You did claim my ignorance very blatantly but we can move on from that.

Granted, i have not read the book myself. But i have read commentaries from people that back up what they say with evidence and logic. I dont take anyones word as being the gospel truth but rather analyse what i read and THEN make my own decisions on what i think is true.

If it is not acceptible to look at other peoples opinions and derive your own from them, then its equally not acceptible for any Christian to seek opinions from their priest/pastor/vicar etc

It would also be pointless reading any other book on the subject other than the bible.

Nobody has completely made up their own mind on the subject completely independantly of other peoples opinions.

One day i do intend to read it. But to study it? Nah. Plenty of far more intelligent people than me have already done that, its far easier and far more worthwhile making sense of what these people have to say about it.

I read these threads and read all kinds of opinions from both sides of the argument. I am open to change my current opinions if i am given any information to justify it. But so far, in terms of the topic of this thread, nothing has been offered.

All i have been given is that the Bible is true because the bible itself says so. I cant buy that.

edit - nevermind...

Perhaps the comparison to Jefferson is too recent...

How about Socrates?

It still seems to me that such a comparison would be moot.

First off, most people couldn't care less whether Socrates was a real person or a fictional character. What's the difference? No one is asking anyone to believe that Socrates was the son of God and carried a message to mankind that MUST BE BELIEVED.

Even those who accept that Socrates probably lived, recognized that anything attributed to him is nothing more than the mere opinion of a mortal man.

In other words, I can believe that Socrates existed and disagree with his conclusions recognizing that my opinions are just as valid as his.

However, in the case of the Biblical Jesus we are being asked to beleive that Jesus was SENT by the God of Abraham to deliver a message that is of PARAMOUNT importnance because it's a message from God and anyone who refuses to believe it will suffer dire conseqences.

Moreover, you can't just look at the story of Jesus and say, "Well that's just the opinion of a mortal man and I disagree". Because according to the Bible the words of Jesus are supposedly the words of the creator of this universe.

In short, you can't SEPERATE Jesus from the God of Abraham. They are inseperable according to the Bible.

So anything that is claimed about Jesus, is also being claimed about the God of Abraham, and vice versa.

It's also not open to opinion as it's supposed to be the word of the creator of this universe.

So how can you compare that will any mortal man?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof!

Comparing a belief in a supposely divine incarnation of God that speaks for God with a belief that some mere mortal men held personal opinions is comparing apples with oranges.

No one is suggesting that you need to believe the opinions of mere mortal men, unless you just happen to agree with them.

But in order to believe in Jesus you MUST ALSO believe in every word of the Old Testament! Because if the Old Testament is a lie then Jesus is reduced to either a mortal man with an opinion, or a totally made up fictional character.

Jesus is NOTHING without standing on the shoulders of the God of Abraham. Jesus is supposed to be the sacrifical lamb of the God of Abraham. Once this claim has been made, then anything that is said about Jesus is also a statement about the God of Abraham.

You simply can't seperate Jesus from the God of Abraham and simultaneously claim that Jesus is his only begotten Son sent via a virgin birth with the express mission to become the sacrificial lamb of God.

So as soon as Jesus is mentioned valid questions immediately surface concerning whether it would even make sense that the God of Abraham would do such a thing.

Personally my concludion is no. The God of Abraham would need to be totally insane and untrustworthy to have sent such mixed and confusing messages to mankind via such a horrific and UNWISE act as this.

I personally can't see the God of Abraham pulling a stunt like this and still being considered to be both WISE and TRUSTWORTHY.

I see MAJOR CONFLICTS between the teachings of the Old Testament and the New. Why should I believe that the God of Abraham would be so inconsistent and send such mixed messages?

Moreover, if this message is SO IMPORTANT and GOD wants us to believe that it's truly from HIM, then why didn't he write his own book?

What kind of a God would expect people to base their life on highly questionable and inconsistent hearsay?

What kind of a God would specifically command people to murder heathens and then send his Son into that crowd specifically to be murdered by them for the purpose of offering mankind a "sacrifical lamb" so that he can forgive them of their horrible sins?

I personally find the story to be whole untenable.

I would even question this specific scenario if Jesus had written his own documents. Although, if he was truly the son of the creator of this universe I would imagine that such a document would contain better explanations of why an all-powerful and all-wise God had to resort to such an act of desperation.

The Bible as it is makes no sense at all. It's not even a matter of simply asking whether or not Jesus actually lived. I actually believe that some MORTAL MAN did indeed live, was named Jesus (or something like that), denounced the teachings of the God of Abraham, tried to teach love, peaces and forgiviness instead, and was crucified for his efforts.

That makes far more sense to me than to believe that the God of Abraham is confused, desperate, and totally untrustworthy. Not to mention unwise, and powerless.

So comparing a believe that Jesus existed with a belief that any mortal man with a personal opinion existed is truly a moot comparison.

I don't need to believe that God is a fool to believe that Socrates existed. Neither do I need to feel any pressure to agree with Socrates opinions. My opinions are just as valid as his.

Here's the difference.

Let's say we have writings or opinions that are attributed to a mortal man named Socrates.

What's the conclusion?

Conclusion: We have the opinions of some mortal man.

Now let's say that we discover that Socrates never truly existed and everything written about him was the made up fictional opinions of some unknown author.

What's the conclusion?

Conclusion: We have the opinions of some mortal man.

So, it doesn't really matter whether Socrates existed or not, that's not going to change the conclusion. Changing the name of the author doesn't truly change a thing. We never even met Socrates, what's in a name? It's just some guy. If his name was Joe Blow that doesn't change a thing.

We know that SOMEONE wrote the material. Who actually wrote it is truly irrelavent.

The case of Jesus is far more complicated.

First we have NOTHING that even claims to have been written by Jesus.

Second, even the texts that were written ABOUT Jesus never claim anywhere that Jesus directed anyone to write his teachings down for future generations.

Third, even if we believe that the authors who wrote ABOUT Jesus quoted him correctly then it's clear by all of those authors that Jesus expressly stated that all of his prophecies would be fulfilled before the current generation had passed!

So even if we give the writings credence, they don't support they conclusions and claims of modern Christianity. The gospels simply don't support the idea that Jesus might return some 2000 years later or beyond. They clearly state repeatedly that Jesus told the people he was speaking to directly that all of his prophecies would be fulfilled before their generation passed.

So it seems to me that whether some guy named Jesus ever existed is truly irrelevant in the year 2009 anyway. Even the hearsay texts that were written about him specifically have him clearly stating that everything he has spoken of will come to pass before the generation that he was speaking to had passed.

Why would Jesus have told people that if it wasn't TRUE?

Especially if he was the Son of the God of Abraham?

We can only conclude that if the story was true then the things that these authors have Jesus saying have already come to pass. Jesus already returned and collected up all the righteous people that he was interested in harvesting, and left the unrighteous behind.

We would then be the descendents of the rejects. We'd already be rejected. It's over. We're the rejects.

There's nothing for us to do now. God has come and gone and we're the leftovers if we want to believe in this story! The idea that Jesus is coming back is ludicous. Where does that even come from? It doens't come from the authors of the gospels. They clearly have Jesus stating in no uncertain terms that everything he prophesized would come to pass before the current generation had passed.

The authors of the gospels have Jesus quoted as preaching "Heaven is at hand", and "Heaven is nigh".

Well, this is some 2000 years later, and the year 2009 is not "nigh" to the generation that Jesus was supposedly speaking to.

So even if we give the book credence we have no choice but to accept that we're the descendents of the rejects. God has already harvested his crop of humans and we're the descendents of the stubbles and weeds that were left if in the fields.

This is what we'd have to believe if we wish to believe in the Bible.

The Bible simply doesn't support the claims of modern day Christianity.

If your heart and mind is closed to our Heavenly Father and Christ then no amount of so called "proof" will convince one anyway. It's the same as , "prove he doesn't exist", It's not possible to do that . Either you will believe or you will not, things are the same now as in the past regarding that, some saw and still did not believe. You can't force feed God and Christ to someone, they must open their hearts to his word, and all we can do is plant a seed, only God can make it grow. You will never "prove" anything one way or the other I don't think. However, will be fun to watch when he returns and the jaws drop and naysayers quake

Abra...

could it be but YOUR notion of a "generation" be just slightly different than the "one spoken of"...

that YOUR notion of "god", or higher realms, be just slighty "different" than what higher realms and words deem such to be???

a "generation" to "higher intelligence" is a ONE TOTAL CYCLE, six age's in total it be, and indeed, this day NOW is "in" the ending of a cycle, WHICH, if but any man see the eye's of all other's as equal to itself, IT WOULD HEAR SUCH FROM SCIENCE ITSELF, from well respected one's of academia, that have given entire lives to the the study of all things ancient, even from one's first researching to but prove such things as untrue.

it is quite a large "undersight" of man, to first base all current calender's on the death of a "man" that never existed, lol???

if one look into ALL human natrue, and into ALL civilization's, into all things human, WITHOUT SELF BIASED AS THE "EXPERT" OF ALL WISDOM, then seeing true reality of all things as happenings, and so see what is the GREATEST possible reality, THEN, it see ALL WORDS ON THE OUTSIDE, BUT GIVE A CONFIRMATION OF WHAT WAS ALREADY KNOWN, "FIRST" KNOWING SUCH FROM WITHIN, AND NOT FIRST GAINING IT FROM "WITHOUT" as looking for truth or untruth???

all things spoken can be made to be TRUE IN SOME WAY, and ALL THINGS SPOKEN, can be true in at LEAST TEN DIFFERENT MEANINGS OR WAYS POSSIBLE to higher intelligence???

the rational or reasonings of "two" eyes alone, can never fit INFINITY AS HIGHER INTELLIGENCE INTO IT'S MIND???

can it be not seen that in this way, all that do not access other's as EQUAL entities, so "hear" voices as equal to self, hearing each as having EQUAL MEANINGFUL DATA, but proclude itself of what CAN and indeed be known, IN ADVANCE, of all things in the universe???

the diobolical nature of "self motive", that determine what the "mind" as the infinite rolodex, pull forth from the infinite pool of data spoken by ALL BRAINS, as it reach into the fish bowl, and DECIDE the interpretation of each fish itself pull forth???

over a span and time of a "generation", all things simply being defined as "untrue if oppose each it's own self knowing", so singularly what is "wished" by self alone as more true than other things???

what IF a entire "people's" were doing this for a "long time"???

would this not lead to be a "generation" of COLLECTIVE "wishful proving", leading in time to a "wished reality" as perceieved, and thus lead from true possible greater reality indeed???

no matter how distant things seem possible now to be, there is precise reason each word in the universe was spoken indeed, or what meaning can and DO SELF WORDS HAVE AS TRUTH???

seems illogical surely it do indeed???

all things in the universe are proof, of whatever self FIRST WISH TO PROVE???

there be no other choice then for the wise heart, but to either prove how ALL COULD BE TRUE, OR, prove how ALL COULD BE FALSE, but to prove some false, and some true, is but leading to shortsightedness, "SELF WISHED REALITY", which in these days, be no sight of the MOST reality at all.

peace

just "one set" of equal eye's, or ONE TOTAL EYE, as each human being and voice be???

the heart that is free, is the one that fear not so pride not, so can hear and gather as the wise squirrel ALL THE NUTS, from all "eye's" equally, so for the winter it has "infinite nuts" to feed on indeed???

http://www.atlan.org/faq/

James...



Upfront side note [your dark poem had me a little worried about your wellbeing] I am glad to read you.

Just a little thought experiment...

The OP asked if there was proof that Jesus lived. I suspect that the reason for asking is connected to the recent documentaries and such which pose the very same question. Some of these films attempt to discredit all of Christianity by effectively refuting the notion of Jesus' very existence. There are different approaches being taken to warrant this this doubt.

To doubt everything is to know nothing, therefore it is reasonably impossible to doubt everything. It is a matter of certainty.

The Roman records - which do not mention Jesus nor his execution - are often used as evidence to make a case that his existence is a complete fabrication. This does not logically follow, for there may have been any number of reasons for not documenting such a thing. They most certainly did not record every crucifixion. Therefore, one cannot safely say that the omission in the Roman records warrants a belief in the complete fabrication of Jesus' existence. I would venture to guess that most scholarly-minded people would attribute this as evidence which directly reflects Jesus' importance to the Roman society's collective conscious at the time of his death. I think that it is much more likely that he lived and died the same as many others who also did not make the Roman records.

Some of the more compelling evidence(in my opinion) revolves around the gospel problem - the actual dating and authenticity of those texts - and warrants further consideration concerning any direct eye-witness accounts. If the gospels are proven to have been written by someone other than the disciples, then those accounts can be dismissed as hear-say. Eljay has mentioned a valid point though, if those books were written after 70AD, then why did they not mention the fall of Jerusalem, which is contained in the Roman records? This alone does not prove their authenticity, however, it does lend some loose support to the Christian argument of pre-70AD dating.

The fact that Jesus did not pen the words accredited to him necessitates the claim that all attributions about what he said are at least second-hand knowledge. With that being said, it is quite profound how much influence those words still have upon people and their thoughts. The installation of a previously absent hope for themselves and their future added to the message that ascribes a negative value to the concept of worrying has very practical use in the development of a positive mind-set.

I would venture to claim that if the focus of the religion reflected this most profound property, the world could be a different place and the intention of empathetic enlightenment would have been realized, but instead we have the following, which is much more indicative of the path that Christianity took - from one who claims to be Christian...

Sharp wrote...



Fun?



If one claims to believe and follow the teachings of Jesus, one must understand them. It seems that I am reminded of the parable which speaks of eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear. It seems that I am reminded of the recognition of a tree by it's fruit. It seems that this is a fine example of why the religion itself is under fire, and risks losing the profound enlightenment which comes from only looking within one's self.

What a shame.

I see no reason at all to believe that our creator would purposefully speak in such obscure abstractions that people should need to twist the words far from their COMMON meanings in order to try to make sense of what God is trying to say.

What kind of a God would be so malicious?



For me it's not a matter of being closed to our "Heavenly Father".

It far more a matter of seeing through the total brainwashing BS of a male-chuavinistic society that uses God as an excuse to perpetrate biotry and hatred against anyone who refuses to swallow the total BS of the authors of this hateful text.

These authors lost my respect in the Old Testament far before they used Jesus to give it a shot in the arm.

Why should I believe that our "Heavenly Father" lusts for and is appeased by blood sacrifices?

That's absurd and is just a take off from Zeus-like Greek Mythologies. Why should the real creator of this universe be so Zeus-like?

To tell people that if they give blood sacrifices to God their sins will be forgiven is really no different from a God saying to people, "Look, as long as you are willing to slaughter a lamb for my sake it's ok to disobey me, I'll forgive you!"

That's ridiculous IMHO.

I see absolutely no wisdom in a God that is appeased by blood sacrifices in the first place. To me that's entirely man-made supersition that has been a mainstay of all Mediterranean mythologies, Christianity and the Abrahamic religions being no exception.

They claim that God favors men over women.

They claim that God told them to judge their brothers and stone sinners to death.

They claim that God told them to murder heathens, and not suffer a witch to live!

Why should I believe that our "Heavenly Father" would support any of that crap?

To me, this is a picture of a God that isn't even anywhere near as wise as myself.

Why should I believe that God is so morally inferior to me?

Just because a bunch of ancient egocentric Arab's claim it to be so?

There are a myriad of reasons why the Old Testament alone makes no sense whatsoever.

Adding the totally conflicting New Testament only suggests that God had somehow changed his ways, but is STILL sending confusing messages?

How can anyone believe the gospels when they claim that Jesus said, "I have no come to change the laws, and the laws will not change one jot or one tittle", and then turn around and also claim that Jesus denounced the major directives of the God of Abraham?

That's ludicous!

Even if Jesus was God why would he play such foolish games and send such mixed messages? Why not be HONEST and say what's TRULY on his mind? He DID COME to CHANGE his previous directives!

The bottom line is that it makes absolutely no sense at all to claim that Jesus and the God of Abraham are related in any way. They had totally different ideas of what they expect from humans!

I honestly don't see how anyone can take this story seriously.

How do you justify a God who basically lies and sends mixed messages?

He claims that he did not come to change the laws, yet he does precisely that!

Why should God play such foolish games?

Why not just be honest and tell it like it is?

I don't believe that God would be as ignorant as the Bible demands that he must be!

It's as simple as that.

So it has absolutely nothing about rejecting our "Heavenly Father".

It's all about exposing the criminals of humanity that made up these utterly ignorant stories and CLAIMED that they spoke for God when in fact they DID NOT!

It's those criminals that I denounce.

The Bible has NOTHING AT ALL to do with any intervening jealous egotistical male-chuavinistic God who lusts for blood sacrifices and hates heathens and will cast anyone into hell who doesn't believe that mediterraneans speak for HIM!

What about the rest of the world?

If the creator of this ENTIRE UNIVERSE wanted to send a message to mankind, why pick such an ingnorant backward society to use to write his book?

He should have picked the oriental people, they are far wiser!

In fact, he probably DID through Buddha!

The Bible is more likely a total lie and an insult to both our creator and to humanity.

This I believe.

Fun?

Personally, if I thought Jesus was actually returning I'd welcome him with open arms. Assuming he can be trusted to adhere to the principles that the scriptures claim he held I would have nothing to fear from Jesus at all. I would expect that he would be quite happy with me and treat me as his loving brother.

What I think would truly be sad is what might happen to all the people who used his name to spread bigotry, hatred, and predjudice against others.

And no, to watch that would NOT be fun for me!

In fact, I would even suggest to Jesus that he should forgive them for they know not what they do! Although, I'm sure he already knows about that kind of forgiveness.

The idea of imagining Jesus as a monster that will return and be mean to all the naysayers whilst all the believers are looking on and laughing with great egotistical pleasure is precisely what makes Christianity reek with vile ungodliness.

To me, that kind of thinking just further proves that there is not one shred of divinity in the religion.

A couple of thoughts regarding this line of thought...

All personal understanding is had through mental translation, which one's perceptual faculty facilitates within a framework of language and meaning. The foundation of which rests upon personal truthes. If one comes to know, by recognition of supporting evidence, a truth which contradicts a previously held belief, then one must mentally re-negotiate that belief and all others which rest squarely upon it's shoulders.



Divinity is an assessment of one's sense of ought, just like any other moral/ethical issue. The best fitting evidence for regarding what one's perceptual faculty holds as a definition for such a thing.

To me that kind of thinking, when written, only reflects the mentality of the one doing the thinking.

I'm not so sure I agree. I don't see what's wrong with recognizing the fact that we truly know nothing.

Richard Feynman put it rather nicely I think:

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong." - Richard Feynman

We truly don't need to know anything with certainty, and we most certainly can't know that any religion, or atheism is true with any certainty.

I think our only choice is to doubt everything. In fact, as soon as we think we actually know something is when we end up fooling ourselves.

I don't even denounced that the Bible can't be true!

All I'm saying is that if it is true, it demands that God is untrustworthy and lacks communication skills and consistent direction. Not to meantion that it also demands that he has many human flaws, (i.e. he's jealous, he's male-chauvinistic, he hates heathens, he is appeased by violent acts).

I'm not saying that it can't be true. I'm just saying that if it is true, this so-called God is far less than divine and is most certainly not all-loving, all-wise, all-merciful, and blah, blah, blah.

In fact, if we accept that God has a lot of highly undesirable characteristic including being completely INCONSISTENT in his actions and messages, then I suppose we can easily accept that the Bible might be true.

Personally I choose to have FAITH that God is actually better than the authors of the Bible claim.



Well, I'm not surprised that it has so much influence. The religion threatens people that to 'turn against' God is the highest of all sins. To disrespect the "Holy Spirit" is unforgivable!

Well gee, to question the Bible as being the Holy Word of God, would be to question the Holy Spirit!

Who wants to risk that?

And then there's Jesus. The meek powerless underdog who supposedly gave his life to save the world.

Who could reject such an act of compassion?

People don't put all the pieces together and question the religion.

The religion is also designed to steal people's hearts.

Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room in the Inn.

How quaint.

Jesus is the "only begotten Son" of God. How quaint.

God so loved the world that he gave his only begotton Son.

How utterly compassionate!

People never stop to think what this really means!

This is the SAME GOD who DEMANDS BLOOD SACRIFICES!

This is the same God who needs to have his WRATH appeased!

It's circular nonsense.

But people would rather believe it because they want to go to heaven and they just don't know where else to turn without it.

What are the ulternatives?

Atheism?

Most people don't even want to have nightmares about that let alone consider that it might be reality!

Buddhism?

Most people don't understand Buddhism. In fact, I personally think that most Buddhists don't even understand Buddhism.

Celtic lore? Witchcraft? Shamanism?

Most people think Ewwwwww! That's just weird stuff that's better off used for Disneland fairytales!

They really have no choice. Jesus looks quite inviting. Just ignore all the conflicts. Assume that the God of Abraham has his reasons and all will be explain AFTER you die and get to heaven!

It's an EASY religion!

You don't even need to DO ANYTHING other than accept Jesus as your savior. Then you're done. You can even be extremely BIGOTED after that in the name of Jesus!

It's an extremely EASY and convienent religion.

It's no wonder that it's so popular.

Just believe in Jesus and your good to go. You can even be a politically active Christian Bigot and you're still good to go because you are a SOLDIER FOR CHRIST!

It's an EASY religion to follow.

And it doesn't even require meditation or anything that might interfere with normal daily activities.

Just sing "Jesus Loves Me" on Sunday morning and you're good to go!

I truly don't understand this line of thinking Michael.

It just sounds to me like you are attempting to suggest that we should read between the lines and make up our own stories.

What would be the point to that?

How can we claim to have a document that is the word of God and then claim that each and every individual must twist it to their own liking?

In fact, I've even TRIED to do that with the Bible. I find it IMPOSSIBLE. You would need to do more than merely bend over backwards to make the Bible make sense. You'd virtually need to deny what is actually written in the book. Especially with respect to the Old Testament.

In fact, if we take the New Testament by itself, I personally don't see where Jesus ever claimed to be the Son of the God of Abraham.

I also believe that when he spoke of the "Son of man" he was not referring to himself exclusively but to ALL men.

I also believe that when he claimed that he and the father are one, he meant that God is in ALL OF US and that this is true of ALL OF US!

In short, when I read the New Testament I see a story of a man who denounced the God of Abraham and was basically teaching the teachings of Buddha!

But mainstream Christianity would NEVER accept my interpretation because to do so would require that they GIVE UP the idea that Jesus was the sacrifical lamb of God sent to die to pay for our sins.

So, YES, I can read the Bible in DIFFERENT WAYS from how Christians interpret it. But those ways would never be accepted by the religion called Christianity. They USE Jesus to support the bigoty of the Old Testament. But by my interepretations Jesus himself denounced the Old Testament, and the judging of others.



I agree. I believe that if there is a 'divine being' that being must necessarily have higher moral standards than myself, and my own sense of ought.

Absolutely!

Why would I even want to consider that the creator of this universe has lesser moral standards than myself?

Seems to me that would be an excercise in futility.

The notion that we know nothing does not stand on it's own accord. To state anything as a fact requires knowing something. This is not to say that what one knows is true or is an accurate representation of actuality. However, the very fact that you speak a language necessitates that you know the meaning of the terms being used, unless you want to doubt that. But... one cannot doubt that without knowing something, namely what it is to doubt. It is the knowns that give rise to doubt.

Therefore one cannot doubt everything.

Feynman's statement referred to the uncertainty principle and Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance' refutation. He most certainly believed that he had, in his knowledge base, enough evidence to support his statement.

It most certainly is a matter of certainty... whether that be a belief of uncertainty or not. One, in order to believe in uncertainty, must be certain that we cannot be certain.

EDIT:

James, I am not here to attempt to defend the history of Christianity. My intent is to show that the reader of any piece of language ascribes meaning to that language based upon previously held knowns...

Just a thought experiment, not a defense of the claims of Christianity regarding it's own proof of it's own beliefs being held as the only word of 'God'...

Are we thier Yet?

I am suggesting that we do that anyway. It is a function of language, James. Recognizing this and acknowledging it's importance in human understanding was an enlightening experience in empathy for myself. Maintaining that can be quite difficult when one is at odds with their own set of beliefs, which is required for growth beyond a "them" and "us" moral mind set.

Well, again. I'm in complete agreement with you.

We do that anyway.

The only point that I'm trying to make is that the authors of the Bible clearly did not have this in mind as their intention when they wrote the Bible.

I fully understand where you are coming from on a personal basis.

We take what makes sense and leave the rest.

But that's clearly not what the authors of the Bible had in mind. They wanted to convince the readers that they must accept every word of their writings as the unquestioned commandments of the creator of this universe. They expected their readers and followers to actually murder anyone who disagreed with these authors.

It makes no sense for us to sit in an easy-chair reading the Bible in the 21st century thinking that these authors were merely attempting to convey good morals to some generations living far in the future.

No way!

The men who wrote the Bible used it live to incite the masses to support their opinions and bigotries, and to justify their wars, and their accusations against people they disagreed with.

This was LIVE stuff!

You have to realize that if people were stoning sinners in the days of Jesus cleary they had been judging others and stoning people to death for hundreds if not thousands of years before Jesus in the name of the God of Abraham.

You can't just look at the Bible as a work of a bunch of fictional parables written to instill morals in men generations removed from the authors.

That's not what the authors intended at all. They were using their holy books to control the masses and incite the murdering of anyone who disagreed with them.

This is how I look at the book. And then I ask myself. Do I believe that our creator would be party to this crap?

My answer is no.

And I share my reasons generously.

Besides, if I was going to turn to esoteric teachings to find good moral values I'd turn to the teachings of the Celtic Faeries. I think it's a far more positive school of thought. Even if there isn't a word of truth in it, at least it's positive.

At least it's not telling people to become bigots and murderers in the name of God.

By the way I'm not suggesting the Celtic Faeries are untrue, I'm just saying that even if they are false the material is still worthy of study.

Not true of the Bible. Take away divinity from the Bible and the promise of salvation and eternal life and I think most people would flush it down the toilet faster than a photon can span the space of the eye of a needle.

The only thing that keeps the Bible going is the promise of eternal heaven and the threat of eternal damnation. Take away those incentives and it has very little that would interest anyone.

can we not see, that ANY definition is DETERMINED BY THE HEART OR KNOWING OR "FEELING" OF THE PERSON ITSELF???

to take just one statment you made, "to blaspheme the holy spirit in that day, will not be forgiven"???

well, a HUMAN that deem all other's, as holy or not holy, as godly or not godly, as good or not good, as good or evil, is the same as deeming in all principle as "holy or not holy"???

so, to denounce what one is born with, which is the natural INCLINATION, to SEE AS UNEQUAL IN GOOD AS SELF, is what see all as either less or better, SO TO FORSAKE THIS, NEED NO FORGIVENESS INDEED, AS IT IS THE ONLY PURE SIGHT THAT EXIST TO NOT DO SO INDEED!!!???

so it is but man itself, THAT FIRST SEE OTHER'S THRU SELF BIAS AS SELF AS MOST BEST, THAT CREATE A "HOLY" OR "NOT HOLY" PERCEPTION???

SO IT IS MAN THAT MAKE THE INTERPRETATIONS OF ALL WORDS, INTO SOMETHING THAT CAN CREATE AN EXCUSE TO HATE OR DEEM AS LESS???

SO IT WOULD NOT MATTER AT ALL, WHAT WORDS WERE FIRST USED, OR WRITTEN, AS THESE WOULD HAVE EQUALLY BEEN "INTERPRETED' THRU THE BRAIN TO DEFINE SOME AS LESS OR MORE GOOD???

can we not see, the DEFINTION is what PRESENT FEELING create???

the BELIEF OR FEELING in the heart CREATE THE DEFINITION???

any definition MUST HAVE AN OPPOSITE BY ALL LOGIC???

SO THE ONE THAT IS CHOSEN, SHOW THE "INTENT OF THE HEART", OR THE PRESENT STATE OF A HUMAN BEING???

so a different thing or things as written, would ALSO HAVE BEEN "READ" AS BAD, or defined thru BIAS, OR UNEQUALITY, OR NOT SEEING ALL THINGS AS EQUAL VALUE AND INTELLIGENCE OR GOOD, COMING FROM THE "READER"???

all things thought of as "bad" now, came from SOME HUMAN READING AND DEFINING THEM AS SUCH!!!???

YEA, ANYBODY, THAT SIT AND WATCH SOME OTHER'S PAIN, AND SEE IT AS "FUN", WOULD HAVE NOTHING BUT "SELF VINDICATION" OF ITSELF IN MIND, AS THE "KING" ITSELF MOST SERVE!!!???

but then have not all FELT AS THIS IN SOME WAY???

SO THE ONE THAT SEE AND DEFINE NOT THIS AS SOME "GREAT EVIL", IS THE ONE WITH LEARNED BETTER INSIGHT???

any words can make this definition, SO IT IS THE PERSON, NOT SOME OUTSIDE WORDS!!!???

the same as "guns", IT IS THE PERSON THAT SEEK A MALICIOUS THING, THAT WILL USE ANYTHING TO CREATE IT!!!???

ANYTHING IN THE UNNIVERSE CAN BE MADE A WEAPON, AND SO BE THE SAME FOR WORDS!!!???

peace

It seems to me that the authors of the Bible were explictly telling their readers that God wants them to murder heathens and stone sinners to death. I don't see how that can be open to any other interpretations. It's pretty clear what the authors of the Bible were saying.

This idea that the reader can make anything they want from the text based on their own perceptions is silly.

I mean, if we were to allow for that, then my interpretation of the Bible is as valid as anyone's.

And my interpretation is that the Old Testament was clearly written by mortal men who were using the concept of God to brainwash their readers into siding with them in the event of wars or disputes.

My intepretation of the New Testament is that Jesus denounced the Old Testament as being grossly violent and nonconducive to productive and constructive life for humanity.

He also appears to have coincidentally taught the very same things as Buddha taught 500 hundred years earlier. Jesus most certainly did not agree with the teachings of the Old Testament. That should be obvious to anyone who can read.

~~~

Considering that even the Biblical text has Jesus basically missing from the time he was 12 until he was 30 and India (a Buddhist nation) was basically right next door (for all intents and purposes), it seems reasonble to me that at the very least Jesus learned of the teachings of Buddha, if not having actually traveled to India himself to be mentored for 15 years by actual Buddhist monks. There would be no reason for the Buddhists to have recorded the presence of Jesus since he would have been just one of many students. There would have been no reason to take note of him in India. He was there to learn, not teach.

Just the same, you and Creative both seem to keep talking about personal perceptions. My only point is that the religion called "Christianity" doesn't allow for personal perceptions, they have their own claim as to what the Bible is supposed to be saying.

In fact, I don't even see how the text supports their conclusions at all. I personally feel that my theory hold far more water.

And that's all I really claim.

I don't claim that I'm right. I just argue that my theory makes more sense than what the Christian theologians are attempting to claim.

I think my theory holds far more water than the Christian interpretations. And that's all I have ever claimed.

It's just food for thought for anyone who's interested.

It seems that Christains are often attempting to 'prove' that Jesus was God and that the Bible is the word of God.

I'm just responding to their empty claims!

Usually their arguments go something like the following:

1. The universe is too complex to be random chance.
2. Therefore God exists.
3. Therefore the Bible is the word of God.

Or like the following:

1. No man can be moral without God.
2. Therefore God must exist.
3. Therefore the Bible must be the word of God.

Or the following:

1. I don't like atheism!
2. I don't understand patheistic religions!
3. Therefore the Bible must be the word of God!

Personally I feel that my arguments against the Bible being the word of God hold far more water than the reasons they give why it must be the word of God.

I'm just debating the best I can.