Religion and Literature

[Hera Ledro]

LOL, we've gone completely off-tangent here

But I understand what it is you are saying now. I seem to have misinterpreted much of your arguments.

Yes, the New Testament is the main scripture(s) of Christianity. I think what got me off on the Old Testament stuff was the fact that you introduced the Old Testament as rather negligible (or at least, that's what it sounded like). That confuzzled me somewhat, since the Old Testament was still a part of the Bible, but just demoted a little.

Oh yeah, the religions very rarely teach about their dirty little secrets. I agree 100%. There are so many things about religions that are bottled up that they basically end up blowing a lot of stuff, much like this thread P) out of proportion when they are finally released.

Of course, you can never study the Bible without getting into religion, so...I'm not ignorant either.

See, now I'm not too sure I agree with that. I'm not saying your ignorant, I know you're not (and I rescind my earlier claim that you were), but it's the studying the Bible without getting into religion that I disagree with. You can study the Bible and read it through without having to come at it from a religious point of view. Literary criticism is one such way. Come at it objectively and relate it and its contents to the times. I've studied the Bible many times without having to look for religious stuff; it's the same way I go about studying Dracula (hey-ho, they are both patched together from several sources, even though the latter is completely fictitious sources ).

 

[Korytco]

Most religious stories do not have to be taken literally to be meaningful ,or a worth while read. Most religious text is there for symbolic interpretation than literal context.

A side from the structure of religion of course , the Gods and figure heads. Most other stories in religions , most bible texts, can be very meaningful and inspirational if read correctly. If read deeply ,and not just in blind faith. Real faith is reading and trying to understand, putting forth devotion, that can make religions a great thing.

Some of these texts have beautiful , but hidden messages, and through faith, devotion to these texts, some people can learn to be better people. As long as they can learn about their selves and apply religion to there daily lives, and not the past lives of religious icons. Most religious stories take place in the past, but if read correctly they can benefit daily lives of the present. Morale texts, and ideals.

Religion means to "join again" . Religions are meant to serve masses , and preach ethics and values to those masses. Religions are not meant to make one blind in faith and distant from reality and society . However, this can happen.

 

[Rydia]

So getting back to the original topic...

Most religious people are not out to ban books that may contradict their beliefs. The ones that are out to do such things are the small minority of fanatics that plague various religions. I would actually imagine that the majority of people that read the Harry Potter series are Christian, or at least come from a Christian descent. As for Pulman... well some people do take offense to some of the stuff he says, he much less popular among the religious, but there are some people who are religious that will disregard his views and read the books for the story. (Ironically, the same people who have a problem with Pulman would have probably been in an uproar if they knew about he plot of Final Fantasy X)

On the flipside, there were people that were boycotting Narnia because it had Christian overtones. So it can go both ways.

I just say, don't like it, don't watch it.

And I would be careful about these statements as members could find these offensive.

I hate religion, but not religious people.

People may still take offense to this. If someone were to say "I hate homosexuality, but not homosexual people" I'm sure the entire forum would be in an uproar.

I think the doctrines/strictures/whatever etc. of any religion are hilarious and stupid, but if you follow them, you will bare no hostility from me.

I would watch how you word that. People are not going to take kindly to being called hilarious and stupid. You gotta remember, there's many different people out there and not all of them think the same way you do.

The only times religion will bare my hostility, is when they try to impose their views on others.
Especially in books.

I am not 100% correct on this, but wasn't Pulman trying to impose atheism on children with the "His Dark Materials" series? Like I said, I'm not 100% correct on this.

 

[Kenpachi]

People may still take offense to this. If someone were to say "I hate homosexuality, but not homosexual people" I'm sure the entire forum would be in an uproar.

I suppose so, but its the religions themselves, and I have no objections or anything towards people who do/follow those religions...
I don't quite know what I'm trying to say here, but mainly that I don't like religion, but I'm not trying to offend people by imposing my views of it on people...
It sounds a lot better in my head, I'll try to come up with a better idea of what i mean that everyone understands besides me and my crazy logic...

I would watch how you word that. People are not going to take kindly to being called hilarious and stupid. You gotta remember, there's many different people out there and not all of them think the same way you do.

Again, better in my head.
Its not that I'm calling the people hilarious and stupid, its just that my understanding is lacking of certain parts of the religions and that what I see and understand of it is...
Well, you know...
If someone were to educate me in those things and make me understand why the religions do/believe them I'm sure I would change my view-point...

I am not 100% correct on this, but wasn't Pulman trying to impose atheism on children with the "His Dark Materials" series? Like I said, I'm not 100% correct on this.

No, he wasn't. His whole point, was that his books are fiction, and he was somehow expressing his own views through his literature.
The fact that everyone loved it was a plus.

Pullman has singled out Christianity for criticism, such as the following: "I suppose technically, you'd have to put me down as an agnostic. But if there is a God, and he is as the Christians describe him, then he deserves to be put down and rebelled against."However, Pullman has also said in interviews and appearances that his argument can extend to all religions.

This was in an article I read the other week.
He isn't trying to convert people, just putting out his own opinions.
I think anyway

 

[Rockman X]

I don't quite know what I'm trying to say here, but mainly that I don't like religion, but I'm not trying to offend people by imposing my views of it on people...

You just want to impose on the right to peacefully protest literature, amirite? They're not hurting anyone, and they're not harming book sales, so leave them alone.

Again, better in my head.

Its not that I'm calling the people hilarious and stupid, its just that my understanding is lacking of certain parts of the religions and that what I see and understand of it is...
Well, you know...
If someone were to educate me in those things and make me understand why the religions do/believe them I'm sure I would change my view-point...

In other words, you're ignorant but like to bitch about things you don't fully understand. I hate when people do that.

And try educating yourself about it and changing your viewpoint on your own. You know it is actually much more rewarding when you study something on your own, rather than having people teach you about it in a class setting or wherever.

EDIT: K...so this thing is a piece of shit and messed up the quotes and my font color and won't fix it when I edit it... *kicks*

 

[Kenpachi]

The last part of that is a fair point, and I shall educate myself and I'll continue that discussion when I've read up on stuff but...

You just want to impose on the right to peacefully protest literature, amirite? They're not hurting anyone, and they're not harming book sales, so leave them alone.

That bit you blew completely out of proportion...
I am not trying to impose anything, I simply don't like it.
Its called Freedom of Speech, I'm allowed to say I don't like when they do it, and i know they're allowed to do it, so its all fair and good.
All sorted

 

[der Astronom]

I just had to be away on Monday when this all happened, didn't I?

Yeah, okay. And you're definitely an authority. Many Chrisitians, actually, generally DO disregard the Old Testament. They cherrypick now and then, because yes, Judaism and Christianity are intimately linked. They worship the same God. However, the Christian religion is mostly centered on the New Testament and Jesus's teachings. I know what I'm talking about. Both of my parents had intense Catholic schoolings, I go to Catholic church, and my best friend is a Medieval studies major (hint hint, guess what was super popular back then). And for my sanity, stop using clichés. It's making the English geek inside of me want to puke.

I mentioned cherry picking, not as a mere observation, but if you're going to cherry pick, it means you only want to hear what you want to hear, and there is no morality to be gained because you know what you want, and you admit to judgment that you already have. If you've never read a book before, would you only read the parts you like to hear, or wouldn't it be better to read the book for its entirety?

You're free to cherry pick all you want, but I hope you do realize what you're doing when you choose to do that.

I don't need some boring lecture about early Christianity. I know all about it. There were so many different ideas going on at that time, that it can only accurately be called early Christianities. Everyone had a different take on what had just happened. Anyway, I'm well aware that Jesus told his disciples to spread the word. Big deal. You're all acting like he was some megalomaniac who told his followers to rape, maim, kill, and convert as many people as possible. I'm just saying that for all of your ranting, you're completely ignoring the beautiful and pure parts of Christianity/The Bible. It's not all maiming and rape.

I personally don't consider it to be all that beautiful because it's not original, and it's been riddled with other inconsistencies--if you read the book as a whole. But since I prefer not to cherry pick, it is by not doing so that I see this as it is.

Uh-oh, you better get out your handy little quote and apply it to yourself. If you actually read my post, notice I don't say anything about the followers of Christianity? I'm weeeeell aware of history and how people over the years-- at to this day-- perverted the teachings of Jesus. I think it's rather shameful. However, there are some people who adhere to his teachings pretty well and are extremely lovely people.

One should also notice that because Jesus' teachings are so vague, they are easily perverted. But because they are vague, nobody knows what they actually mean. If you think you do, you must concede that it's your interpretation of what it means, and can hold no "universal" truth to anyone else, nor can you force it upon other people, not that you would.

A book (the New Testament) that was compiled over a hundred years and was written by many different people in different locations is a bit inconsistent? Really?! The Old Testament and New Testament are really inconsistent, I'll admit that. Then again, the Old Testament is more of a Jewish text, and the New Testament is a wholly Christian text. It's just like how the Quraan doesn't exactly match up with the Bible. They're like different biographies of the same person. They are going to have different ideas and concepts and stress different morals. Anywaaay, I could be wrong (I'm not exactly a Bible scholar or super religious), but I don't think the New Testament really advocates violence or intolerance on the same level that the Old Testament does. The teachings that Jesus is most known for are the "love everybody" teachings. The quotes you posted, yes, Jesus seems to get a little rough, however...

Well, think about it. All these people wrote these books independently of each other, and had no clue whatsoever about what the other guy wrote. They might have been writing about the same thing, or a different thing, or it was entirely made up--either way, they never checked with each other to see if what they wrote was consistent, as none of them were scientific in thinking or methods.

And as I have mentioned before, there is nothing particularly original about Jesus' "love everybody" teachings, and therefore, are not special above any other philosophers' or moral writings from the past. But because you concede to the fact that the bible is inconsistent, it makes more sense to read a different work that is consistent and says the same things about loving others (and possibly more that is meaningful). In other words, why read a book where you have to cherry pick in order to derive any meaning whatsoever when you can read a book where you don't have to step around the violences and nonsensical bits and read it for its entirety, enjoy it and feel some sort of enlightenment from having learned something?

Matthew 10:34-37
34: Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35: For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36: And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37: He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

I honestly think that it can be interpreted in a less violent way. The sword (according to a friend) can be a reference to combating Satan with the words of the Lord. It also seems more like he's interested in leading a type of religious revolution. He wants people to know that God should come before their families. I don't think it's necessarily violent or nasty. The Bible isn't written in completely straightfoward English. Like in many volumes of literature, there are certain 'hidden' meanings in words and passages. If it were that simple, we wouldn't need Bible scholars and the like.

There is no evidence that says that the sword does indeed refer to Satan, but from the rest of what has been posted, it does seem to me that Jesus doesn't seem to want people to love their parents so much. You are just making an interpretation off of an ambiguous line, which can be interpreted any way you want. There is no revelation or enlightenment from that, nor does it say anything about how he is "loving"--and a loving person doesn't bear a sword against ANYONE, be it Satan, your neighbor, or even God, particularly if he loved everyone.

Luke 12:41-47
41: Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?
42: And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
43: Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
44: Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
45: But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
46: The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
47: And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

Yeah, taken out of context like you did there, it did look pretty bad. But actually IN context, it's basically saying, "don't be a douchebag, and God won't punish you." That's a pretty fair lesson, I'd say.

And being a douchebag, I suppose means not believing or having faith in God ("My lord delayeth his coming"), and if someone gets punished for being of a different religion, or not believing in God, then that's religious intolerance.

Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to do is emphasize that it's not 1485, and the Spanish Inquisition is over. Yes, Christianity did a lot of shitty things. But I don't know why you don't get that it WAS NOT THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS. If it hadn't been over religion, it would have been over something else. Never underestimate the violence that seems to be inherent in mankind. If we're not killing people in the name of God, we're committing genocide because someone has a different skin color than we do. It's human nature that committed those atrocities in the past. Religion was just the excuse of the day.

If it is a part of Jesus' teachings to not ignore the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is responsible for all the things that made Christianity horrible, then it might just be a part of his teachings. Furthermore, why does it even matter if it wasn't the teachings of Jesus, I was criticizing the bible as a whole, and not merely the teachings of Jesus. If you profess to cherry picking only the teachings of Jesus, then this argument is clearly not concerned with you, since you've already admitted that the bible is inconsistent, so I can't really see why you would want to defend the bible as a whole. There are certain people, unlike you, who do read the bible for its entirety. Whether or not they were right or wrong in believing what they read is entirely up to opinion, but it is undeniable, that they were good readers who did not cherry pick what they wanted to hear.

As I have said before, it is not only the people who are at fault. It is both the book and the people. Because the book says certain things that suggest that it is wrong, and either give people particular ideas of intolerance about other people, or it gives them an excuse to do what they wanted to do, or they were completely ignorant and had no other external judgment by which to validate what they read.

But who knows. Why you would even want to defend such an inconsistent and contradictory book is completely beyond me.

 

[Erythritol]

I just had to be away on Monday when this all happened, didn't I?



I mentioned cherry picking, not as a mere observation, but if you're going to cherry pick, it means you only want to hear what you want to hear, and there is no morality to be gained because you know what you want, and you admit to judgment that you already have. If you've never read a book before, would you only read the parts you like to hear, or wouldn't it be better to read the book for its entirety?

You're free to cherry pick all you want, but I hope you do realize what you're doing when you choose to do that.

Christians don't cherrypick from the Old Testament for that reason. Honestly, it's hard to explain. They can't entirely ignore the Old Testament, but a majority of things don't apply to them. The New Testament sort of addresses some things in the Old Testament and builds upon them. The New Testament is really what applies to Christians, and that's what Christianity focuses on.

I personally don't consider it to be all that beautiful because it's not original, and it's been riddled with other inconsistencies--if you read the book as a whole. But since I prefer not to cherry pick, it is by not doing so that I see this as it is.

I think you're sort of missing the point here. The Old and New Testament sort of correlate, however, they aren't really the same book. The Jews don't consider the New Testament to be holy scripture, and the Christians kind of think of the Old Testament as a primer. It's just background knowledge for the New Testament. And no one is cherrypicking. Where are you getting this cherrypicking from? The New Testament, by itself, stands as a fairly consistent piece of literature (disregarding Revelations, which is a bit of a non-sequitar, as mentioned before). There are some ideas in the New Testament that certain Christian groups consider more important than other ideas, so they focus upon those. Maybe that's what you mean by cherrypicking?

One should also notice that because Jesus' teachings are so vague, they are easily perverted. But because they are vague, nobody knows what they actually mean. If you think you do, you must concede that it's your interpretation of what it means, and can hold no "universal" truth to anyone else, nor can you force it upon other people, not that you would.

No, they're not really that vague. They're pretty explicit. He says explicitly what he believes people should do. I don't know what made you believe they are vague. Provide quotes that illustrate their vagueness. Otherwise, you just seem to be making things up to support your argument.

Well, think about it. All these people wrote these books independently of each other, and had no clue whatsoever about what the other guy wrote. They might have been writing about the same thing, or a different thing, or it was entirely made up--either way, they never checked with each other to see if what they wrote was consistent, as none of them were scientific in thinking or methods.

Um...I was being sarcastic. It's not weird that some accounts are different. In fact, it would be really strange if they were all completely consistent. And they were writing a religious text, not a science textbook. You have to realize that no one sent them a memo, telling them that they were all writing texts that would one day become the Bible. I'm sure that some of them weren't even aware that others were writing similar things. I'd also like to mention, that everyone has different perceptions of the same event. You take several people who witness the same event and ask them to write about the event, you're going to have different accounts. Everyone experiences something differently. You also have to take into account some creative license.

And as I have mentioned before, there is nothing particularly original about Jesus' "love everybody" teachings, and therefore, are not special above any other philosophers' or moral writings from the past. But because you concede to the fact that the bible is inconsistent, it makes more sense to read a different work that is consistent and says the same things about loving others (and possibly more that is meaningful). In other words, why read a book where you have to cherry pick in order to derive any meaning whatsoever when you can read a book where you don't have to step around the violences and nonsensical bits and read it for its entirety, enjoy it and feel some sort of enlightenment from having learned something?

I don't know why you think my argument is that the Bible is the greatest book ever written. Because I definitely never said that. All I wanted to make clear is that it's not the violent religious text that some people seem to think it is. I also wanted to illustrate the point that the New Testament does not condone violence. At all.

There is no evidence that says that the sword does indeed refer to Satan, but from the rest of what has been posted, it does seem to me that Jesus doesn't seem to want people to love their parents so much. You are just making an interpretation off of an ambiguous line, which can be interpreted any way you want. There is no revelation or enlightenment from that, nor does it say anything about how he is "loving"--and a loving person doesn't bear a sword against ANYONE, be it Satan, your neighbor, or even God, particularly if he loved everyone.

Actually, if you were well-versed in the Bible, you'd understand the sword reference right away. It recalls an earlier quote in the Bible about fighting Satan with a sword (the sword is the words of the Lord, not a literal sword). It's only ambiguous if you don't know much about the Bible (which it seems you don't) or take it out of context.

And being a douchebag, I suppose means not believing or having faith in God ("My lord delayeth his coming"), and if someone gets punished for being of a different religion, or not believing in God, then that's religious intolerance.

Okay, somehow you managed to get religious intolerance out of that quote. I'm not sure how. All that quote says is you should be faithful to the Lord if you are a good Chrisitian. It also tells people not to try to get away with things when they think God isn't watching. As for the unbelievers: they simply won't go to heaven. That's all. That's about as intolerant as it gets. Jesus actually explicitly talks about "unbelievers" and simply says that they are "unworthy" of him. That's not too intolerant.

If it is a part of Jesus' teachings to not ignore the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is responsible for all the things that made Christianity horrible, then it might just be a part of his teachings. Furthermore, why does it even matter if it wasn't the teachings of Jesus, I was criticizing the bible as a whole, and not merely the teachings of Jesus. If you profess to cherry picking only the teachings of Jesus, then this argument is clearly not concerned with you, since you've already admitted that the bible is inconsistent, so I can't really see why you would want to defend the bible as a whole. There are certain people, unlike you, who do read the bible for its entirety. Whether or not they were right or wrong in believing what they read is entirely up to opinion, but it is undeniable, that they were good readers who did not cherry pick what they wanted to hear.

You really should stick to philosophy debates. Because I don't think you understand the Bible at all. Jesus explicitly tells people that they can ignore most of the Old Testament. And don't flatter yourself, my posts weren't directed just at you. The first post was bitching about how horrible Christianity is, so I felt compelled to defend it a little. I'm not cherrypicking when I talk about the New Testament. Because the New Testament IS CHRISTIANITY. Yeah, there are some vaguely relevant parts of the Old Testament, but most of that is concerned with Judaism.

And let's just talk about cherrypicking for a moment. Because obviously you're above it. Tell me, do you like Aristotle? If so, how do you feel about being a deformed male? Oh wait, you also like Newton, right? You're cherrypicking!! You're ignoring his religious writings! Y'know, the ones where he said that God definitely exists? Apparently, he spent more time studying the Bible than science. And why are you cherrypicking and ignoring his works in alchemy?! C'mon!

So what I guess I'm trying to do here is illustrate the point that everyone cherrypicks. Though I don't think I was really cherrypicking because I'm defending Christianity, which is concerned primarily with the New Testament. Unfortunately, Christians get the most heat for "cherrypicking" because extremeists tend to be huge loudmouths and because the Bible happens to be the best selling book of all time.

As I have said before, it is not only the people who are at fault. It is both the book and the people. Because the book says certain things that suggest that it is wrong, and either give people particular ideas of intolerance about other people, or it gives them an excuse to do what they wanted to do, or they were completely ignorant and had no other external judgment by which to validate what they read.

But who knows. Why you would even want to defend such an inconsistent and contradictory book is completely beyond me.

Nope. I hate to be all pessimistic like this, but people tend to be violent and greedy. They use whatever excuse they can. Christianity happened to be a very convenient excuse. Notice how these campaigns to spread Christianity usually included taking lands? I don't remember THAT being in the New Testament, do you? Tell me, do you think that in the Quran, it says to blow up people who aren't of the same faith as you? Do you blame Islam for the Jihadists of today? Do you understand how those people pervert the Islamic faith or are you ignorant enough to think it's actually the religion? Because this is along the same lines. I defend it because I'm getting a little tired of ignorance about the nature of Christianity. It's not a violent religion. It was just perverted a long time ago by greedy people. And PS: just a friendly reminder, you still haven't actually proven that it's inconsistent or contradictory. You've just repeated that several times with absolutely no proof.

 

[der Astronom]

Okay, the stupid window keeps closing on me just before I'm about to finish the post, and I lost the entire thing twice. I'll post the quotes later when I actually have time.

Christians don't cherrypick from the Old Testament for that reason. Honestly, it's hard to explain. They can't entirely ignore the Old Testament, but a majority of things don't apply to them. The New Testament sort of addresses some things in the Old Testament and builds upon them. The New Testament is really what applies to Christians, and that's what Christianity focuses on.

Who told you that? Was that your own judgment, or Jesus said to? I do not recall a verse or quote where Jesus said to ignore the Old Testament. In fact, he says not to ignore it. And if there was a quote where he did say to ignore it, then we have two verses in contradiction with each other. So I must conclude that if you chose to ignore the Old Testament, it was because you chose to, and not because you were told to read the book that way. And why should you even be told how to read a book?

I think you're sort of missing the point here. The Old and New Testament sort of correlate, however, they aren't really the same book. The Jews don't consider the New Testament to be holy scripture, and the Christians kind of think of the Old Testament as a primer. It's just background knowledge for the New Testament. And no one is cherrypicking. Where are you getting this cherrypicking from? The New Testament, by itself, stands as a fairly consistent piece of literature (disregarding Revelations, which is a bit of a non-sequitar, as mentioned before). There are some ideas in the New Testament that certain Christian groups consider more important than other ideas, so they focus upon those. Maybe that's what you mean by cherrypicking?

Well, since you admit that the New Testament is related to the Old Testament, it would make sense that you read them as a whole, and not just the New Testament--even so, I don't ever recall the bible having been only the New Testament, because it's both, and if the Old Testament was that terrible, and not what Christians believe in, they should simply have removed it--but I see that they haven't. There's no forward or note saying to ignore the Old Testament either--it's only by cherrypicking that you ignore it. Furthermore, you say that the New Testament is consistent, but as I explained before, the four accounts told aren't consistent, and contradict each other on particular points, when telling the same story--so even if you weren't to cherrypick any of the "violences" in the New Testament, you'd be cherrypicking the accounts you wanted to hear.

And if you concede that Revelations is inconsistent, then you are once again cherrypicking, since you did suggest that the New Testament is not inconsistent, but Revelations is a part of the New Testament.

No, they're not really that vague. They're pretty explicit. He says explicitly what he believes people should do. I don't know what made you believe they are vague. Provide quotes that illustrate their vagueness. Otherwise, you just seem to be making things up to support your argument.

Jesus admits he speaks in parables in Matthew. I don't entirely know whether it's because he confuses people so they'll go to hell, or it it's because he doesn't want people to understand him--either way, it's not very clear to me why that's so, but it is undeniable that he speaks in parables.

Um...I was being sarcastic. It's not weird that some accounts are different. In fact, it would be really strange if they were all completely consistent. And they were writing a religious text, not a science textbook. You have to realize that no one sent them a memo, telling them that they were all writing texts that would one day become the Bible. I'm sure that some of them weren't even aware that others were writing similar things. I'd also like to mention, that everyone has different perceptions of the same event. You take several people who witness the same event and ask them to write about the event, you're going to have different accounts. Everyone experiences something differently. You also have to take into account some creative license.

I mentioned the reference to science because certain people (not necessarily you) believe the bible tells them things about natural phenomena, but it makes no accurate statements about them, as compared to scientific studies. However, more often than not, scientists make studies of natural phenomena on their own and often come to the same results--there has rarely ever been any kind of inconsistencies in their research or accounts of them unless they were frauds. If you were to use the argument that people saw the same event and wrote about it, despite the fact that they were different, then maybe their perspectives were different, but it is undeniable that if they wrote about the same event, the details should be the same, particularly the objective details. But that's clearly not the case, and they probably went and added the stuff they wanted to add. But since you concede that they experience it differently, then you must also concede that what they wrote is subjective and can hold no revelation whatsoever.

I don't know why you think my argument is that the Bible is the greatest book ever written. Because I definitely never said that. All I wanted to make clear is that it's not the violent religious text that some people seem to think it is. I also wanted to illustrate the point that the New Testament does not condone violence. At all.

I never said that you think the bible is the greatest book ever written, only that I said it isn't. However, the violence is in the fact that Jesus does not say to ignore the Old Testament, and if he had been the loving kind of person we expect him to be, that he might denounce them, but he does not, and that he advocates parents leaving their children for the sake of him (and the children are told to honor their parents, despite the fact they're leaving them for Jesus), and he condemns cities for not caring about his preaching. It's not in the fact that the violence happened, but that such morals are outdated and obsolete, and still hold no revelation whatsoever. However, Revelations does seem to exhibit the same violence the Old Testament has--once again, if you are going to ignore Revelations, a part of the New Testament, you;ll have to concede to cherrypicking.

Actually, if you were well-versed in the Bible, you'd understand the sword reference right away. It recalls an earlier quote in the Bible about fighting Satan with a sword (the sword is the words of the Lord, not a literal sword). It's only ambiguous if you don't know much about the Bible (which it seems you don't) or take it out of context.

There are actually several references to the sword in the bible, one of which being that Jesus' sword is used in Revelations to kill the "unchosen" (which I can only presume to mean the non believers, since they get killed by God anyways). However, I am well aware that we are not speaking of a literal sword, but a symbollic one--either way, a loving person doesn't attack others, whether it's with real swords or words. Particularly if the same person says to love thy enemies.

Okay, somehow you managed to get religious intolerance out of that quote. I'm not sure how. All that quote says is you should be faithful to the Lord if you are a good Chrisitian. It also tells people not to try to get away with things when they think God isn't watching. As for the unbelievers: they simply won't go to heaven. That's all. That's about as intolerant as it gets. Jesus actually explicitly talks about "unbelievers" and simply says that they are "unworthy" of him. That's not too intolerant.

I'm not sure how people get 4.5 billion years out of 6000 years, or how particular people choose to ignore particular things in the bible, but I sure don't know how you got your interpretation either. The fact that we don't see the same thing in the bible only confirms what I said about the ambiguity.

But once again, you are ignoring the fact that Revelations has God killing off the non believers in Revelations, so the intolerance is still there.

You really should stick to philosophy debates. Because I don't think you understand the Bible at all. Jesus explicitly tells people that they can ignore most of the Old Testament. And don't flatter yourself, my posts weren't directed just at you. The first post was bitching about how horrible Christianity is, so I felt compelled to defend it a little. I'm not cherrypicking when I talk about the New Testament. Because the New Testament IS CHRISTIANITY. Yeah, there are some vaguely relevant parts of the Old Testament, but most of that is concerned with Judaism.

I'm fairly sure I posted a quote about where Jesus said that they shouldn't ignore the Old Testament, so why don't you provide a quote where he did say that? But all you'll accomplish in doing that is to prove there is a contradiction in what he says.

Perhaps the reason you're defending Christianity is because you're defending the Christianity that's based on only the New Testament, but I said no such thing in my definition of Christianity that I might have been commenting on. In fact, most people, as far as I'm concerned, take Christianity to mean both testaments, but once again, you fail to prove that Jesus said not to condone the Old Testament--in fact, since the opposite is true, and you may define Christianity to be Jesus' teachings, then the Old Testament is just as much a part of Christianity as the New Testament is.]

And let's just talk about cherrypicking for a moment. Because obviously you're above it. Tell me, do you like Aristotle? If so, how do you feel about being a deformed male? Oh wait, you also like Newton, right? You're cherrypicking!! You're ignoring his religious writings! Y'know, the ones where he said that God definitely exists? Apparently, he spent more time studying the Bible than science. And why are you cherrypicking and ignoring his works in alchemy?! C'mon!

I said nothing about Aristotle, but I can presume you were speaking of that picture of Archimedes that I posted in a different thread. I admire Archimedes, Newton and Gauss for their contributions in mathematics--I have no idea whether or not Archimedes was deformed or not, and if he were, I do not object to it. If Newton was deeply religious, I do not object to that either, and did not say that he was "wrong" in believing what he wanted to believe. Furthermore, the irony is in the fact that he believed he was studying science for the sake of God, but did more for the scientific community than he ever did for religion. You say he was in alchemy as well, and I do not deny that either--if he ever made anything out of it, I have no reason to deny it. If he made nothing out of it as well, I do not deny that either. Gauss was a cold reclusive man, who rarely ever published any of his findings, and might have lived a tragic life. He probably also believed in some kind of God, but never went to church or preached religious intolerance. But it is because of some of these characteristics that I relate with him, and if he ever were flawed, I do not deny that he had them. It makes him and the other two all the more human, all the more believable, and all the more worth it.

But there is a clear difference between picking on people, literature or other works and the bible. The bible is an authoritarian book that tells people how to live their lives, and other works and people do not tell others how they lead their lives--you can take them any way they want, and because people admit to being imperfect, it is perfectly fine to accept them for their flaws. But to concede that the bible is somehow flawed would mean the word of God is flawed, and possibly that God is flawed, and the entire thing makes no sense. If a book was written in order to tell people how to live their lives, why do they need an external criteria to judge whether or not this book would be adequate for telling them how to live their lives? They would have no external criteria. If you ever consulted such a book, it would most likely be because you seek enlightment, and it is arbitrary if you choose to cherrypick. The only reason you would ever read such a book, if not for enlightment or revelation would be either because you want to compare it with what you already know and can judge for yourself, or to see if it says anything you like that you haven't seen before. But I can tell you that there is nothing new in the bible, and anyone seeking enlightment or revelation from a book which has no real revelation will be disappointed, and cherrypicking it only tells you what you want to hear.

It is only because God makes himself out to be so "perfect" and "righteous" that for him to remain "perfect" would require cherrypicking, just as it requires cherrypicking to make a bad book good.

So what I guess I'm trying to do here is illustrate the point that everyone cherrypicks. Though I don't think I was really cherrypicking because I'm defending Christianity, which is concerned primarily with the New Testament. Unfortunately, Christians get the most heat for "cherrypicking" because extremeists tend to be huge loudmouths and because the Bible happens to be the best selling book of all time.

I do not deny that the bible is the best selling book if it still is; though one can wonder if it's because of people ignoring the Old Testament, even though it's been included there. Once again, there is no one telling you to ignore the Old Testament--you do so only because you believe it's not a part of Christianity.

Now a good book need not be perfect. It can have a few flaws and still be fine. But the fact is, the bible is filled with them. There are inconsistencies everywhere, the Old Testament, and the fact that it's just so difficult to read and make any sense out of it, and is too ambiguous to derive any meaning. It's also not original, and there are better alternatives that are more consistent and enlightening than the bible, where you don't have to cherrypick to make it look good--it's already good enough, and the flaws are so small as to be insignificant. The fact is, however, you need not cherrypick at all to see that a book is good or bad.

Nope. I hate to be all pessimistic like this, but people tend to be violent and greedy. They use whatever excuse they can. Christianity happened to be a very convenient excuse. Notice how these campaigns to spread Christianity usually included taking lands? I don't remember THAT being in the New Testament, do you? Tell me, do you think that in the Quran, it says to blow up people who aren't of the same faith as you? Do you blame Islam for the Jihadists of today? Do you understand how those people pervert the Islamic faith or are you ignorant enough to think it's actually the religion? Because this is along the same lines. I defend it because I'm getting a little tired of ignorance about the nature of Christianity. It's not a violent religion. It was just perverted a long time ago by greedy people. And PS: just a friendly reminder, you still haven't actually proven that it's inconsistent or contradictory. You've just repeated that several times with absolutely no proof.

I did not say it was the book only, but to think that everyone bought it only because they wanted to use the book as an excuse as the only reason the violence ever happened is absurd. Because of impressionable children being brought up by people who are completely swayed by religion, it is easy to see how people would be motivated to cause war for the sake of religion--it's not always because people use religion as an excuse, but because they take it to be their way of life, and had no external criteria to begin with to know that certain punishments as spoken of in the bible are wrong. It is only because of society today, and particular secularists (ie, the founding fathers of USA, the majority of which were secularists and deists) that some of these punishments are being realized as being inhumane and obsolete.

I should also like to ask you this too. Do you actually profess to know the true nature of Christianity from a book which has been edited so many times over, particularly by people who wrote in things they wanted to hear in it, and has been voted on arbitrarily by priests in the past, and the meaning, terribly distorted by translation and time, that a book riddled with so many contradictions and inconsistencies, would reveal any kind of meaning, much less, revelation, which I believe it is furthest away from? I should think that nobody really knows the true nature of Christianity, except for one people make for themselves, and because people read and see different things in the bible (just as they would for any other piece of literature), it is acceptable that I might see Christianity, the religion based off of an authoritarian book as being horrible or nonsensical, and containing no revelation, and equally acceptable that you do not see the same things in it.

You say that I have no proof for its inconsistencies, when I have pointed out the problems with the four accounts of Jesus' resurrection, not to mention, in that same thread, the other inconsistencies with science, and some of these other accounts, including the fact that the supposed writers did not write the accounts bearing their names. I do not entirely know what constitutes as "proof" to you, and I have just explained several more, but it is enough that the writers did not write the accounts bearing their names, and that the evidence for this is contained entirely within the book itself--what better evidence could you ask for?

If you deny these inconsistencies, it is because you resort to cherrypicking. In which case, I have no desire to argue with people who are willfully ignorant of a book in its entirety. If you are to ever speak of a book, speak of it as a whole, not as a mere, incomplete part of it.

 

[Rockman X]

Who told you that? Was that your own judgment, or Jesus said to? I do not recall a verse or quote where Jesus said to ignore the Old Testament. In fact, he says not to ignore it. And if there was a quote where he did say to ignore it, then we have two verses in contradiction with each other. So I must conclude that if you chose to ignore the Old Testament, it was because you chose to, and not because you were told to read the book that way. And why should you even be told how to read a book?

K, let me try to clear this up for you, since it's obvious you can't comprehend it: Christianity teaches the Gospel, that Jesus came to earth to die for humanity's sins. Believing in Christ and accepting him as one's savior to get into heaven is known as the "new covenant." What was in the Old Testament deals with the "old covenant", where the Israelites had to have a sacrificial animal to die for their sins instead.

Many times the coming of a Messiah and the bringing of the new covenant is prophesied in the Old Testament. Christians believe that Jesus was that Messiah, thus Christianity is centered around the New Testament. The Old Testament is more or less a history of the Israelites and Christianity's origin. Have you ever seen those little miniature Bibles people hand out? Guess what's in them? OMFG! It's the NEW TESTAMENT! Holy shit! Who woulda guessed? They also generally have Psalms and Proverbs in them too, simply because alot of good lessons can be learned from those books. The Old Testament is NOT important to Christianity because it has NOTHING to do with the Gospel.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your stupid ramblings because they're ignorant and you lack sufficient knowledge of Christianity. I don't think you can differentiate between that and Judaism. And stop saying crap about how the New Testament promotes violence and go read the damn thing sometime.

I'm not a Christian but I'm awfully tired of you arrogant atheists thinking you always know the answers and how you love to CHERRY PICK (omfg thats right, I stole your new favorite phrase) every detail and are usually wrong anyway because you don't have a grasp of what you're talking about. Now you'll probably start throwing out fancy highschool speech phrases like "AD HOMINEM!" and "STRAWMAN!" Don't care. If you want to argue against Christianity, fine, I'll be happy to argue against it with you, but learn what you're arguing about first. That's the way debates work. Incidentally, I do happen to know what I'm talking about. My mom is a Christian and did her damn best to raise me as one.

 

[Erythritol]

There is no bloody way I'm going through that entire post and replying to each part. VR succinctly and eloquently said everything: learn to differentiate between Judaism and Christianity. It's not too challenging. Revelations had absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. There are some who question why it was even included in the New Testament. It's not violent, necessarily...just...really weird.

....And no. No, I do not mean Archimedes. Maybe I made a faulty assumption. I assumed you were big into philosophy, especially the ancient philosophers, such as Aristotle. And while I'm sure he made grand, lovely contributions to philosophy, you should check out some of his interesting misogynistic writings in which he calls women deformed males. I was just trying to illustrate how someone can make a wonderful contribution to something and also promote horrible ideas. Philosophers to this day cherrypick (to use a word you seem fond of) at his ideas. They use his philosophies but ignore his other misogynistic writing. But anyway, you still didn't provide any proof at all as to the inconsistencies in Christianity (within the New Testament). You also haven't proved that it had violent or intolerant beginnings (once more, from the New Testament). What you HAVE proved, however, is that you cannot tell the difference between two major world religions.

 

[der Astronom]

K, let me try to clear this up for you, since it's obvious you can't comprehend it: Christianity teaches the Gospel, that Jesus came to earth to die for humanity's sins. Believing in Christ and accepting him as one's savior to get into heaven is known as the "new covenant." What was in the Old Testament deals with the "old covenant", where the Israelites had to have a sacrificial animal to die for their sins instead.

Then is the same god being described of in the Old Testament the same God as the one in the New Testament, and if they're not, why does Jesus make references to the Old Testament, and why are they even there anyways? If the Old Testament is not a part of Christianity, why do bibles still include the Old Testament? The bible I had from my childhood had both the Old Testament and the new one. In other words, if these two religions are so different, why is there so many connections between the two? And why is it that it ends in something like Revelations, as if any of this violence didn't completely go away at all? You'd have to ignore the beginning (the Old Testament) and the end (Revelations) to even get something out of it. If you want to, that's fine, but it's not the complete story, and if you were ever to get anything out of it, it's not any different from what's already been written before the bible.

However, the problem with defining Christianity is that there are so many different denominations, and the so-called "liberal" Christians, who mostly don't go to church and freely pick whichever parts of the bible they want to believe in--they're probably not any different from any other secularist, except they believe in a god. They believe different things, pick different parts of the bible to emphasize, and certain churches, if I recall, still have bibles that consist of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. In fact, the church I went to a long time ago even took some time to explain some quotes from the Old Testament, as if it were a part of the religion.

And there are, of course, the extreme fundamentalists who believe every single word of the book, including the fact that the Earth is flat and 6000 years old.

Many times the coming of a Messiah and the bringing of the new covenant is prophesied in the Old Testament. Christians believe that Jesus was that Messiah, thus Christianity is centered around the New Testament. The Old Testament is more or less a history of the Israelites and Christianity's origin. Have you ever seen those little miniature Bibles people hand out? Guess what's in them? OMFG! It's the NEW TESTAMENT! Holy shit! Who woulda guessed? They also generally have Psalms and Proverbs in them too, simply because alot of good lessons can be learned from those books. The Old Testament is NOT important to Christianity because it has NOTHING to do with the Gospel.

In other words, they are ignoring the Old Testament. Haven't you ever thought that the bible, if taken as a whole, might suggest that God tried using more violent methods to straighten out his people, and it didn't work, so instead of "forcing" people to believe him, he sent Jesus to do his work, but instead of forcing people to believe him, simply warned them that they'd get it in Revelations, and instead of actually causing the violence, let it happen later so that God actually ended up sending them to hell, and not only in hell, but that they'd stay there forever? Yes, that's the only sense I ever get out of that book. If you want to believe I'm wrong just because the entire thing doesn't mean the same thing to you, go ahead. Nobody ever said that any one book must mean one thing and one thing only to the entire world.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your stupid ramblings because they're ignorant and you lack sufficient knowledge of Christianity. I don't think you can differentiate between that and Judaism. And stop saying crap about how the New Testament promotes violence and go read the damn thing sometime.

It does in Revelations. I will admit, however, that I have tried reading it, and it makes no sense whatsoever. Either the language is so flowery as to not derive any meaning whatsoever, or it's being repetitive or inconsistent, and I fall asleep trying to read it. And anything "good" in it isn't original, or I haven't already seen, or too generalized as to be completely useless.

I'm not a Christian but I'm awfully tired of you arrogant atheists thinking you always know the answers and how you love to CHERRY PICK (omfg thats right, I stole your new favorite phrase) every detail and are usually wrong anyway because you don't have a grasp of what you're talking about. Now you'll probably start throwing out fancy highschool speech phrases like "AD HOMINEM!" and "STRAWMAN!" Don't care. If you want to argue against Christianity, fine, I'll be happy to argue against it with you, but learn what you're arguing about first. That's the way debates work. Incidentally, I do happen to know what I'm talking about. My mom is a Christian and did her damn best to raise me as one.

I never said I knew everything, but I am presenting my interpretation of the bible. As I already said, I don't care if you don't agree or not, but the matter of the fact is, there is no such thing as "the" interpretation. It has never ever existed in literature because we all don't see the same thing. If we like picking on particular details because we think they're inaccurate or inconsistent, we have every right to do that. If you don't like it because it destroys the credibility of the bible, then continue your own cherry picking of the parts that make sense, I don't care if you do. As I have already explained before, I am arguing the bible as a whole, not the mere few parts that make sense to you. If you are content with the parts that make sense but don't want to comment on the stuff that doesn't because it doesn't have to do with you, then this clearly doesn't concern you, and I have no idea what you're trying to achieve.

There is no bloody way I'm going through that entire post and replying to each part. VR succinctly and eloquently said everything: learn to differentiate between Judaism and Christianity. It's not too challenging. Revelations had absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. There are some who question why it was even included in the New Testament. It's not violent, necessarily...just...really weird.

Yes, I think I know why it's there. Because it's not any less horrible than the Old Testament. No wonder today's society made people reconsider it. As explained above, the Old Testament was God's violent way of forcing people to believe in him, and using force obviously didn't work. In using a nicer approach, Jesus still encountered people who refused to believe in him, but you can't expect everyone to believe you, particularly when he gave everyone free will, and the entire thing still ends in violence in Revelations anyways. He might not have forced people to believe in him in the New Testament, but the fact that these same people ended up going to hell, and eternally doesn't change his intolerance.

Although I don't know why you don't think killing off a bunch of "unchosen" people isn't violent.

But if you want to continue believing only Jesus' teachings matter without the end result and take it to mean whatever else you want it to be, that's your choice. Unlike certain people on a different forum, I don't believe in a "what's meant to be" and don't think everyone has to agree with me.

....And no. No, I do not mean Archimedes. Maybe I made a faulty assumption. I assumed you were big into philosophy, especially the ancient philosophers, such as Aristotle. And while I'm sure he made grand, lovely contributions to philosophy, you should check out some of his interesting misogynistic writings in which he calls women deformed males. I was just trying to illustrate how someone can make a wonderful contribution to something and also promote horrible ideas. Philosophers to this day cherrypick (to use a word you seem fond of) at his ideas. They use his philosophies but ignore his other misogynistic writing. But anyway, you still didn't provide any proof at all as to the inconsistencies in Christianity (within the New Testament). You also haven't proved that it had violent or intolerant beginnings (once more, from the New Testament). What you HAVE proved, however, is that you cannot tell the difference between two major world religions.

Well, that's a fairly laughable and funny idea; it's certainly amusing, but I can admit that even some of the greatest mathematicians in history were wrong or inaccurate about certain things, and there's nothing wrong with that. The fact that we have found their inaccuracies and they've been admitted is a sign of growth and change. But since philosophy isn't a guide on life anyways, you're free to pick whatever ideas suit you right. You need not assume you have no perspective at all about life or morality when going into philosophy, but I'm just saying that people who consult a book that's meant to guide people through life don't necessarily have a perspective on life, and therefore, can't cherrypick. At the very least, if you're going to cherrypick, it would mean you have to concede to having a prior judgment and external criteria that's different from the bible, and you only choose certain ideas in the bible because you realize that they benefit you and the people around you, or because you've already been told by experience and society what's right and what's wrong. There's nothing wrong with cherrypicking, but if you're going to concede to it, you must also concede that the ideas in the bible aren't new or original, and it's not a necessity for your own morality--you already have one.

How am I supposed to know the difference between two religions, if there is such a difference in which they both use the same or a similar book in which the two sections which you seem to distinguish are included in the same book?

I have checked back, and it seems I forgot to include the quote where Jesus said not to ignore the Old Testament, and it's right here:

[quote = John 7:19]
Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?"[/quote]

I presume this is the "law" he is speaking of when referring to these other verses, otherwise, I have no idea what that "law" refers to in these next verses where he says not to ignore them.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

And here, he reiterates what Moses said in the Old Testament:

And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,'and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

And I sure as hell don't agree with this:

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

In addition to the inconsistency of the writers not knowing whether or not the dead came alive during Jesus' crucifixion (and if they were all there to see it, such a thing as the dead coming alive is worth mentioning), as well as not knowing whether or not they met in the mountains or some house in Jerusalem, they didn't know how many people went to the tomb to see Jesus with Mary Magdalene (there weren't that many, but the account was inconsistent about it), or whether it was sun-rise or dark, and Matthew says there was an earthquake, and an angel that rolled the stone back and sat on the tomb, Mark says the angel was sitting down, Luke said there were two angels, standing, and John said they were sitting down, and the genealogy of Joseph is all wrong because it's been written down differently between the accounts, the story of Herod (where all the kids under two get killed) was only described in Matthew, but not the others, and if it were true, it doesn't explain how John escaped because he was under two at the time, and the way in which Jesus first appeared isn't explained consistently either. Now you may think these are all small details, but a lot of small details do amount to something bigger. But because this story of Jesus seems to be told inconsistently, and rather unobjectively, I might as well simply have believed Jesus' teachings to be morals based off of some fiction story. But not only might they be fictitious, but they actually contradict. Fiction writers, at least, strive for consistency, despite a few fantasy elements, but at least their characters and the events don't contradict each other. There is no such thing as consistency, either in the Old Testament or the New Testament. And I'd rather not buy morals based off of an inconsistent story. It's worse than fiction in my opinion.

If you believe it's worth believing in morals based off of an inconsistent story, that's entirely up to you, and I do not object to it. However, I think it more worthwhile to find books or ideas that aren't based off of inconsistent writings. There are lots of these.

 

[Rockman X]

Then is the same god being described of in the Old Testament the same God as the one in the New Testament, and if they're not, why does Jesus make references to the Old Testament, and why are they even there anyways? If the Old Testament is not a part of Christianity, why do bibles still include the Old Testament? The bible I had from my childhood had both the Old Testament and the new one. In other words, if these two religions are so different, why is there so many connections between the two? And why is it that it ends in something like Revelations, as if any of this violence didn't completely go away at all? You'd have to ignore the beginning (the Old Testament) and the end (Revelations) to even get something out of it. If you want to, that's fine, but it's not the complete story, and if you were ever to get anything out of it, it's not any different from what's already been written before the bible.

First, don't ignore my fucking post. I explained to you why it's included. It's a history of the Jews and the origins of where Christianity got started. There are also lots of lessons Christians learn from it.

Second, it is the same God being talked about in both Testaments, I have no idea why he's much more benevolent in the New Testament.

Third, there are connections because CHRISTIANITY COMES FROM JUDAISM.

Fourth, Revelations is about the endtimes, with the anti-Christ coming to deceive people and it's pretty much the last chance for people to get saved or reject Christ. Alot of what's in the book isn't literal. There aren't going to be any seven-headed dragons or horses running around spewing fire from their mouths, alot of it is metaphorical. Now for what, people have different theories. Also John could have just been out of his mind when he wrote it.

However, the problem with defining Christianity is that there are so many different denominations, and the so-called "liberal" Christians, who mostly don't go to church and freely pick whichever parts of the bible they want to believe in--they're probably not any different from any other secularist, except they believe in a god. They believe different things, pick different parts of the bible to emphasize, and certain churches, if I recall, still have bibles that consist of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. In fact, the church I went to a long time ago even took some time to explain some quotes from the Old Testament, as if it were a part of the religion.

Christianity = Jesus Christ was the Messiah, accept him as your savior to forgive your sins and get into heaven.

That is the basic, underlying message in Christianity. That is what the Apostles were instructed to go preach. Denominations are a result of people adding their own interpretations to the Bible, and generally that DOES result in cherry picking. Alot of times it also results in people just plain making stuff up, and because people are so easily influenced by charismatic preachers, they never take the time to read the Bible themselves.

I will try to explain this to you again, because apparently you can't understand it. The Old Testament is the history of the Jews, and there are alot of good lessons to be learned from it. For example, lots of good lessons can be found in the book of Proverbs. Actually, there's something else you should understand about the violence in the Old Testament: much of it was when the Israelites were rebelling against God. He often bitch-slapped them for it too, like letting them become enslaved by the Babylonians. Now pay attention here, I'm about to quote a passage from Proverbs 1 that both illustrates a good lesson AND denounces violence:

10 My son, if sinners entice you,
do not give in to them.
11 If they say, "Come along with us;
let's lie in wait for someone's blood,
let's waylay some harmless soul;
12 let's swallow them alive, like the grave,
and whole, like those who go down to the pit;
13 we will get all sorts of valuable things
and fill our houses with plunder;
14 throw in your lot with us,
and we will share a common purse"-
15 my son, do not go along with them,
do not set foot on their paths;
16 for their feet rush into sin,
they are swift to shed blood.

Lessons to be learned: don't hang out with the wrong crowd, don't rob people. Seems to me to be quite anti-violence. There are other things Christians glean from the Old Testament, and are mirrored in the New Testament as well. This is from Deuteronomy 18:10-12

10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,
11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you.
13 You must be blameless before the LORD your God.

And this is again repeated in Galatians 5:19-21, and incidentally, is being preached by the apostle Paul, whom you said advocated violence.

19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;
20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions
21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

That's where Christians get the idea that witchcraft is bad and harass books like Harry Potter. Now what does your violent apostle Paul immediately say after verse 21?

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.
25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.
26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

Yeah, you're full of shit Angelus. You can debate fine when it comes to math and science and talking like a textbook so people get bored halfway through your needlessly long posts. But stfu about Christianity, it's obvious to everyone you don't know what you're talking about. If you want to debate it, go pick up a Bible and read it. Or, if you're too lazy or don't have the money to spend, find an online Bible and look up passages on it. Btw, I'm using the NIV translation.

 

[Rydia]

I'll go along with the off topicness of this thread to clear something up.

Well you both are partly right. It depends on which sect of Christianity you are refering to, and there are hundreds of them. The more fundamental groups will take everything in the bible literally, and will not even take into context the situation a certain scripture was written in. There are more liberal groups that will only look at the bible on a symbolic level. They do not believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that the creation was just a way for early humans to explain the creation of the world. These groups of Christians are only concerned with the New Testament and even then they are critical of it since all of the books were not written by anyone who knew Jesus first hand.

And why did Jesus refer to the old testament? Well he was Jewish and he lived the life of a Jewish person. (Something a lot of Christians seem to forget when they go on anti semetic rants)

And is it just me, or are there now two of these topics?

 

[Serah]

Alright guys, enough is enough. VR, there's no need to insult Angelus by saying that she's full of shit. The textbook comment wasn't called for either. This topic is beginning to go off-topic as the original discussion was about Religion and Literature, not what is currently being discussed. Get this thread back on topic or it'll be closed and archived. Enough with the hostility or there will be infractions handed out. I've had just about enough of it.

edit: I just noticed that Rydia, so I closed and archived the other one and moved this one to it's proper place. It's been taken care of.

 

[der Astronom]

First, don't ignore my fucking post. I explained to you why it's included. It's a history of the Jews and the origins of where Christianity got started. There are also lots of lessons Christians learn from it.

Yes, like how unbelievers are to be tortured and killed, and how you don't have the freedom to choose whichever religion you want?

Second, it is the same God being talked about in both Testaments, I have no idea why he's much more benevolent in the New Testament.

Well, I have no idea why he was so violent to begin with, particularly for such an omniscient guy, who should have known it wouldn't have worked. In fact, he should simply have known that not everyone was going to convert, particularly because he admitted to giving people free will.

Third, there are connections because CHRISTIANITY COMES FROM JUDAISM.

And where do you draw the line? There are people that wouldn't agree with you.

Fourth, Revelations is about the endtimes, with the anti-Christ coming to deceive people and it's pretty much the last chance for people to get saved or reject Christ. Alot of what's in the book isn't literal. There aren't going to be any seven-headed dragons or horses running around spewing fire from their mouths, alot of it is metaphorical. Now for what, people have different theories. Also John could have just been out of his mind when he wrote it.

Well, thanks for admitting it's subjective. Therefore, no revelation, period.

Christianity = Jesus Christ was the Messiah, accept him as your savior to forgive your sins and get into heaven.

That is the basic, underlying message in Christianity. That is what the Apostles were instructed to go preach. Denominations are a result of people adding their own interpretations to the Bible, and generally that DOES result in cherry picking. Alot of times it also results in people just plain making stuff up, and because people are so easily influenced by charismatic preachers, they never take the time to read the Bible themselves.

Well, thanks for reiterating what I said about cherrypicking, that's what I've been talking about all along. However, the cherrypicking results, not only because of stuff they added, but because of the violent things they've purposefully ignored and the inconsistencies. I have never ever heard any preacher or priest tell me that there were horrible things in the Old Testament worth ignoring or why, and it is only through cherrypicking that they get left behind. And I can see why because Jesus clearly says not to ignore the Old Testament--to tell others in church to ignore it, even if it is violent and disgusting would contradict what he said about Moses' Law.

I will try to explain this to you again, because apparently you can't understand it. The Old Testament is the history of the Jews, and there are alot of good lessons to be learned from it. For example, lots of good lessons can be found in the book of Proverbs. Actually, there's something else you should understand about the violence in the Old Testament: much of it was when the Israelites were rebelling against God. He often bitch-slapped them for it too, like letting them become enslaved by the Babylonians. Now pay attention here, I'm about to quote a passage from Proverbs that both illustrates a good lesson AND denounces violence:

And an equal number of, if not, more of the Old Testament has some bad and disgusting things in it. Just because there's some good things in an otherwise bad book doesn't make it good. A murderer is not a good person just because he goes and does a few good things for someone.

And why don't you pay attention to what a contradiction is?
Suppose you have two events, A and B. Now if A and B are mutually exclusive, like Yes and No or white and black, then that means they both can't be true at the same time. So if A is true, then B is false, and if B is false, then A is true. A and B can't both be true, but they can both be false. Now if you were to suggest that both A and B happened at the same time, then they both can't be true. Either A is true, and B is false, or A is false and B is true, or they're both false. If you try to write both A and B off as true, then you arrive at a contradiction. This example of a contradiction probably works best for the inconsistencies I've described in the New Testament in my previous post, but for this particular case, if you have A and B applying to the same subject matter, the same case still holds: they can't both be true.

In either case, you need another criteria to know whether or not A or B is true, but I guess that's sometimes not possible.

Lessons to be learned: don't hang out with the wrong crowd, don't rob people. Seems to me to be quite anti-violence. There are other things Christians glean from the Old Testament, and are mirrored in the New Testament as well. This is from Deuteronomy 18:10-12

And this is from Exodus:

And I will make the Egyptians favorably disposed toward this people, so that when you leave you will not go empty-handed. 22 Every woman is to ask her neighbor and any woman living in her house for articles of silver and gold and for clothing, which you will put on your sons and daughters. And so you will plunder the Egyptians.

This is not a very good example of not stealing. In fact, it's a contradiction. Either God thinks it's right to steal, or he doesn't, or neither of these verses are true, and we can make no conclusion about what God thinks about stealing.

And this is again repeated in Galatians 5:19-21, and incidentally, is being preached by the apostle Paul, whom you said advocated violence.

And Judges 15 says the opposite. Ironically, I found this at a site which actually had the direct contradiction to the verse you quoted, not that I needed to dig that much into it, because I could also have quoted any other numerous instances of where violence was advocated by God. There were lots of those. And don't tell me those are only part of the Old Testament; you admitted that the god as spoken of in the Old Testament is the SAME god as in the new one.

That's where Christians get the idea that witchcraft is bad and harass books like Harry Potter. Now what does your violent apostle Paul immediately say after verse 21?

A blatant contradiction. Why not find a similar sentiment in another book or literature that doesn't bite itself in the ass so consistently?

To get back onto the original topic, I don't think that just because a book says witchcraft is bad means people have to take it. I mean, if you're already cherrypicking the Old Testament out because of the violence, you could do the same with witchcraft. Besides, witches aren't real.

Furthermore, out of the decency of humanity, I could say that the Passion of the Christ displays violence that doesn't seem to adhere to your definition of Christianity that has nothing to do with violence, and say it's worth being banned, but I won't because I believe people have the freedom to write or create what they will. Even something as ridiculous as the bible.

Yeah, you're full of shit Angelus. You can debate fine when it comes to math and science and talking like a textbook so people get bored halfway through your needlessly long posts. But stfu about Christianity, it's obvious to everyone you don't know what you're talking about. If you want to debate it, go pick up a Bible and read it. Or, if you're too lazy or don't have the money to spend, find an online Bible and look up passages on it. Btw, I'm using the NIV translation.

It's obvious to you that I don't buy your interpretation of cutting out all the bad stuff from the bible in order to make it look good kind of Christianity, but I never said I was ever talking about that. I was speaking of the religion which takes its root in the bible, and if you're going to alter readings of it, you'll simply have to concede that:

-you're cherrypicking.
-you already know what morals are good and bad.
-I'm criticizing the bible for its inconsistencies and the parts that are immoral, and since that has nothing to do with you, you don't really have a reason to complain.
-the religion I'm complaining about clearly isn't the one you believe in.

I just think that the bible is too glorified because the parts that do make sense are relatively few and far between, and aren't original, and can be found in other philosophical or moral writings from other people both before and after the bible, and they are both easier and more consistent to read. Seeing that there is such an opportunity to read better books, I'd rather spend my reading time on them than such a useless book as the bible.

I know full well what will happen if I tried to read the bible again. I'd fall asleep. That's what.

 

[Donald Trump]

You can quote the bible and find a passage that would support whatever view you have, that however is understanable, there is about 24 different parts of the bible written by many authors who arent omniscient and are at times prone to exageration, and even make stuff up, though not very often.

and on topic, religion, not just christianity discredits or attempts to, views that directly contradict or conflict with its own, and this is not just done by religions, but by governments and businesses, so its not very fair to soley pick on religion, also its very easy to pick on religion, because to non-religious people faith is very easy to ridicule/ disprove, so by singleing out religion you are just attacking an easy target, you may in your mind prove religion to be stupid, but its not much of an achievement, its like beating up a mentally retarded child.

 

[der Astronom]

I thought the purpose of this thread was to make aware that religion can be a part of the problem, as opposed to never being a part of the problem. Nonetheless, one need not assume that just because we're saying religious people want certain books banned doesn't mean businesses or governments aren't capable of doing the same things--that's never been implied in this thread, as far as I'm concerned.

If religion is so easy to pick on, I wonder how it is that there are still so many people who believe in it. I don't object to the fact that it might be easy to disprove, but I find it amusing that so many people would believe in something that's easy to disprove. This is the kind of thing that needs to be explained because apparently, certain people either don't get it or are willfully ignorant of it.

But people need to see that I'm not "disproving" the validity of religion for the sake of picking on it, and I am not an "arrogant atheist". If I were, I might actually try to force people to stop believing in God, but I don't. I believe everyone has the right to believe whatever they wish, no matter how ridiculous it might seem to me. I "disprove" the validity of religion so that people may see my views more clearly, and why I argue the way I do. There wouldn't be much of a point in debating about my views on religion if I couldn't make them clear. It's not anymore ridiculous than any other religious person trying to justify his or her views,