Someone explain this to me please.

[kateyes]

I do not hold to the “voided out” view of the Old Testament. I believe the God of the Old Testament and the God of New Testament is the same Being. With that said it is our world view, bias, psychological state, presuppositions, and a bag load of other goodies that interpret the text of the Bible. So it is not so much that I think the text is without error, but rather the interpretation and meaning that we get from it that is without error. In many instances, it’s a distinction without a difference, but in other cases there is a major difference.

I agree with Victor--God is God-whether it is in the Old Testament or the New Testament. If there seems to be a difference between the two, I think the difference is in the view of the writer--and not in the view of the person. I obviously do not believe in the Bible inerrant. I think there are actions, events, and words in the Bible that are attributed to God--that should be attributed to the people and thier perceptions at the time. Wiping out a nation of rivals(down to babes in arms) is remarkably bloodthirsty--but becomes justified if you say you were acting on the word of God. Just as the view of a historical event changes with time and writers--so has the Bible and its descriptions of God changed.

Also as I understand it the correct translation of that specific commandment is "Thou shalt not commit murder"--which is different than killing. Semantics I know but such an easy errror.

 

[PeaceSeeker]

your last line there........... God has never and will never punish anyone.

and how do you KNOW this exactly?

The laws of nature dictate that supernaturalism can not interact with nature...so, no one has ever been punished by God on earth or God would be violating his own infallible laws...then, God is pure love and has given everyone free will how to live their life and decide whether to have their soul die or live eternally...anything else is illogical...no normal father punishes his adult children. As a backup there is also http://transcendentalists.org and http://urantia.us

 

[sandy whitelinger]

God has never and will never punish anyone.

Which god are you referring to?

 

[rocka21]

The laws of nature dictate that supernaturalism can not interact with nature...so, no one has ever been punished by God on earth or God would be violating his own infallible laws...then, God is pure love and has given everyone free will how to live their life and decide whether to have their soul die or live eternally...anything else is illogical...no normal father punishes his adult children. As a backup there is also http://transcendentalists.org and http://urantia.us

29For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

30And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

who does the casting here?

 

[Aasimar]

It's "Thou shalt not murder."

I've gotten this response quite a bit.
Murder is the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being by another. -"Wikpedia"
I'm going to assume since not murdering is god's intent, that the law murder would be refering to is his own. So it's ok for people to kill people, as long as God sanctioned it. He in fact orders people to do it as previously stated. I'm just clarifying here, God has a death penalty in his law book that we are to invoke. Which means if you literally believe the bible (Which we've established many people here do not) you should be killing me, well maybe not because it doesn't say kill people who dont' worship any gods, just to kill the ones who ask you to worship other gods.

So it is not so much that I think the text is without error, but rather the interpretation and meaning that we get from it that is without error.

Please never take anything I say as a personal attack, I am not intending anything to be as such, but I don't understand this statement at all. How many denominations of Christianity are there? They cannot all be right. This is the part I want someone to address, please.

A: The Bible cannot be taken literally. I think 99% of people agree with that, though I may be wrong. I don't see many Christians stoning Hindu's to death in the streets.

B: You interpretation of the Bible (You being whoever is reading this) is based on your own personal values, you do not kill people not because the Bible tells you not too (Since it clearly does), but because you personally think that this is wrong.

C: So you supersede the holy text with your own logic and morality. You already know what is right and wrong. If you follow the bible you have twisted morals by todays standards, killing you children, stoning people to death etc. If you do not follow the bible you clearly got your morals from somewhere else, so what is the purpose of the book in the first place?

D: This is the point I think most people will be upset with, so bear with me. I believe that religion is extremely detrimental to society. Note that I said religion, not philosophy or morality. It is the supernatural element that is dangerous. You cannot reason with someone who believe their actions will entitle them to everlasting life. Now 99.9% of the time this is just a nuisance, but every once in awhile someone gets killed over it. Islam is a much much better example of this, I don't pretend to be knowledgable on the Koran, But there is a passage I know of:

"Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whoever fights for the cause of God , whether he dies or triumphs, We shall richly reward him... The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan... Say: "Trifling are the pleasures of this life. The hereafteris better for those who would keep from evil... " - Koran 4:74-78

Now we aren't supposed to denounce Islam because it's a religion, I would be murdered if I went on TV and said that Islam was a horrible religion and a terrible influence on people. But right there, it states murdering infidels (That's you christians, and me as an agnostic) will give them rich rewards in heaven. How is this not a terribly dangerous thing to teach people? Again I have written to long and my train of thought is derailing, so I'm gonna end this post

 

[des]

The way I look at it is this. Yes I pick and chose. Of course, I don't consider myself traditionally or typically Christian. But I pick and chose which I think is wisdom and which I don't. I believe there are many sacred texts that have wisdom in them and the Bible is one of these. But I don't think of any of this in a literalist sort of way. The way i pick and chose has to do with ideas that seem to be universal in some way (certainly stoning "infidels" would not be one of these!!), that which is morally consistant (stoning "infidels' wouldn't come in there either), etc. IOW, I use my own understanding and reason to figure this sort of thing out. There are various sources of wisdom and I consider them these, not in this order necessarily:
"scripture" (this would be broadly taken to mean sacred writing but perhaps great writing regardless of the supposed sacredness of them, for instance Shakespeare, etc.), nature, reason, etc.

I don't agree that the NT makes the Hebrew Bible sort of null and void. It's another set of books that have their own wisdom and also some aspects that are troubling to me as well (say some of Paul's comments re: women).

I actually believe that most people nowadays pick and chose, they might not admit to it though I haven't found too many people who believe that rabbits have cleft hoofs, or that you shouldn't mix your fabrics, say.

--des

 

[James the Persian]

Those of us whose churches pre-date the Reformation, like Victor and myself, certainly do not view the Bible in the way you assume (the 'it's the basis of the faith' view is distinctly Protestant) and nor do we make our interpretations based, to any large degree, on personal views. There is some room for the latter, but mostly we rely on 2000 years of Holy Tradition, Tradition which pre-dates and formed the Biblical canons (there's more than one even today) and without which interpretation of Scripture leads to schism after schism and the chaos of the non-RC west. Insistance on the 'Bible alone' in the last 500 years has prodiced thousands of denominations whereas in the previous 1500 years there were only two major schisms and the three resulting churches are far more similar to each other, despite up to 1500 years of separation, than many of the Protestant groups are to others from the same movement. Criticise away, but you're really only criticising Protestant Christianity if you insist on going by Scripture alone (and yes even Judaism has an oral tradition alongside the Scripture).

James

 

[NoahideHiker]

Okay, now I know religion is always touchy, and taboo, and you aren't allowed to challenge someones beliefs, for some reason religion is not open for criticism in the public view, even though thousands upon thousands of people die because of it's teachings. This may sound harsh on the Bible, but if this were say, a math textbook, and it spelled out laws that totally contradicted each other (i.e. 1 + 1 = 2 and later in the book 1 + 1 = 0) I would have to say that it was either a typo or dismiss the text as faulty. Bible inconsistencies are far too numerous to consider to be typos, so I would have to dismiss the text as faulty. So since I cannot trust the bible, being as it's texts are outdated and obsolete, and there is no new bible coming down anytime soon, I must just choose to lead a moral life. I don't understand where the whole god concept comes from. I like to think I'm a moral person, I don't kill people, I don't steal, I try not to cause unnecessary irritation to others, etc. Why is God acceptable while Yggdrasil, Thor, Loki, Baldur, Zeus, Poseidon, etc. are all considered to be ridiculous. Some of the philosophy of Christianity is good, some is not. Why is it neccessary for people to claim knowledge of that which is not yet known. There is no concrete evidence for any of this, and boatloads of evidence which contradicts it. The earth is not approximately 6000 years old, etc. etc. I know this sounds like an "I hate religion rant" but it's really not, it's frustration. The belief (Or knowledge, if you think that) of an afterlife is an extremely dangerous notion, causing far more harm than good. How do you reason with someone who is convinced that the "Next life" will be better than this one. More importantly, I have been told by many people that the bible is more of a moral code, with words of wisdom. There are countless texts with wisdom and consolation in them (Homer, Aristotle) yet nobody murdered 1000's of people over them. This is turning into a rant and I'm losing my focus, so I'm gonna just end this post and consolidate my thoughts, not trying to be hateful but I do tend to say things as I see them. Thanks

The answer is quite simple but with an attitude like that it would seem your only interest is trying to play gotcha games. I don't think any answer will be satisfying to you except maybe, "Gee you're right. I'm such an a@@hat for having believed in the bible.".

By all means, languish on in your self-imposed ignorance. :beach:

 

[porkchop]

Too many people take the Bible literally, which is a dangerous thing seeing that there are so many translations of it. Like RevOxley said, stick to the version that guides us how to live a good life.

Don't you mean " stick to a version which most suits what you believe at the moment and what you want it to say?"


And taking the Bible literally is a bad thing, why?
When you were taught to read did you, after finishing the book tell the teacher that it wasnt really about topsy and tim going shopping because really they were going on a spiritual journey and the shop represented it??? This whole "don't take it literally" stuff is soooo daft, well, to me anyhow!

* in case anyones offended by this, i am not in the best of moods and that is my defence! and i would stick to that if taken to court!*:yes:

 

[Aasimar]

By all means, languish on in your self-imposed ignorance. :beach:

First off, thanks for making this a personal attack. I don't really see how I'm playing gotcha games, this is a debate forum. Debates are opposing sides presenting their case and trading information so they can better understand the position of someone else, to the intellectual benefit of all. I don't expect to convert someone from whatever they believe, I'm curious about peoples views on these things.

The answer is quite simple

Pray tell, what is the answer then?

 

[FatMan]

Don't you mean " stick to a version which most suits what you believe at the moment and what you want it to say?"

Sure - that works too. Since that is really all anyone who tries to live by the bible can do, unless they speak perfect Aramic or they have a version that was translated by somebody perfectly.

What's better, living a life directly as YOU believe the Bible to read and admonishing those who don't, or living a life based on the broad principles the Bible alludes to and not giving a crap if others don't? I choose the latter. If people don't live their life by the Bible, it doesn't bother me one bit. Why should it? I'm neither God nor Jesus and won't pretend to be.

 

[PeaceSeeker]

...30And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

who does the casting here?

The writer's imagination.

 

[PeaceSeeker]

Which god are you referring to?

GOD PROCLAIMS​

​

I am God, the God from the beginning of God. ​

I did not come from nowhere. ​

I play no magic tricks on man. ​

I did not create the earth by casting spells.​

I had a humble beginning the same as man;​

My beginning was at the dawn of spirituality.​

My wisdom grows as more spirits unite ​

After the cessation of life after much physical strife. ​

Throughout time I have been named God, ​

Allah, Jehovah, The Great Spirit, and many more.​

I do not judge man for his vanity or naivety ​

To be the one who claims to please me the most. ​

I am easy to please. I require very little. ​

I only want you to do what is best for mankind.​

I will bless you and wish you well. ​

I will inspire your mind and you will ​

Accomplish the unfathomable.​

I require no worship. I need nothing from man. ​

I am self sufficient. I am spirit.​

​

Develop your spirit wisely, the best that you can. ​

Live your life for the betterment of man. ​

Your spirit will soon be with me and then ​

Together we will see and traverse the universe. ​

There are many wonders to behold, ​

Your spirit will soar. ​

You will partake in all the wisdom ​

That has been gathered from the beginning of time. ​

The stars will be your playground. ​

You can play with the animals, ​

Be with your loved ones, ​

Listen to the greatest opera, ​

Stage or musical performances, ​

Or you can just relax next to a bubbling brook ​

And enjoy the scenery. ​

You feel no pain, despair, ​

Heartache, or negative emotions. ​

You are now One with me.​

You are with God my child.​

 

[porkchop]

Sure - that works too. Since that is really all anyone who tries to live by the bible can do, unless they speak perfect Aramic or they have a version that was translated by somebody perfectly.

It's really not worth getting into the whole Bible translation thing with you as i already see your answer.

What's better, living a life directly as YOU believe the Bible to read and admonishing those who don't, or living a life based on the broad principles the Bible alludes to and not giving a crap if others don't? I choose the latter.

So it has to be one or the other?

If people don't live their life by the Bible, it doesn't bother me one bit. Why should it?

It wouldnt bother you, of course not, cause youre not yet saved and i hope one day you will be, then it will bother you cause you will care.

I'm niether God nor Jesus and won't pretend to be.

shocker!

 

[sandy whitelinger]

GOD PROCLAIMS​

I am God, the God from the beginning of God.
I did not come from nowhere.
I play no magic tricks on man.
I did not create the earth by casting spells.
I had a humble beginning the same as man;
My beginning was at the dawn of spirituality.
My wisdom grows as more spirits unite
After the cessation of life after much physical strife.
Throughout time I have been named God,
Allah, Jehovah, The Great Spirit, and many more.
I do not judge man for his vanity or naivety
To be the one who claims to please me the most.
I am easy to please. I require very little.
I only want you to do what is best for mankind.
I will bless you and wish you well.
I will inspire your mind and you will
Accomplish the unfathomable.
I require no worship. I need nothing from man.
I am self sufficient. I am spirit.​

Develop your spirit wisely, the best that you can.
Live your life for the betterment of man.
Your spirit will soon be with me and then
Together we will see and traverse the universe.
There are many wonders to behold,
Your spirit will soar.
You will partake in all the wisdom
That has been gathered from the beginning of time.
The stars will be your playground.
You can play with the animals,
Be with your loved ones,
Listen to the greatest opera,
Stage or musical performances,
Or you can just relax next to a bubbling brook
And enjoy the scenery.
You feel no pain, despair,
Heartache, or negative emotions.
You are now One with me.

You are with God my child.​

I din't think you meant the God of the Bible.

 

[PeaceSeeker]

I din't think you meant the God of the Bible.

Sandy, there is only one God...but in order to understand this you must realize that all Holy Books (Torah, Bible , Koran) were written by fallible, conditioned men about the same God and about what God said...maybe if they were written by women like you they would have less fantacies in them...and...If you'd like me to point out numerous irrationalities in the Bible, I will oblige...but I'd rather have you stand by your beliefs and if you live righteously, your soul will spend eternity with your...and even my God.

 

[Quiddity]

Please never take anything I say as a personal attack, I am not intending anything to be as such, but I don't understand this statement at all. How many denominations of Christianity are there? They cannot all be right. This is the part I want someone to address, please.

Not taking it as a personal attack at all, so no worries...

Since I don't subscribe to the idea that all Christian denominations are right, I can only allow those who do, to answer your question. In my opinion, there is very few (Roman Catholcism, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox) that can claim to be legitimate successors and protectors of that which is Chirstian. Chuck out history and your pretty much left with over 32,000 denominations to pick from.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Sandy, there is only one God...

This must be your own opinion.

...maybe if they were written by women like you...

Those are fight'n words bub.

 

[Aasimar]

This might take this topic of at a tangent, but this is something that fascinates me. I see this all the time - from what i'm reading it looks like you choose an agnostic outlook after rejecting the Bible and Christianity, is this true?

Did you ever look into other concepts people have about God, or do you simply see it as a choice between the Christian God and no God?

Because Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Shinto, Gnosticism, Wicca and other pagan/neo-pagan religions have totally different concepts of God, that in many cases don't suffer from the problems, such as those outlined in the OP, of the Christian/Biblical God.
So i'm curious as to how you decided upon agnosticism, and whether this decision was based upon a broad, multi-religious understanding of God, or a narrower Judeo-Christian one?

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I didn't notice you post for some reason

Your assumption is correct, I was raised protestant. I was a Jehovah's Witness at one time (By default, because my mother became one.) But most of my childhood my family was non-denominational protestant. I have looked into other religions, briefly at shinto, very much at Taoism and Buddhism, and I see a great many beautiful insights into these religions. However, every belief in this world save religion is based on reason. For example, I believe that my father loves me. This is not because of blind faith, I have seen evidence in my life that dictates this conclusion to me. To me, common sense applies in nearly every aspect of life, I have not ever been presented with a reason that would make me believe based on my knowledge of the world that any supreme being exists. This is not to say that one does not exist (Agnostic :0) but being as it is supposed to be a supernatural phenomenon and thus beyond the realm of human understanding, it would be impossible to understand. I tend to single out the God of Abraham because he is the one I am most familiar with. Another big big issue I have with christianity is why are we so special? Earth is basically an insignifigant speck in the scope of the universe, Hundreds of Thousands of Billions of starts and planets and cosmic phenomena, all the possibilities, but God cares about who I sleep with? The Islamic god is concerned about the clothing women wear? I will admit I have a great deal of respect for eastern religion. Buddhism is an extremely beautiful and insightful religion, with many actual benefits in it's teachings. Buddhists have been oppressed in Tibet for centuries by China, yet they do not strap bombs to their chests and take out Chinese buildings. Why? Because it is not taught in their doctrine, while may warriors (Such as the Samurai of Japan) were buddhist, they did not kill in the name of their religion, they killed in spite of their religion. Christianity and Islam actually ask their followers to kill people, nay they demand it. And they have, and history has shown that. As usual, I'm slowly turning this post into a rant, so now I stop

 

[James the Persian]

It wouldnt bother you, of course not, cause youre not yet saved and i hope one day you will be, then it will bother you cause you will care.

Very Christian attitude. Of course, I would agree with you that he isn't saved because nobody in this life is - but thatmeans you and I aren't saved either. Not yet. However, as I know what you mean by the term which is to say that you are accusing a self-confessed Christian of not being one, I can only protest. Judge not lest ye be judged. If I were you I'd consider that the next time you pray the Lord's Prayer

Buddhists have been oppressed in Tibet for centuries by China, yet they do not strap bombs to their chests and take out Chinese buildings. Why? Because it is not taught in their doctrine, while may warriors (Such as the Samurai of Japan) were buddhist, they did not kill in the name of their religion, they killed in spite of their religion. Christianity and Islam actually ask their followers to kill people, nay they demand it.

Christianity does not demand violence. To suggest anything of the kind merely displays your ignorance of the faith. It's particularly galling to see you continuing to spout this tripe after our interraction yesterday. It seems as though the poster who accused you of languishing in self-inflicted ignorance might have had a point as it seems your ignorance is wilfull. You're also pretty ill-informed about the eastern religions it seems. Most samurai subscribed to Shinto, not Buddhism (and some were Christian) and there have, indeed, been Buddhists who killed in the name of their religion (including a cult in Japan, incidentally). In this respect Buddhism ( and I'm an ex-Buddhist who still has a soft spot for the faith before you accuse me of bias) is no different to Christianity. Both faiths teach very forcefully against killing and anyone who does kill contradicts the teachings of their faith (except in exceptional circumstances - and yes these apply to Buddhists also). Both faiths have a mixed history of adherence to those teachings very closely in some places and periods and the occasional rise of religious leaders who twisted their faiths to justify violence. The difference, then, between Buddjhism and Christianity with respect to warfare is one of quantity, not quality. The medieval abuses of the RCC were on a much larger scale, but they were no more representative of Christian faith than Buddhist attrocities committed elsewhere.

James