A Final Proof Against Christianity

[§outh§tar]

There is simply NO contextual evidence whatsoever that the Bible is to be taken allegorically. Can you show any evidence of this?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

§outh§tar: There is simply NO contextual evidence whatsoever that the Bible is to be taken allegorically. Can you show any evidence of this?
*************
M*W: Yes, that makes it confusing to both fanatical believers as well as agnostics. I attended a Baptist university for my undergraduate degree. The curriculum required courses in OT and NT, comparative religions and such. The more I learned -- the more I didn't believe, yet, I went on to marry a "good" Catholic and converted, mostly, so my children could be reared in a religious family. However, back to the curriculum -- my professors in O&NT both stated that the O&NT writings shouldn't be taken literally but allegorically. I've had the opportunity to mention this to some zealous christians in the past, but they all denied it, saying that the Bible is to be taken literally. What I learned was, if these minister professors were telling the truth, then why should I believe the Bible as solid truth at all? If anything my christian education did for me was to open more doors to further christian education in both Protestantism and Catholicism, but my christian bubble burst when I pursued the truth through chronic reading and personal obversation that christianity was a way to control the masses. How could I continue to submit to this false god and a false husband. I freed myself from both! I learned that nothing in life should be taken literally, because the world we live in is, at best, allegorical.

 

[Jan Ardena]

There was ample Biblical 'evidence' that even the disciples believed Jesus was God. Now who would know more about Jesus, you or the disciples?

Lets rephrase that question; who would know whether Jesus was God Almighty, Jesus or his disciples?

Jan Aardena.

 

[Poor Player]

There is simply NO contextual evidence whatsoever that the Bible is to be taken allegorically. Can you show any evidence of this?

It is not a black and white, binary issue as you suppose but there are many shades of grey here. Certainly many parts of the bible were meant to be taken that way, and many were not, but the fact that the true historical accounts have been translated and falsified by zealots so many times makes it impossible to say which verses were intended to be allegorical and which were not. The Revelation to John is not exactly a model for historical reporting and even contradicts itself on several critical issues such as the length and timing of the "great tribulation" for example. I don't believe you will get very far with biblical scholars in treating the entire book as a literal account of a supernatural vision someone had. The four gospels, which again, contradict one another extensively, are filled with potential allegories and nobody knows which are literal and which are not. The entire doctrine of hell is based on an allegory which was never intended to be literal at all......and I'm being kind. The doctrine of hell was never even accepted by early orthodox Christians. Even Orthodox traditions have changed over time.

 

[§outh§tar]

Lets rephrase that question; who would know whether Jesus was God Almighty, Jesus or his disciples?

Jan Aardena.

If you believe Jesus was God but don't believe His disciples then where are you getting the substance of your belief from?

 

[§outh§tar]

It is not a black and white, binary issue as you suppose but there are many shades of grey here. Certainly many parts of the bible were meant to be taken that way, and many were not, but the fact that the true historical accounts have been translated and falsified by zealots so many times makes it impossible to say which verses were intended to be allegorical and which were not. The Revelation to John is not exactly a model for historical reporting and even contradicts itself on several critical issues such as the length and timing of the "great tribulation" for example. I don't believe you will get very far with biblical scholars in treating the entire book as a literal account of a supernatural vision someone had. The four gospels, which again, contradict one another extensively, are filled with potential allegories and nobody knows which are literal and which are not. The entire doctrine of hell is based on an allegory which was never intended to be literal at all......and I'm being kind. The doctrine of hell was never even accepted by early orthodox Christians. Even Orthodox traditions have changed over time.

In that case even the "liberal" Christians are being dishonest with themselves since no one knows what is "accurate" and what isn't.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

§outh§tar: In that case even the "liberal" Christians are being dishonest with themselves since no one knows what is "accurate" and what isn't.
*************
M*W: Yes, liberal Christians are dishonest. They believe in a delusion. They do NOT believe in reality. There can be no 'accuracy' for christians. They believe in the son of god, but that really means the "sun god." There is no god but the Sun. There is no god but 'Allah.' How simple it is!

 

[Poor Player]

In that case even the "liberal" Christians are being dishonest with themselves since no one knows what is "accurate" and what isn't.

Ahhhh maybe so, but they don't really "know" what is accurate or not now do they. They simply believe. It just depends on what denomination you are talking about, and what sub-group or faction, etc. So who are we to tell them they can't literally believe in part of the bible, most of it, none of it, or all the wrong parts, and still call themselves Christians if that's what they have decided to do. My main point with all of this, as with many political discussions, is that you cannot judge a book by its cover anymore. The world has just become far too complex and diverse. Those of us who are somewhat enlightened human beings must be careful to build bridges to those unlike us, and not burn them. There is often great light provided by a burning bridge, but it leaves nowhere to go for those who follow.

 

[wesmorris]

Southstar:

I posted this in another thread and thought you might find it interesting. I'm curious as to your opinion of the analysis.

The whole idea behind revealed religion is that God is not unknowable.

Exactly.

However I can barely relate to the justification for that notion. Thinking "god is knowable" seems like a pretty big assumption until you've accepted the circular "god is knowable because god wants you to know him" or whatever particular flavor of that idea - as factual or objective (as you see if from your subjectivity). Once you accept that, you can't get out the circle unless you reject it.

So becoming a theist IMO boils down to a very simple question: Why go into the circle? It must be that you value the consequences. Somehow your impression of what you need to survive must have led to the need not to question the circular reasoning in favor of the security offered by its acceptance. That brings up an interesting question: Why does the circle offer security?

Oddly it appears to me because of its geometry. It's a basis for strength. It's the choice to abandon identity/perception as a basis for conceptual framework, in favor of something offered externally - though still internally fabricated only as a result of the offer - it can't be the offer itself because exists uniquely in the mind of the purveyor of the idea.

Perhaps it's the emotional bond to the beliefs generated inside the circle that keep one in there. Those bonds are shared by other believers and are strengthened through the perception of the unity of the circle.


(side-bar: when the circle breeds varying beliefs (due to cultural momentum and level of isolation) however, the strength it offers them in the first place can lend to the intensity of the clash. i guess that makes the circle a seed from which a framework of beliefs is built upon, each religion for instance, the result of interactions between similar belief sets (due to proximity and imposition of the beliefs to bond the tribe) and recorded, modified, etc. in a feedback loop based on some theme and developed over time. all that can of course easily lead to belief systems that are mutually exclusive.

With all that out of the way, it seems like circular reasoning is a sound evolutionary strategy - which must be eventually abandoned, or the resulting belief systems altered in a way that they are not mutually exclusive. "Tolerance" comes to mind.

None of that though, speaks to the validity of the circular reasoning in the first place. The reasoning can only be valid if you believe it, or believe that other people believe it, though then it's both - which is annoying. It seems to me that since believing is a hueristic solution, I don't agree to limit the possible solution set to the question that results in the answer "god" because it may exclude the actual solution. Further I suppose, god is by defintion - unknowable unless you know it. I won't claim to know something that I don't think I could possibly know becaue if someone put a fake by the real one I'd have no methodology by which to discern them. With someone of the power of god, I couldn't trust the claim of identity "god" without being forced to do so (because something of that power would possess the force to do it). Ultimately it seems to me that if there were a god and it created us as we are, then it must have intended that we ignore it - because it would know we couldn't ever trust the claim "Hi, I'm god - worship me". It would be quite a dirty trick to the rational mind to ask for "faith" of such a claim based on only the claim (because of its magnitude).

 

[Jan Ardena]

If you believe Jesus was God but don't believe His disciples then where are you getting the substance of your belief from?

Firstly, there is no reason to believe Jesus is God Almighty, as he regards himself as son of God Almighty.
Secondly, if i was a commited Christian, then the substance of my belief would be the example and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Thirdly, if a deciple strays away from the teaching and example set by Jesus, by insisting that Jesus is God Almighty, despite Jesus teaching that he is the 'son of God Almighty', then i would regard him as a fool.

Jan Ardena.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Firstly, there is no reason to believe Jesus is God Almighty, as he regards himself as son of God Almighty.
Secondly, if i was a commited Christian, then the substance of my belief would be the example and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Thirdly, if a deciple strays away from the teaching and example set by Jesus, by insisting that Jesus is God Almighty, despite Jesus teaching that he is the 'son of God Almighty', then i would regard him as a fool.

Jan Ardena.

Jesus is God's humility. The Son obeys His Father as every good son should. Please remember here that Jesus was begotten of God. A plum seed produces a plum tree - nothing more, nothing less. It is important to know that Jesus is God and no I am not a fool for saying this

peace

c20

 

[mis-t-highs]

A plum seed produces a plum tree - nothing more, nothing less. unless it's a natural hybrid, this is how evolution works, one plants, seeds or pollen mixes with anothers and they produce a new species.

is there but one god, in your eyes.
and is jesus god.
are they one and the same, then god has no son, and jesus has no father.
so gods a schizoid, with a split personality.

 

[c20H25N3o]

A plum seed produces a plum tree - nothing more, nothing less. unless it's a natural hybrid, this is how evolution works, one plants, seeds or pollen mixes with anothers and they produce a new species.

is there but one god, in your eyes.
and is jesus god.
are they one and the same, then god has no son, and jesus has no father.
so gods a schizoid, with a split personality.

God is love mis-t-highs. Nothing more, nothing less.

The following text should help you in your search for the truth
I have lifted it from http://www.abcog.org/onegod.htm

Jesus came to reveal the God as a Father (Matt. 11:27). In other words, that the Supreme God is a Father, the head of a Family. Jesus is the eldest son, also a god-level being:

"And Thomas answered and said unto him [Jesus], My Lord and my God." (John 20:28)
Jesus is the "firstborn among many brethren" (Rom. 8:29). All Christians, begotten as children of God by means of the Holy Spirit, will also be god-level beings, part of the divine family:

And [the Lord] will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Cor. 6:18)
Our Father's purpose, from the very beginning, was to create us in His image (Gen. 1:27). This is exactly how all parents start their families!

The wonderful message of Jesus is that the supreme God is a Father, who wants a large family of god-level Sons and Daughters. Our Father wants you in His family to share, in love, all His wonderful attributes for all eternity!

God bless us

peace

c20 (a little god-like being for you to be friends with )

 

[MarcAC]

The very fact that Paul and other apostles within the New Testament claim to be under the influence of the Spirit is simply no basis to believe ANY of their claims.

The fact that the blind man is told that there is such a thing as the sun in the sky, it is a star and there are billions of trillions of stars is no reason for him to believe such a claim. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not true. All the better for the blind man who believes.

• Isaiah 42:18 "You people are deaf and blind, but the LORD commands you to listen and to see."
• Luke 18 35-42 "35. When Jesus was coming close to Jericho, a blind man sat begging beside the road. 36. The man heard the crowd walking by and asked what was happening. 37. Some people told him that Jesus from Nazareth was passing by. 38. So the blind man shouted, "Jesus, Son of David, have pity on me!" 39. The people who were going along with Jesus told the man to be quiet. But he shouted even louder, "Son of David, have pity on me!" 40. Jesus stopped and told some people to bring the blind man over to him. When the blind man was getting near, Jesus asked, 41. "What do you want me to do for you?"
  "Lord, I want to see!" he answered.
  42. Jesus replied, "Look and you will see! Your eyes are healed because of your faith." 43. Right away the man could see, and he went with Jesus and started thanking God. When the crowds saw what happened, they praised God."

Such an arbitrary decision demands that the same rationale be applied to other religious books. Any failure to do so is simply dishonesty... An argument from faith is simply null and void as we would again come to the question of why the Christian believes the claims of the writers simply because they say so.

There is more than a rationale behind belief in God and acceptance of the conventional Bible as a part of God's written word. The faith argument isn't null and void - why should a blind man believe the truth about what we see when we stare into the wondrous beauty of the universe? Life is a lot more than thinking - truth is not defined by our rationale. If your rationale doesn't advocate the truth it is no less true than it was before you rationally assessed it. We all have an intuitive knowledge of God which is not beyond our rationale... but not governed by it. It is only fair for this to be so if we are to have the option of choosing to go with God... or not. One would think that these things are well justified while one is a Christian… failing that… confusion and rebellion are imminent.

 

[David F.]

§outh§tar: There is simply NO contextual evidence whatsoever that the Bible is to be taken allegorically. Can you show any evidence of this?
*************
M*W: Yes, that makes it confusing to both fanatical believers as well as agnostics. I attended a Baptist university for my undergraduate degree. The curriculum required courses in OT and NT, comparative religions and such. The more I learned -- the more I didn't believe, yet, I went on to marry a "good" Catholic and converted, mostly, so my children could be reared in a religious family. However, back to the curriculum -- my professors in O&NT both stated that the O&NT writings shouldn't be taken literally but allegorically. I've had the opportunity to mention this to some zealous christians in the past, but they all denied it, saying that the Bible is to be taken literally. What I learned was, if these minister professors were telling the truth, then why should I believe the Bible as solid truth at all? If anything my christian education did for me was to open more doors to further christian education in both Protestantism and Catholicism, but my christian bubble burst when I pursued the truth through chronic reading and personal obversation that christianity was a way to control the masses. How could I continue to submit to this false god and a false husband. I freed myself from both! I learned that nothing in life should be taken literally, because the world we live in is, at best, allegorical.

Yes, I have found that seminaries are one of the worst at destroying religious faith. If you want to end up atheist or agnostic, then go to Seminary!!!

 

[§outh§tar]

Ahhhh maybe so, but they don't really "know" what is accurate or not now do they. They simply believe. It just depends on what denomination you are talking about, and what sub-group or faction, etc. So who are we to tell them they can't literally believe in part of the bible, most of it, none of it, or all the wrong parts, and still call themselves Christians if that's what they have decided to do. My main point with all of this, as with many political discussions, is that you cannot judge a book by its cover anymore. The world has just become far too complex and diverse. Those of us who are somewhat enlightened human beings must be careful to build bridges to those unlike us, and not burn them. There is often great light provided by a burning bridge, but it leaves nowhere to go for those who follow.

Are you saying that their beliefs in what they don't know based on 'simple faith' (a justification of ignorance) is reasonable? If it is true that "they simply believe" then why do they not apply this belief to the Quran or the religious beliefs of an African tribe? Arbitrariness of course, which is the point of my thread: any belief in the Bible's message concerning Jesus is arbitrary and unfounded, liberal or not.

As far as they call themselves Christians I am sure we can find an umbrella of generalization big enough for them.

 

[§outh§tar]

Firstly, there is no reason to believe Jesus is God Almighty, as he regards himself as son of God Almighty.
Secondly, if i was a commited Christian, then the substance of my belief would be the example and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Thirdly, if a deciple strays away from the teaching and example set by Jesus, by insisting that Jesus is God Almighty, despite Jesus teaching that he is the 'son of God Almighty', then i would regard him as a fool.

Jan Ardena.

Firstly, His name isn't even Jesus Christ. Jesus the Christ maybe, but Jesus Christ doesn't even make sense... (just a little off-topic rant).

How do you know the example and teachings of Jesus? Are you going to believe the second-hand reports of the synoptics??

 

[c20H25N3o]

Firstly, His name isn't even Jesus Christ. Jesus the Christ maybe, but Jesus Christ doesn't even make sense... (just a little off-topic rant).

How do you know the example and teachings of Jesus? Are you going to believe the second-hand reports of the synoptics??

May I ask why you wish to impart you unbelief to believers? You have swallowed the lies that takes one into unbelief, why do you wish others chew on those poisonous thorny branches? Milk and honey are better surely?

peace

c20

 

[mustafhakofi]

c20:
southstar was one of the most devout of christians, studied hard and listen to his padre( take a look at some of his past-posts) he was questioned on his believes by the likes of me, M*W,( and she dont pull no punches) snakelord,( and neither does this man) the preacher,( called him the amoebaman, and was very flaming) to name but a few and he defend himself masterfully until one day (he did'nt like it, but it happened) so now he is, as a god helping the blind see. what is wrong with that.
you preach to convert others, what is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
if you dont like just leave.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Firstly, His name isn't even Jesus Christ. Jesus the Christ maybe, but Jesus Christ doesn't even make sense... (just a little off-topic rant).

That is not the point, he is known as Jesus Christ, and you understand who i am reffering to. The point is you argued he was God Almighty even though he said he was the son of God Almighty, therefore your whole belief system was based on fawlty understanding. So how do you know that your present state of belief/unbelief is not based on fawlty understanding?

How do you know the example and teachings of Jesus? Are you going to believe the second-hand reports of the synoptics??

Again, this is besides the point. You believed, didn't you?

Jan Ardena.