How Many Here Have Even Read The Bible?

eden

rigneyclan wrote:

The scientists used radiometric dating to find the age of those rocks; so there is no possible way to get around the fact that those rocks are billions of years old.

Radiometric testing isnt an absolute science though.
Theres so much controversy even regarding that method of determining the age of things, right?

Anyway, Im tired now. :(

dkst - astounding posts, and I say that totally unbiased.. Ive learned a lot more about the bible just reading your posts in this thread.

brainofPJ

crittables wrote:

eden wrote:

Seriously....for instance, everyone always wants to know why organized religion can be so evil but if they actually read the Bible they would see that one of The main themes of it is to watch out for Bad men who would use it for unrighteous gain (war and money.)

quote]


organized religion and the bible are two different things. my problem is the way some people use the bible as a tool in organized religion. the problem isn't the bible itself, it's the interpretation.

the 'misintrepretation'...

where hellfire, trinity, rapture, teaching of the soul, and many more...all false teachings, come from.

dkst0426

brainofPJ wrote:

the 'misintrepretation'...

where hellfire, trinity, rapture, teaching of the soul, and many more...all false teachings, come from.

Easy now......there's a good reason why the idea of the Trinity has survived entire milleniums.

dkst0426

crittables wrote:

i have a thing against organized religion in general. not the bible, the religion that follows it, and others like it.

I'm still confused. I'm sorry. I really am.

Do you mean:

You have issues with organized religion, but not with the Bible and the religion that follows it?

OR

You have issues with organized religion and the religion that stems from the Bible, but not the Bible?



If it's the first, then yes, I can understand that.

If it's the second, I have no clue how you can have issues with Christianity and not with the Bible. That's a chicken vs. egg question, and neither one is mutually exclusive, so if it's the second one, I hope you can clarify.

And if it's not the second one, well--nevermind, then

brainofPJ

dkst0426 wrote:

Easy now......there's a good reason why the idea of the Trinity has survived entire milleniums.

haha, yes there is. mainly because people are blind, and blindly follow

dkst0426

brainofPJ wrote:

haha, yes there is. mainly because people are blind, and blindly follow

Touche.

Look, all I can do is respectfully ask that if you're going to come with criticism, to come with something a bit more constructive. That response was a little bit of a cheap shot and kinda disappointing.

If you can't respect me (or anyone else who would engage in a real dialogue/discussion about Christianity and other related matters) enough to respect that when I'd be willing to engage into discussion with you, then there's really not much more to say.

brainofPJ

dkst0426 wrote:

Touche.

Look, all I can do is respectfully ask that if you're going to come with criticism, to come with something a bit more constructive. That response was a little bit of a cheap shot and kinda disappointing.

If you can't respect me (or anyone else who would engage in a real dialogue/discussion about Christianity and other related matters) enough to respect that when I'd be willing to engage into discussion with you, then there's really not much more to say.

actually, i wasn't trying to take any cheap shots. you responded by saying that there was a reason why a teaching has survived for so long but you left it at that. so i wasn't sure what that was supposed to mean. i don't see that i disrespected you at all

i'm more than willing to have a good discussion on this and many other subjects.

since it seems you took offense to something i am sorry

brainofPJ

so i guess that's a 'no' as far as engaging in discussion?

OutOfBreath

I haven't read the book cover to cover, but large portions of it. And having been told excerpts from it in sunday school and school until the age of about 13. And been raised by parents who are really, truly dedicated baptists. I have attended several "revival" rallies with people talking in tongues and praising and can you give me a hallelujah. I've been many times to bible camp.

And I despise organized religion. Truly I do. I see that some finds comfort in it, and creates church communities that look out for eachother and draw a lot of positive from it. But I reserve the right to have an informed aversion towards it for myself.

However, eden, if your grief is "uninformed" slamming of religion, I can see you getting tired of that. If you want an informed slamming, then I'm right here.

Peace
Dan

ilana

eden wrote:

What threatens you so much about Jesus that you spout anger so palpable that I can feel it coming off my screen?

Are you Jewish, if so...do you hate Muhamed as much as Jesus? Just curious..

2000 years of killing in his name, just might give me reason to hate him, but i dont hate him, i dont believe he is a real person, he is fabrication
and your damn right im jewish
and i deal with jesus intoxicated evangalists on a regular basis,
they took my bible and twisted and perverted verses at thire whim, to try and paint thire so called jesus into it
and as for mahamad, the man married a six year opld and raped her when she was nine years old, should that not provoke hatred of him

eden

ilana wrote:

2000 years of killing in his name, just might give me reason to hate him, but i dont hate him, i dont believe he is a real person, he is fabrication
and your damn right im jewish
and i deal with jesus intoxicated evangalists on a regular basis,
they took my bible and twisted and perverted verses at thire whim, to try and paint thire so called jesus into it
and as for mahamad, the man married a six year opld and raped her when she was nine years old, should that not provoke hatred of him

Your faith, my faith and the Muslim faith all believe in the God of the Bible and we all consider Abraham our forefather, thats why I never understand the hatred from people like you. Abraham was a very imperfect man yet God made the promise of the Messiah through him (The Abrahamic covenant) as you know.

Moses (A Godlike figure to Jewish people) was a murderer and a liar ...to the point that he was not allowed to enter the promised land, yet he is revered in the Jewish faith as he should be. He was a passionate, amazing but also imperfect man who shared a very intimate relationship with God and was the only Human to ever see Gods face.

How you can show such hypocrisy in whom you choose to label astounds me.

eden

OutOfBreath wrote:

I haven't read the book cover to cover, but large portions of it. And having been told excerpts from it in sunday school and school until the age of about 13. And been raised by parents who are really, truly dedicated baptists. I have attended several "revival" rallies with people talking in tongues and praising and can you give me a hallelujah. I've been many times to bible camp.

And I despise organized religion. Truly I do. I see that some finds comfort in it, and creates church communities that look out for eachother and draw a lot of positive from it. But I reserve the right to have an informed aversion towards it for myself.

However, eden, if your grief is "uninformed" slamming of religion, I can see you getting tired of that. If you want an informed slamming, then I'm right here.

Peace
Dan

I despise most organized religion as well, it gives God a bad name.
Honestly? Im not angry or anything like that, actually I understand peoples disdain. I just get :( sometimes at how lost people are in the message of peace and love that Jesus taught because of the bad name that greedy and bloodthirsty churches have given him down through time.

dunkman

it was avoided earlier so i'll re-ask it... what is to happen to gods greatest creation... no not cheesecake... i mean humans, us, his people, when our sun does indeed die out... NO life will survive this cataclysmic event, so why has god designed our solar system with a finite lifespan... ok, mankind might be able to explore other solar systems by the 4billion years deadline, but dolphins wont... dolphins will be boiled alive and what have they ever done to god? was Flipper really that bad a show?

eden

dunkman1974 wrote:

it was avoided earlier so i'll re-ask it... what is to happen to gods greatest creation... no not cheesecake... i mean humans, us, his people, when our sun does indeed die out... NO life will survive this cataclysmic event, so why has god designed our solar system with a finite lifespan... ok, mankind might be able to explore other solar systems by the 4billion years deadline, but dolphins wont... dolphins will be boiled alive and what have they ever done to god? was Flipper really that bad a show?

*holding stomach from laughter*

Nice comic relief.

Seriously? I believe it when it says "The Earth will stand forever".
It soothes my feeble mind.

OutOfBreath

eden wrote:

I despise most organized religion as well, it gives God a bad name.
Honestly? Im not angry or anything like that, actually I understand peoples disdain. I just get :( sometimes at how lost people are in the message of peace and love that Jesus taught because of the bad name that greedy and bloodthirsty churches have given him down through time.

Now that's a kind of christian I can understand somewhat. I have few problems with Jesus. He stood for some great ideals, and had some good ideas for how people should have community together. I like many of his ideas, apart from the "son of god" angle.

Peace and love, I'm all for it. But I dont see the need to put some extra faith in a book written by some old jewish guys a few thousand years ago. If you want to access the divine, something I believe in although I dont know if it's something external or just in our minds, I dont see why it has to be filtered through just that book. I dont see why it needs filtering at all. Observing nature, people's behaviour and being aware of one's surroundings and being able to marvel in that, is all the religion or divine I need.

Peace
Dan

eden

OutOfBreath wrote:

Observing nature, people's behaviour and being aware of one's surroundings and being able to marvel in that, is all the religion or divine I need.

Peace
Dan

Really? I dont know...I dont have an agnostic bone in my body. Though I admire the independance of people like you sometimes.
I dont mind feeling accountable to something higher than a Tree or a Mountain, actually I crave it.

OutOfBreath

eden wrote:

Really? I dont know...I dont have an agnostic bone in my body. Though I admire the independance of people like you sometimes.
I dont mind feeling accountable to something higher than a Tree or a Mountain, actually I crave it.

Well thank you for the compliment. It is enough for me to see a beautiful sunset on the top of a mountain, to look into the eyes of my love, to observe everything around me, ponder on the complexity amd vastness of even my most immediate surroundings, and then trying to multiply it to the whole world. It's humbling and amazing in itself.

As for accountability, everyone has accountability towards themselves at least, as have I. I am accountable towards myself, my lady love, my family, my friends, my colleagues and fellow students. But I can understand the wish for there being a great eye in the sky who sees your good deeds, and will reward you even if noone else does. That there is fundamentally justice at the end of the journey. I see no need for there to be, and focus on the life we have, and what we can do to make justice right here right now. A belief in an after-life can make people far too accepting of injustice in real life.

Modest Mouse \ wrote:

Third planet is sure that they're being watched
By an eye in the sky that can't be stopped
When they get to the promised land
They're gonna shake that eye's hand

But I do respect a staunch belief in God and even Jesus that is not entangled in organized religion's dogmas and politics. That's one step in the right direction the way I see it.

Peace
Dan

Byrnzie

dkst0426 wrote:

Other facts:

Archaeological evidence supporting much of what is written in the Bible.
Non-Christian historical writing supporting much of the Old Testament writings.

The ancient texts were not "edited." Yes, they were chosen to be part of the canon, but it's not as if it was a crapshoot with the council in blindfolds picking out scrolls to be included. Face it--the apocryphal "gospels" were not canonized for a reason. You don't include something you can't verify in a book you intend to use as Scripture.

You have completely missed the point.
There is no historical evidence that Jesus existed at the time he is said to have lived. Not one iota of historical, or archaelogical evidence. In fact, all of the research which has taken place in the pusuit of historical evidence to support the events mentioned in the bible points to these events having taken place at approximately 1000 - 15000bc.
Check out: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Christianity-Egyptian-Religion-Ahmed-Osman/dp/1591430461/sr=1-4/qid=1160384748/ref=sr_1_4/026-8449191-6268465?ie=UTF8&s=books

Secondly, the apocryphal "gospels" not being canonized had nothing to do with them not being able to 'verify' them. The canonical scriptures - those deemed acceptable by the early church fathers - were themselves unverifiable. The reason that the apocryphal books were deemed heretical is simply because they preached direct access to, and experience of, God, without the meduim of the preisthood and the church. Put simply, it came down to power politics.

Edit: My attitude has always been 'fuck the church!' As far as I'm concerned the church has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ, and that it is just a racket, like Ford motors, Shell, or Haliburton.

redrock

Byrnzie... you beat me to a response!

I concur with Byrnzie....

But you are not correct ref editing. I did not say the texts were edited (ie altered), I said the bible was edited: ie 'To prepare an edition of for publication, eg. edit a collection of short stories'

The apocryphal gospels (the term meaning 'hidden away') were not always considered 'secret'. Some of the books were originally in Hebrew but they were excluded from the Hebrew canon and were thought to have only survived in Greek (until recent discoveried). Because they were included in the Spetuagint (the bible of the early church), they were accepted without question by greek-speaking christians.

The change occured when in 382CE, the pope commissioned Jerome (papal advisor) to make a new translation of the bible into Latin so it could be distributed to 'the masses'.
Jerome decided that only the Hebrew canon could be regarded as authentic (his opinion) and therefore rejected the books supposedly only found in Greek (at the time), labelling them 'apocryphal'. But at the time his views were not accepted and his translation (the Vulgate) retained the aprocryphal books in the old testament. thwarped attempt at editing

BUT in the 16th century, during the Reformation, protestants agreed with Jerome and thus the apocryphal books were removed from the bible altogether. EDITED

But now, scholars are once again finding these writings and realise their importance for the understanding of the development of Judaism and early christianism.

Now these are proven and recorded historical facts

Historical/archeological/scientific research are proving 'facts' of the bible not to be accurate or even completely wrong (timelines not matching, scientific explanations and timings for 'miracles'.. etc.)

Byrnzie

Books such as the Gospel of Thomas, and The Gospel of Judas were judged to be heretical. I.e, the 'Gnostic Gospels'. These books weren't rejected/edited out simply to make room for others. They were regarded as heresy by the early church fathers.