The Bible. Myth or Reality?

Sarkus said:
f you take a position just to make a valid point, that says that it's not your position, even though
Click to expand...

Nevertheless that is the position I am taking. So for all intents and purposes that is my position.

Sarkus said:
A consensus is an agreement of opinion. If parties simply to don't offer an opinion then how can there be agreement. The absence of agreement/consensus can otherwise be referred to as a disagreement.
It's a matter of semantics, of the meaning of "disagreement", not the detail of the Vedas / Bible.
Click to expand...

It can also mean there is mutual agreement, given the details.
Which could be why the issue never has to come up.
It depends upon what the issue is about.
That's the topic for the discussion, imo.

Sarkus said:
Not significantly. It would add information about Jesus' early life that is missing from the Bible.
Would it change anything about how you viewed it if your current view on it was reversed? I.e. if you think it wasn't inserted, would it change anything about how you view it if it was inserted, and vice versa?
Click to expand...

I'd want to know why it was inserted.

Jan.
 
Greatest I am said:
As a Gnostic Christian I see literal reading of the Bible as a gross distortion of what the Bible was written to do. That being to inspire people to seek God and his best laws and rules. Literal readers just become idol worshipers and do not seek God the way Jesus instructed.
Click to expand...

I can see why you like this idea. It means you can avoid all the horrible parts in the Bible and just stick with the bits you like.
The problem with this approach is that YOU have to decide which bits you like.
That makes YOU the moral judge, which means God is not.
It also throws suspicion on the bits you like and puts you at odds with other people who like different bits.

If you believe the Bible is the word of God, then I really can't see any justification for ignoring the bits you don't like.
And God might be very upset with your judgements !

I think your attitude highlights the whole Holy Scripture problem.
If God wants to communicate with us, he should find a better medium than some ancient Hebrew stories.
 
Ivor Bigun said:
I can see why you like this idea. It means you can avoid all the horrible parts in the Bible and just stick with the bits you like.
The problem with this approach is that YOU have to decide which bits you like.
That makes YOU the moral judge, which means God is not.
It also throws suspicion on the bits you like and puts you at odds with other people who like different bits.

If you believe the Bible is the word of God, then I really can't see any justification for ignoring the bits you don't like.
And God might be very upset with your judgements !

I think your attitude highlights the whole Holy Scripture problem.
If God wants to communicate with us, he should find a better medium than some ancient Hebrew stories.
Click to expand...

Agreed

But to add , jesus also rebelled against god , after his so-called resurrection .
 
Greatest I am said:
Would you sit back and let a rape happen the way your God does?
Click to expand...

Thomas Cranmer said:
Excellent point. God is like a useless lifeguard on a beach who watches a child drowning and does nothing to help.
Click to expand...

The answr to that type of queston is:::

We have no idea how much good can follow from sombody bein raped... such as some lost people feelin so sorry for the victim that they find Jesus an get saved.!!!
 
Last edited:
Greatest I am said:
Literalist Christians, it seems to me, have suspended rational judgement that has created in Christians a new Dark Age of thought and an Inquisitional attitude towards all other thinking. They no longer seek God and are true idol worshipers instead of the God seekers that Jesus wanted to see.
Click to expand...

Well said sir. There is truth in the Bible, but it is just a book and was written by men who had thoughts and sometimes men think the wrong thoughts, especially when influenced by parents and relations who are stuck in a culture that controls the way they think.
 
wellwisher said:
Another way to look at this is when Christ died on the cross, there was a concerted effort to purge the Roman Empire of Christianity
Click to expand...

When Jesus died, there was no Christianity - that developed later from the rebellious Jews that needed to convert non-Jews as the orthodox Jews would not listen and treated the rebels as heretics. The Jews didn't realise that their book, which was partially inspired by the Holy Spirit of the True God, predicted the coming of Jesus. They had the incorrect idea that the saviour would be a King/Warrior who would lead them from the tyranny that was the Roman Empire, just like Moses did. But Moses wasn't a King or a warrior ! He was a Son of God ! And he died before reaching the promised land, just like Jesus !
 
We may also need to look true sense behind any language. Probably many things are indirectly indicated for practical purpose. Today we being more influenced by science, we tend to look language instead of practical sense. Entity can also be a concept.
 
KUMAR5 said:
We may also need to look true sense behind any language. Probably many things are indirectly indicated for practical purpose. Today we being more influenced by science, we tend to look language instead of practical sense. Entity can also be a concept.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with any of that, but it doesn't answer the OP question, IMO. All creationist scriptures are metaphorical and by definition not real, i.e. True in and of themselves.
Many fables also contain metaphorical truths, but they don't describe reality.
 
Write4U said:
I don't disagree with any of that, but it doesn't answer the OP question, IMO. All creationist scriptures are metaphorical and by definition not real, i.e. True in and of themselves.
Many fables also contain metaphorical truths, but they don't describe reality.
Click to expand...

Real or false, I can/will not say. But basic intention should be good & practical. Hence, we can think of eating fruit pulp rather than caring for kernels. If we shall go in more deep in scientific way we may not get either. Moreover you can base "potential side effects" from any adoption and since scientific understandings are not yet absolute & final, we can not claim for sure, what can come tomorrow on ultimate understandings.
 
KUMAR5 said:
Real or false, I can/will not say. But basic intention should be good & practical. Hence, we can think of eating fruit pulp rather than caring for kernels. If we shall go in more deep in scientific way we may not get either. Moreover you can base "potential side effects" from any adoption and since scientific understandings are not yet absolute & final, we can not claim for sure, what can come tomorrow on ultimate understandings.
Click to expand...
Well, I'll grant you one Truth, "beware the false prophet". And that may happene within the next few days.
 
Write4U said:
Well, I'll grant you one Truth, "beware the false prophet". And that may happene within the next few days.
Click to expand...
Ok, will take care. If some distort basic sense of any religion due to self intrest, ego or deviated feeling, it can not mean basic sense of religion was wrong.
 
KUMAR5 said:
Ok, will take care. If some distort basic sense of any religion due to self intrest, ego or deviated feeling, it can not mean basic sense of religion was wrong.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt your commitment. With the term "false prophet" I was not speaking about you. And today I was proven right. Check out the latest news story.
 
StrangerInAStrangeLand said:
Religion is myth people have not yet stopped believing.

<>
Click to expand...
Many times a myth with real benefits and without undue side effects can be better than a yet not absolute & final fact with substantial side effects and a reason to losing placebo benefits. Should we not see practical angle, alongwith?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top