|
Insulting Religion (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| VAR |
like all other books in the world,
the Bible was written by man . . . |
|
|
| Desiderata |
My last post In this Thread.
Having said that, when you read a Book ( non fiction or fiction) for example, are there not parts you don't agree with.
It's the same thing. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Ask just about any minister/priest/clergy and they will openly admit that the bible was written by it's authors for specific audiences seeking to put forward specific beliefs and accomplish specific goals. This is why if you read two books containing the same story you will find the stories are different... because the authors were stressing different things. For example; Matthew identifies Jesus as being crucified the day of passover (the afternoon following the passover meal) whereas John states it happened on the day preceeding passover (the afternoon just prior to the passover meal) (remember the Hebrew day starts at sundown)... the reason for this is that John is trying to equate Jesus to the lambs that are sacraficed and eaten as part of the passover. This difference would have been deliberate on John's part; an attempt to convince Jews that Jesus' death replaces that passover and so too should Christianity replace Judiasm. When confronted with discrepencies like this it is not really possible to believe that every word of the bible is true. Moreover, when one consideres that there are no original copies of the books of the bible and that they have been edited and changed countless times it is folly to believe that every word is exactly as it was orignially written, even more ludicris to believe they are all the direct word of god (which of course it is not claimed to be). |
Sounds like you've read Jesus Interrupted. ;)
And yes, if you ask any minister or priest about this stuff they will agree with what you said, because they went to seminary and did the study necessary to understand it. The problem is that they don't relay what they learned to their parishioners, so the VAST majority of mainstream Christians have no clue about any of this stuff. Those are the ones who typically get criticized for their naivete and willful ignorance on these boards, not those who have managed to educate themselves on how the bible came together and who take a sane (far from literal) view of it. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Sounds like you've read Jesus Interrupted. ;) |
Indeed, I'm reading it now, which is why that example was top of mind (although, I have to admit nothing I've read in it so far is new information to me. I do dig the way Erham writes though).
| quote: | | And yes, if you ask any minister or priest about this stuff they will agree with what you said, because they went to seminary and did the study necessary to understand it. The problem is that they don't relay what they learned to their parishioners, so the VAST majority of mainstream Christians have no clue about any of this stuff. Those are the ones who typically get criticized for their naivete and willful ignorance on these boards, not those who have managed to educate themselves on how the bible came together and who take a sane (far from literal) view of it. |
I wouldn't be so quick to write clergy off as not teaching this to their parishiners though... my priest frequently discusses the author's audience and intent in his homolies, we've had a few guest presiders do the same, and I am friends with a priest who teaches a class on delivering homolies who stresses to his students that this is important. Granted, all of that is in the catholic church and I cannot recall any homolies discussing discrepencies from when I was a member of the United Church; however, that was some time ago (my experience with services by other protestant sects are too few to take note of). I think Erham writes them off too easily as well. That said, I do think that more should be made of the differences and inconsistancies and more time devoted to explaining the context of the scriptures in churches of all descriptions, as I find this enriches them rather then detracts from them.
I also think it's probably not accurate to say that the vast majority of christians don't have any knowledge of these inconsistancies. You would need to be a total idiot not to see the problems in the Noah story as there are two complete and different versions of that story told together not in different books but from one line to another. I would suggest that the (sad) truth is that most people simply don't put that much thought into their faith. Many take it for granted that it is right so they defer the need to think about it. Others find that their questions unsettle them but not enough to actually put forward the work to seek answers, so they prefer to distract themselves. Still others simply ignore the inconsistancies assuming that there must be a reasonable solution out there (which is not the case for all). All three of those are distressing to me, as I believe that one should constantly challenge and examin their faith... blind faith is not actually faith. I often challenge people who I find fall into one of the above catagories (really drives my wife nuts). Of course, just because these people have inherited their faith rather then made an informed choice doesn't mean that they are worthy of ridicule... of course, they are not worthy of anything else either; much like one wouldn't attest to the quality of their broken watch at the two times per day it happens to be right. |
|
|
| Znack |
I think some are misinterpreting Pat.
The fact that Christianity has done something does not mean that Christians take the Bible literally or have certain attitudes. It means that religion has been responsible for certain actions, which is a fact.
For example. No one says that because Hitler was a Christian, then all Christians are just as bad as Hitler or have similar attitudes. That would be absurd. But when Hitler was able to use Christianity to justify his actions, then Christianity has been a contributing factor, as he would otherwise have lacked excuses. |
|
|
| Tasty Onions |
| No, not really. His main "excuses" were German nationalism and the related belief in "racial purity" / eugenics. |
|
|
| Znack |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tasty Onions
No, not really. His main "excuses" were German nationalism and the related belief in "racial purity" / eugenics. |
Those were (also) excuses, but he had support from the church because he used religious arguments. Gott mit uns. |
|
|
| Tasty Onions |
| The Nazis would still have done the same if you took away any reference to Christianity or God from their beliefs. Not so if you took away the nationalism and eugenics... |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
For example. No one says that because Hitler was a Christian, |
Um... Hitler was not a Christian. Sure, he was born to a Catholic mother but he stoped taking sacraments as a teen and eventually took on a form of Occultism as his religion. He did use pro-christian rhetoric in public addresses early in his career as a political tool and was supportive of the Church, also as a political tool, but he had intentions of ridding Germany of Christianing once it was no longer useful and pushing a return to Aryan Occultism. Claiming he was Christian is a pretty huge stretch. Moreover, your argument does not stand up... had he not used Christianity he would still have been able to use pan-germanic sentiment, nationalism, and racism (all of which featured far more prominately in his rhetoric then Christianity did) to accomplish his goals. It is probably more accurate to say that if the Church had taken strong opposition to Nazism then it would have been much harder for Hitler to obtain the support of a significant percentage of Germans; much the same as the communists in Poland faced a great deal of opposition from the fiercely Catholic populace who took their cues in rejecting communism from Rome. |
|
|
| Znack |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tasty Onions
The Nazis would still have done the same if you took away any reference to Christianity or God from their beliefs. Not so if you took away the nationalism and eugenics... |
Yes. I Have not said otherwise. But he still used it as an excuse. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| always enjoy your biblical analysis moral. |
|
|
|
|
