Topic: The Corporate Christian Machine
started by: Steel_Samurai
Posted by Steel_Samurai on Jul. 11 2002,14:58
Last night, on AIM, a friend tells me that this girl that has been a thorn in our collective side is back and is trying to 'bring him closer to God'. It seems that, in an attempt to take her own life, she found God instead (cliche anyone?).Anyways, she starts going on and on about whether or not my friend really knows God, blah, blah, blah it's the same kinda story you hear from any other tele-evangelist.
She goes on and on for some time recycling the same spiel, acting if he was of the Godless persuasion (which he isn't) all the while, she's just proving more and more that she's become a brainwashed clone of commercial christianity. Is it just me or is the Christian faith the most advertised religion??? You've never seen the Shinto Network or The 700 Club: Bhuddist Edition because they don't care about advertising as much as christians do. Until recently I was a firm believer in christianity as a religion, not as an organization. My girlfriend mentioned to me about a month ago that she didn't believe in God anymore and I accept that. Unlike the brainwashed child from the paragraph above, I didn't try and push my religion on her, I accepted it. After that, I really wasn't too terribly comfortable believeing in a religion that tells me that my girlfriend is gonna burn for eternity. So I questioned my own faith and realized that I had becomed disillusioned long ago, but failed to realize it. Considering my own faith incorporated other aspects of other religions, I had something to fall back on.
I'm just gonna stick to karma and reincarnation
Pushing religion on people is a dangerous game...
Posted by joelthegreat on Jul. 11 2002,15:23
| Quote (Steel_Samurai @ 11 July 2002,08:58) |
| I didn't try and push my religion on her, I accepted it. |
That's good, I hate religous pushers...
I am a Christian but I will not force it on others...to each their own. But don't let bible thumpers give you bad thoughts about the religion. The tv pastors and such, I beleive, have it wrong, and are not helping much with the religion. Anyways....I lost my train of thought and i had something else to say...hmmm.
| Quote |
| Pushing religion on people is a dangerous game... |
SO is pushing Anvil's on people! HA HA...?
Posted by Wolfguard on Jul. 11 2002,15:30
i never knew god was lost...
Posted by Steel_Samurai on Jul. 11 2002,15:53
It's not that I have anything against Christianity. What I have a problem is the way in which it's packaged and mass-marketed these days.I guess what I'm trying to convey is that the modern day Christian faith in general (exceptions are made) is trying to do what the catholic bishops did in the middle ages and convince the public that the only to get to heaven and escape hell is to read the bible cover to cover numerous times, go to church twice a week without failure, and (remember, generally) throw their religion on all those around them, regardless of what they feel and believe. Any discretion on any of these points and you're not a 'true' christian. I didn't go to church very often, but I prayed every night. I respected God (note: I still do) and that, IMO, was what people needed to focus on rather than the church organization, as most do.
It needs less flashy lights and more focus on the principles of the religion itself.
Granted, there are many who do that, but they're outnumbered by the Christian Corporate Machine
Posted by Crafty Butcher on Jul. 11 2002,16:11
religion sucks. faith is powerful. God is whoever i decide he is. as for spanners, look around, there are thousands. the ideas that televangelism espouses are such a terrible mix of the populist and fundamentalist theology that it is very easy to explain someone who's really trying it on, what a bunch of crap they believe and what a cobbled together mix of pagan superstition a lot of christianity is (say, all you shepherds on the hill, minding your flocks, being appeared to by angels, and bringing gifts to 'the king'. are you the same guys from the day Mithras was born roughly 1000 yrs earlier? geez, what a coincidence) i don't have an issue with christianity per se. i have a problem with dogma and the control that is exerted through dogma. religion relies on dogma. faith does not.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 11 2002,16:22
Faith = good. Sometimes it is the only thing that can make life livable.Religion = bad. This is what happens when a bunch of people get together and say that their "common" faith is the best one out there. I say "common" because it isn't possible for everyone, even in a small group, to have the exact same faith. It always varies slightly from person to person because of life experiences, intelligence, family background, geographic location, etc.
Posted by Necromancer on Jul. 11 2002,23:05
lifes a bit of a fucked up thing really either way you're either sent to oblivion when you die aka athiesm or you live forever which is something i couldnt handle because can you try to imagine never EVER dieing you'd run ou of stuff to do.and seeing as the universe will end no matter what buddism's reincarnation is pretty much fucked as well.
the only thing i've managed to logically figure out is that possibly the universe recollapses and starts again which isnt a probem because time simply restarts.
Posted by Wiley on Jul. 11 2002,23:18
| Quote (Necromancer @ 11 July 2002,15:05) |
| the only thing i've managed to logically figure out is that possibly the universe recollapses and starts again which isnt a probem because time simply restarts. |
Hence the Buddhist view of reincarnation.
Basically, matter cannot be created or destroyed so everything will exist again ...the only way to avoid having to live again and again is to transend the physical world and become enlightened. Your concience moves on while the physical body is left with the rest of the physical world to be broken down and rebuild for eternity.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 11 2002,23:35
Personally, I don't want to live forever. It would get boring after the first few thousand years. I know this much, the human psycie was not ment to live for more than 80-100 years. You go beyond that and things get weird. What I would prefer is to be able to live as pure thought, but mortal thought (ie, when I'm all done living, I just stop existing). That way, I could go anywhere in the universe. If I wanted to see some cool cosmic event, I could slow my thinking and let time go by me at a faster pace. Wouldn't it be cool to watch the rise and fall of an entire civilation in 15 minutes? Anyway, in the end, if the universe doesn't collapse and start over again, it will just become one big, empty, dead place. I think I read that some scientists had conclused that 70% of the universe is dark matter, so we won't collapse but keep expanding.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 11 2002,23:42
I have no problem with Christians in general, but I definately agree that there are a lot of Christian groups out there that are god damn obnoxious.Buddhism doesn't need any advertising. It sells itself. The really neat thing about it is that Buddhist philosophy and practices can easily contribute to any religion.
Buddhism has all kinds of philosophical texts. But it can still be summed up in three words: "Calm down. Think."
Plus it has the coolest figurehead of any religion:
Stoked!
Posted by Necromancer on Jul. 11 2002,23:46
the thing is the universe is at risk of ending up as pure energy which is also kind of ok but still weird. im ean everything existing just as radiation 
i find islam the most fucked up really all the others are relitively ok but islam is still stuck in the stonage
Posted by Steel_Samurai on Jul. 12 2002,00:14
Darth is right (of course) Bhuddism does sell it itself. Who the hell wouldn't wanna be in such a relaxed and peaceful atmosphere that bhuddists exude.I'm seriously thinking of switching to Bhuddism.
Posted by Nikita on Jul. 12 2002,00:55
| Quote (Darth Liberus @ 11 July 2002,18:42) |
|
GET IN MAH BELLAY!
sorry ... Austin Powers marathon on TV a few days back ... Frenchies are still quoting it. Amazing how much of that hullaballoo they remember ... maybe it's because they watched both a second time after I left ...
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 12 2002,04:08
Buddhism is remarkably intact after so long, but I'm not one.Respect.
Honestly ask whatever God is to make His (its) presence
known to you on an occasion and it will happen.
Posted by Marauder on Jul. 15 2002,03:04
Being a Christian myself, i've gotta throw my two cents in. There are some types of Christian that just break me out in hives.1.) "Hippie Christians" - Always happy, only emotion they have. Seem stoned, but they'd never toke up.
2.) "Popular Christians" - Always pushing pop Christian music, always talking about Christianity and how it makes them so euphoric. They buy into the culture this thread mentions so often in a big way.
3.) "Not-Quite Christians" - People who think the fact that they can say "Oh, MY god" is an excuse to wear a crucifix necklace, which is what they were after in the first place.
4.) "Bigot Christians" - Out to flaunt their beliefs in some manifestation of their little-big man complex, they pick fights with anyone possible just to talk about their own religion.
-and the ones I loathe most, and possibly the most internally dangerous-
5.) "Creative Christians" - Think that they need to 'renovate' worship services with new music and worship norms. Big into pop Christian culture, they see the need to paste a fluffy, perfect Christianity everywhere. Most often fit into 1 or 2 as well.
Yes, there are people in my own church I just can't take. I don't think it's a bad thing that I dislike them; they seem fake and shallow, two of the worst characteristics possible in my book.
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 15 2002,03:13
M, can you forgive them their faults?I ask this in all seriousness.
.
Posted by Marauder on Jul. 15 2002,03:39
Yes, I can. I mean, if I can't forgive them for acting as they do, who will forgive me for being a grouch on bad days, eh?The thing that gets me is that I feel their conduct is the single greatest discouragement and ridicule that the church has. That's the main reason they get me: some of their behaviors seem to either speak ill of the church or present it in an unfavorable light - which in religion is worse than just a few company employees goofing off at Chili's. I mean, the Church is an outreach organization, and we want people to be open to the idea of visiting.
That, and I think that the people who are trying to remake worship services are hurting the church badly: A lot of churches are splitting nowadays, and I think this is because the changes bother the more conservative people, who see church in the old-fashioned way and would rather just discontinue their attendance and go somewhere else without raising a fuss. Thus a vocal minority causes most of the congregation to leave. But that's my theory which could be wrong, so I give them the benefit of the doubt. It's definitely a symptom of whatever's happening.
But as for forgiving, yes, I can. Heck, some things I do would probably grate on them something awful too.
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 15 2002,03:52
Your last sentence is what I was looking for.
Posted by Nikita on Jul. 15 2002,03:57
Marauder, totally agree with you there. Churches are filled with a few good, but a hell of a lot of the crazy ones that you listed.I don't go to church anymore. If I do, I'll just lose whatever I have left of my faith - which isn't exactly robust right now. Church just has a bad tendency of driving me away - mostly the fake and shallowness of a lot of people there.
I don't claim to be perfect and living the "ideal", but at least I don't have my head stuck in the clouds or listen to (brainwashing?) christian music and nothing else. I don't have a narrow perspective/mind - I may not agree with a few things some of my friends do, but I don't preach or damn them to hell.
I like to go out and have fun. I go to clubs and enjoy dancing with friends. I don't want to stay indoors listening to some guy play the guitar, listen to off-key singing, read songs (that have lost their meaning thru repetition) off the projector screen. I don't want to be assaulted with emails/phone calls when I don't show up one sunday. I don't want to be a freakin'
It's the way you live your life, not how many church bake sales you attend or how many bibles you have shoved up/down a random orifice of an "unbeliever".
Oh yea, and there's the group that take the bible word for word, can't apply it to their life, and seek to saturate their lives/homes/minds with christianity and christianity alone, won't listen to your problems but are only interested in your soul, always say "just pray about it" ... probably just a mix of a few of the groups listed.
Posted by Vigilante on Jul. 15 2002,04:46
The only thing that turns me off to Christianity more than Christians is the Christian God.
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 15 2002,04:53
what is presented to you by the corrupt m3dia as the christian God.
Ask himself (its self) to manifest itself to you.
I dare you.
be sincere if you do it.
there will be a result presently.
Posted by humanoid on Jul. 15 2002,04:54
i guess i was born a Christian. i don't exactly believe in a god. i find something worth fighting for if it was taken away and stick to that. that probly doesnt make sense but it's my way of thinking.
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 15 2002,04:59
"I was born a Christian but I don't believe in God."kay.
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 15 2002,05:02
H, "uber etc" was used about until a month ago by a member who chose to end his life; Uberlurker.I think you're ok now,but be cautious.
"Uber" means a lot here.
Posted by humanoid on Jul. 15 2002,05:07
sorry, i didn't know. i think i'll edit that out.
Posted by blanalex on Jul. 15 2002,05:12
Note: technically, i'm a christian, but i never prayed, i never go to church, etcI don't beleive in religion. I don't need one. I can't understand why the humans are so pretentious to say the our soul, our mind is so important that we absolutely create something fictious and believe in it, so that it won't be wasted when we die.
I can be a good guy, with good values, etc without adhering to christianism, or as a matter of fact, to any religion. Religions are only a way to package philosophies and values together, the whole thing associated with some guy (or gal). I want to explore my own life philosophies (ex. the one the when to body dies, there's no kind of after live) and values (ex.: be good overall, share with the less fortunates, etc).
If what I believe in happens to match one religion, so be it, but it is only a coincidence. I don't want any kind of "package deal" on life philosophies and moral values, I'll grow my own.
Posted by Necromancer on Jul. 15 2002,17:26
so technically you're not a chritsian then.
Posted by blanalex on Jul. 15 2002,17:32
| Quote (Necromancer @ 15 July 2002,04:26) |
| so technically you're not a chritsian then. |
Well yes i'm a christian because I've been baptized and all, but I don't beleive in it.
Posted by Necromancer on Jul. 15 2002,18:51
erm i got my christian license therefore i am legally a christian.no you're not if you dont beleive in it. beleiving in it is one of those little things thats a requirement don't you know. baptism isnt.
Posted by Jynx on Jul. 16 2002,23:28
I used to really believe in Christianity, for a small variety of reasons; went to a church where, no kidding, almost everyone was like family (the good kind).Then I found < This Link >.
Now all I am is confused an an outsider in my own life.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 17 2002,00:28
| Quote (Marauder @ 14 July 2002,19:04) |
| 5.) "Creative Christians" - Think that they need to 'renovate' worship services with new music and worship norms. Big into pop Christian culture, they see the need to paste a fluffy, perfect Christianity everywhere. Most often fit into 1 or 2 as well. |
Posted by The_Stomper on Jul. 17 2002,07:37
After many years of searching, I've found Jesus.He's in my trunk.
Posted by Necromancer on Jul. 17 2002,17:19
having grown up in a christian family i can agree that christains (the normal kind) are great to be around because they don't take the piss they're all extremly freindly and i've always felt like i'm welcome. BUT and this is a big but. i've always felt awkward because all of them assumed i belived what they did. i spent most of my life just going along with it and just avoiding all the times where you had to do the christian stuff like praying and all that stuff. going on holiday to christian camp sites was the worst because you had all these worship groups for the different age groups. we all some fun stuff but it all came round to the whole how does this relate to god thing at the end. the worst one i ever went to was in wales. they had a performance thing where you did plays poems or whatever. i chose to do some poems that for that age were damn funny. course they had to be christain related and i didnt know that so i ended up having to do a recital of that valley of death crap. (got a letter asking for me to write a prayer after i got home which i threw in the bin). they even tried to get everyone to talk in tongues which i just faked cos how can you MAKE people do that. and the worst part was some guy saying condoms didnt work exploring your sexuality was wrong. in fact sex outside your marriage was gonna make you go to hell. this guy pretty much fucked up my life by somehow calling me out of everyone else ,JUST ME to talk with him and just kept pushing me to admit i'd been bullied when i hadn't. he pushed me to tears cos i was only like 10 at the time he saw that as just me admitting that i had been. i met ONE person, ONE that i became freinds with on that entire holiday becuase he and i were the only people to not buy into all the propoganda crap they were feeding us.so i've seen both sides of christianity. some of them are extremly dangerous because there were thousands of kids at that particlular camp site and they were all buying into the stuff they were dishing out, which was all completely different to the people from my parents church who also went who were always understanding and understood that i was too young to accept everything they were teaching the congregation. places like that have really fucked with my head and made me sceptical about a lot of things.
and it pisses me off cos i'd be quite happy to live in ignorance cos at least then mortality wouldnt be scary the shit out of me every fucking day and my head wouldnt be so screwed up.
Posted by Marauder on Jul. 17 2002,20:52
Jynx, here's where you went wrong: anything talking about the 'historical' bible is AUTOMATICALLY a modern attempt to rewrite the Bible(or portions thereof) to fit modern secular views. It's an attempt to cut down religion so that nonbelievers can cope with the idea. Never read that crap. Read the Bible, and think about what it says. It's not as twisted as people want you to believe. Heck, archeologists follow it to new finds all the time.But yeah, a lot of the sentiment around here's been about the worst side of Christianity, which I feel is probably the most visible part with all the 'popular' christian stuff going on. Just remember, there are the people who are serious about it, and they dislike some of the new stuff just as badly as you do.
Posted by Jynx on Jul. 17 2002,22:00
Marauder - actually, I am reading the Bible, and it's really the only reference for me - been through the NT about twice, and working my way through the OT. Here is my basic dilemma, in fun conversational format:Christian: Don't you see that Christianity is right?
Me: Why?
Christian: The Bible is a perfect set of documents, describing the absolute love of an unchanging God, and his son.
Me: Perfect, huh?
Christian: Yes, and therefore divinely inspired - no human has yet to make a book without at least a few mistakes. Besides, read and pray, and you will feel His power.
Me: Wow. Okay.
::Time passes, I enter the church, read and stuff.::
Me: Well, I like most of what is said here, but....
Christian: Your doubts come from the Devil! Read and pray, and they will go away.
Me: But wait - you can only go to heaven if you're a Christian, right? And some people even feel that you can only go to heaven if you're baptized in this faith, right?
Christian: That's right. Everyone gets exposure to Our Christianity at least once in their life, so everyone has a chance to be saved.
Me (thinks): Yeah, right.
::More time passes, as my doubts rise.::
My basic problem is this: Christianity is based on the idea that the Bible is an accurate historical document relating the life and miracles of the Children of Israel, and then Jesus. However, if you read the link that I previously posted, you will find two major problems:
- many events in the Bible do not coincide with actual historical evidence. This includes the fact that there is no solid evidence, outside of the Bible, that Jesus existed in the biblical form. The link has much more on this.
- The Bible is not without several errata. So, the position that I assumed was true (since everyone in the faith believed it), that the Bible was flawless, is a false one. Therefore, to me, a very large cornerstone of my faith has been removed.
Gotta get back to work, more on this subject later. In the meantime, I await any and all comments with baited breath.
Posted by Necromancer on Jul. 17 2002,22:40
take a leaf from the hagakure/buddismlife and death are the same thing
"every morning without fail one should consider themselves as dead"
Posted by Marauder on Jul. 18 2002,04:38
Jynx -There really IS evidence outside the Bible. It comes from(If I recall correctly) a greek or roman who was running kind of a chronicle of his times. His name was Josephus, and he mentions the Christians at least, if not Christ himself. Also, manuscripts we have show Roman officials referring to a riots revolving around the death of a 'Chrestus,' which could be Christ. So yeah, there's some around. Not that the people going for the 'historical' truth would consider them.
Seems you're looking at scripture. I think that's really cool, since most people don't look that far into things. Since you're looking into it that hard, perhaps I can offer advice.
Talk to someone about it, and make a real informed decision.
;----Advice----
As for your comment on 'everybody must be a christian and gets exposed' conflict, that bothered me too. Or it did, until recently. There's some stuff in Romans that makes me think that God's a bit more pragmatic about things than that, but it's not very clear exactly what they mean.
And to the contact with the difficult-to-stand christian from your examples, perhaps you're going to the wrong ones. Remember that there's a lot of denominations and groups; you can pick and choose. Weigh what they say and hwo they really are, etc.
If you're looking for help looking at the scripture, remember to talk to a teacher in a church, and somebody who you can probably stand. We don't all know too much about the scriptures themselves, and teachers probably have better answers and know better where to find them(They'll be tickled pink that you came to talk to them for help on it). As for help scripturally, I'd recommend looking up the denomination that I attend. They tend to be scripture-oriented thinkers, and a bit less...crazy. I can't vouch for every congregation, since some churches that claim the denomination's name teach radically different stuff, but check out the Church of Christ denomination if you're looking into it. And the teacher bit's important. And don't let people tell you how to think of things(not that I think you would), but ask for help on topics and interpretations on certain verses; line up your questions, list them if you want. And go in thinking.
;---No More Advice----
Okay, I'm through bugging you with that.
But if the Bible is perfect for us, I'll eat my hat. It's tough stuff, and even the most knowledgable professors at my private college can't even claim to be able to tell you everything. And I've got one so old, I'd swear he was there when Paul was writing...
Posted by Jynx on Jul. 19 2002,00:48
Marauder - First off, I appreciate the conversation. Second off, I would respectfully request that you check out that link, really -- among other things, it lists several very good books on the matter.
To attend to your points:
Josephus is the name you're looking for. Lemme quote for you:
| Quote |
| ...the only somewhat reliable, secular evidence we have for the life of Jesus comes from two very brief passages in the works of Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian. And Josephus was a prolific writer - he frequently wrote several pages on the trial and execution of individual common thieves, but on Jesus, he is silent except for two paragraphs, one of which is a known interpolation, and the other is highly suspect. |
Another point is made, very interesting as well:
| Quote |
| There are no references to Jesus in any of the Roman histories during his presumed lifetime. That he should be so thoroughly ignored is unlikely given the impact the gospel writers said he had on the events and politics of the Jewish kingdom. |
Despite my desire to believe, this hard evidence is difficult to ignore.
My issue is with Christianity in general, not one particular group. My issue with talking to any priest or minister is that I'm concerned about bias. My experience, based on several encounters with different faiths is that I will be told in some form that faith is the answer. Well, what use is faith when reliable evidence is at best ambiguous and at worst contradictory?
Here is my basic line of thinking right now:
- Christianity, as a religion, is based on and validated solely by the "Truth" found in the Bible.
- Therefore, if the Bible is a valid document, Christianity has at least some validity to it.
- For the Bible to be valid, key events should agree between authors who are talking about the same person or event at the same time.
- Certain key points are directly contradictory, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Lists are available at multiple sources.
- Since I have read directly contradictory accounts, I cannot accept the Bible as a valid historical document.
- Since the Bible is not a valid historical document, the source and validity of Christianity as a religion is no longer valid.
I'm not saying that Christianity is not helpful; there are indeed many inspirational stories that it gives us. My issue is with people telling me how to run my life, and using the Bible as their "proof".
Now, on the subject of scripture: What good is it, really? If it gives us a picture of God, that doesn't help us. After all, depending on where you look, God is wrathful and violent, He is distant and unknowable, or He is merciful and loving. If His nature changes, and/or is unpredictable, how does reading the scripture help? If it's a set of instructions, what do we do when these instructions are directly contradictory (again, I can provide examples)?
So. I assume, Marauder (and others, if you wish), that you Believe. To continue the discussion, I pose a question: Is the Old Testament truth, or fiction?
I await the stimulating conversation of any interested.
Posted by Marauder on Jul. 21 2002,20:32
I think I'm willing to say that it's the most realiable document covering that time period. And I know it's the most reliable I've read, not that that says too much.
Posted by Crafty Butcher on Jul. 22 2002,18:17
| Quote (Marauder @ 21 July 2002,20:32) |
| I think I'm willing to say that it's the most realiable document covering that time period. And I know it's the most reliable I've read, not that that says too much. |
the bible, no matter what anyone wants you to think is NOT a historical document. it is essentially a political/religious manifesto. it's as biased as republican press release. it is not reliable by any accepted definition of that word. there are roman scholars of the time who's stated purpose at the time was to record history (admittedly a couple of hundred years later once the facts in question had been settled) and THEY aren't considered reliable as they could have been influenced by the Roman state which at the time was still Hellenist. so a bunch of card carrying extremists reliable? bollocks more like.
Posted by Jynx on Jul. 23 2002,20:27
| Quote (Marauder @ 21 July 2002,12:32) |
| I think I'm willing to say that it's the most realiable document covering that time period. And I know it's the most reliable I've read, not that that says too much. |
I'll take that answer to mean that you feel that at least some major parts of the OT are accurate. Very well, then my issues can be split into two categories:
1) The God portrayed is inconsistent and at times appears hypocritical.
This argument is usually shrugged off by "believers", and refuted with "you can't know the nature of God", but that's just not good enough for me. Here are some examples of what I see:
- God gives out ten commandments. One of them is "Thou Shalt Not Kill", and then in Leviticus we get lots of rules, many of which if broken are punishable by death. If "kill" is to be replaced by "murder", then my copy of the Bible has been misinterpreted in a key place, and throws the reliability of the remaining translation out. Besides, later on, God orders the army of the Children of Israel to eradicate an entire city, slaying every single person in the city. Anyone who kills unarmed women and children is a murderer in my book, and yet God Himself ordered this.
- Another commandment given out prohibits adultery, yet King David, one of the most famous of the Israelite kings and portrayed as a near-perfect example of a pious and faithful person, had many wives and concubines at the same time. Now, in my book, multiple wives constitutes adultery, not to mention concubines!
- In both Kings books (and backed up in Chronicles, which is an additional set of documents for the same time period), we read of an entire string of kings who, while they "did evil in the sight of The Lord", lived their lives without retribution (I'm not arguinig after their death). However, those who are the most faithful get the most retribution, and seem to be punished much more than their evil relatives.
- At some point in time, King David trespasses (I'm not sure what he does, can look it up if necessary). God gives him several choices as punishment, and all of the choices punish the people of Isreal! So, a merciful God will bring harm (and possibly death) to innocent people because of the sins of a different man?
2) There are logical inconsistencies in the Bible.
Again, this can easily be Googled, but they exist. If you want a short list, I'd be happy to provide.
Now, here is my point: The OT has several inconsistencies, both in the Nature of God and logical. The NT bases its validity on the OT (John's Gospel has many examples), and Jesus' divinity is in part "proven" by OT scripture. How, then, can I accept the testimony of a flawed set of works as proof? Couple that with logical inconsistencies in the NT (again, I can provide a list) and a total lack of outside evidence, and I have no good reason to continue to believe.
Crafty Butcher: I'm willing to bet that at least some of the OT accounts weren't written by fanatics. You are correct in saying that we can't know the political/religious slant of the author, and what bias that has put on the work in question.
Posted by godcity on Jul. 24 2002,01:12
I am a Christian and have many times had questions similar to the ones discussed asked of me. Many times I haven't had the answer.However, one thing I have been taught is how to be a critical thinker. I do not use just one source to prove or disprove what I believe. If I find I have a question I consult many sources. Not just the one that has the answer I want, sometimes the answer I find from logical thinking and study brings more things into question.
But one thing always remains the same. I have found explinations for everything that appears to be inconsistant has a logical explination that always brings me back to the same conclusion.
The Bible is accurate.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 24 2002,01:52
Well, godcity and I may disagree on that one fact, but he is probably the most open minded, devout christian any of you will ever meet. So, I for one will respect his conclusion and just agree to disagree.
Posted by Vigilante on Jul. 24 2002,02:09
| Quote |
| The Bible is accurate. |
And a better reason to despise christianity I have yet to discover.
Posted by godcity on Jul. 24 2002,06:39
So you despise something that even the most liberal of scholars has said that the values and morals of the Bible are the best set out there. Wether or not the history is accurate (which is being proven to be more accurate than anyone ever thought) the morals of the Bible are impeccable. Why do you despise it so? Does it make you uncomfortable?
Posted by Jynx on Jul. 24 2002,18:19
godcity, I'm sure if you'll understand when I apply a little critical thinking to your previous statements:- Could you please post explanations for the above dilemmas that I have posted?
- Could you please list some of the sources that you have found helpful in bolstering your faith?
- What other evidence is being found to support the Bible? Links to, at the very least, Amazon.com book info would be appreciated.
FYI, that link that I posted before (which I doubt that either Marauder or godcity have checked out yet) contains a wide variety of references to back up the points made.
Now, since by saying the Bible is "accurate", I will throw down the gauntlet, godcity. For the Bible to be accurate, it should be free of direct contradictions, right?
- OT: Was man made before or after the animals? Genesis 1 says after, Genesis 2 says before.
- OT: King David is smiting Philistines: Records of the exact same account disagree on the number of horsemen captured - II Samuel 8:4 says 700, I Chronicles 18:4 says 7000. There are several more instances of numbers not matching between books describing the same event.
- NT: Depending on the gospel you read, when Jesus was mocked, he was given either a purple robe or a crimson robe. These are two very different colors.
- NT: None of the four gospel writers were able to agree on what happened at the resurrection - check this out:
| Quote |
When the sun was coming up (Matt. 28:1) while it was still dark (John 20:1), Mary Magdalene (John 20:1) or Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt 28:1) or "the women" [note the plural] (Luke 24:1) went to the tomb. There was an earthquake, and an angel came down and rolled the stone away (Matt. 28:2) from the entrance of the tomb and sat on it, even though it had apparently already been rolled away when Mary Magdalene had got there (John 20:1, Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2). The reason for the visit was to anoint the body with spices (Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1) or just to look at the tomb (Matt. 28:1), take your pick. When she or they, take your pick, arrived, she/they witnessed the earthquake and angel coming down from heaven (Matt. 28:1), or they walked into the tomb to discover a young man dressed in white sitting on the right (Mark 16:5) or two men in bright shining clothes (Luke 24:4), take your pick. At this point, John says that Mary had run back to fetch Peter and another disciple. The other gospel writers make no mention of Mary taking leave of the tomb to go back and get any of the men at this point. If/when she/they returned, the angel (Mark 15:6) or the angels (Luke 24:5) is/are quoted by the gospel writers as having said one of three things. Either "He is not here, he is raised, just as he said." (Matt. 28:6) or "He is not here, he has been raised." (Mark 15:6, Luke 24:6) or "Woman, why are you crying?" (John 20:13). So the woman or women ran from the tomb to tell the disciples (Matt. 28:8) or they left, too terrified to say anything to anyone (Mark 16:8), take your pick. Mary Magdalene saw Jesus appear to her and decided he'd been resurrected (John 20:14-18). Or the women, having left the tomb and thinking things over, were sure that Jesus' body had been stolen, so they tried to bribe the soldiers guarding the tomb to tell them where the body had been taken (Matt. 28:11-15). |
So, using critical thinking, how do you explain the above? I have seen the errors in my Bible with my own eyes, and it has shaken me. How can I take a document with flaws as a divine work?
Posted by Nikita on Jul. 24 2002,18:46
| Quote (Jynx @ 24 July 2002,13:19) | ||
Now, since by saying the Bible is "accurate", I will throw down the gauntlet, godcity. For the Bible to be accurate, it should be free of direct contradictions, right?
So, using critical thinking, how do you explain the above? I have seen the errors in my Bible with my own eyes, and it has shaken me. How can I take a document with flaws as a divine work? |
I don't think those were actually written by some higher power-powered magic quill on parchment or chisel on stone slab.
They were supposedly written by mortals who quite possibly saw the same things but had different points of view, writing style, what they thought was important, and ways of describing (perhaps exaggeration?). Hell, one could be color blind!
If a whole bunch of ppl saw the same thing and wrote about it, it's going to be quite different from each other.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 24 2002,19:04
But then why didn't they just sit down and "compare notes" before writing? You would think that something as important as the resurection of Jesus would have been important enough for them to sit down and make sure they all said the same thing. I can understand a little fudging of numbers (I've done this myself), and even screwing up the color of the robe (color blind person, didn't really take much note of color, etc), but to be so wildly divergent about the desciption of the resurection just dumbfounds me. Small mistakes in what was said, fine, I can deal with that. But if what was above was truely from the Bible, then something is seriously wrong! All it takes is one mistake to prove that it is not a completely accurate retelling of the past. And once you lose that accuracy, it makes you question other messages within the Bible.I will never doubt that the Bible is a great moral guide and has interesting stories in it (although not all of them are good ones). But I just can not accept the Bible as a HISTORICAL document anymore than I can accept Lord Of The Rings as a historical document for medival England. Both are works of fiction, and good ones at that.
Posted by Nikita on Jul. 24 2002,19:28
Maybe they didn't like each other/didn't agree with each other (kinda like our wonderful politics forum). On top of that, add the fanatic factor, stir gently, run like hell.Hm now about translations - doubt that ppl here have read it in the original language, and the next edition is at the mercy of the person who does the translating/copying ... and we always lose something in translations. Always.
I'm not saying it's an accurate historic document (hell, even history can be different when told from different sides of the war/social class/etc). I agree that it's a good moral guide (though at times I feel it's passive and a lot of it is praying/waiting/hoping for a giant hand to reach down from the sky and sic the person who wronged you). Heh, so much for prayer.
One thing that has always bothered me is the "I'm out to get your ass - repent yo!" being of the OT and the "aww let's kiss and make up and turn the other cheek" entity of the NT. Seems like the OT then was full of rituals and burnt animal sacrifice (sorry, veggies won't do), and the NT sometimes feels like an acid trip.
There are ppl who say that if you don't agree with any part of the Bible, you're riding a superlubricated slip and slide straight to the core of hell.
If that's the case, it's going to be pretty packed there.
Put a shrimp on the barbie for me.
Posted by Marauder on Jul. 24 2002,20:17
Awrright, Jynx, ya made me bring the pain. Well, sorta.In response to the items of your July 23, 12:27 post, here goes. (Keep in mind, these come from my understandings.)
1.) Thou Shalt Not Kill - Easier explained than done. God orders this in reference to common murder. If you read through, you'll find that God also calls for loyal men and gives them instructions to kill others, and later orders the destruction of anyone/thing in Caanan by the incoming Isrealites. Answer: God understands murder, capital punishment, and war as different. Don't you?
2.) Adultery and David - Yeah, and God wasn't exactly happy about that. Then again, we're all human.
3.) Evil/Good Kings - What, you think life's fair? Besides, I can understand throwing more at good kings than bad. First off, a good king's gonna work harder for the people. Secondly, the disaster will hit others more intensely under a king who doesn't want to act(evil).
4.) King/People - In that day, IIRC, bad events were said to have causes. I could cite the NT, where the apostles assume that a man is blind because of a sin perpetrated by him or his parents. In other words, I think that should something of that type happen, the people would take a more careful look at David, and might find out(to his public disgrace) what had been going on. That, and if you're a decent king(And David was remembered as the best) you care about your constituents.
Again, just my concepts here.
Rest of you: I'm not saying the Bible doesn't have contradictions, oddities, mysteries, and so forth. But I don't think that they make it too unreliable.
Nikita: If you have to comprehend the Bible at all well to be saved, ain't NOBODY going to heaven. Most professors at my college have only a 'pretty-good' graps of things. Thankfully, it's written so that you can get the important parts without having to grind through it too far, and if you do go deeper, it will definitely keep you interested.
Posted by godcity on Jul. 24 2002,22:24
Here are 3 books that have been very helpful to me in my bolstering faith:< Evidence That Demands a Verdict on Amazon.com >
< The Stones Cry Out on Amazon.com >
< The Signature of God on Amazon.com >
All are linked to Amazon.com as you requested. These books also contain bibliographies that have many more sources than I could list here. There are other books that I know of that have been helpful to others, which I have not read or used so I will not post them here unless you wish me to.
In regards to your dillemas if you would like I will study them and provide you with answers to some of them..not all since my time is not limitless. If you would like to choose which ones you want me to respond to, so you don't think I am just picking easy ones and skirting the issue, I will be more than happy to oblige.
Posted by Jynx on Jul. 24 2002,23:37
Nikita: your responses make perfect sense, and would be acceptable if the document in question were almost anything else. However, since the document in question is said by many to be of a divine source, then it should not have serious contradictions such as this in it, since the divine being in question would supposedly not only oversee the original writing, but all subsequent translations to ensure that His/Her/Its original word is being preserved as well as the language permits. Therefore, if such errors in translation/transcription occured, then at the very least we have a document that has been corrupted and may no longer reflect God's Message, or at the very worst the document in question is complete fiction.Marauder and godcity: Thank you very much for your responses. I'm knee-deep in a project right now and can't give them my full attention, but I will later. Also, thanks a bundle to godcity for your links as requested, and I very well might take you up on your most generous offer.