put it here, or maybe it was a philosiphor, or maybe some great politician. My friends. There is a God. Your proof---take a walk into a forest and listen.Peace.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

I tell you this; Open your eyes the next time you view a snow-capped mountain, or an open field of flowers and trees, a cyrstal-blue running stream and a crisp,beautiful Autumn day. Ask yourself, where did all this glorius beauty come from, that is mine to enjoy. Oh, a scientist put it here, or maybe it was a philosiphor, or maybe some great politician. My friends. There is a God. Your proof---take a walk into a forest and listen.Peace.

i never said there wasn't any deity type essence in existance
i said that the Judeo-Christian Bible's "God" (misspelling of "Gad" from Isaiah btw) is obviously not the real one

 

[Thoth-Amon]

I tell you this; Open your eyes the next time you view a snow-capped mountain, or an open field of flowers and trees, a cyrstal-blue running stream and a crisp,beautiful Autumn day. Ask yourself, where did all this glorius beauty come from, that is mine to enjoy. Oh, a scientist put it here, or maybe it was a philosiphor, or maybe some great politician. My friends. There is a God. Your proof---take a walk into a forest and listen.Peace.

And just because a Creator exists why does it have to be the Judeo-Christian god? Why not the Sikh god or the Hindu god or the god of Deism? Or heck maybe God is something we simply haven't thought of yet!

 

[Horus]

It can't be any of the other faiths' divine creators, because anyone who believes in a creator that doesn't fit the Judeo-Christian ideal is shunned from society. My user name is actually a tribute to one of the 2 gods I believe in: Ptah Khnemu, the Egyptian God of Creation and King of Atlantis. The Goddess I believe in is Ma'at, the Egyptian Goddess of balance and order. I tell people this on a daily basis, and they tend to "have something they need to take care of" whenever I bring this up.
Go ask your local Druid what it's like to worship 2 gods in a very strongly Monotheistic society.

(I feel like I kinda got off my main idea somewhere in the middle of my post.)

 

[Thoth-Amon]

It can't be any of the other faiths' divine creators, because anyone who believes in a creator that doesn't fit the Judeo-Christian ideal is shunned from society. My user name is actually a tribute to one of the 2 gods I believe in: Ptah Khnemu, the Egyptian God of Creation and King of Atlantis. The Goddess I believe in is Ma'at, the Egyptian Goddess of balance and order. I tell people this on a daily basis, and they tend to "have something they need to take care of" whenever I bring this up.
Go ask your local Druid what it's like to worship 2 gods in a very strongly Monotheistic society.

(I feel like I kinda got off my main idea somewhere in the middle of my post.)

Interesting... and why do you believe in these Gods?

 

[Horus]

I have my reasons. It's incredibly hard to explain, but it stems mostly from my belief in the existence of Atlantis, and some other personal issues.

Speaking of Atlantis, I thin I really should mention that my views and opinions on the Old Testament stem from my belief that almost every sacred text ever written by any Ancient civilization, the Bible included, is all really one big puzzle that leads to proof that Atlantis actually existed. (I actually meant to say this earlier, but it never felt like it fit the context of the thread.)

 

[Thoth-Amon]

I have my reasons. It's incredibly hard to explain, but it stems mostly from my belief in the existence of Atlantis, and some other personal issues.

Speaking of Atlantis, I thin I really should mention that my views and opinions on the Old Testament stem from my belief that almost every sacred text ever written by any Ancient civilization is all really one big puzzle that leads to proof that Atlantis actually existed. (I actually meant to say this earlier, but it never felt like it fit the context of the thread.)

 

[Horus]

For me to explain fully would take a long, long time to explain, but let me start here:

If you look in any religious text of an old religion, such as Hinduism, Egyptian, or any other ancient civilization around the world, you'll find in each one a story about a Tropical Paradise, Paradise/ the old world disappearing after 40 days and 40 nights of rain, and in most of the texts, a story about how Paradise was lost in a Fiery Cataclysm that destroyed everything that was created. Suspiciously, as well, the names given in each text, suspiciously resemble something along the lines of Aztlan, Atitlan, and many others that essentially resemble, in essence, Atlantis. This is only the tip of the Iceberg, because when you look into details, alot of them line up in an almost suspicious manner. It goes far deeper, but this is a good place to start. If you want me to continue, I would gladly, but I'd probably have to do it at another time, and probably in a new thread, if need be. (I need sleep!)