God enthusiasm

[jond]

That's the trick. The teachings of Jesus now portrayed God as a loving God. Instead of jealous and vengeful as in the Old Testament. He "changed" the game. Now Heaven was not only reserved for the Hebrews, but it was for everyone who believed. And all "God" really wanted was return of his love for the people.

The people had changed (become more civilized for lack of a better descriptor) and therefore they needed a new improved outlook on religion. At the time of the Old Testament, they needed to be fearful of God to keep Mosaic Law in mind. As time passed and the people learned to live by and follow the law by choice Jesus pops in and changes things up a bit, quite a bit.

In effect even though the same supreme being, God is now portrayed as being completely different in the New Testament. Chris B.

Except that Jesus said that he wasn't there to change one bit of the laws. Further, many Christians use the Old Testament to, for instance, justify their bigotry of gays. Or scream when secular types try to get the 10 commandments out of our government. When it suits them, they reference it as quickly as the New Testament.

If the same book can be interpreted as differently as, say you and BobR's (god is love) or PaulBethke's hateful interpretation, or many of the members of the US senate, or the Westboro Baptists, well, it seems to me that there is no reason to take any of those interpretations seriously, and instead treat the book as the fiction that it is. Sure, there may be some good bits in it, just as there are good bits in the Harry Potter books. But the problem is no one is making laws based on their personal interpretation if Harry Potter, nor are people justifying killing other people because they don't believe in Harry Potter.

 

[jond]

I don't know about that. The Bible is a good source of study for military battle strategies. Some of the battles portrayed in the Old Testament are verified in the other culture's side of the time as well.

One example that I can think of is the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrians. It's discussed in 2 Kings 19 in detail. Verse 35 is the clincher. The Assyrians lost 185,000 troops in one night. Effectively ending the siege.

Regardless of the reason of their defeat, the battle is discussed on Assyrian clay tablets from the period. So a cross reference of the Hebrew culture with the Assyrian culture on the other side of the battle check out. In effect, it happened.

Now that doesn't mean every miracle in the Old and New Testaments are not open for interpretation, but it is a good indication that the book is an accurate account of events. (Though some interpretations of those events may seem more miraculous to the faithful). "Pillars of fire" were likely just a tornado etc. Chris B.

Adam and Eve aren't real. The flood didn't happen. Nor did the exodus. Jesus existence is very much in question. Many fictional books describe real events. They're still fiction.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Except that Jesus said that he wasn't there to change one bit of the laws. Further, many Christians use the Old Testament to, for instance, justify their bigotry of gays. Or scream when secular types try to get the 10 commandments out of our government. When it suits them, they reference it as quickly as the New Testament.

If the same book can be interpreted as differently as, say you and BobR's (god is love) or PaulBethke's hateful interpretation, or many of the members of the US senate, or the Westboro Baptists, well, it seems to me that there is no reason to take any of those interpretations seriously, and instead treat the book as the fiction that it is. Sure, there may be some good bits in it, just as there are good bits in the Harry Potter books. But the problem is no one is making laws based on their personal interpretation if Harry Potter, nor are people justifying killing other people because they don't believe in Harry Potter.

Adam and Eve aren't real. The flood didn't happen. Nor did the exodus. Jesus existence is very much in question. Many fictional books describe real events. They're still fiction.

Ah, I see. If you choose to accept the book is fiction that's great for you but you should know you're at least wrong in part as some of it (as referenced above) has been proven to be accurate and is still being used today for purposes other than religion. That's how they find those lost cities, location clues from the Bible.

So you're saying those parts may be true but the rest is fiction? It's not a requirement to believe the Bible is fiction to not follow it. You can simply choose not to live by it. There's really no need to attack it by making statements as "it's all fiction" When in fact it has already been proven to be historically accurate many times in many cases. Are there stories told about common people in the Bible? Certainly, perhaps they're true (most likely), perhaps they're not but all have some sort of message or teaching at the end. A good method to teach is it not?

There's alot missing from the Bible as well. It's not all there as some books were not included. If you want to test a preacher ask him where the Land of Knod is.

Perhaps you'd need every story in the Bible to be checked out as legit.
lol. Faith is a choice, not a requirement. If you think I'm a Christian, you'd be wrong. But I have studied the texts of the Bible in great detail. Chris B.

 

[jond]

Ah, I see. If you choose to accept the book is fiction that's great for you but you should know you're at least wrong in part as some of it (as referenced above) has been proven to be accurate and is still being used today for purposes other than religion. That's how they find those lost cities, location clues from the Bible.

So you're saying those parts may be true but the rest is fiction? It's not a requirement to believe the Bible is fiction to not follow it. You can simply choose not to live by it. There's really no need to attack it by making statements as "it's all fiction" When in fact it has already been proven to be historically accurate many times in many cases. Are there stories told about common people in the Bible? Certainly, perhaps they're true (most likely), perhaps they're not but all have some sort of message or teaching at the end. A good method to teach is it not?

There's alot missing from the Bible as well. It's not all there as some books were not included. If you want to test a preacher ask him where the Land of Knod is.

Perhaps you'd need every story in the Bible to be checked out as legit.
lol. Faith is a choice, not a requirement. If you think I'm a Christian, you'd be wrong. But I have studied the texts of the Bible in great detail. Chris B.

No, what I'm saying is that many fictional books contain real events and people. The bible is no exception. There are good messages in the bible, and there are bad messages too. But treating the book as factual, when it isn't, leads to things like the alarmingly large number of people in the USA who believe the flood really happened. And the laws that are being passed currently by people who use the bible to justify bigotry are a big problem.

It's been 30 years since I read the bible in college, but that was what cemented my acceptance that I'm an atheist. I'm sure you've studied the texts in detail, as have many others here, and once again we can look at how different your interpretation is from another poster, and ask ourselves if maybe the problem is with the text and not the poster.

 

[Pup]

If you want to test a preacher ask him where the Land of Knod is.

Never heard of it. Are you talking about the Land of Nod, east of Eden where Cain went? I thought that was well known by people who study that kind of thing.

Edited to add: I googled, and Land of Knod seems to be a very rarely used alternate spelling, for example: https://books.google.com/books?id=f...CEEQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q="land of knod"&f=false I could only find a few hits like that. Is the spelling with the silent K closer to the original Hebrew? Where did that spelling come from?

Perhaps you'd need every story in the Bible to be checked out as legit.
lol. Faith is a choice, not a requirement. If you think I'm a Christian, you'd be wrong. But I have studied the texts of the Bible in great detail. Chris B.

The problem is that the Bible is full of inaccuracies in its basic premises, from God creating the earth to Jesus performing miracles. It really is like saying Harry Potter has a lot of real things in it, because there's an England, and children do customarily go to school, and there are owls and trains and such, so each part should be checked out. Well, one could do that, showing how close each section comes to reality or what real thing it's based on. The basic story, though, of either Harry Potter or the Bible, isn't about something real, and that colors everything in it.

 

[barehl]

Later, in the book of Mark we find: "What God has joined together let no man put asunder".

It looks like you prefer the King James version so we'll use that.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Mark 10
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

All you actually have is a paraphrasing of Genesis 1:27 with Mark 10:6 and a paraphrasing of Genesis 2:24 with Mark 10:7. Then you have an emphasis of the phrase "they shall be one flesh" with Mark 10:8 and 9. I'm not seeing any reversal.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

No, what I'm saying is that many fictional books contain real events and people. The bible is no exception. There are good messages in the bible, and there are bad messages too. But treating the book as factual, when it isn't, leads to things like the alarmingly large number of people in the USA who believe the flood really happened. And the laws that are being passed currently by people who use the bible to justify bigotry are a big problem.

It's been 30 years since I read the bible in college, but that was what cemented my acceptance that I'm an atheist. I'm sure you've studied the texts in detail, as have many others here, and once again we can look at how different your interpretation is from another poster, and ask ourselves if maybe the problem is with the text and not the poster.

Well, the problem is always the interpretation. Two different views can arise from the same passage. As is usually the case when one uses stories to teach.

Some obviously were mentioned in or borrowed from other cultures. You mentioned the flood, likely that was borrowed from the epic if Gilgamesh, but there is also another way of looking at it. Could Noah have taken part in the same flood? Entirely possible either scenerio as Noah would have been contemporary with the time of the flood mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Obviously we're not talking about a Worldwide event. But to the ancients, it really was their World that was flooded, so to them in writing of the event they would have certainly thought it was a Global event. (Even though we know better, likely after being washed out to Sea, the ancients would have been horrified and under the impression the World was completely gone under the water.) We can understand and agree though that there was likely a real flood that ended many lives in that area, but it certainly didn't end the World.

Remember, we're talking about scribblings of the ancients. They likely weren't as sharp as modern folks, but the lessons are pretty good though regardless.
I don't think we'll find Noah's Ark on Ararat, but there was likely a boat on a hillside somewhere within a couple thousand miles of Mesopotamia.
Chris B.

 

[carlitos]

Remember, we're talking about scribblings of the ancients. They likely weren't as sharp as modern folks

I think that this is an incredibly condescending view. The ancients were just as sharp, and probably in some ways much sharper than you or I. Think of what "the ancients" accomplished with lesser technology, for example.

 

[jond]

Well, the problem is always the interpretation. Two different views can arise from the same passage. As is usually the case when one uses stories to teach.

Some obviously were mentioned in or borrowed from other cultures. You mentioned the flood, likely that was borrowed from the epic if Gilgamesh, but there is also another way of looking at it. Could Noah have taken part in the same flood? Entirely possible either scenerio as Noah would have been contemporary with the time of the flood mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Obviously we're not talking about a Worldwide event. But to the ancients, it really was their World that was flooded, so to them in writing of the event they would have certainly thought it was a Global event. (Even though we know better, likely after being washed out to Sea, the ancients would have been horrified and under the impression the World was completely gone under the water.) We can understand and agree though that there was likely a real flood that ended many lives in that area, but it certainly didn't end the World.

Remember, we're talking about scribblings of the ancients. They likely weren't as sharp as modern folks, but the lessons are pretty good though regardless.
I don't think we'll find Noah's Ark on Ararat, but there was likely a boat on a hillside somewhere within a couple thousand miles of Mesopotamia.
Chris B.

The things is: floods happen. Earthquakes happen. Gods have nothing to do with these things. The problem with the stories is that people, today, still believe that accepting gays is causing earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, etc. all because they believe the bible is true. People pass laws based on their interpretation of the bible. You clearly don't see this as a problem. I, obviously, do.

Why is your interpretation more valid than Bethke's?

 

[carlitos]

Why is your interpretation more valid than Bethke's?

I seriously doubt that Chris knows who Bethke is. Is that the guy that was going to blind people and make the World Cup field in South Africa turn brown?

 

[jond]

I seriously doubt that Chris knows who Bethke is. Is that the guy that was going to blind people and make the World Cup field in South Africa turn brown?

That's the one. His current thread is, um, alarming....

 

[carlitos]

How about a link for chris' my benefit?

 

[jond]

Sorry, I'm on my iPad. It's the "the end" thread in R&P.

 

[turingtest]

How about a link for chris' my benefit?

Here you go. Be aware, there's some pretty hair-raising stuff in there. Maybe there really was a Noah to back up Bethke's worldview.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Never heard of it. Are you talking about the Land of Nod, east of Eden where Cain went? I thought that was well known by people who study that kind of thing.

Edited to add: I googled, and Land of Knod seems to be a very rarely used alternate spelling, for example: https://books.google.com/books?id=f...CEEQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q="land of knod"&f=false I could only find a few hits like that. Is the spelling with the silent K closer to the original Hebrew? Where did that spelling come from?



The problem is that the Bible is full of inaccuracies in its basic premises, from God creating the earth to Jesus performing miracles. It really is like saying Harry Potter has a lot of real things in it, because there's an England, and children do customarily go to school, and there are owls and trains and such, so each part should be checked out. Well, one could do that, showing how close each section comes to reality or what real thing it's based on. The basic story, though, of either Harry Potter or the Bible, isn't about something real, and that colors everything in it.

Different sources will have alternate spellings. Knod is closer to the original Hebrew though and why I use that one. To be really accurate it'd need to be spelled "Kn d" but that would throw off the pronunciation for most. It's pronounced exactly the same though. It's a sticky subject for preachers as the book that explains the land of Knod and how it came to be was not included in the books of the Bible.

It also leads to alternate theories about other folks that were not discussed in Genesis and how they came to be. After all, we start with Adam and Eve then poof somehow there's this other land where guys are fleeing and taking wives from that we've heard nothing about previously.

Keep in mind the story of creation is an attempt by primitive man to explain how things came to be. While the Bible has historically accurate facts in it, it's also a book of stories, stories with a purpose to teach. We know everything began with a big bang. Exactly what caused that bang is still a mystery though...

Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

It looks like you prefer the King James version so we'll use that.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Mark 10
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

All you actually have is a paraphrasing of Genesis 1:27 with Mark 10:6 and a paraphrasing of Genesis 2:24 with Mark 10:7. Then you have an emphasis of the phrase "they shall be one flesh" with Mark 10:8 and 9. I'm not seeing any reversal.

Actually the King James version is a terrible Bible to study. It is the most commonly quoted though at weddings. The better edition to read from would be a revised standard edition as it is translated from older texts in the Hebrew directly to modern English.

I said previously the status on divorce was changed. Mosaic law (Old Testament) allows for a man to divorce his wife by writing her a bill of divorce , placing it in her hand and sending her out from his home. In Mark 10 1-12 Jesus discusses divorce when asked and it is not OK anymore......
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

The things is: floods happen. Earthquakes happen. Gods have nothing to do with these things. The problem with the stories is that people, today, still believe that accepting gays is causing earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, etc. all because they believe the bible is true. People pass laws based on their interpretation of the bible. You clearly don't see this as a problem. I, obviously, do.

Why is your interpretation more valid than Bethke's?

Ridiculous. If someone does not accept Gays because of their religion so what of it? Are you required to accept everything you find personally offensive? Isn't that kind of overbearing? You know, kinda like imposing your personal beliefs onto someone else? Why?

Is it important to be accepted by every single person or group on the Planet? Nope, not at all. If that's one's expectation, someone is setting themselves up for a big disappointment.

Christians do tend to frown on Gays, because it's outlined specifically in Leviticus in the Bible (I'm not certain of the exact verse). "He that lays down with a man as he would a woman shall surely burn in Hell" So , I'd kinda expect them to have a dim view of the subject. Should they reject Gays from attending their Church? Obviously not but why on Earth would someone want to attend with them in the first place? It's like boys fighting a court battle to be allowed to be in Girl Scouts. It is truly a strange World. Chris B.

 

[turingtest]

Ridiculous. If someone does not accept Gays because of their religion so what of it? Are you required to accept everything you find personally offensive? Isn't that kind of overbearing? You know, kinda like imposing your personal beliefs onto someone else? Why?
...

This is ridiculous; it's the same old superficial "you're as bad as a bigot if you oppose their bigotry" argument. You do know what a false equivalency is, right? Do you think jond is requiring that his personal abhorrences be written into law? That would be overbearing, huh? Christians who abhor gay people on religious grounds are not personally barred by any law from doing so- no one requires them to accept gay people into their homes or churches. But they cannot have their intolerance enshrined as law outside home or church either; that's not exercising a right of religious freedom, it's demanding a privilege.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

This is ridiculous; it's the same old superficial "you're as bad as a bigot if you oppose their bigotry" argument. You do know what a false equivalency is, right? Do you think jond is requiring that his personal abhorrences be written into law? That would be overbearing, huh? Christians who abhor gay people on religious grounds are not personally barred by any law from doing so- no one requires them to accept gay people into their homes or churches. But they cannot have their intolerance enshrined as law outside home or church either; that's not exercising a right of religious freedom, it's demanding a privilege.

We're not talking about law, we're talking about religion. You know a choice. If someone's lifestyle conflicts with their religion . Find another! Problem solved.

I know a guy that went to a church once for "Revival" on the invitation of a friend. He told me about halfway thru the services they brought out snakes. He left and never went back, you know because he didn't have to.
Chris B.

 

[turingtest]

We're not talking about law, we're talking about religion. You know a choice. If someone's lifestyle conflicts with their religion . Find another! Problem solved.

I know a guy that went to a church once for "Revival" on the invitation of a friend. He told me about halfway thru the services they brought out snakes. He left and never went back, you know because he didn't have to.
Chris B.

Then we're talking about irrelevancies. Knock yourself out.