If you don't believe all the bible, why believe any of it?

Krazysh0t
reply to post by SpaceGoatFarts

 

And my point was that the bible as written is untrue.

Only an interpretation of a text can be true or untrue.

The text simply is.

If your point is that the literal interpretation is untrue, I mostly agree.

If your point is that no interpretation of these texts can ever be correct in any way, even by taking the context and language subtleties into account, I have to say that it's probably a biased and discriminatory view.

reply to post by SpaceGoatFarts


Hmmm... I thought I phrased that well enough to not create anymore confusion. The bible as written, or the literal reading of the bible, is untrue.

reply to post by moresco


The God of the bible teaches that He is Sprite and is outside His creation .Although is able to interact with it He is not bound by the physical laws that are in it .Therefore you have to believe that He does exist and rewards them that seek Him out ....peace

Krazysh0t
reply to post by SpaceGoatFarts

 

Hmmm... I thought I phrased that well enough to not create anymore confusion. The bible as written, or the literal reading of the bible, is untrue.

Good thing then than literal interpretation of the Bible only represents around 1% of the Christian world Unfortunately concentrated in the US for historical reasons though.

reply to post by the2ofusr1


The God of the bible tells you this? Where does he tell you all that?

I also don't see how your conclusion belies your premises. Why does a god existing outside the physical universe, but able to interact with it determine a conclusion that because of those things, we should worship and believe in him?

SpaceGoatFarts

Krazysh0t
reply to post by SpaceGoatFarts

 

Hmmm... I thought I phrased that well enough to not create anymore confusion. The bible as written, or the literal reading of the bible, is untrue.

Good thing then than literal interpretation of the Bible only represents around 1% of the Christian world

Unfortunately concentrated in the US for historical reasons though.

edit on 25-3-2014 by SpaceGoatFarts because: (no reason given)

Not quite. You focused on the OT when you questioned my post. I said the BIBLE, so I included the NT in there as well when I said that the bible as written is untrue. Many Christians are fine with discounting the OT (kind of silly in my opinion, but that is what this thread is about), but they AREN'T so fine with discounting the NT.

ETA: Therefore, I am calling into question: the virgin birth, the miracles attributed to jesus, the resurrection, the ascension, etc. And that is just the supernatural things, I also doubt the accuracy of the non-supernatural things attributed to jesus as well. Again, cult of personality.

Fromabove
I believe the whole thing, cover to cover.

You either believe or not.

No, you don't. You use your brain, start with genesis 32 30, note that its coded, and start to seek. Become a real seeker for how to be free and grow your consciousness and love.

I never even did this as a child when I first encountered the bible and was drawn to the loving passages. Never have ever done that. I listen to the small still voice of consciousness within. WHICH IS THE WORD OF GOD.

Krazysh0t
Not quite. You focused on the OT when you questioned my post. I said the BIBLE, so I included the NT in there as well when I said that the bible as written is untrue. Many Christians are fine with discounting the OT (kind of silly in my opinion, but that is what this thread is about), but they AREN'T so fine with discounting the NT.

You make generalizations again. I never "discounted" the OT nor the NT. Just put them back in context. The context of the OT (tribal religion and legal system) isn't the same as the NT (first signs of an universal religion) so I'm more interested in the latter.

And if you call the NT "untrue" simply because you say miracles are impossible, it means you consider literal interpretation the only way to approach these texts and think it's what I do.

It's not. I said I was a pantheist interested in comparing religions and finding similar stuff. Instead of focusing on what would make the book irrelevant, I actually focus on what make it relevant and in line with other texts. That's where our approach differs and why I don't dismiss a huge book simply because my rational mind tells me the miracles are antique urban legends.

Instead of caring whether Jesus was really born out of a virgin or walked on water, it's much more interesting to try to find what teachings these symbol conveys. In that context, the Bible (OT and NT) is certainly not "untrue". Just not factually correct. But I haven't seen mentioned anywhere on the Bible that it's a biography and not simply a story.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Well He says that we must worship Him in truth and Spirit .He does convey a message to those that believe He exist that someone who refuses to believe will not get or understand imo .We are able to create a vase but are not the vase and are able to put water in the vase .I know that is a simple way of looking at it ....peace

reply to post by SpaceGoatFarts


Meh, the only thing I find of use from the bible is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Other than that it is either rewordings of that concept, boneheaded laws of ancient peoples, a miracle, god destroying large swaths of people for petty reasons, or vague prophesy that can be attributed to many things due to its vagueness. I guess you could also study it for literary techniques, but that is less to do with content and more to do with how it is written down.

the2ofusr1
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Well He says that we must worship Him in truth and Spirit .He does convey a message to those that believe He exist that someone who refuses to believe will not get or understand imo .We are able to create a vase but are not the vase and are able to put water in the vase .I know that is a simple way of looking at it ....peace

He does? How do you know this? Where did you get this information? It's funny that you take a jab at my non-belief like the reason I don't "get" god is because I don't believe. Well I got news for you buddy, I used to be Catholic for the first half of my life. I believed in God and Jesus and all that tripe, but you know that whole "convey a message to those that believe he exist (sic)" thing never happened to me. Or did it and after I stopped believing, god made me forget?

ArtemisE


This is for those Christians who don't believe in the literal truth of creation and the bible. But do believe and concierge them selves Christians.

How do you decide what to believe and what not to? To an atheist it looks like cherry picking what people wish were true. While ignoring the things you don't agree with. It seems to me that almost every Christian as a nearly completely different take on what all consider to absolute truth. Logically how can any truth be found when no one even agrees on the fundamentals?

The whole "creation of paradise" story is symbolic !

Krazysh0t
reply to post by SpaceGoatFarts

 

Meh, the only thing I find of use from the bible is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

It's a bit reducing but it's correct. The golden rule is the foundation of all religions and philosophies worldwide so there must be a reason for that...

But what? Are moral behaviors in our genes? They seem counter-productive from an evolution point of view and actually people aren't naturally drawn to ethics if they don't come into contact with the subject through religions/philosophies or other cultural norms first.


To further explore the subject then, you must read deeper into these texts like the Bible or the Gita and you might find a reason why all these texts (even from different continents) share similar teachings like the golden rule but not only. It's not the only way to do it, but it's a very interesting way. Because you will see that moral teachings and spiritual/religious texts have always been very close so maybe it's in religions and spiritualities that we have to look for the birth of ethics. And one step further, you could say these spiritual and religious texts were usually written by people who claimed to be in contact with a transcending divine reality.

And this is where the fun really starts and where there is a lot more to learn from these texts than just the golden rule.

IMHO

reply to post by SpaceGoatFarts


You have fun with that, that stuff doesn't interest me at all. I like studying history, math, and science. In other words, things that can be verified true.

Also, what gives you the idea that morality is a religious thing? Well at least the Golden Rule. Humans are descendants of apes. Apes are social creatures. In order for a social setting to work properly, the participants need to be trusting and supportive of each other. When a participant starts undermining the others, the social setting falls apart due to mistrust. The way -I- see it, the Golden Rule is a requirement of social animals to develop socially. It shouldn't take a religion to point that out either. When people work together to accomplish things, they get more accomplished, faster. It's quite obvious.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by SpaceGoatFarts

 

You have fun with that, that stuff doesn't interest me at all. I like studying history, math, and science. In other words, things that can be verified true.

Also, what gives you the idea that morality is a religious thing? Well at least the Golden Rule. Humans are descendants of apes. Apes are social creatures. In order for a social setting to work properly, the participants need to be trusting and supportive of each other. When a participant starts undermining the others, the social setting falls apart due to mistrust. The way -I- see it, the Golden Rule is a requirement of social animals to develop socially. It shouldn't take a religion to point that out either. When people work together to accomplish things, they get more accomplished, faster. It's quite obvious.

I'm just explaining my point of view. I don't try to convert you or anything. And if you like history, the Bible is a great source of information regarding a certain period and place

Also I'm not saying that morality is purely a religious thing. Just that religions helped further introduce the concept in societies. Some moral behaviors can be explained social constraints alone, but not all.

For example monogamy or charity or strict non-violence are clearly not natural nor needed from a purely social point of view. They come more from a reflection than a natural need.


My point (and I don't expect you to share it), is that these ethics and morals arise naturally when you espouse a certain metaphysical vision of the world that is common to most if not all people who claimed to be in contact with a transcending divine reality. Under that world view, the golden rule and all other moral requirements are logical and the only possible way to approach the world.

For example, refusing to fight back your enemies is a suicide from a materialistic point of view. But if you share the vision of the world of a mystic, it makes a lot of sense.

That's why (and I could be wrong), I claim mysticism is the common denominator between religions and ethics, and the foundation stone of all the subsequent spiritual and religious currents.


PS: and I actually like math and physics too. I'm an engineer and I work in a company building particle accelerators, so yes, I do love science! But honestly there's nothing in science that ever showed me it was stupid to be interested into religions and spirituality as long as you keep a critical approach.

reply to post by SpaceGoatFarts


Hey you could be right, I don't claim to know anything for sure one way or the other. There is certainly much evidence linking the religions of the world together in the ways that you are speaking about. The divine, if it exists, most likely parallels something like that as well.

Screw it.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by SpaceGoatFarts

 

Hey you could be right, I don't claim to know anything for sure one way or the other. There is certainly much evidence linking the religions of the world together in the ways that you are speaking about. The divine, if it exists, most likely parallels something like that as well.

That's my view too.

It's also very important to remember than the divine of the mystics is vastly different from the divine of religious people.

Religious people get to know the divine through texts written by other people. Mystics get to know the divine through personal experience.

There's thus a great chance that what a layman Christian calls "God" is very different from what a Christian monk or a Sufi calls "God" too.

I'm more interested in that second one.

I also had a personal mystical experience prior to reading on the subject, and I was baffled later by the similarities between my story and these of other people from all around the world. Either we had a perfectly similar hallucinations (possible since we have similar brain), either we really had a glimpse into a reality that transcends our everyday senses.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

I wasn't taking a jab at you and sorry if that is the way it came off ..Going by Catholic doctrine they say that as a baby when you are christened you become a Catholic and it really has nothing to do with believing so I cant see how that could apply to someone who has matured enough to make their own decisions about weather to believe there is a God or not ....peace

ArtemisE


This is for those Christians who don't believe in the literal truth of creation and the bible. But do believe and concierge them selves Christians.

How do you decide what to believe and what not to? To an atheist it looks like cherry picking what people wish were true. While ignoring the things you don't agree with. It seems to me that almost every Christian as a nearly completely different take on what all consider to absolute truth. Logically how can any truth be found when no one even agrees on the fundamentals?

It's not that hard to understand. A lot of the old testament is based around Jewish law at the time it was written, and how breaking it would incur Gods wrath.... why would you expect me to follow Jewish law from around roughly 2,000 years ago?

I personally don't take Genesis literally, and I'm not sure how many people do - I'm looking here at the six days to create the Earth obviously, but then again, current big bang theory has it that the universe was created in a billionth of a second - is that any easier to comprehend?

I've no time for Leveticus and the issues around homosexuality and the place of women in society, but I'm mature enough to know they relate to how that particular society operated at the time - that doesn't make it right, and I personally don't believe it has anything to add to us. Note that word 'personally'. If the Christian/Muslim/Jewish faiths do not want to recognise homosexual marriage, or indeed if they do, that is a decision that should be respected, but I would expect a secular government to have no issue with it - two different things.

What I do believe in is loving your neighbour as you would like yourself to be loved, and to strive to be true to your own principles. I don't particularly think that's cherry picking, you can find similar examples in almost any other tome of faith or indeed bill of rights.