How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

[Haykakan]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

That is not what religion says. Many religions including chrystianity look at good and bad as absolutes.

Good and bad are objective judgements depending on point of view. What we generally view as "good" are things that benefit the majority while things that we consider "bad" are those that hurt the majority. In other words, good and bad aren't absolutes.

[Mos]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

I'm focusing on what the book says. Which limited reading of the bible has you walking away only with love and forgiveness? For every such message there are like 10 more of vengeance, hate, intolerance, etc.

Christianity emphasizes the teachings of Jesus that come in the New Testament. This is at the core of Christianity. Hence, I emphasize these teachings. And Love being the fundamental concept of Christianity all together is something you really need to understand.

This is typical of religious folks. Lets credit god and religion with all the good things and lets blame all the bad things on man and the devil. If you credit man for the bad things then why not credit him with the good things to. Religion makes man out to be a idiot that is incapable of anything on its own and that is what people who use religion want but that is far from the truth. Why use a doublestandard against your own kind? Just stand up and take credit for the bad and the good instead of making up bs stories.

No. Christianity is not a religion that is imposed on a person, it's not a religion that's filled with strict rules/customs to follow like Judaism/Islam. Christianity professes a set of values and principles to live by and to make your own in bettering your mortal life, it grants a freedom that the other two religions don't grant. There's a freedom of choice that Judaism/Islam lack also, and it's important to understand this.

[Haykakan]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

All religions are imposed on people. The example i gave of a young girl saying Obama should not be president because he kills babies was a great example of this. When people are born the religion of that society is always imposed on them at a young age they do not have a choice.

Christianity emphasizes the teachings of Jesus that come in the New Testament. This is at the core of Christianity. Hence, I emphasize these teachings. And Love being the fundamental concept of Christianity all together is something you really need to understand.



No. Christianity is not a religion that is imposed on a person, it's not a religion that's filled with strict rules/customs to follow like Judaism/Islam. Christianity professes a set of values and principles to live by and to make your own in bettering your mortal life, it grants a freedom that the other two religions don't grant. There's a freedom of choice that Judaism/Islam lack also, and it's important to understand this.

[Mos]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

All religions are imposed on people. The example i gave of a young girl saying Obama should not be president because he kills babies was a great example of this. When people are born the religion of that society is always imposed on them at a young age they do not have a choice.

I'm talking about the nature of Christianity in comparison with the other main religions of the world. The fact is in Christianity there's much more freedom to choice, while in Judaism/Islam it's all about following rules, customs, and being submissive as a result. That's a key difference. Everyone can twist and turn every religion, but it's the essence of that religion which remains constant.

[KanadaHye]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

All religions are imposed on people. The example i gave of a young girl saying Obama should not be president because he kills babies was a great example of this. When people are born the religion of that society is always imposed on them at a young age they do not have a choice.

I find this funny. People who are born in America or Canada consider themselves Christian but most often they haven't a clue what Christianity is about. The only religion imposed on people in North America is Judaism.

I'm focusing on what the book says. Which limited reading of the bible has you walking away only with love and forgiveness? For every such message there are like 10 more of vengeance, hate, intolerance, etc.

You need a bible for dummies... you can't learn right without knowing wrong. Those messages are there as examples of what was done wrong in those times. There cannot be justice without punishment.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

I don't see anything in the bible that is unique or groundbreaking. Eastern religions like Buddhism and Confucianism contained many concepts we think of as 'Christian' hundreds of years before Christianity, and so did Manichean and Zoroastrian philosophies. This is a strong indication that humans don't get morality from religion but rather religion gets its morality from humans.

[Siggie]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

Even if you at the very least acknowledge it was written by persons (the disciples?) and edited - ie some gospels made it in, others didn't - then there's room there too for the morality reflected within to have come from people, society, the times. You must concede this type of influence if you now believe the slavery and barbarism (demanding a stoning death sentences for the same offenses as it says).

Kanada, there you go again suggesting filtered/edited sources with the Bible for Dummies recommendation... Indicative of whether you yourself have read large portions of the "good" book yourself, perhaps? Do you also read Cliff/Spark/etc. Notes instead of the work of literature itself?

[KanadaHye]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

Kanada, there you go again suggesting filtered/edited sources with the Bible for Dummies recommendation... Indicative of whether you yourself have read large portions of the "good" book yourself, perhaps? Do you also read Cliff/Spark/etc. Notes instead of the work of literature itself?

Reading the bible is like reading any other piece of literature.... it's open for interpretation. For example, a lawyer reading the bible is like a red neck reading a law book. Neither will absorb much from the words.

Since I was born all knowing with perfect judgement, such basic levels of theological literature are too simplistic for my liking.

Indeed. As I pointed out earlier, some of the highlights of that value system include prescriptions for how to treat rape victims, homosexuals, nonbelievers, and slaves.

What are the prescriptions we use today? Probably the same except with a heftier price tag.

Also, I'd like examples in history where "non believers" or "atheists" had to run from their homeland to escape persecution.

[Siggie]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

Reading the bible is like reading any other piece of literature.... it's open for interpretation. For example, a lawyer reading the bible is like a red neck reading a law book. Neither will absorb much from the words.

Aha! Progress. So you acknowledge that it is not a factual book.

You say something promising and then you follow it up by a nonsensical and non-humorous attempt at a joke. Why would lawyers be less capable of making sense of the bible than the average person? Surely you don't believe holders of a professional graduate degree to be somehow cognitively inferior to the general population?

What are the prescriptions we use today? Probably the same except with a heftier price tag.

Also, I'd like examples in history where "non believers" or "atheists" had to run from their homeland to escape persecution.

Oh dear! Unbunch your briefs! Abort the attack on Pharma for you have misunderstood! I didn't mean that kind of prescription. I meant it like the adjective prescriptive; I guess the noun form isn't as popular in common usage.

As I don't like to engage in frivolous exercises, I will withhold such search until you can explain how that's relevant. If nonbelievers had never been persecuted on a grand scale in the past because of the ubiquity of religion, what would that demonstrate? Would it make it any more wrong for the bible to call for their stoning? Would it change the print in the bible so that the words vanish if adherents to the religion have conveniently ignored some parts of the book in favor of emphasizing other parts?

Besides, what exactly are you trying to argue with me? Are you saying the bible doesn't say to do these things? Pepsi asked me why I don't believe the bible and I explained why. I don't see where there's room for your disagreement in that.

[KanadaHye]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

Oh dear! Unbunch your briefs! Abort the attack on Pharma for you have misunderstood! I didn't mean that kind of prescription. I meant it like the adjective prescriptive; I guess the noun form isn't as popular in common usage.

No really? I REALLY thought you meant pharmaceutical prescription.... I think you misunderstood my use of the word "PRICE"

i.e. that which must be given, done, or undergone in order to obtain a thing: He gained the victory, but at a heavy price.