Religulous the movie
- Thread starter tracy
- Start date
IslandSpecific,
I know there is wisdom and truth in the bible but to believe that it is the word of god in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, is irrational. There is wisdom and truth in almost every book written. To chose one and say it is the only one is to put on blinders and miss out on 99.9999999999999999% of the truth and wisdom in the world. All religions have a common origin. What man has done with it is appalling.
I know there is wisdom and truth in the bible but to believe that it is the word of god in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, is irrational. There is wisdom and truth in almost every book written. To chose one and say it is the only one is to put on blinders and miss out on 99.9999999999999999% of the truth and wisdom in the world. All religions have a common origin. What man has done with it is appalling.
So true Cliff - but - how will we ever know how badly man has screwed it up? I don't know the bible like you, Sirrup or Spade seem to but I still know that some of what I have read is beyond belief. Perhaps that is why I have a hard time reading it. I can only read just so far and then I know that all I am doing is trying to read but my mind is off somewhere doing other things.:roll: Oh well! I do try to read it sometimes. For as much as I believe in God, I still find that the bible is not my first choice in reading material. I have a lot of bibles in my house - their pages remained closed most of the time.
MHz,
Do you have one of those bibles that has the words of Jesus in red. I once read only the red bits and came away with something I could say was true. I concluded that the black bits are just myth.
Do you have one of those bibles that has the words of Jesus in red. I once read only the red bits and came away with something I could say was true. I concluded that the black bits are just myth.
That's true, but when you compare Scripture to the way it is currently practiced there is a huge difference. If the practices of today are in error then that means the original Scriptures are valid in what subjects they cover.
The NT does not advocate kill thy neighbor (and all men are neighbors because we are all Gentiles) so the practice of killing each other is wrong.
MHz,
Then you don't believe in capital punishment. I don't either but sometimes I think that mass murders like George Dubbya and his cohorts should pay for their crimes against humanity.
Then you don't believe in capital punishment. I don't either but sometimes I think that mass murders like George Dubbya and his cohorts should pay for their crimes against humanity.
Actually I did read those Books in a Bible that had the quotes in red. (weighed about 10 lbs and covered your whole lap. LOL)When I included the other words it was more like a soap opera than a 'quite long sermon'.
By dismissing the black letters did that also mean you missed this part. The character of Jesus (His moral code) meant that when the story of the adulteress that was in danger of being stoned to death was never mentioned by name, nor was the sinner woman who dried His feet with her hair mentioned by name, yet (to give us the whole story) their names were given after those incidents and they had become followers of Jesus). Now they are remembered that way rather than as sinners. Joanna and Susanna if you didn't already have that figured out.
It isn't something that is likely to apply to me, at least at this time.....I kind of like the way Neb took care of 'enemies of the state', he killed them (threw them to the lions, literally, then he threw all the relatives in also). But then you only see the Bible as myths don't you?
I would think that if that was going to happen it would have already happened. When a country says they know something is evil and their only way to rectify that that is the next election (usually a few years away at best) then you know it isn't that big of a deal to them, after 7 or 8 years and things are the same you can pretty much bet the farm it was a lie right from the start.
I can see why most countries want nothing to do with them anymore. Bribes and intimidation are their only working tools anymore.
Last edited:
MHz,
I think the bible is a lie by omission. I have read many of the christian writings of the time between when JC supposedly lived and when Constantine ordered the bible put together three hundred years later. I am more partial to the Gnostic Gospels, as they are more in true with my own view of things. Without their inclusion, the bible is just a tool of oppression.
I think the bible is a lie by omission. I have read many of the christian writings of the time between when JC supposedly lived and when Constantine ordered the bible put together three hundred years later. I am more partial to the Gnostic Gospels, as they are more in true with my own view of things. Without their inclusion, the bible is just a tool of oppression.
Last edited:
Ever read the preface to the KJV 1611 edition? They made quite a point of explaining how they did the translation, what material they used etc., I'm quite sure they were very sincere in their commission, a translation that was free from RCC influence. (I think the RCC was taxing the King of England quite a bit of money to absolve the King of his carnal sins)
How is that method better (at understanding the Bible itself) than reading and rereading and ending up reading that passage even more times if it covers more than one event. (those other events lead back to that passage)
Ever read the Wycliff edition, WOW, those guys could sure swing a mean pen.
15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
This version gives you the impression that one is worse than the other. That aspect is missing in the KJV as it used the very same word. (leaving one to consider that God is on one side so the 'bruise' will be more because God is more). Same conclusion just a slightly different route.
How is that method better (at understanding the Bible itself) than reading and rereading and ending up reading that passage even more times if it covers more than one event. (those other events lead back to that passage)
Ever read the Wycliff edition, WOW, those guys could sure swing a mean pen.
15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
This version gives you the impression that one is worse than the other. That aspect is missing in the KJV as it used the very same word. (leaving one to consider that God is on one side so the 'bruise' will be more because God is more). Same conclusion just a slightly different route.
This is a silly comparison. An emotion humans feel isn't the same thing as a believing 100% in a religion's stories. Though, you may be interested to know that there is more and more research going into emotions. Because of my job, I'm particularly aware of that being done in the area of parental bonding with infants. They have done a lot of work in examining the chemicals the body releases.
Believing that God came to earth in another form, impregnated a virgin who then gave birth to himself so he could live and die on earth for our sins is a little different that believing in an emotion all humans experience... there is no evidence other than a book. The same book that says a man lived in the belly of a whale and a snake and a burning bush talk to people and that a guy built a boat and put every species in the world on it to have sex. The mormons have a book too, so why not believe their book? God is a man, he lives on a star and magic underwear protects you. Why is that different from your bible? That's what makes religion so irrational: the arbitrary nature of it. You BELIEVE in your Bible, you BELIEVE in its version of God, you just KNOW it's true... But if you had been born in Saudi Arabia, you would BELIEVE in the KORAN, you would BELIEVE in its version of God, you would just KNOW it was true.
The simple truth is no one on earth can KNOW the nature of God or if there even is one. Belief and true knowledge are two different things.
This is a perfect example of the dissonance I see with Christianity. God is so loving that he sent his only son to die for us. Jesus preached turning the other cheek and loving your fellow man, that all of our sins can be forgiven.... but killing an enemy by throwing him to the lions is ok. I mean that's cruel enough on its own. Then you add killing all his relatives in the same way and that's a good Christian thing to do? 8O
That happened in the book of Daniel, the King's (Neb) advisors tried to get Daniel fed to the lions. Neb had to put Daniel in there but it went against his own wants (as he liked Daniel more than he liked the advisors). In the morning he rushed down there and was pleasantly surprised to find Daniel alive. As they were walking away, the King's arm about Daniels shoulders he turned to his guards and, quite casually said, "Toss them and their relatives to the lions."
Why would you think that came from the teachings of the NT?
Do you think politicians and bankers and business men would be honest if the punishment for dishonesty was death for you and your relatives. I know for a fact my relatives would be enforcing that themselves.
Never doubt a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes....by then you are a mile away and have his shoes and can say anything.