Who seriously can believe in bible?
- Thread starter cfh
- Start date
کوڈانشی said:not always! perhaps when it comes to adam and eve and ‘original sin’ (which i see more as a christian than a jewish belief), but look in deuteronomy: illegitimate children ‘only’ inherit their ancestors’ sins up to the ١٠th generation!
Original Ssin is ENTIRELY a Christian belief. Nowhere in the Torah does it ever say anything about "Original Sin". It does talk about Adam and Eve, but it doesn't say "What Adam and Eve did when they ate the fruit of the forbidden tree is Original Sin, and all of mankind is subject to punnishment for it." That was added in the New Testament.
Speaking of the New Testament, this is off topic from the specific discussion now, but I just remembered a documentary about the New Testament that I watched on the History Channel when I was on vacation a few weeks ago. They went on and on about how the Bible's validity is questionable, since in reality, the New Testament is really just a bunch of stories all compiled together to form a religion. For example, the Apocalypse of John is the one where the dead rise, and the Four Horsemen ride and all that crap right? There was also the Apocalypse of Peter, in which all of mankind was simply judged and sentenced. The world wasn't destroyed, or anything big and Power Metal like that, but they rejected it from the Bible, simply because the Apocalypse of John was a better piece of literature.
proglodite
Member
Ú©ÙÚاÙØ´Û
kashf alhaqq
Ptah Khnemu said:
you have a fantastic way with words there! but yes, numerous studies i’ve read on this subject do agree that many gospels of jesus’s life existed, as did what theological historians name ‘jesus cults’. those 4 gospels we see in today’s new testament received preference over all others due to things like literary value, ‘authenticity’, and propaganda by the early palestinian (and later gentile) church.
Neith
Little Lady
I have been away for a while, and realise that this thread has run a little dry, however, I just want to clarify what I said above as it does not make sense and I barely understand what I meant by it as it has been a little while since I wrote it. However, I meant that my main problem with many of these discussions is that they place all branches of Christianity together, even though many are completely different, perhaps not in the sense of what they believe; but how they act based upon what they believe.
With this statement:
"I guess my main problem with many of these discussions is that they just focus on Christianity as preached in the Bible."
I believe that I meant that the discussions look at mainstream (for want of a better expression) Christianity which is based upon their interpretation of the Bible, whereas other Christian groups have their own interpretations of the Bible which are nothing like what is advocated by the Catholic Church, for example.
Perhaps I meant to type 'Church' instead of 'Bible.'
And now I am well and truly repeating myself..
With this statement:
"I guess my main problem with many of these discussions is that they just focus on Christianity as preached in the Bible."
I believe that I meant that the discussions look at mainstream (for want of a better expression) Christianity which is based upon their interpretation of the Bible, whereas other Christian groups have their own interpretations of the Bible which are nothing like what is advocated by the Catholic Church, for example.
Perhaps I meant to type 'Church' instead of 'Bible.'
And now I am well and truly repeating myself..
Theycallmebones
Harbinger of Sorrow
Most "Christians" don't follow the bible and treat it like an optional part of their religion. The bible isn't an option, nor is it simply a guideline. The bible is THE RULE for christians.
However, most people who call themselves Christians are full of hot air. They don't read their bibles or follow the rules. This gives Christians a bad name.
P.S
I'm a Christian
However, most people who call themselves Christians are full of hot air. They don't read their bibles or follow the rules. This gives Christians a bad name.
P.S
I'm a Christian
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
Øjeblikket
Member
"qft" = quit friggin typing -- please.
Not just playing semantics, but there is so much belief in the book in question and so many instances of its reference are believable that to consider the believability of some the prohpecies or whatnots therein as all but metaphor or want, is itself to trifle.
Ptah Khnemu said:
Not just playing semantics, but there is so much belief in the book in question and so many instances of its reference are believable that to consider the believability of some the prohpecies or whatnots therein as all but metaphor or want, is itself to trifle.
Lord SteveO
Hero in a world of demons
The bible evidently IS believeable. A huge number of people worldwide and throughout history claim to belive in what is said within its pages.
Be they following it like a rule book for their lives, or by using its stories as a base for a moral code, a lot of people "believe" in it.
I think the real problem is not how it's believable, but how easily swayed by its tales and stories some people are.
However the fact that it has been extremely well "edited" by the church so as to acheive maximum "effect" so to speak, brings the whole reasons why people believe in it into question.
Be they following it like a rule book for their lives, or by using its stories as a base for a moral code, a lot of people "believe" in it.
I think the real problem is not how it's believable, but how easily swayed by its tales and stories some people are.
However the fact that it has been extremely well "edited" by the church so as to acheive maximum "effect" so to speak, brings the whole reasons why people believe in it into question.
Øjeblikket
Member
Lord SteveO said:
I would say that the reasons belief sometimes extends beyond practical application with regard to biblical teachings are both complex and simple. People get a backbone. It is often smeared as a campaign against weakness, but people are what they are, a lot need moral support and congregation. Even those that have such articulated dances with the Absurd that they would credit a creator with destruction for purposes of cleansing, undeniably crave justification of personhood. So that's the simple part. Why people cannot achieve this oomph of themselves isn't exactly something I can claim knowledge of, which complexes me.
Were a soft collection of people intent on lengthy corruption through falsehoods successful in their venture over an extended amount of time, it would depict a certain charisma inherent to people's character for me. So I'd say the effect you mention is the evolution of somewhat current lies and coverups, if that's what they can be called.
The other side is the similarity of the english language's commonplace, its breadth amongst countries, which suggests a developed sense of communication moreso than hostility. hmmm, that could be misleading. Perhaps the tainting of the books for the effect of breadth also involved opening up its pages to more folk. It's a possibility.
Metal-Enforcer
Universist & Explorer
We are gods, the Earth is A god, The Sun Is A God and the universe is THE god. I am A pagan/universist and it is the religion that Christianity is based upon.
proglodite
Member
Theycallmebones said:
Were it not for the wonders of the internet and anonymous posting, I'd sock you one, mate. Living for God has NOTHING to do with following the rules, that's what grace is for. If you find that you aren't fitting in with the "rules" then you turn to God, you DON'T try to change yourself.
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
Metal-Enforcer said:
I beg to differ. Christianity is derived from Judaism. However there are some stories/ritual/beliefs which clearly reflect pagan beliefs in the culture in which Judaism/Christianity developed. A perfect example is the story of Noah and the Flood which is simply the Jewish version of the flood myth which is found in numerous cultures (see Gilgamesh for an earlier version of the tale).
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
What do people think of poetic interpretations of the Bible? For example, Genisis 1 is not seen as retelling the creation of the world, but rather creating the world everytime it is read. The Bible thus becomes an interactive process in which the reader is opened to a new paradigm.
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
crimsonfloyd said:
Um.... I think the problem is that whatever poetic elements Gen. 1 may have the bible itself interprets the genre of the passage. For example Ex. 20:8-11 clearly interprets the six days of creation literally.
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
Probably those who don't believe in God, nor religion are rich, bored-in-life, who probably suffer from mental diseases and are 10-25 years old kids who are so effected by the crap they listen to.
Stop acting like such wannabes, you know you believe in Bible already.
Stop acting like such wannabes, you know you believe in Bible already.
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
i meantØjeblikket said:
Quoted For Truth
i totally agree with everything Norsemaiden has said on this thread
