«

[Sebatianos]

Agree that it's because of the politics (and probably greed) as much as because of religion that holy wars were fought. I'm just saying that those things could not have happened if people would not believe the bible literary. To believe it literary means not to think for your self. There are many passages in the bible that contradict themselves - so if you take them literary... example:

Two gospels say nothing about this.
One gospel says that when they came to arest Jesus at the last supper one of his desciples grabbed a sword and cut off an ear of a Roman guard.
The last gospel says they just all quietly went away with the guards taking Jesus.

So if you take it literary - what happened to the ear? Walking away peacefully is very different then cutting a man's ear off.

Also some parts of the bible would be completely useles by now - if take literary.
Jesus said: Give to god what is gods and to caesar what is caesars (and he payed the tax - because on the coin there was his image - and when he threw the coin in the air god didn't take it). Now we have no caesars today - so we shouldn't pay any taxes? Or is that part just so obsolite we can leave out?
It's neither. It's a methapohre - that you should give to everybody what is rightfully theirs. In this sence it still works and the message is as clear today as it was 2000 years ago.
Infact if we look at the bible literary - we can see that Neitherladn is a country of wonders. They made damms (can't remember how they are colled - folders or something like that) that pushed the coast line further into the open sea. On the sea-bed that became dry they started planting things. It's like Moses splitting the Red sea for people to cross.
Everytime someone is brought back to life (David Haselhof brought back to life numorous people on baywatch) it's simply a mirracle.
So we are all doing mirracles... But then again in the bible days they didn't have so much technology, so things like that seemed more wonderous.

[Hkizzle]

Mm, I think my original post was not accurate enough, sorry.

Sebatianos, you bring up good points and I get what you mean. Of course it is okay to look at many parts of the bible from a metaphorical stance. But for many areas of the bible you simply have to take it literally.

For you not to take it literally, but how you like it, or how society likes it, is changing the context of the bible itself. The bible is not meant to be fashion, it is meant to be the same for all eternity.

This includes miracles performed by Christ. I have never read anywhere that Christ feeding 5,000 people is meant to be a metaphor. Ask any theologian and they will tell you the miracles of Christ are meant to be taken literally.

Remember, this is God we are talking about, he is meant to have powers we do not understand! To explain what God can do scientifically, is to explain an infinite being with our finite minds. If miracles were logical, they would not require faith.

Certainly I think God is more powerful than David Hasselhoff

Flood covered the entire earth. World is 6,000 years old (add up the characters), etc.

Anyway, here's the bit about homosexuality:

Leviticus, Chapter 20, Verse 13 reads:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus is a book with many laws God laid down for man. This is meant to be a rule. Non-negotiatable and not a metaphor.

According to the bible as well, the World will become more "corrupt" before the end of days. For some believers, a church allowing a gay priest is a sign evil is being accepted in this World as the norm.

Again, I have nothing against gay people, I am just refering to theological argument, that as society has become more liberal for some reason we start bending the rules and read things differently.

[BeefontheBone]

Originally posted by Hkizzle@Apr 4 2005, 09:25 AM
You don't change a principle like this just because society has changed.

Religion is black and white, you don't make compromises. To do so, is to not have any intergrity and going back on the truth of God's words and laws.

OK, so you're saying the Church should go back to seriously believing the world to be about 6000 years old, that we all descended from 2 people, that the Earth is flat, and a whole load of entirely ridiculous things about not eating shellfish on a thursday (or something like that)? The belief that religion should be black-and-white as you say is what has led to so many atrocities in the name of God (or Allah, or whoever - those 2 are the same, of course, but you see what I mean) ever since mass religion was invented - along with the fact that it's a convienient excuse and can win support from otherwise sensible people; George Bush is still doing it and getting away with it.

Religions are (or should be) simply a way of codifying the moral and ethical values of the majority of the society of the time, and fulfilling the need some people feel for belief in some higher power or creator, or whatever - and in order to do this they HAVE to adapt to that climate. If the prevailing moral climate feels (and you better be thanking any higher power you DO believe in) that, for instance, homosexuality is not an abomination but entirely natural, then it's entirely right that the Church alters its view (albeit very slowly, and thus far only really the Anglicans) to reflect that. If you look at the underlying principles of all the major religions they are basically A Rough Guide on How to Live One's Life Well and Contribute to Society (in some cases needing a bit of modernisation to reflect the changes in society that have ocurred since they were laid down); Islam's Five Pillars, the various paths involved in Buddhism, the Ten Commandments of Judaism and Christianity and Jesus' central teaching "love thy neighbour" are essentially the same thing.

A lot of the things that happen in the Bible (I'm far less familiar with other texts, to my shame) can be explained with a bit of scientific thought and the (entirely safe) assumption that they were embellished and/or mistranslated or miscopied at some time over the intervening thousand years or more. For instance, there are certain freak weather conditions which make the Red Sea behave very much like it's described in the Bible. Seb is right to say that things of which we have since developed a scientific understanding would appear miraculous to people of an earlier age - travel back to, say, 800 AD with a wristwatch and it'd appear miraculous (or devilish), but we don't call wristwatches miracles nowadays, and neither would the Church.

[Dreadlord]

I just have to say, I've been reading this thread since it started, and I've been checking it out ever since, I love seeing people talk intelligently like this and debate and share their thoughts in a mature way.

Keep going, punks.

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by Hkizzle@Apr 4 2005, 09:59 PM
For you not to take it literally, but how you like it, or how society likes it, is changing the context of the bible itself. The bible is not meant to be fashion, it is meant to be the same for all eternity.

Exactly - but this is where problems occur!

The bible was translated many times. And they found out while translating a bible in Arameic language that the word the used for Mary (mother of Jesus) was not a virgin, but just a young woman (a girl).
This version of the bible is supposed to be 80 years older then the Greek one - the one that was supposed to be the original bible (and even that one doesn't say anything about Mary being a virgin - simply a girl pure of heart).
The reference to a virgin came in the 8th century (the early middle ages). I guess someone misiterpred it and it's one of the miracules!
Further on in the early 19th century pope declared that even Mary was born the same way as Jesus - meaning Ana, the mother of Mary was a virgin too when she gave birth to Mary. If that explenation would stay - that would surely be another miracule (but lucily they erased it this decision after the death of that pope).

The biggest changes in the bible however apeared in teh 3rd and 4th century. At that time christianity was gaining so much power (because of the great numbers of believers) that people from higher classes started joining in.
Before that time there was a passage that to join the religion you should give all your wordly possesions to the comunity (the church). But at that point they changed it into - you should give as much as you can to the comunity (so you could still keep your riches). Next they even went further and changed it into - you should give in spirit all your possesion (so you didn't have to give a single thing anymore). This changed the very nature and structure of believers - and the fundament of early christianity (if Jesus lived and founded this religion - it was changed in its roots back then).

[Hkizzle]

Hey, I ain't a religious fundamentalist. I'm just saying that religion is not meant to change. God does not change, his word does not change, for us to pick what we want to believe and drop the ones we do not like, means that we become our own god, and the real God is a genie in a bottle.

Now you may say that last paragraph is wrong, but it came from a sermon I sat through where the pastor made some very good points.

We exactly is good. What is the bible? Just because society changes, no we get to pick what we believe and what we don't? Why even pick the Christian God? Why not just create our own religion with ideas that make sense to us and feel good to us?
Submission to God is one of the most important thing in Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

But according to what you say, it seems that Chrisitanity is evolving as science and society changes. Strange, because I thought the basis of the arguement is that evolution is rubbish, and the word of God is the truth!

If you want a feel good factor, then there are good aspects in many religions. But if you want to take Chrisitanity with any ounce of integrity then you have to take it seriously. For example, most people you know will go to hell for all eternity and burn there for their sins. It says it in the bible.
For you not to believe stuff like that means that you should also not believe God is just, or merciful. You can't pick a God or bible that feels good to you.

[Hkizzle]

As for translation errors, sure I think so. But if you are a true believer then hell no!

The bible is meant to be a God inspired text. It is the word of God, and exactly the way God will want it to be. He will have the power to keep the text true. That is the whole basis of the bible.

And please don't tell me the virgin birth is also meant to be debateable. That is one of the most important themes in the life of Christ. That is was a miraculous birth.
Either it happened if you believe. Or you don't believe and it didn't.

There is no might have happened, could have happened, because if there was no God then it is just plain text. But if there is a God then this is his story and his word.

[Lizard]

Ok this will be VERY DUMB.Please dont kill me but I simply MUST ask this someone:
If Mary was a virgin,how get Jesus out of her?

[Sebatianos]

Why not just create our own religion with ideas that make sense to us and feel good to us?

But just take a look at the good in the bible.
God was killing people in the old testament and helping armies kill their enemies, and giving plague to people...
Next there comes Jesus (the son of GOD - or in chatolic churc - GOD-Jesus-The Holy Ghost are one and the same - holy trinity) and tells everybody to start forgiving and not to fight because those who live by the sword will die by the sword...
Doesn't go well together with a GOD who killed tousands of people...

Also you said the magicsentance - why not create a new religion that fits us. That's exactly what they did. If people wouldn't start following Jesus christianity wouldn't be born - so they created their own religion - because it was suiting them. Why should some middle east guys from 2000 years ago be the only ones with that privilage (well there were Jews before them and Muslims after them that also had that privilage - yet all of that is at leats 14 centuries old).

Then again - why create a religion at all? I'm an atheist. I know a lot about christianity in particular, but I'm not ignorat of other religions either - yet I chose not to have religion and I deny the existance of a supreme being controling us and giving us rules.
We must make our own rules and take responsibility for them.

[Dreadlord]

Originally posted by Lizard@Apr 4 2005, 08:27 PM
Ok this will be VERY DUMB.Please dont kill me but I simply MUST ask this someone:
If Mary was a virgin,how get Jesus ou of her?

Cause God made her magically pregnant in a non-sexual way, it was a miracle or some divine feat of some sort.