# The Bible



## rashadow

Taken as myth or just a story the bible is extremely entertaining. Especially the Old Testament when God was super petty and unashamedly wrathful. The storys are of all sorts too. There are heros and villains rape murder pillage, fire and brimstone. Prophets dragons and sex. As well as many happy endings and all types of shit. There are even allusions to things that are never talked about any more in the bible, like the Nephelim (I think that's what they were called). The offspring of angels and humans, mentioned once in the bible and never again.

For the writer it can be a springboard for almost any type of story imaginable and has already been so for hundreds of years. Even to just quote some of the passages in your work sets your story on a whole new level of meaning.

If you don't have one, I suggest you pick one up or steal one from your nearest hotel motel holiday inn (and remember to thank the Gideons). Get you a highliter and get to work.


----------



## Vixen

Ha! Good pioint. I just hope no on etakes the idea of stealing one from a hotel too seriously. Goodwill has lots of cheap Bibles, as do many used book stores. Even for the non-religious out there, it is a good read.


----------



## Lupin3

We're all religious, baby.  Some of us just don't think there's a god - or that god runs for office... :wink:


----------



## sully474

I think the Bible is all bull, that none ever happened, and that it was made up by a few guys who wanted people to have better lives, so they wrote up little rules for people to be better off with.


----------



## MisterRaziel

It always seemed cheap to me to quote bible passages in fiction if the story isn't related to judeo-christian religion or themes. It's like quoting Blake in a short story if the story has nothing to do with Blake or the poem.

While we're at it, why not throw in a few quotes from the Quran or the Bhagavad Gita?

But that's just cynical old me.


----------



## rashadow

I think that adding quotes from religious texts and or poetry really add to the atmosphere of the story. Even if the story isn't about that particular religion or person or poem. As long as somehow the quote ties into the narrative in some way. Most religious texts contain real world advice or generally accepted knowledge, but it is usually stated in some flowery way that just seems more appealing to the mind.

You feel me?


----------



## MisterRaziel

Sort of. But only slightly. I've seen quotes and biblical material used to great effect in stories, but it always seems like a bit of a sucker punch.

I've never been a fan of cheap measures. It's necessary to quote in a scholarly paper, but when I'm writing a story, I tend to avoid using other people's words to tell my tale.


----------



## rashadow

I understand what you are saying but I love qoutes. I love em especially when they are at the beginning of a chapter. I always wanted someone to begin a nice dark tale that starts with the qoute "qouth the raven, nevermore".


----------



## Webmaster

There will never be another book as well written or as influential as the bible.


----------



## eleutheromaniac

MisterRaziel said:
			
		

> It always seemed cheap to me to quote bible passages in fiction if the story isn't related to judeo-christian religion or themes. It's like quoting Blake in a short story if the story has nothing to do with Blake or the poem.
> 
> While we're at it, why not throw in a few quotes from the Quran or the Bhagavad Gita?
> 
> But that's just cynical old me.



Religion is a philosophy that is all encompassing.  So, really, whatever the topic of the story is, these religious texts relate to it in some way.



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> There will never be another book as well written or as influential as the bible.



Augmented Reality, coming soon!  Just kidding 



			
				rashadow said:
			
		

> I understand what you are saying but I love qoutes. I love em especially when they are at the beginning of a chapter. I always wanted someone to begin a nice dark tale that starts with the qoute "qouth the raven, nevermore".



I used quotes from various sources to start each of my chapters in Augmented Reality, and they all relate to the book as a whole and the chapter it proceeds specifically.  For my next book, I'm attempting to come up with my own aphorisms to begin each chapter.


----------



## Webmaster

Sounds like someone's self-publishing a book.  )


----------



## eleutheromaniac

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Sounds like someone's self-publishing a book.  )



http://www.writingforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=4506


----------



## Ralizah

It's boring, honestly.


----------



## wgjones3

rashadow, the nephelim are referenced more frequenly in the apocryphal book of Enoch.  The Ethiopian version of this book is readily availible online, but apparently there's debate as to the origins of it.  Some say it's a Sumarian writing, some say it's an outright fraud.  The fact that it is referenced in the Bible illustrates that it was in circualtion at around the same time the Bible was written.

If you're interested, do a search on Google and you'll find a lot of information on it.

As far as the Bible as literature goes, I find it facinating that the King James Version is probably the most widely distributed piece of ancient English literature in the world.  Myself, I prefer one of the newer translations (right now my favorite is the New Living Translation), but the Psalms in KJV are poetic to say the least.


----------



## death.mage

I really enjoy reading the bible, as a matter of fact I think I've read it about 7-9 times!!  I'm not actually religious though.

Wouldn't quoting off the Bible seem kind of cheap if your book really doesn't have anything religious?


----------



## Tori

My parents were so bad at teaching us about the Christian religion that when I was nine and went on a trip with them to Washington DC I pulled it out of the drawer in the hotel and said, "Mom what's the Holly Bibble?"  

Bad enough I didn't know what it was, but I made it even worse by pronouncing it in a most horrible way.  I thought it was some weird Christmas book that someone left behind. hehe

Most of what I learned about the bible I learned from musicals like Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar (so my knowledge is tweaked at best).  I did open the thing up once and was shocked and appalled that no one has translated it into present day English or even Engrish for that matter!  How am I expected to read such a lengthy book with such tiny text and five billion thee, thou, shall's?  I read in this thread that there is a New Living Translation but I'm simply afraid of what that even means.  The bible might be a great book but it is not very user friendly...oh the irony!


----------



## Spudley

Tori said:
			
		

> Most of what I learned about the bible I learned from musicals like Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar (so my knowledge is tweaked at best).



'Tweaked' is an understatement! I don't think either of them should be taken as gospel (pun intended - sorry  )



> I did open the thing up once and was shocked and appalled that no one has translated it into present day English or even Engrish for that matter!  How am I expected to read such a lengthy book with such tiny text and five billion thee, thou, shall's?  I read in this thread that there is a New Living Translation but I'm simply afraid of what that even means.  The bible might be a great book but it is not very user friendly...oh the irony!



Yeah. I find the Old English versions hard going too (and I'm used to them). The language is very poetic, but not immediately easy to understand, which is really what the point should be.

There's quite a lot of different translations of the Bible in English. The Living translation is okay; not my choice though. The "New International Version" is probably the most widely used modern translation at the moment, but The 'Good News Bible' was deliberately written to be easier to understand, so it probably has the easiest language (unless you count 'The Message', which is the Bible rendered in 'street talk', though it's getting dated quite quickly because of that).

They're all translated from the same original text, though, so the actual stories are the same; just worded differently in each.


----------



## Tori

I will have to consider picking a version up and attempting the unimaginable for me.  Thanks Spudley for the information.  I will let you know at a later date if I continue to thank your post or begin to growl at it while wading through pages of mumbo jumbo'd morals.  :shock:


----------



## Akiko

I personally, agree with every word the Bible has to say, and that every bit of it is true. Even if you do not consider yourself a "religious person" it is still worth the read. Who knows? Maybe you'll change your mind.


----------



## rashadow

Bible for entertainment purposes only. The equivalent of reading greek or norse myth. At least that is how it is in the Old Testament.


----------



## Creative_Insanity

MisterRaziel said:
			
		

> Sort of. But only slightly. I've seen quotes and biblical material used to great effect in stories, but it always seems like a bit of a sucker punch.
> 
> I've never been a fan of cheap measures. It's necessary to quote in a scholarly paper, but when I'm writing a story, I tend to avoid using other people's words to tell my tale.



There are very effective ways to use Bible quotes. I just read a great example yesterday. This is the opening paragraph for Joseph Finder's book, Paranoia:

_Until the whole thing happened, I never believed the old line about how you should be careful what you wish for, because you might get it.

I believe it now.

I believe in all those cautionary proverbs now. I believe that pride goeth before a fall. I believe the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, that misfortune seldom comes alone, that all that glitters isn't gold, that lies walk on short legs. Man, you name it, I believe it. _

Okay, so only one of those proverbs was from the Bible, but it WAS from the Bible. And I would say that it was very effective. 

There are a lot of quotes from the Bible that people use every day, like "love your neighbor as yourself" or "pride comes before a fall", that many people don't even realize are from the Bible. But they will recognize them as common sayings.


----------



## Emma LB

I think it is also very important to understand the christian religion. Most of us here on this site live in a Christian country, influenced by this religion more than some people might want to accept. It's best to know where the ideas in our culture come from, that way it's easier to look at them from a new perspective and evaluate them. 
I read it a long time ago, I hardly remember much of it (I read it in ancient Greek, so yeah, I didn't understand much in the first place). I think another thing after the bible you should read is some of Augustinus' works, as if people like he had not been around, then Christianity today would be very different or not exist at all. He was very important... Thomas of Aquin was too, but he was later of course


----------



## Nightowl10175

I believe every word of the bible. It is also a great read! It is one of the most complex peices of literature every written and respected in its ways. It also tells the most amazing love stories of all time. It is truley an amazing book. (Not to mention the word of God!)


----------



## LiberalDem

I know this thread died almost a month ago, but I'm just getting to it now.



> I believe every word of the bible



How is that possible?  I mean, really?


----------



## lisajane

I went to a Catholic school for thirteen years... and never read the bible. I don't think I even have one.


----------



## Rajie

I went to Catholic school for a week and I don't think I ever really "read" the Bible (prolly b/c the “religious” spokespersons at any school I went to were all hypocrites, if you know what I mean) unless "ordered" to read a passage or worse, memorize a passage by a teacher.  Granted it was all New Testament.  Strange though,  I am a Christian (a Catholic one at that) and when I write my subconscious "Catholic-ness" tends to bleed out onto my work.  

But even though I am not devout I’ll admit that I absolutely hate it when people bash my faith.  Although I also hate it when ignorant Christians bash the Wiccan beliefs as well (and I’m a far cry from a Witch).  I guess in other words, someone who feels the need to bash another person’s faith is fairly ignorant, and ignorance to me is intolerable (on most days)..


----------



## Bhauger

I'd rather read Norse legends, or even modern fantasy before I'd read the bible.


----------



## LiberalDem

The thing that gets me about the bible is this: There are different versions.  If the bible is the Word of God, how can there be different versions?  I am a Catholic, and although I don't attend mass as much as I'd like, I'd like to think I'm pretty devout.  Not to the point of blindness.  Is the bible a good story? Yes. Do I belive Jesus Christ was the son of God, born of the Virgin Mary? Yes.  Do I believe every word written in it? No.

And that's all I have to say 'bout that.


----------



## Rajie

LiberalDem said:
			
		

> The thing that gets me about the bible is this: There are different versions.  If the bible is the Word of God, how can there be different versions?



Well, King James basically "edited" the Bible (he took out a few books, but kept most of the rest in tact), and most of the Protestants follow it .  The NIV is just written in a more "modern day" language.  So it's all the same book just either the text is modernized (NIV), or some King didn't like the way the Catholics compiled it and "edited" it, himself.


----------



## LiberalDem

> Well, King James basically "edited" the Bible (he took out a few books, but kept most of the rest in tact), and most of the Protestants follow it .



So, wouldn't it stand to reason that before King James got to the bible, someone else edited it?  I guess the reason I find believing so complicitly in the bible dangerous is that it was written by men, who are by their very nature, fallible.  I think the bible (The New Testament) is a great "guide" to use in your life, but I can't imagine basing my entire existence upon it.


----------



## Rajie

LiberalDem said:
			
		

> So, wouldn't it stand to reason that before King James got to the bible, someone else edited it?  I guess the reason I find believing so complicitly in the bible dangerous is that it was written by men, who are by their very nature, fallible.  I think the bible (The New Testament) is a great "guide" to use in your life, but I can't imagine basing my entire existence upon it.



Yep,  you are correct.  The one thing I always hate when talking "biblical" is that most people for some strange reason think that the Bible just fell right out of the sky written in said way.  It was compiled,  and there are different retellings of events (such as Revelations, for instance) that for whatever reasons the Catholics (or whoever was compiling) didn't feel the need to add to the doctrine .  Then there are the errors one has to feasibly take into consideration that crop up when someone (a man, usually) makes when translating the Bible.  So yes, of course, the "smart" Christian must take into consideration that their holy text, just by its very nature, is laden with errors and mistakes, from its writers to the translations. So there are invariably going to be "problems."  

I mean, take the first LoTR movie for example, the translators had problems translating English to Chinese without horrible gaffes in the dialogue, and that was just a 2+ hour movie...


----------



## Zatoichi

LiberalDem said:
			
		

> The thing that gets me about the bible is this: There are different versions.  If the bible is the Word of God, how can there be different versions?  I am a Catholic, and although I don't attend mass as much as I'd like, I'd like to think I'm pretty devout.  Not to the point of blindness.  Is the bible a good story? Yes. Do I belive Jesus Christ was the son of God, born of the Virgin Mary? Yes.  Do I believe every word written in it? No.
> 
> And that's all I have to say 'bout that.



The Doctrine of inerrancy only applies to the autographs (original texts penned by the inspired writers). Inerrancy does not extend to copies and it does not extend to translations. Through literary criticizm and study they are reasonably sure that the current versions are pretty accurate to the original texts. 

Do I believe that the Bible is the Word of God? Yes, I do. Do I believe it is complete? I can't see how we can know that or not... I highly doubt it as there seems to be many things unexplained and missing. Do I believe that our culture is capable to discerning the full meaning of most passages when those passages were being communicated to a people who's culture we cannot hope to salvage or understand? I don't think so. I will probably take a good deal of flak here for my beliefs, but I assure you that if you ask me, I have as much basis for my beliefs as you for yours. Laugh if you want, look down on me if you want, insult me if you want. It won't affect my faith, but if you want, talk to me, I am open for discussion, PM me if you want my SN.


----------



## Under the Cloak

Ah, The Bible.  So much stuff is in it.  Solomon had seven hundred wives, Cain was the first murderer, a woman was turned into salt becasue she disobeyed God, Jonah was swallowed by a whale, Noah built an ark all by himself because he was the only rightous man and God decided to kill off the rest of mankind.

And so many other things, but I read the book of Revelations and I had to see a therapist after I read it.  But, what can I say?


----------



## babylily

I think that the Bible is true somewhat. We shouldn't take everything it says to heart though. It was written by man and not handed down by God. I agree though it can be very inspiring.


----------



## Viper9

I agree that Augustine was singularly important.  Were it not for him, Christianity would not be wedded to patriotism.  It was Augustine who tied the church into the state.  Aquinas is important mostly for trying to make sense of Christian beliefs by combining them with Greek philosophy.  

It had been tried at the Church's conception, and the early Fathers were highly influenced by Platonism (some by Stoicism), but by Aquinas' time all of the attempts had failed.  So he turned to Aristotle.  So desperate was he to make Christian beliefs sensible, that he attached them to the philosophy of a man who claimed that women had fewer teeth than men -- without bothering to check.

My favourite Bible verse is: Psalm 137:8 -- look it up, it's fun!


----------



## Viper9

Sorry -- I meant Psalm 137:8-9!  My bad.


----------



## Baalam

> I went to Catholic school for a week and I don't think I ever really "read" the Bible (prolly b/c the “religious” spokespersons at any school I went to were all hypocrites, if you know what I mean) unless "ordered" to read a passage or worse, memorize a passage by a teacher.



That was the same in my case, I used to hate it. I think the biggest thing keeping people from Christianity is the Christians themeselves -Not all of course, but you can't deny many non-christians blame hypocrites for keeping them away.
And on the subject, I love reading the bible, though for me its more spiritual than anything. I can't read it for knowledge, because when I do that all I get is facts and soon become bored. I need to read it to get inspiration and spiritual growth, because its then that I feel most connected with God.

So yea, the bible is an awesome piece of literature. I didn't get into it until a year or so ago, and nowdays I read the old testament for ideas for stories, (I do enjoy quotes), and the new testament is great for sorting out my life.
Overall for me the bible is more spiritualy entertaining than factual, if that makes any sense...

And my favourite passage is Ephesians 6: 10-20


----------



## readintoothandclaw

What I find most interesting about the Bible is the earlier mythology it borrows from.  In fact if the Biblical inerrancy quacks and fundamentalist creationists would stop touting themselves as "holier than thou" ad infinitum ad nauseum and come together and look into their religions' shared origins, the world would be a much more peaceful place.  They all worship the sun in the long run (seriously look it up, a lot of the holy books are based on early myths about the sun).  

Is it an important piece of work, yes.  Interesting, absolutely.  Should it be taken literally, HELL NO!  

I do in fact like many of the stories in the Bible.  Taken allegorically, it does provide a person with a recipe for life, while I don't agree that recipe is the only way to bake your cake, it couldn't hurt to take a bite of it now and again, if you get the right part it's just as sweet as any cake you could bake anyways.

As far as using the Bible in your work:  I think it is definitely a great source of inspiration, in fact even Atheists like biology witer Richard Dawkins draw inspiration from it.  I believe he said something along the lines of recognizing the authorship of Ecclesiastes as wonderous art, but at the same time pointed out that "sophisticated theologians," including the pope, no longer claim the Bible to be literal.  

I am personally looking into using the Bible for parts of my work to develop charcters.  In the current religious atmosphere in America, not enough can be said about how the book relates to us.  A character who invokes God or cites the Bible from time to time can very easily be related to by your reader.  In fact this discussion reminds me of some Clemens works where he mentions Providence through the characters extremely often.


----------



## Ilan Bouchard

Vixen said:
			
		

> Ha! Good pioint. I just hope no on etakes the idea of stealing one from a hotel too seriously. Goodwill has lots of cheap Bibles, as do many used book stores. Even for the non-religious out there, it is a good read.


  Well, it was placed by the Gideans, so I figured it'd be ok.

Go to amazon and look at some of the reviews people have posted about the Bible.  Pretty entertaining stuff.


----------



## strangedaze

The Old Testament is *so* interesting. In fact, most sacred religious texts are. I'm reading the Qur'an for a class I'm taking and it's making for a fine read. There's a reason why Bloom advocates the addition of them in the all-powerful literary canon...


----------



## Saponification

Disagree to some extent.

It often doesn't fit in. Also, assuming Biblical knowledge isn't such a hot idea - not everyone's Christian, for starters... I'm not. 

If you want to show that you're "cultured" and you live in a Christian country, is it really that special if you quote the Bible? I mean, wouldn't it be more cultured to talk about some ancient religion or something not so big in your country like Islam, Judaism, Hinduish, etc? A lot of religious texts have some amazing stories and amazing things you can use... not just the Bible.

Personally, I focus on Buddhism. I'm not really a Buddhist, but a lot of my stories have messages that are very much in line with what Buddhists believe. I've found the Tibetan Book of the Dead to be a great source of inspiration indeed.


----------



## Tori

Bringing in the fact that there are those that believe that the Quran is the only actual book written by God (Allah) and you have a whole 'nother debate about the bible.

Honestly, I started reading through some passages awhile back because there were so many debates about religion going on at this political site I go to (mixing religion and politics, think that's a friendly site? lol).  I couldn't get past the entire Adam & Eve.  Eve was made from a rib of Adams?  Things were really messed up back then that's all I can say.  If you apply logic to the bible and/or the Quran and all the contreversy and control issues surrounding both, you end up with a contreversial book filled with stories that tell you what you can and can't do that has a bunch of humans dividing and arguing.  Odd to me.


----------



## skatergirl

I must say there are parts in the Bible that have mistakes and parts that are writen correctly that the _reader_ does not understand correctly. Also in Paul's letters (Romans, Corinthians..etc) he talks about propriety in worship and such, which most is still upheld but not all of it because of the laws and such. 
But set all the mistakes aside. I think the main message of the Bible has not changed. That Jesus died for the worlds sins and that people can be saved by putting their faith in him. So all the little mistakes aren't really a big deal as long as the message gets across.


----------



## EchoDove

Ah...the book of all books. I am a Christian and I somehow always manage to get myself into a debate of some sort (not that this is) at every forum i join. It is partly a misfortune. 
   I believe it, i trust it, I love it, and I have reason. I am free, I have hope, and it is the most historically accurate book. It passed all the scientific tests the best.


----------



## Harlequin

I agree with EchoDove. The Bible can be confusing at times and I admit, there have been times when I was reading that it didn't make sense, but when I studied it deeper, going into the context of the times, I found it to be accurate. People say it was written by men, but those men were simply stenographers. James Dobson was an atheist who read the Bible twice in order to prove to his friends that it was false and he became a Christian and publishes an magazine called "Does God Exist?" that uses science to prove God's existence. Remember, the Bible wasn't written as an exhaustive history of the world but as a guide to the followers of God.


----------



## EchoDove

Yes, and now Dr. Dobson is a rather well known Christian author (to Christians at least) and head of an organization, Focus on the Family.


----------



## Scarlett

I find the Bible tells some interesting stories, but little more.


----------



## Kane

Scarlett said:
			
		

> I find the Bible tells some interesting stories, but little more.



Have you read the Bible from cover to cover?  If not, I wonder how you would know either way.  I wonder how many people who argue against the Bible have actually read each word in understanding.  shurg.


----------



## Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

Many people don't read things but know about them because of society or research.  People claim to know about Darwin, but few people have read his works - I know I haven't.


----------



## Kane

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor said:
			
		

> Many people don't read things but know about them because of society or research.  People claim to know about Darwin, but few people have read his works - I know I haven't.




Yes, you are correct, which is exactly my point.  To make a qualified statement about the Bible, however, one should have at least read it.  By going off what other people say they are using secondary sources, hearsay.  This doesn't make for a convicing qualification when dealing with the Bible, when there are so many different opinions regarding it.  It basically boils down to people talking about something of which they have no clue.


----------



## Trilock

I was raised Seventh Day Adventist (not anymore) and have a pretty good grasp of the Biblical cannon. Yet I still agree with Mark Twain; in a nutshell:



> It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
> - Letters from the Earth


----------



## Kane

Trilock said:
			
		

> I was raised Seventh Day Adventist (not anymore) and have a pretty good grasp of the Biblical cannon. Yet I still agree with Mark Twain; in a nutshell:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
> - Letters from the Earth
Click to expand...


And you've read it, front to back?


----------



## journyman161

I have, a couple of times. I'd dearly love to see the sources for the statement above that " I believe it, i trust it, I love it, and I have reason. I am free, I have hope, and it is the most historically accurate book. It passed all the scientific tests the best."

eg. there are 2 genealogies for Christ. They involve different people AND a different number of generations between Adam & the Christ.

Even worse? They both trace the genealogy to Joseph! 

And this in a society where the family line was martiarchal! (even today, the male line is less significant  - if your Jewish mother married a non-Jew, you can meld right back in to both the religion & the race. If it was your father who married outside, you can join the religion but you aren't 'Jewish'

Now why would an accurate book not only get such things wrong? Keep in mind this is comparing it internally, not to some 'suspect' outside info.

Why would it describe the path to the wrong side of the family? It should have been to the mother, both in terms of Jewish tradition & because Joseph & his family tree had nothing to do with Jesus.

Where the hebrews were supposed to have been building their empire in the promised land seems to show little in the way of relics of civilisation. We do however, find the remains of a nomadic shepherd folk who were around at the right time & in the right place.

The bible is quite definitive on the creation of man & woman, but gets the order wrong. Women are the basic state of the human form, men are modified offshoots - genetics says so.

Now the 1st century writers recalling stories from 50 or 100 years before and writing them down, may not have known about genetics & the like, & were thoroughly indoctrinated into the male-dominance view, but surely God knwos this stuff?

From further back in the posts, The tranlations we read are translations of tranlations; the errors multiply, rather than being additive. 

The KJV was merely the latest in a long line of changes, but the major alterations were in the days of the Holy Roman Church, around 1000AD, when significant changes were made by the synod.

How could these people, upholders of the True Faith, actually do anything to alter the Word of God? but they did.

My view of the bible is its a book to read as an approximation for what may have happened to a small group of people who lived out in the boondocks of the mighty Egyptian Empire, which even though it was no longer going through its full glory, far exceeded even the dreams of the Hebrews. And they had been around for more than 3000 years before Abraham came on the scene. 

Do not rely on it for historical accuracy; it is full of holes, propaganda & stolen myth.


----------



## LensmanZ313

God didn't have _anything_ to do with the Bible. Anecdotal stories, pagan myths that mirror other creation and flood myths and heroic demigod/savior tales . . . all of which were composed by mere _mortals_. Dreary mythology. The Qur'an is better-written if you ask me . . . .


----------



## Kane

LensmanZ313 said:
			
		

> God didn't have _anything_ to do with the Bible. Anecdotal stories, pagan myths that mirror other creation and flood myths and heroic demigod/savior tales . . . all of which were composed by mere _mortals_. Dreary mythology. The Qur'an is better-written if you ask me . . . .




That is such an assinine statement, since you were not there to observe the Bible being written.  Maybe you wouldn't have so much angst if you realized you didn't know as much as you think you do.


----------



## LensmanZ313

Tell me, Kane, how do you really know that the Bible was inspired or revealed by God? You don't. All you have is a text that is a few thousand years old. And, that text has been translated time and time again and most of it has been, I bet, literally, lost in translation.

The stories can be traced back to other religious mythologies. Virgin births, demigod saviors . . . those are very common themes in religious mythologies. There is nothing outstanding or special about the Christian mythos.


----------



## Kane

I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, based on my own personal feelings.  I believe God to be real because of things I have experienced in my life that have led me to believe this to be true.  See, where we differ is that we both believe something, though on opposite sides.  However, whereas I allow for the possibility I am wrong, you state everything like you know without a doubt, which is impossible.  I dont doubt that your belief is very real to you, but you err in thinking it infallible.  You deal in extremisms, and it doesn't make for a more convincing point of view.


----------



## LensmanZ313

All I know is from what I've read in other religious myths and history books. I see cycles, patterns . . . a number of archetypes that repeat themselves.

That's what I know.


----------



## Kane

So what if there are other mythos that seem similar to Judaic concepts?  The Hebrews came in contact with a lot of people, and before they were a tribe they started small.  It's not like one day there was a group of people called the Hebrews who had a religious text.  Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible, as those of us who believe in the Bible as the word of God would say; Moses wrote those books as divinely inspired by God.  however, there was still thousands of years prior to that where the Hebrews's religion wasn't written down.  It was passed down through word of mouth.  Before they were Hebrews as a large group, they would have been a much smaller group.  What are the odds that their belief would have been only heard by them?  Imagine, if you will, thousands of years ago when they were still very small as a group.  What if one of the got lost, wandered into a foreign land, married, etc.  His beliefs, rather the beliefs of the people he came from, would be passed on in part.  Being a foreign belief to the area, it could have worked its way in on a minute scalre, or whatever.  We just can't look back thousands of years ago with any decisiveness as to what we're looking at without documented archeological finds.  And even in that case we'd have to allow for the possibility of hoax.  

I understand why you don't believe in the Bible, but that doesn't make it any less real to me.  All I have to go in today is what I know, what I feel, what I believe.  I've just been through too much in my life not to believe in divine providence or in a God who is part of my life.  I've seen too many things happen that indicate to me a will greater than my own.  I'd share them here, but I would only be mocked for my beliefs, so I don't bother.   But I know why I believe what I believe.


----------



## Harlequin

LensmanZ313 said:
			
		

> All I know is from what I've read in other religious myths and history books. I see cycles, patterns . . . a number of archetypes that repeat themselves.
> 
> That's what I know.



Name one other religion that has a god sacrifice himself for his people then come back. Yes, there are other stories where a god dies and comes back, but not on his own power and he did it for his own glory. Plus, have you ever considered that these archetypes exist because they actually happened?

What I know is that the world is far too complex and works far too well to have been an accident. You throw a handful of seeds in the air and it comes down in chaos. There was something there to cause the change. This world is not chaos. Humans are chaotic because we have free will.

I think a discussion of whether the Bible is true or not should not depend on its literary qualities or if it was written by humans, but if the Trinity is real and created the world. I understand that it is hard to understand how it can be real, but it wasn't written as a history book, although it does have history. The Old Testament was written for Hebrews, although it is still applicable to us.

I agree with Kane that you need to really know something to intelligently discuss it. I don't argue Darwing because I haven't read his writings. You can't know something from society. You have to know it from experience.

I admit, I havn't read the Bible front to back, but it's not a book to be read front to back. It's a book to be studied, but you can't just study the words. You have to study the society. One theory I heard about the geneologies was that they didn't include every single generation, but that's not the point. The point is people need proof. My proof that God exists and Jesus died for me isn't in a book. It's in my life.


----------



## LensmanZ313

Have I studied the Bible? Yes. I thought of becoming a minister once. So, yes, I have studied it and I've found way too many connections with pagan beliefs and there are, again, the archetypes that occur over and over again.


----------



## freebird

Brad Smith, aka Lensman:  

You could spend your entire life studying the Bible and never grasp the simpliest truth as you seek to be critical of it, you may know something of the Bible but I fear not enough to intelligently discuss it.  Each time you read through it other truths are revealed, based upon your own maturity and the other truths that are also found within the pages. I have never understood why someone spends so much attention targeting well meaning people of faith and religion here and on other sites.  It cannot be good for your sanity.   

You may have missed but the Bible is a story of redemption and the history of man. It is about man and his relation with God. It is about the why, what, and what happenend to man. It is not God's story of self-promotion (as if He needed it), but about our story. It is about the glory and fall of man, and God's gracious intervention to save those whom He created. It is a book that tells us not only who we are in the imago Dei, but who He is as Creator and Redeemer. Now this story about us necessarily causes us to turn our attention to Him, but only because His attention has been graciously turned to us. 



> The sermon on the mount (Beatitutes) Matt 5 is where Jesus laid down clearly for us the value-system of the Kingdom of God.
> 
> The unifying theme of the sermon is the kingdom of heaven. This is established not by counting how many times the expression occurs, but by noing where it occurs. It envelopes the Beatitudes (5:3, 10) and appears in 5:17-20, which details the relation between the OT and the kingdom, a subject that leads to another literary envelope around the body of the sermon (5:17;7:12). It returns at the heart of the Lord's Prayer (6:10), climaxes the section on kingdom perspectives (6:33), and is presented as what must finally be entered (7:21-23). Matthew places the sermon immediately after two verses insisting that the primary content of Jesus' preaching was the gospel of the kingdom (4:17,23). It provides ethical guidelines for life in the kingdom, but does so within an explanation of the place of the contemporary setting within redemption history and Jesus' relation to the OT (5:17-20). The community forming around him, his 'disciples" is not yet so cohesive and committed a group that exhortations to "enter" (7:13-14) are irrelevant. The glimpse of kingdom life (horizontally and vertically) in these chapters anticipates not only the love commandments (22:34-40) but also grace 95:3;6:12; 7:7-11; cf. 21:28-46) ....
> 
> Not less important is the location of the Sermon on the Mount so early in the Gospel, before any sign of controversies between Jesus and the Jewish leaders as to the law's meaning. This means that despite the antitheses in 5:17-48 ("you have heard ... but I tell"), these should not be read as tokens of confrontation but in the light of the fulfillment themes richily set out in chapters 1-4 and made again explicit in 5:17-20; Jesus comes "to fulfill" the Law and the Prophets (i.e. the OT Scriptures). Therefore his announcements concerning the kingdom must be read against that background, not with reference to debates over Halakic details. This framework is Matthew's; by it he tells us that whatever controversies occupied Jesus' attention, the burden of his kingdom proclamation always made the kingdom the goal of the Scriptures, the long-expected messianic reign foretold by the Law and the Prophets alike.


----------



## kintaris

The Bible is a great source of creative writing, as (i think) it contains the 7 major types of plot (is it 7, i can't remember).

Particularly in the more dramaticised versions - particularly, in fact, the children's bibles - you get a strong sense of internal struggles and enduring quests that are vital to storytelling - i mean, after all, isnt the fall of the Race of Men in Tolkien similar to Eden? Or the suffering of the Long Defeat of the Elves similar to the plight of Moses' people?

kintaris


----------



## LensmanZ313

See, I have studied it. I see in it its ties to pagan beliefs, I see in it the archetypes that many other myths share, the contradicitons . . . . I also know that it has been taking out of context, especially by old farts, twisting the words to push their agendas. I know history too. I know that in the American South (even now, the "Old Times" aren't forgotten), people used the Bible to support slavery, enforce the paradigm that blacks were inferior and later used it to outlaw interracial marriage and hinder the civil rights movement.


----------



## freebird

Brad:

That is a cop out and another excuse.  

People have hidden behind hundreds of things to avoid consequences for their actions or to put themselves over others.  What about the Koran?  Does it allow slavery have people subverted it?  Yes.  But you only focus on the Bible?  WHY????  Men used the Bible to fight slavery, perhaps nobody more than William Wiberforce.  All these have been answered for you countless times in countless threads and you trot out the same old tired arguments.  The bottom line this hatred consumes you and the attention you derive from people responding excites you.  The Bible inspired Shakespere as well as the founders of this country.  Jefferson read it and studied the New Testament everyday for 40 years.  It is a great book, even if you do not believe in it.  That is a fact.     

You twist the words of the Bible to push your agenda.  Only your agenda is decidedly anti-Christian.  You should clarify that in every post.  Sorry you had a bad experience in whatever group you tried to join.  But that is your problem.  Nobody else.  Just let it go.You know why you are trying to prove pagan beliefs.  You don't believe in them either do you?  

You cannot defeat a concept who believes that civililization started with Adam and Eve, because all similiarities are laid at the doorstep. rightly so.  And just like a room full of people watching a sports event, all will see some similiarities and differences.  It depends where you sit, what you see and hear and what your experience in watching the event is.      

Your hatred grows everytime you embark on this subject.  Is it worth it? Even if you do not believe in an immortal soul.  You destroy yourself.  

Folks I am out of here on this thread.  Mr. Smith will keep on as long as someone will argue with him.  He will never change and I have better things to do.  When he starts sending you vulgar PM's like he sends me, then you can sink your heals in or just turn the other cheek.  I will keep posting, but I am tired of discussing with him.  The Bible has inspired many, I hope you read it for yourself.  Do not let your view of Christianity be colored by anybody whose focus is to always tear down.  --freebird     





			
				LensmanZ313 said:
			
		

> See, I have studied it. I see in it its ties to pagan beliefs, I see in it the archetypes that many other myths share, the contradicitons . . . . I also know that it has been taking out of context, especially by old farts, twisting the words to push their agendas. I know history too. I know that in the American South (even now, the "Old Times" aren't forgotten), people used the Bible to support slavery, enforce the paradigm that blacks were inferior and later used it to outlaw interracial marriage and hinder the civil rights movement.


----------



## LensmanZ313

I have read the Bible. Many times over. I think you're forgetting the fact that I nearly joined the ministry--until I realized that it wouldn't be for me since the Bible, to me, is myth.

Why do I have issues with _some_ Christians--especially Dominionists? Because, they're more of a threat to this country than Osama!

The Bible and slavery . . . . Look at this:
http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/06/09/3d02f98a05db4?in_archive=1


> SLAVERY. This was an important social and economic foundation of our country both before and after independence. It was an institution condoned by the founders and recognized and defended by the original Constitution (Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3; Article I, Section 9; Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3). Slavery is also condoned in both the Old and New Testaments, but it is never condemned. On the contrary, it is codified, and made an inherited condition:
> 
> Exodus 21:4 gives rules for keeping slaves. Leviticus 25:44-46 says that heathen may be purchased as slaves, that their children become slaves, and that they are inherited as property by the owner's children forever. Other places that indicate that slavery is a hereditary condition are: Genesis 9:25, Exodus 21:4, Corinthians 7:20. Deuteronomy 20:10-14 says that when you conquer a city, if it surrenders then all people inside it become your slaves; but if it doesn't surrender, then all males are to be killed and all women and children "take unto thyself". Luke 12:47-8 shows that Jesus approves of slavery, for he describes the conditions under which one should give a severe beating to a slave. 1 Timothy 6:1-2 tells slaves to honor their masters.
> 
> In the book of Philemon, Paul sends a runaway slave, Onesimus, back to his former master. But this conflicts with the admonition in Deuteronomy 23:15 "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which has escaped..." So the Bible is on both sides of the 1857 Dred Scott case!



The Bible inspired Shakespeare? Did it inspire him to insert sly sexual, ponographic jokes into his plays? Which, if you have ever read the Bard's works, you can find them.

I used to be a Christian. Why did I stop believing in God? I didn't. I've read the Bible many times over . . . and then I looked at other religious myths. It goes back to patterns, archetypes. Semitic law came from the Code of Hammurabi, not Moses. And, so on . . . . To me, that's the Bible. A collection of myths. I belive in God and I'm not fond of the way He's portrayed in the Bible. I mean, he acts like a jealous, egomaniaclal bastard. the "Book" of Job is absolutely twisted. What kind of god creates a man and then let's him be a pawn in a cruel game between God and His "adversary?" And, then, you look at some of the Greco-Roman mythos, along with others, it falls into place.

Once again, I'm not Christophobic. I do have _issues_ with some groups. Like this story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8047423/

Ford advertised that it would donate a sum of money to GLAAD--$1000--for every Jaguar it sells. So, a bunch of "Christians" get their knickers in a bunch. They're pissed at Wal-Mart since Wally World has decided to include same-sex "domestic partners" in their employees' benefits package or something like that. Walt Disney has done the same thing to and Wildmon and his merry band of intolerant fundies went after them.

And, this story:
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/opinion/11727303.htm



> And here are other examples among those noted in an April report by the Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State: Campus chaplains have encouraged proselytizing among the students, and younger cadets who skipped out on prayer services have been forced by their seniors to march back to their dorms in a ritual called "heathen flight."



Another story . . . . http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096410911



> When the spiritual love of Jesus turns into ''the dogma of Christ politicus,'' it is a dangerous moment for America. This is happening at an alarming rate and in weirder and weirder forms by the week. Somewhere along the line we hope the broader range of Christian open-minded and moderate thinking will prevail in the public discourse. The signs of the times, however, seem ominous and dark indeed.
> 
> Witness Rev. Chan Chandler of the East Waynesville Baptist Church in North Carolina, who kicked out nine members from his own congregation because they voted as Democrats and did not support George W. Bush for president. During last year's presidential campaign, Chandler told his congregation that those who would vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry should repent or leave his church, according to one member who was forced out.
> 
> Witness the Baptist deacon of a California congregation who told the Lakota family of Muriel Waukazoo, who wanted a drum group to accompany their mother's funeral, that the traditional Indian songs could not be tolerated because ''drumming brings the demons.''
> 
> Witness Bush getting the nod from the Catholic Church hierarchy, which essentially endorsed him when it allowed then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, to urge bishops to consider the denial of Holy Communion to Catholic politicians (i.e. John Kerry) who endorsed a pro-choice position on abortion rights for women.
> 
> Witness the even more troubling case of an American Jesuit who respectfully and intelligently criticized the positions of the Catholic Church and is now ordered to resign as editor of the Catholic journal, America - forced out by no less an authority than the office of doctrinal enforcement, called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on an edict issued by - again - then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now pope.



Freebird's problem can be explained here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/222844_will05.html



> Some Christians should practice the magnanimity of the strong rather than cultivate the grievances of the weak. But many Christians are joining today's scramble for the status of victims. There is much lamentation about various "assaults" on "people of faith." Christians are indeed experiencing some petty insults and indignities concerning such things as restrictions on school Christmas observances. But their persecution complex is unbecoming because it is unrealistic.



Here's something to ponder . . . . : http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=1867692118220&lang=en-US&FORM=CVRE2



> The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.—Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1785.
> 
> April 29, 2005—America is not a Christian nation. It is a nation many of whose citizens are Christians. That’s not just a subtle turn of phrase. Understanding the difference is essential to understanding America’s constitutional principles.
> 
> 
> Christianity itself is not monolithic, as is evident by the many Christian denominations that exist in the USA. But there are certain politicians, and backers of certain politicians, who insist that America is a Christian nation . . . their brand of Christianity, of course. And they aim to destroy our constitutional republic in order to establish a Bible-based America—their interpretation of the Bible, of course—that is
> 
> as much a theocracy as is the Islamic Republic of Iran. They are part of a political movement called Dominionism or Christian Reconstructionism.
> 
> I doubt Jesus would recognize these Dominionists, Christian Reconstructionists, or to put it more clearly, American Theocrats, as his followers. They don’t believe in separation of church and state. The Gospels of Mark and Luke suggest that Jesus did. “Render, therefore, to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” —Mark 13:17 and Luke 20:25.
> 
> 
> And, as for moral behavior, the plank in their political platform second only to tax breaks for the rich, a.k.a. God’s Elect, considers Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R–TX), the American Theocrats’ standard-bearer in the U.S. House. In an April 12, 2002, speech at a gathering called Worldview Weekend, DeLay said: "He [God] has been walking me through an incredible journey, and it all comes down to worldview, He is using me, all the time, everywhere, to stand up for biblical worldview in everything that I do and everywhere I am. He is training me, He is working with me."
> 
> Either DeLay is not listening to his God all the time, or his God has a very morally questionable agenda. DeLay is so scandal-ridden, that he has purged Republicans on the House Ethics Committee, including the chairman, Joel Hefley of Colorado, who were unwilling to let him slide. DeLay replaced them with loyalists who changed the rules to make it harder to start an investigation—rules which the House overturned yesterday. He’s also trying to take the heat off himself by raising the decibel level of his attack on the courts. I suppose anything goes when you’re working for Christian domination, though I don’t think Jesus would agree with that: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. —Matthew 7:21–23



Here's a story about these Dominionists: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0316/p16s01-lire.html


> Christianity and patriotism are interwoven throughout the gathering, from Christian and American flags marched into the sanctuary, to red, white, and blue banners festooning the church complex, to a rousing "patriotic concert." Several speakers emphasize the idea that America's founders were largely Christian and that their intent was to establish a biblically based nation. (No mention is made of other influences on the Founding Fathers, such as Englightenment thinkers or issues of freedom of conscience.)



The Dominionist movement bothers me deeply. They want to break down the seperation of church and state and have their little fascist theocracy. Like the Pilgroms. Freebird loves to talk about the Pilgrims and their journey they endured, just so they could worship freely. What Freebird often fails to mention is the _fact_ that the Pilgrims didn't allow others to worship freely; nope, we can thank Roger Williams and the Rhode Island colony for that, people.

I'm not Christophobic--but I do _love_ this website http://www.landoverbaptist.org/ because it makes fun of Dominionist fundies.

 :wink:


----------



## freebird

*You can twist it anyway you want*

Brad:

You can twist it anyway you want.  

However, if it was any other group but Christians you could care less.  Take your Ford article and turn it around.  What if Ford gave $1000 for every car sold to James Dobson and GLAAD protested them.  You would be critical of Ford, and on GLAAD's side no matter what.  I say Ford should give the money back to the person buying the car, then they can decide what to do with the money. Keep it, spend it or donate it.  I would have a problem with extending credit to people any way who gives a portion of the loan in a rebate to any charity.  What happens when the car buyer fails to make payment or goes bankrupt?  

Back to the subject as hand: 

People are as affected today by ideas as they are by the shape of our modern society and the way it influences our lifestyle and thinking. You claim you ALMOST became a minister.  Problem number one.  People should be called to the ministry. It is not a vocation that you wake up and go guess what I will become a minister, likewise you do not just wake up and go guess what I will quit the ministry.  You were either "called" or you weren't.  Either you are running toward something or you are running away from something.  My question: which one is it?  

How many months did you commit to this vocation?  It is obvious you are bitter over this experience.  So you condemn the Bible?  Isn't it true the Bible did not fail you, but man?  You did not try to live by a Biblical standard and it fall short, but rather denominational doctrines?  I have always told you it is about a relationship.  God only has children, He does not have grandchildren.  It is not a communal salvation, but rather individual.     

Many people say the Greeks had excellence and that there is no Christian equivalent to that excellence. But there is-and it lies in calling. Oswald Chambers's phrase "my utmost for his highest" is exactly that. As we are called, we rise to become the full stature of what we are created to be. It's not something we're constituted to be, and then fated for the rest of our lives to follow the lines of the script. We actually rise to be, in the obedience and faith of following the call.

The Bible is a good book. --freebird


----------



## LensmanZ313

A good book of mythology? It's so-so.

The Book of Mormon? Now, there's some high wackiness . . . .


----------



## Harlequin

First of all, you shouldn't judge the Bible by the book of Mormon. They're two different books. Second of all, that wasn't a response to Freebird's question. You say you almost became a minister. That doesn't mean you know all about the Bible. I almost became a curator. That doesn't mean I know all about history. On thge contrary. It means I'm missing something. It's a slap in the face when people make arguments and you blow them off with a one or two line post that doesn't really have much in response. Please give a reason. As I said earlier, have you thought that the Bible is similar to mythological stories because it might have actually happened? Maybe the myths took from real life? Every culture has a flood story. Maybe that means there really was a flood.


----------



## LensmanZ313

What happened was I sat down, did a lot of thinking, reading and researching. I eventually came to the decision that becoming a minister wasn't for me. I didn't believe in that. It wasn't for me. I was active in my church. Once a month, our youth group would hold a Sunday service and I was one picked to give the sermon. Everyone told me that I should go into the ministry and our youth minister said that I was being "called." Well, it wasn't for me. That's why I didn't do it. To me, it's myth.


----------



## Saponification

LensmanZ313 said:
			
		

> A good book of mythology? It's so-so.
> 
> The Book of Mormon? Now, there's some high wackiness . . . .



Check out _The Book of Rael_ while you're at it.


----------



## LensmanZ313

I have . . . it's a bloody _hoot_!


----------



## freebird

Harlequin said:
			
		

> First of all, you shouldn't judge the Bible by the book of Mormon. They're two different books. Second of all, that wasn't a response to Freebird's question. You say you almost became a minister. That doesn't mean you know all about the Bible. I almost became a curator. That doesn't mean I know all about history. On thge contrary. It means I'm missing something. It's a slap in the face when people make arguments and you blow them off with a one or two line post that doesn't really have much in response. Please give a reason. As I said earlier, have you thought that the Bible is similar to mythological stories because it might have actually happened? Maybe the myths took from real life? Every culture has a flood story. Maybe that means there really was a flood.



Thanks Harlequin you are absolutely right.  He still missed the subject.    THANKS Again.  --freebird


----------



## LensmanZ313

Could there have been a flood? Yes. But, you have to remember, some parts of the world was underneath a global ocean millions of years ago. The middle of North America was home to a number of vast seas over the last few million years.


----------



## Harlequin

How do we know tyhe world is millinos of years old? I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just saying don't make assumpitions. Before you say it's scientifically proven, YOU WEREN'T THERE. Neither was I. That's why I'm not saying how old the Earth was. 

Oh, and I resent you comparing me to Dominionists. First of all, I've never heard of them. Second of all, most Christians don't follow that. I'm sorry you had a bad experience and lost your faith. I really am. I'll be praying for you.


----------



## LensmanZ313

There's this thing called _science_.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=21884

Check them out.

In fact, you better take a breath when you read this: The Earth is over _four billion_ years old!

Did God create the Universe? Yes, I believe that. Do i believe in the Genesis account or any of the othe creation myths? No.


----------



## Harlequin

If you don't believe Genesis, how do you know God created the Universe. And Radiometric dating could be wrong. Scientists aren't perfect.


----------



## Ralizah

Harlequin said:
			
		

> If you don't believe Genesis, how do you know God created the Universe. And Radiometric dating could be wrong. Scientists aren't perfect.



 You know, belief in God exists outside of Christianity.
 And anyhow, it's been proven to be quite reliable. The calculations are exact. And saying it could be wrong is horribly illogical. Use your brain a bit. If you can find a problem in the method, post it.


----------



## Kane

If you reject Christianity, and hold no other religious belief, on what do you base your belief in God?  If you believe that God exists, what knowledge do you possess that negates the possibility that he exists as the Bible describes?  How can you deny that God is the God of the Bible if you have never met him?  

So, you claim to believe in God.  The Hebrews introduced monotheism to this world.  There is nothing to say that the Hebrew's concept of God hasn't existed since the dawn of time.  True, there was no written account until Moses came along, but they obviously had a strong oral tradition long before that.  There is only one belief that seperates the Jews from the Christian, and that is obviously the belief that Christ is  God in the flesh, that he sacrificed himself for the salvation of all men.  None of the other gods of the monotheistic world have been around as long as the God of the Bible, of the Jews.  This is not necessarily proof that he truly exists as he is believed to, however, it is a strong argument that rules out all of the other gods of monotheistic religions.  As for the polytheistic gods, we know enough to hypothesize that the universe was most likely the work of a single entity, not a group of contentious peers.  So when you rule out polytheism and the gods that have entered into the world after the God of the Hebrews, who do you have left be Yahweh?

Eastern religions don't really compare because they arose more out of philosophy than belief in a god.  Islam arose 600-700 years after the birth of Christ, which was basically a denial of Christ's divinity.  They paint a picture of peace nowadays, but originally they were all about killing Christian's and Jews.


----------



## LensmanZ313

Monotheism wasn't introduced by the Hebrews. Akhenaten or Amenhotep IV, a pharaoh who ruled during the "New Kingdom" era, the 18th Dynasty, is historically the first who conceived monotheism. He did away with the traditional Egyptian pantheon and worshipped one god, a sun-god called Aten.

And, for another example of monotheism before the Hebrews, check out the works and beliefs of Zoroaster . . . Zoroastrianism inspired many Judeo-Christian-Islamic concepts.

You mean . . . have have to be a _Christian_ to believe in God? I believe in God . . . or a Goddess. I know that there is a Creator and He/She or It created the Universe; and, I believe that _evolution_ is a part of the Creator. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism:


> Historical and modern Deism are defined by the view that reason, rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of belief in God. Deists reject organized religion and promote reason as the essential element in making moral decisions. This "rational" basis was usually founded upon the cosmological argument (first cause argument), the teleological argument (argument from design), and other aspects of what was called natural religion. Deism has become identified with the classical belief that God created but does not intervene in the world, though this is not a necessary component of deism.



_The Age of Reason_, written by Thomas Paine, gives a good overview of the religious philosophy embraced by a number of our Founding Fathers.

I'm a Deist but I do have something of a pantheist view as well. Many Deists oppose abortion, I don't; many doubt paranormal/supernatural events, but I'm like Charles Forte: Approach everything with open-minded skepticism.

So, yes, I believe in God. the Bible? No. Jesus/Yeshua? Well, there are a dozen-plus men who took that name, in an attmpt to fulfill the Book of Daniel's prophecies and others, I believe. I do believe that there was a man named Yeshua, who said and taught a number of good things. Was he a demigod? No. I don't believe that.


----------



## LensmanZ313

Kane said:
			
		

> .Islam arose 600-700 years after the birth of Christ, which was basically a denial of Christ's divinity.



Jews also deny the divinity of Yeshua/Jesus. And, take a gander at what Moses and some of his boys did to tribes and nations who worshipped other gods. They were wiped out . . . .


----------



## Kane

Yes, the Jews denied the divinity of Christ, at least some of them did, they had him crucified.  That is where they split, but in reality, Christianity is the fulfillment of true Judaism.  As for Moses and his "boys" wiping out other tribes, yes, they did this.  It wasn't the same world back then, the religious "tolerance" we have today didn't always exist as such.  When the Hebrews left Egypt they had nowhere to go, so they had to fight for a place of their own.  Eventually the Jews were scattered because they continually defied God.  Had they not, they would have remained strong and sovereign.  

Now, you claimed that Zaroastrianism was older than the Hebrew faith, but this is not true.   It wasn't started by a guy named Zaroaster, it was founded by a "prophet" named Zarathustra,  who lived in either 600 BCE or 1400 BCE, depending on who you ask.  He couldn't have predated the Hebrews either way.  

Akhenaten or Amenhotep couldn't have possibly predated the Hebrew faith because he lived in the 1300's BCE.  In fact, some scholars hypothesize that HE was inspired by Joseph or Moses.  Akhenaten's religion did center on one god, but his major emphasis was on the Aten's visibility, tangibility, and undeniable realness. Akhenaten placed no emphasis, therefore, on faith.  So in that manner it couldn't have come from the Hebrews.   There is also evidence to suggest that he did so for political reasons, to thwart the rise of the god Amen, whose priests had become wealthier than the Pharaoh.  Let's also not forget that Akhenaten was a descendent of a Hebrew tribe, and couldn't have possibly predated teh Hebrew religion.


----------



## LensmanZ313

Zoroaster and Zarathustra are the _same person_.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/zoroastr.htm



> Quotation:
> "Zoroastrianism is the oldest of the revealed world-religions, and it has probably had more influence on mankind, directly and indirectly, than any other single faith." Mary Boyce.
> 
> Introduction:
> Zoroastrianism is a small religion with about 140,000 members. Yet its importance to humanity is much greater than its current numbers might suggest, because:
> 
> Their theology has had a great impact on Judaism, Christianity and other later religions, in the beliefs surrounding God and Satan, the soul, heaven and hell, savior, resurrection, final judgment, etc.
> It is one of the oldest religions still in existence,
> It may have been the first monotheistic religion.
> 
> The religion was founded by Zarathushtra (Zoroaster in Greek; Zarthosht in India and Persia). Conservative Zoroastrians assign a date of 6000 BCE to the founding of the religion; other followers estimate 600 BCE. Historians and religious scholars generally date his life sometime between 1500 and 1000 BCE on the basis of his style of writing.
> 
> He lived in Persia, modern day Iran. Legends say that his birth was predicted and that attempts were made by the forces of evil to kill him as a child. He preached a monotheism in a land which followed an aboriginal polytheistic religion. He was attacked for his teaching, but finally won the support of the king. Zoroastrianism became the state religion of various Persian empires, until the 7th Century CE.
> 
> When Arabs, followers of Islam, invaded Persia in 650 CE, a small number of Zoroastrians fled to India where most are concentrated today. Those who remained behind have survived centuries of persecution, systematic slaughter, forced conversion, heavy taxes, etc. They now number only about 18,000 and reside chiefly in Yazd, Kernan and Tehran in what is now Iran. The 1991 census counted 3,190 Zoroastrians in Canada. The actual number is believed to be much higher.
> 
> Zorastrian Sacred Text:
> The Zorastrian holy book is called the Avesta. This includes the original words of their founder Zarathushtra, preserved in a series of five hymns, called the Gathas. The latter represent the core text of the religion. The Gathas are abstract sacred poetry, directed towards the worship of the One God, understanding of righteousness and cosmic order, promotion of social justice and individual choice between good and evil. The Gathas have a general and even universal vision.
> 
> At some later date (most scholars say many centuries later), the remaining parts of the Avestas were written. These deal with laws of ritual and practice, with the traditions of the faith. The Zoroastrian community is sharply divided between those who would follow mostly (or exclusively) the teachings of the original Gathas, and those who believe that the later traditions are important and equally divinely inspired.
> 
> Zoroastrian Beliefs:
> Beliefs include:
> 
> A single god Ahura Mazda who is supreme. Communication between Himself and humans is by a number of Attributes, called Amesha Spentas or Bounteous Immortals. Within the Gathas, the original Zoroastrian sacred text, these Immortals are sometimes described as concepts, and are sometimes personified.
> One school of thought promotes a cosmic dualism between:  An all powerful God Ahura Mazda who is the only deity worthy of being worshipped, and
> An evil spirit of violence and death, Angra Mainyu, who opposes Ahura Mazda.
> 
> The resulting cosmic conflict involves the entire universe, including humanity who is required to choose which to follow. Evil, and the Spirit of Evil, will be completely destroyed at the end of time. Dualism will come to an end and Goodness will be all in all.
> 
> Another school of thought perceives the battle between Good and Evil as an ethical dualism, set within the human consciousness.
> Asha is a form of righteous, all encompassing, natural law.
> Legends, which are probably not those of Zarathushtra's original teachings are:  After death, the urvan (soul) is allowed three days to meditate on his/her past life. The soul is then judged by a troika Mithra, Sraosha and Rashnu. If the good thoughts, words and deeds outweigh the bad, then the soul is taken into heaven. Otherwise, the soul is led to hell.
> The universe will go through three eras:  creation;
> the present world where good and evil are mixed. People's good works are seen as gradually transforming the world towards its heavenly ideal;
> and a final state after this renovation when good and evil will be separated.
> 
> Eventually, everything will be purified. Even the occupants of hell will be released.
> 
> A Saoshyant (savior) will be born of a virgin, but of the lineage of the Prophet Zoroaster who will raise the dead and judge everyone in a final judgment.
> 
> Zoroastrian Practices:
> Their worship includes prayers and symbolic ceremonies.
> The rituals are conducted before a sacred fire. Some believe that they actually worship fire. This is not true. They regard fire as a symbol of their God.
> Zoroastrians do not generally accept converts. One has to be born into the religion. This belief is disputed by some members.
> The traditional wing of Zoroastrianism discourages and does not recognize inter-faith marriages. More details.
> Members are dedicated to a three-fold path, as shown in their motto: "Good thoughts, good words, good deeds."
> 
> References:
> Farhand Mehr, "The Zoroastrian Tradition", Element Books, (1991)
> Duchesne-Guilemin (translated by Henning), "Wisdom of the East" C.E. Tuttle (1992)
> Avesta -- Zoroastrian Archives is an extensive resource of Zoroastrian information at: http://www.avesta.org/avesta.html
> The Stanford University Zoroastrian Group maintains a home page with a large collection of links at: http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena/
> The Zoroastrian Association of Shiraz promotes the Zoroastrian religion, teachings and culture to the world at: http://shiraz.freeservers.com/
> The Ancient Iranian Cultural & Religious Research & Development Center maintains a Canadian web site to promote the teachings of Zarathushtra. See: http://www.ancientiran.com
> Dinyar's Zoroastrian Web Page is at: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/3417/
> Zoroastrian Home Page is part of the ReligionQuest.com home page. See:  http://www.religionquest.com/Zoroastrian_home.htm
> Twilit Grotto has an overview of the Avesta language, a Zoroastrian wedding ceremony, Zoroastrian scriptures and much more at: http://www.avesta.org/
> The Zoroastrianism Page has information on the Zoroastrian calendar, festivals and much more at: http://coulomb.ecn.purdue.edu/~bulsara/ZOROASTRIAN/



I didn't want to imply that the Hebrews were predated--what I had meant to say was at the time, the Hebrews were a pagan, polytheistic society at the time . . . .


----------



## Kane

> Zoroaster and Zarathustra are the same person



heheh, ok, my bad... not much of a linguist.



> The religion was founded by Zarathushtra (Zoroaster in Greek; Zarthosht in India and Persia). Conservative Zoroastrians assign a date of 6000 BCE to the founding of the religion; other followers estimate 600 BCE. Historians and religious scholars generally date his life sometime between 1500 and 1000 BCE on the basis of his style of writing.



This is basically a repeat of what I said, plus the unsubstantiated claim of originating in 6000 BCE.  His conservative followers assign a date of 6000 BCE, but if I were to make a similar claim about one of my statements you would deny it quickly for lack of evidence.  Historians and religious scholars date his life between 1500 and 1000 BCE, if this is the case, he couldn't have possibly founded teh religion in 6000 BCE now could he?

And as for your other claims?


----------



## LensmanZ313

I made an edit to that post, Kane. There are some theories that the Hebrews were polytheistic, being influenced heavily by the Canaanites . . . .


----------



## Kane

There is evidence to support that claim in the Bible.  As Moses is leading the Hebrews through the desert, there are more than one instances where he finds them worshiping idols and other Gods.  I believe this is one of Biblical reasons that God eventually let the Israelites be scattered among nations.


----------



## Achilles

Allow me to present another point that could be of interest.

The Bible is chock full of prophecy. Just take a look at Daniel, Revelation, Isaiah, or Jeremiah and you will see so. I feel that the biggest proof of the Bible's validity is the accuracy of these prophetic writings. From all the many foretellings of the future that are contained within its pages, not a single one has proven false. This is quite a claim I'm making, but take a look. Arguably no other book has ever made this claim.

Just something to think about.


----------



## LensmanZ313

What prophecies have come true?


----------



## Achilles

In the book of Daniel, King Nebuchadnezzar has a dream of an image made up of many different metals. You are probably familiar with it. The head of gold is ancient Babylon, the chest of silver is Greece, the thighs of bronze were Medo-Persia, the legs of iron were Rome. This provides a complete timeline of the world dynasties from then until now, which is represented in the feet of iron and clay mixed.

I believe that Isaiah is the one that foretells the coming of Jesus as "a lamb to the slaughter." He also states some of the trial that Jesus would have to go through; very accurate to the actual events as recorded in the gospels.

Jesus talks about the signs of the end in Matthew 24 (I think thats right). He includes the moon turning to blood, stars "falling" from heaven, and a day of darkness. Each of these events happened just as foretold.

This stuff is just off the top of my head and I may be able to find much more if I looked. I'm lazy right now   . If you want proof I think I could scrounge up something from Google. I don't claim to be any kind of Bible scholar by any measure, but this is what I believe. Much of it is left up to interpretation, and you are free to believe whatever you want. I'm just sharing what I know.

~Achilles


----------



## LensmanZ313

Okay. I'll bite. When has the moon turned to blood and what does it mean?


----------



## Achilles

This is where Revelation talks about the earthquake, dark day, and the moon turning to blood. Revelation 6:12: "And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood."

It is used in context of times of the end--another angel is opening another seal. I believe these to be signs of the end of time.

http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm360441.html
http://www.goatview.com/may19darkness1790.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon_earthquake

The earthquake mentioned is thought to be the Lisbon Earthquake on November 1, 1755. The other two happened on the same day (May 19, 1780)--Darkness during the day, and then the moon rose blood-red. Just some stuff to think about.


----------



## 17804

this may be off topic but i saw a program on the history chanel it was on the Bible Code any one ever see it?,it talked about how there was supposed to be hidden prophecy in the bible's text,for example the world is supposed to be hit by a comet in 2012


----------



## demented_1004

Webmaster said:
			
		

> There will never be another book as well written or as influential as the bible.


well said.


----------



## Kane

17804 said:
			
		

> this may be off topic but i saw a program on the history chanel it was on the Bible Code any one ever see it?,it talked about how there was supposed to be hidden prophecy in the bible's text,for example the world is supposed to be hit by a comet in 2012



I think that's the same one I saw.  It was pretty interesting.  The scientists were split as to whether it was intentional or not, though, which kind of sucked.


----------



## LensmanZ313

Sorry. The Bible Code is a hoax. Fraud. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Code). Here's a quote:



> The primary method by which purportedly meaningful messages are extracted is the Equidistant Letter Sequence (ELS). To obtain an ELS from a text, choose a starting point (any letter) and a skip (a number, possibly negative). Then, beginning at the starting point, select letters from the text at equal spacing as given by the skip. For example, the bold letters in this sentence form an ELS for the word SAFEST. (The skip is -4. Spaces and punctuation are ignored.)
> 
> Often more than one ELS related to some topic can be displayed simultaneously in an ELS letter array. This is produced by writing out the text in a regular grid, with exactly the same number of letters in each line, then cutting out a rectangle. In the example below, we show part of the King James edition of Genesis (26:5–10) with 33 letters per line. ELSs for BIBLE and CODE are shown. Normally only a smaller rectangle would be displayed, such as the rectangle drawn in the figure. In that case there would be letters missing between adjacent lines in the picture, but it is essential that the number of missing letters be the same for each pair of adjacent lines.



And later . . . .



> The primary objection advanced against Bible codes of the Drosnin variety is that similar patterns can be found in books other than the Bible. Although the probability of an ELS in a random place being a meaningful word is low, there are so many possible starting points and skips that many such words are expected to appear. Responding to an explicit challenge from Drosnin, who claimed that only the Bible could yield ELS, Australian mathematician Brendan McKay found many ELS letter arrays in Moby Dick that contain ELSs related to modern events. Other people, such as US physicist Dave Thomas, found other examples in many texts. In addition, Drosnin had used the flexibility of Hebrew orthography to his advantage, freely mixing classic (no vowels, Y and W strictly consonant) and modern (Y and W used to indicate i and u vowels) modes, as well as variances in spelling of K and T, to wrench out the desired meaning. In his television series John Safran vs God, Australian television personality John Safran worked with McCay to look for evidence of the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York in the lyrics of Vanilla Ice's repertoire.



I'll check out the Bad Astronomy boards . . . but many _real_ scientists--not those with degrees from degree mills--scoff at the "2012 predictions" and the comet stories.


----------



## Achilles

LensmanZ313 said:
			
		

> Australian mathematician Brendan McKay found many ELS letter arrays in Moby Dick that contain ELSs related to modern events.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If people take apart the Bible in mathmatical portions intending to find some sort of code, they are bound to do so. Any books can contain some freak of nature that people think is prophecy. The Bible Code is just a normal occurence.


----------



## ooghost1oo

Leave it to a post involving religion to spawn 5 pages of opinions.  Make the religious defend the bible and give them a chance to gently nudge conversion into the picture, and make the atheists feel they have to debunk its validity.

Looking at the bible objectively, as a piece of fiction, I've never been able to read through the whole thing.  It's very thick, and mostly boring.



> "This bible was placed here by a Gideon."
> When? I've been here all day.... what are these people, ninjas?
> Where are they from, Gidea?
> 
> I'm gonna catch me a gideon....
> 
> "hi ... yes ... I don't seem to have a bible in my room...."
> 
> (Bill Hicks)




Oh, btw.  This month (August 2005), Mars will be passing VERY close to Earth (because of Jupiter's gravitational pull), the closest it has been in 5000 years.  Its closest point will be at 12:30am on August 27th (not sure which time zone that is), and Mars will be as clear and as large as a full moon.  This won't happen again until 2287.  FYI.

Perhaps this is the moon turning to blood!  ... the end of the world is nigh!!


----------



## Hodge

> and Mars will be as clear and as large as a full moon.



No it won't. Mars is far too small and far too far away for this to happen. Venus is larger than Mars and closer to the Earth than Mars, and it has never been this large in the sky.

And that is a hoax as well. In 2003 it came close, apparently, but not this year.

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/mars-earth-close.html


----------



## ooghost1oo

I read the link.  Bummer.  That's too bad.

I thought it sounded a little unreasonable (as big as the moon), but who knows?  It could have been some effect of light refraction or something.

Just passing on the word.  Too bad it's a hoax.


----------



## journyman161

Jesus, I don't know why the Hell anyone would want god-forsaken quotes, even if it was a baptism of fire, because you're likely to be nailed to the cross if you do! Of course, you could pulll a pilate & rub your hands of any sacrificial omens & quote a few proverbs or sing a psalm while you wait for your personal garden of eden to arrive like some second coming. You don't have a prayer of avoiding the demons that come. You'd need the wisdom of solomon to carry your cross up that hill.
:grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:


----------

