Why do people believe the bible?

[+Sherapy]

20 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

LOL A bit of biased and inaccurate personal opinion, again !

That is what YOU think I think  Not what I think. 

I live my life in a biblical way not from belief or faith  but  for a practical common sense reason.   It benefits me and works for me.

  Eg being vegetarian is healthier  Not drinking, smoking, or taking drugs,  is healthier  Being faithful to my wife, in my mind and body  is healthier  Being honest and community minded  is healthier  Not being angry, afraid,  judgemental,  envious etc is healthier. Not worrying about material wealth and possessions is healthier  

Not only are many other religious paths equally beneficial, but many secular philosophical values and beliefs, like humanism, are  very positive  

I have no problem with this approach, it works for you, fair enough. 

You are correct there are many positive paths and no path is superior to another, except to you.

Good post, MW.

Keep this up.

[Guyver]

12 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

i work back the other way. To me the god constructs of early writers must make inherent sense  to those writers The y are not going to construct and worship a god who is evil or hates humanity,   but the y might construct one who is fallible and not all powerful  and so is limited in what he can do. Eg he cannot compel humans to be good or behave in a certain way. He can only respond to the decions and choices we make You've gone off the christian  god a bit  because you don't like the way you have  interpreted him  as being My advice would be to reinterpret him and remake him as more loving and lovable      

Yes, I have spent much time in consideration of God's nature and character as I understand things.  Admittedly influenced by the positive things the bible says about God to some degree, like he is love.  For me personally, I have such a high opinion of him that I think it's almost blasphemous to consider him the "God" of the Old Testament.  Additionally, I hold on to this positive view of God in my mind, in spite of the fact that it seems only too obvious that we were made intentionally to suffer and die on this rock speeding through the cosmos.  

[eight bits]

LG

If you were looking for something essential for salvation that would command a consensus among Christians, then it would be the need for grace (a free gift from God). How does that work? That's where the fog rolls in.

Quote

some seem to believe that you can't believe in Jesus without that grace.

There is a subtle line between a doctrine that prescribes believing things about Jesus and a doctrine prescribing that it is necessary or sufficient for salvation that you have those beliefs (and if so, which beliefs exactly).

Whether or not it has a lot to do with the Bible, the way Catholic belief evolved was to recognize that various religious propositions were true, period. Belief has nothing to do with a proposition being true, nor does truth determine what the proposition might be useful for (just like the Pythagorean Theorem, except these truths were revealed by God, with much help from approved highly intellectual interpreters).

That idea of  truth provides a framework within which to reason about religious questions, including how salvation works. The Eastern Orthodox, who stem from the same historical roots as the Catholics, seem to feel that that is way overthinking the problem. They tend to favor non-intellectual "spiritual exercises," consistent (I think) with an overall view that "salvation" is the natural or default state of humanity. Sin alienated people from their natural state; Jesus' role was to make it possible for people to work their way back to that default state, to "unblock the pipes" of grace, so to speak.

You mention John 3:16,

Indeed, therefore God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, so that everyone believing in him should not perish but could have eternal life

Yup. A supermajority of Christians accept that. But just those few words raise a lot of questions if you're trying to figure out precisely what you should do about it, or whether you even can do anything about it.

On its face, the verse is aspirational (God intended something, but that doesn't mean that's how it has worked out so far), it is silent about God's intentions concerning non-believers, and it doesn't promise believers anything specific, either. All it says (even in the original) is should and could.

The verse is consistent with a wide range of specific views, a sophistcated "daily newspaper horoscope" that many people see as speaking to them personally. But that can't be right, because those people disagree among themselves about what the verse means exactly. They have different and incompatible views.

As to your hypothetical poll about the verse, sure, if you phrase your question so that it will be heard as a paraphrase of "Based on John 3:16, is it a good idea to be a Christian?" then a majority of Chrisitans will probably agree. The train leaves the tracks when you ask "What does John 3:16 tell you to do?" (Show the verse number on a homemade sign to the TV cameras at football games? Yes, that must be it.)

When discussing Christianity, I try to stick to the doctrines, and leave specific people aside (except to identify leaders who teach this or that doctrine, as opposed to ordinary people who happen to post about believing one way or another). It's not always easy, because these are often "core beliefs," part of a person's sense of self, and so any criticism of the doctrine is perceived as an attack on the person. The person "attacked" might be unaware that they're conflating things.

That said, I simply cannot wrap my head around Calvinism. Your points about "once saved, always saved" are well taken.

-

Edited January 18, 2018 by eight bits

[bigjim36]

22 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I cant explain things to you  because you simply do not see connections Eg  beliefs, ethics, morality and behaviour all create physical outcomes and thus the y are important and connected 

You don't see how ethics and moralities are constructed around values and some of your values are inconsistent  Eg human life is important enough to break the law and cultural taboos by eating  human flesh, yet so unimportant that you  would allow it to die out rather than have a child with a sibling  You think there is a difference between preserving a current life and a future one (how do you logically  defend this)  Life  is life  Inaction  can be  as great a source of evil as evil action

You believe values and moralities are absolutes, when the y are not  So you think slavery  is ALWAYS evil rather than culturally dependent  or that the equality of men and women is always  possible.   You try to impose modern behaviours based on modern economic models onto ancient people who had totally different economies cultures and  ways of surviving.   

The bible is totally relevant to modern western society and indeed most of our laws customs and cultural values STILL are formed by the beliefs and values found in the bible  But as always we modify our beliefs and behaviours  to fit our present laws and cultural contexts 

lets take the basic one.

Why is murder wrong?

because human life is considered special 

Why is human life considered special ?

because of the belief that we are made in the image of a god Or because it posses special qualities  only found in humans and gods. 

yes  thousands of studies, most this century, all by reputable medical and scientific professionals or groups, and indeed the greater the rigour and peer review the higher the correlations established between  health, longevity, and faith/belief, and church attendance  This is so well accepted now that is standard practice in all western medical schools and teaching hospitals

The balance between secular law and religious ones is complex and intertwined  I obey all secular laws unless the y contradict my personal conscience then I disobey the law and accept the civil sanctions.  Often however civil laws make allowances for relgious belief and personal conscience, where they do no harm.

All self aware beings such as humans have free will. It is the nature of our slef awareness tha t we have informed free will    There is NOTHING  (not even a god ) who can restrict a humans ability to think freely and act freely  Of course natural consequences will catch up with oyu AFTER you act, but this does not prevent you acting  ANd some things are physically impossible but this does not prevent you attempting them. .   

 

lol the irony.

Not only do i follow gods instructions from the bible precisely  as Christ explained we should,  but i also follow the words of god personally delivered to me by god and the avatars of god we call angels   I follow them very carefully and live by the instructions.

god has NEVER either in the bible or to me personally told me to keep slaves  to kill gays to beat  my wife etc

  While those words are in the bible I am enough of an historian to know that i was never intended as their audience. The audience for those particular words lived  many thousands of years a go and the words WERE relevant and right for them.

On the other hand the instructions to work together as  a team with my wife, to love her, honour her, respect her, and care for her, while always being faithful to her ARE directed at me.

The words telling me to respect  the wisdom of my elders are directed a t me.

Th e words telling me to obey the  laws of  my country where legally constituted. and where the y do not contradict gods laws  apply to me.

The words telling me not to kill outside the law apply to me.

Most importantly, the words telling me that our true well being exists in our minds not in our possessions is also true, as are the words telling me to have no fear, to love others myself and to treat all men as my brothers.

it is YOU who sees  different instructions in the bible, which may come from your own nature and relationship to religion and god.

If you see god as evil or destructive you might see his instructions as so.

If you see god as love mercy and justice then you might see his instructions in this light 

First love. This is a state of mind, and leaves no room for hatred, anger, envy, jealousy  or desire.  THEN act, based on love for self, for god, and for others 

Understand  and obey the laws of the bible as constructed from love of us, and then follow them from love not from  fear or legalism Ie interpret them through love    So to kill an unborn child is an immoral or wrong act. 

BUT sometimes love and understanding means that we can see a woman needs to abort a child  for one of several reason   The principle of love does not cause conflict between these two aims but helps  you  resolve the situation An unborn life takes priority unless or until its existence causes harm to  its mother.

The principle of love means that while we would seek to save a persons life we might need to allow them to choose death despite all our love for them, BECAUSE true love means putting their  needs before our own. 

The words of the bible come in many forms Some were written to and for people who lived 2-4 000 years ago, some  are written for humans of all times and cultures, and some are written just or you and for me, for our specific guidance instruction motivation and encouragement 

Yeah I'm going to stop interacting you. You're so full of contradictions you could be a conservative MP! No matter what point I've made you've tried to answer with lies, opinions and changes of topic, not once have you given a straight answer. As I said earlier I'd get more sense out of my dog. I stand by that. I wish you well Mr Walker but you clearly have mental health issues, I urge you to get checked out for your own sake and for the sake of others. Seriously. Having the delusion that god and his messengers talk to you never ends well. Go see a doctor. Please don't reply to this as I have neither the time nor inclination to read anymore of your gibberish. 

[bigjim36]

15 hours ago, Area201 said:

 

Let me backtrack to your original post, now that I'm reading it over I mistook your statement to imply ALL people who believe in the bible take ALL it's content literally. That would be baffling and annoying, for people like me and many I know who recognize the Bible as a compilation of many books with many hands involved, some of the parts of the Bible we do not take literally, but metaphors. allegories, and such, from Genesis to the parables of Jesus. So you are right SOME people do hold this belief in varying degrees and have for centuries. My reply was misguided and not reflective of your actual statements now that I'm reading it over.

Let me reply from scratch.

The Bible I think is comprised of parts that are to not be taken literally, and parts that are historical accounts and literally happened. Now which are which and how exactly we interpret the message is another question that has left us with a thousand and one various Christian sects and Bible influenced groups. Due to the many hands it's passed through, and various ulterior motives behind to alter or not include certain scriptures, and so on, it's commonly accepted as a work compromised or altered.

That is a fair and reasoned point and one that I agree with completely. That the bible has been twisted and altered to suit different peoples needs that it cannot be relied on as gospel (if you'll pardon the pun).

15 hours ago, Area201 said:

However, just because it's imperfect, this does not mean it's a work of fiction.

I do disagree on this, we know for a fact that a lot of the old testament didn't happen as proven by simple scientific research and historical documents from civilisations outside of the middle east that contradict it i.e Noahs flood.

15 hours ago, Area201 said:

 

 

The parts that may have deeper meanings and are to be teachings of things that transpire in the realm of consciousness/spirit, those we cannot verify here. These are matters of interpretation and spiritual understanding. (Actually we can verify those also, but for sake of argument lets just stick with the historical side.) 

No you cannot verify them, no one can until we are dead and as far as I'm concerned no one has ever come back from the dead to confirm such things not Lazarus or Jesus.

15 hours ago, Area201 said:

 

 

YOU easily dismiss the bible with your own snarky comment that it's nothing but 'bronze age fairy tales written by man'. Here's a timeline of biblical accounts that indicate the people and places mentioned in the Bible can be found in historical writings other than the Bible. These are extensive and I'm not going to list all here, YOU should study this timeline to get an idea why SOME people may take SOME parts of the Bible literally.

Placing things in a modern day setting does not mean that it is the truth. For example if society collapsed and a thousand years from now the survivors found some pages of Harry Potter would they believe that there was a magical hidden platform in a train station in london? The book was written in the same time period as it was set, does this make it the truth? No of course not. Just because we can verify certain historical events and people does not mean that the rest must be true.

15 hours ago, Area201 said:

 

One example. 

My short answer to your question why some people believe the bible is literal, and I can only defend some parts of the Bible, is because we have many supportive historical accounts of things mentioned in the Bible that allow us to take those parts "literally". When we get to things like Old Testaments' Genesis, New Testaments's parables of Jesus, and St. Paul's testimony of Christ, that's when it gets more of an "opinion piece".

So if it's an opinion piece then why do people hold so much stock in it? What was relevant to a middle eastern sect 2000 years ago is not relevant in any way today. 

15 hours ago, Area201 said:

I think your question, and my original misguided answer, shows how complicated the subject is given all the factors involved. 

If you asked "why do people believe in God" I would reply, for myself at least, due to personal experiences. 

As I said I have no issue with people believing in god, most of my family do, it is the bible I have a serious issue with. As an historic document it fails as many, many of the accounts simply did not happen the way the bible says. As a book of morals it is horrible and has no place in todays society, we don't stone gays, keep slaves, rape, commit incest, kill babies etc etc. All of which the bible teaches are correct and right. So what is the point in it? It holds no purpose.

[Truthseeker007]

19 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Jeez, dude. Do you have,anything else stupid and homophobic you'd like to add?

How was it homophobic? I am all for gay weddings. I just think it would be good evidence for a gay couple since church's are so against gay marriage. I mean the church uses that one verse in the Old Testament why gays shouldn't get married. What Jesus said there in that verse you posted does sound pretty gay.

[Mr Walker]

16 hours ago, bigjim36 said:

Yeah I'm going to stop interacting you. You're so full of contradictions you could be a conservative MP! No matter what point I've made you've tried to answer with lies, opinions and changes of topic, not once have you given a straight answer. As I said earlier I'd get more sense out of my dog. I stand by that. I wish you well Mr Walker but you clearly have mental health issues, I urge you to get checked out for your own sake and for the sake of others. Seriously. Having the delusion that god and his messengers talk to you never ends well. Go see a doctor. Please don't reply to this as I have neither the time nor inclination to read anymore of your gibberish. 

Funny You beat me to it. Thee are no lies in my post and no logical contradictions  Of course there are opinions, but  i don't change the topic. It is all interlinked.

You have such a closed mind, that you can't see a lot of things, and you wont listen to other things.even as possibilities.

I've answered every question you  have asked, as best i can .

If they don't seem like  answers to you, then you are looking for the wrong sort of answers,  or don't want to hear the answers i am giving   eg you do not want to hear, and will not accept, that there ARE no absolute ethics and moralities.  They are all constructs humans create, to survive in, and make sense of, their world.

As the world changes then so do peoples' ethics, values, and moralities.

  Thus a book like the bible has many laws based on values and moralities which were right when the book was written, but are wrong today.

However, such books also have many moralities which are based on values  which have not changed. 

I have had many full medical and psychological assessments over my long life.  i am more mentally well and adjusted than most people.

For example, i have never suffered even from  depression or anxiety let alone any mote serious illness. 

This is your way of refusing to listen to, or accept, my words as potentially be true.

You are forced to conclude I am deluded because if I was not, then your comfortable delusion,about the nature of human existence would be shattered.

I don't see how it will end badly I have maybe another 10-15 years of life left, and so far "god's" power and protection have brought me only good things, and a fortunate life in every aspect of living.  

[Mr Walker]

On 18/01/2018 at 2:06 PM, Guyver said:

Yes, I have spent much time in consideration of God's nature and character as I understand things.  Admittedly influenced by the positive things the bible says about God to some degree, like he is love.  For me personally, I have such a high opinion of him that I think it's almost blasphemous to consider him the "God" of the Old Testament.  Additionally, I hold on to this positive view of God in my mind, in spite of the fact that it seems only too obvious that we were made intentionally to suffer and die on this rock speeding through the cosmos.  

I have never suffered. I mean i have  had tragedies, and loss hardships and pain, but suffering is a state of mind and i refuse to suffer.   Life is too wonderful, full of joy and promise.    Death and loss are part of nature, and it is only the fear and other negative constructs we create in our mind which hurt us.  We reap what we sow in life and natural consequence will affect us all

I am glad you have a positive image of god and I can see why you don't like the god that you perceive in the OT  Despite years of study i don't see that OT god as any different to the NT one, but the writers lived in a harder, less forgiving time and portrayed him as a more just, than merciful , god 

I don't think humans are meant to suffer, and i do not believe that we have to. Our external environments are not significant.

it is how we perceive, interpret, and react to them, which determines if we are happy or sad,  joyous or depressed.

For me, god empowers and fills me with love so that there is no room for the things in life which cause a human being to suffer.  

[Mr Walker]

On 18/01/2018 at 4:18 AM, joc said:

....sounds more to me like....

The Voice of Google

Wouldn't know.

I have the sound permanently  turned off on my computer.  

[Mr Walker]

On 18/01/2018 at 4:33 AM, joc said:

Not trying to argue the point...just saying.  Many churches, not saying yours, but many, do indeed exclude people...mainstream churches....they ask you not to take communion if you don't 'believe'.  Exclusion!  I have been told by every Christian I know that I am not a Christian.  Funny, I always considered myself to be...because I follow the teachings of Jesus.  Nope, not good enough! They will not even allow you to 'call' yourself Christian if you don't believe in the virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection.   Exclusion!

"Christian" is not defined by any human authority.

If  you decide you want to be christian and you follow gods way then you are christian  It has nothing to do with a priest or a church or a theology, but only you  and  god, (and for a christian , the bible or word of god  ) 

Churches have specific rules, like all organisations.  Most will welcome you as a guest, but to become a member you have to agree by the membership rules. They a re likea ll other human organisations in this regard  

[Mr Walker]

On 18/01/2018 at 5:24 AM, Truthseeker007 said:

Well that verse would be good evidence for Jesus being gay.

Revelation 3:20 ²⁰Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

More the use of man as in human.  But also a patriarchal society used man as a word for human  because all power and authority rested in men,   thus only a man would ope a door at night and only a man would be out knocking on the door. 

I always talk about man or mankind, while including women  as a part of mankind, because it means human kind.

  Some people might even think it is a sort of unconscious sexism,  but i am very aware of what i am doing every time i use it  Mankind is technically correct for all humans and man, strangely enough, includes woman 

"The generic use of ‘man’ and ‘he’ (and ‘his’, ‘him’, ‘himself’) is commonly considered gender-neutral. 

Today I found out that the word ‘man’ was originally gender neutral, meaning more or less the same as the modern day word “person”.  It wasn’t until about a thousand years ago that the word “man” started to refer to a male and it wasn’t until the late 20th century that it was almost exclusively used to refer to males.

Before “man” meant a male, the word “wer” or “wǣpmann” was commonly used to refer to “male human”.  This word almost completely died out around the 1300s, but survives somewhat in words like “werewolf”, which literally means “man wolf”.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/08/the-word-man-was-originally-gender-neutral/

 

Many feminists would argue, of course, and this debate has existed for a generation or two BUT, back when the bible was written, the word man never specifically excluded women. and so the phrase used actually meant a man or a woman  

Edited January 19, 2018 by Mr Walker

[Truthseeker007]

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Revelation 3:20 ²⁰Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

More the use of man as in human.  But also a patriarchal society used man as a word for human  because all power and authority rested in men,   thus only a man would ope a door at night and only a man would be out knocking on the door. 

I always talk about man or mankind, while including women  as a part of mankind, because it means human kind.

  Some people might even think it is a sort of unconscious sexism,  but i am very aware of what i am doing every time i use it  Mankind is technically correct for all humans and man, strangely enough, includes woman 

"The generic use of ‘man’ and ‘he’ (and ‘his’, ‘him’, ‘himself’) is commonly considered gender-neutral. 

Today I found out that the word ‘man’ was originally gender neutral, meaning more or less the same as the modern day word “person”.  It wasn’t until about a thousand years ago that the word “man” started to refer to a male and it wasn’t until the late 20th century that it was almost exclusively used to refer to males.

Before “man” meant a male, the word “wer” or “wǣpmann” was commonly used to refer to “male human”.  This word almost completely died out around the 1300s, but survives somewhat in words like “werewolf”, which literally means “man wolf”.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/08/the-word-man-was-originally-gender-neutral/

 

Many feminists would argue, of course, and this debate has existed for a generation or two BUT, back when the bible was written, the word man never specifically excluded women. and so the phrase used actually meant a man or a woman  

Well that is all very interesting. Really when I stated about Jesus being gay I was trying to add a little humor to the thread. I guess some don't find it humorous.lol!! I don't base my reality off the Bible so It don't bother me to make fun of Jesus. After all I don't even believe the Bible Jesus existed as one entity. Making fun of Jesus for me is like making fun of Superman or Batman or any of these comic book figures.

[+joc]

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

"Christian" is not defined by any human authority.

If  you decide you want to be christian and you follow gods way then you are christian  It has nothing to do with a priest or a church or a theology, but only you  and  god, (and for a christian , the bible or word of god  ) 

Churches have specific rules, like all organisations.  Most will welcome you as a guest, but to become a member you have to agree by the membership rules. They a re likea ll other human organisations in this regard  

No Disagreement there at all.   Except for the context of the post , which was negating the premise that churches exclude no one.

They do in deed....because they are exactly what you said.  Organizations with Rules.  That being the case...I would...on a different premise...argue that The Red Cross Benefits people far more than any Church.  Both are organizations that  are tax exempt.

[jmccr8]

On 17/01/2018 at 8:08 AM, Mr Walker said:

lol of course not.   Generally it is one of the many streams of consciousness or debate going on in my mind, as i construct and debate different  points using multiple forms of intelligence     it could be the voice of logic and reason debating with the voice of imagination or intuition      It could be a romantic voice of emotion debating with the cool calm voice of reality.  it could be my story telling or narrative voice constructing stories in my mind for pure entertainment.

it might be the mathematical statistical voice, solving problems, analysing comparing and contrasting the outcomes of a variety of potential decions i might make   It might be a creative voice composing poetry, or a song, or an art work.   

I don't have  "external " voices telling me to do certain things as some mentally ill peole do. i am in control of all my internal voices and use them for specific tasks as well as for fun. 

  "God's" voice is not my own mind's voice. It has knowldge which my mind does not possess and has never learned.  It  can be mind to mind,and private but it can also be vocal and auditory, and thus heard by others . It is always positive, constructive, beneficial.  It teaches, mentors, and gives advice.  It helps you avoid dangers yet to come and those in the immediate future. it offers words of encouragement, often accompanied by the physical power of the spirit, which heals, eliminates pain, gives courage, strength  and endurance.   It tells you which route to take to avoid traffic jams and directs you to a parking spot.  If you are lost, it gives you directions to get home safely.  If you are in need it tells you where and how to get what you need 

THAT is the voice of "god"

Walker,

Can you give a link from a credible source that supports you claim that others can or have heard god speaking to someone? Of course the link should not be for a religious text.

jmccr8 

[jmccr8]

On 17/01/2018 at 8:25 AM, Mr Walker said:

all knowing all powerful entity is a physical impossibility yet  I have to deal with a wise and powerful god and so i shape my understanding of god around these realities.

Realities or biases? You are doing the creating, fabricating a reality for your entity that is not in keeping with religious descriptions nor the same as the other individuals. Why do you think that you have to give god human qualities and define what gods limits and skill sets are?

jmccr8 

[+Hammerclaw]

On ‎1‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 4:25 AM, eight bits said:

That said, I simply cannot wrap my head around Calvinism. Your points about "once saved, always saved" are well taken.

-

I don't know why. It's very simple. The core belief in Calvinist Christianity is that your relationship with God is personal, between you and God. No earthly authority can or must intercede. Your salvation is by the Grace of God and nothing else.

[SeekerWCF]

It's not a hard question. Tribalism is ingrained into our DNA just like a dog knows to bury a bone even if the dog has never been around other dogs. It's a human behavior. People that insist the Bible is the truth are merely behaving they way humans have evolved to. It's part of a culture and they identify with that culture. There are strong chemical signals to fit in and be a good person for your tribe. The same is true for just about any other group including out spoken atheists, though atheists may be quicker to leave their culture if the evidence changes precisely because it's part of the culture to follow evidence. 

Edited January 19, 2018 by SeekerWCF

[Piney]

31 minutes ago, SeekerWCF said:

It's not a hard question. Tribalism is ingrained into our DNA just like a dog knows to bury a bone even if the dog has never been around other dogs. It's a human behavior. People that insist the Bible is the truth are merely behaving they way humans have evolved to. It's part of a culture and they identify with that culture. There are strong chemical signals to fit in and be a good person for your tribe. The same is true for just about any other group including out spoken atheists, though atheists may be quicker to leave their culture if the evidence changes precisely because it's part of the culture to follow evidence. 

Like the way I have of personifying objects even though I'm not superstitious and don't believe in "spirits" because it is wired into my Indian brain. 

[XenoFish]

1 hour ago, SeekerWCF said:

It's not a hard question. Tribalism is ingrained into our DNA just like a dog knows to bury a bone even if the dog has never been around other dogs. It's a human behavior. People that insist the Bible is the truth are merely behaving they way humans have evolved to. It's part of a culture and they identify with that culture. There are strong chemical signals to fit in and be a good person for your tribe. The same is true for just about any other group including out spoken atheists, though atheists may be quicker to leave their culture if the evidence changes precisely because it's part of the culture to follow evidence. 

Guess my brains broke. Maybe it's because I'm anti-social?

[SeekerWCF]

18 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Guess my brains broke. Maybe it's because I'm anti-social?

Na. You just think you are. Anti social people use that as part of a badge and their identity too. 

[SeekerWCF]

54 minutes ago, Piney said:

Like the way I have of personifying objects even though I'm not superstitious and don't believe in "spirits" because it is wired into my Indian brain. 

Yeah kinda I guess, but spirituality isn't just about personifying objects and nature. Certainly some bemifs and religions are, but there are deeper roots than just that. 

[Piney]

1 minute ago, SeekerWCF said:

Yeah kinda I guess, but spirituality isn't just about personifying objects and nature. Certainly some bemifs and religions are, but there are deeper roots than just that. 

I'm still somewhat loyal to my tribe. Even though I was burnt bad I'm still affable with other Lenape and I still wouldn't harm the tribe as a whole. 

[XenoFish]

7 minutes ago, SeekerWCF said:

Na. You just think you are. Anti social people use that as part of a badge and their identity too. 

Whatever.

[Piney]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Guess my brains broke. Maybe it's because I'm anti-social?

And here I thought you were semi-social. 

[Area201]

On 1/18/2018 at 8:49 AM, bigjim36 said:

So if it's an opinion piece then why do people hold so much stock in it? What was relevant to a middle eastern sect 2000 years ago is not relevant in any way today. 

As I said I have no issue with people believing in god, most of my family do, it is the bible I have a serious issue with. As an historic document it fails as many, many of the accounts simply did not happen the way the bible says. As a book of morals it is horrible and has no place in todays society, we don't stone gays, keep slaves, rape, commit incest, kill babies etc etc. All of which the bible teaches are correct and right. So what is the point in it? It holds no purpose.

There is some truth in what you say about not being relevant. Let me give you a breakdown how (I think) this is resolved. 

While there is an inherent universal and eternal moral teaching (dharma) in the Bible (or any genuine holy scripture), it is presented to certain people, in places, at times, in a way that is unique to the situation in its outer form. Exoteric or outer side of religion varies, esoteric or inner side of religion stays the same.

When we look through a Vedic perspective of yuga cycles, this makes more sense. Due to the cyclical nature of how the planets rotate around the Sun, and the Sun around center of the Galaxy, and so on, it is said these factor into a gradual change in influence on the inhabitants of the planet (you'd call it pseudoscience but follow along to get idea). There are intervals where the general masses are more dark or "asleep" (the walking dead) and those they are more "awake" to their own real nature, which is one and the same as God. 

The Old Testament became outdated, and replaced with the New Testament (Gospel of Jesus, Revelation, etc)

IMO the New Testament has since been outdated itself, and replaced by the 1946 publication of the Autobiography of a Yogi. 

This book and teachings will become the dominant Christian teaching in the current age we are said to be entering (Bronze/Dwapara) in the next 1000-2000 years. Apple co-founder Steven Jobs ordered copies out of this book to anyone attending his wake/funeral, upon his death. Many people who come across this book do so in circumstances high in unusual synchronization, resulting in a life changing or epiphany moment. I had such an experience. "When one is ready the teacher/teachings appear" is the law. 

So, what's the point of the Bible? It's a starting point, a guide to ever greater more refined teachings relevant to people at time they are ready (both on mass scale and individually). The Great Goal is awaking to Reality (God) from the Divine Play or lila. In science terms this most closely correlates to the holographic universe. This is a very difficult task for anyone living at this time here, and many obstacles to overcome which even those who make the effort, fail to do so or only to a degree. The road to "hell" is broad; the road to "heaven" is straight and narrow.

Even if there was no historical evidence for the person of Jesus, the central message is not stoning gays or killing babies, as you describe, it's the Greatest and Second Greatest commandments, which compound the "ten commandments" of the Torah or Old Testament. Even if this was made up (which we have supportive evidence it was not), the sheer beauty of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus in context of son of man vs son of God is inspirational. The fact that people don't apply it, abuse it for personal gain, or misinterpret it, the fault does not fall in the scriptures, but those individuals.

Here's the concept of Jesus as the King of Kings - a sample to get idea of a more appropriate for the current age updated version is about. So that's my take. 

Edited January 20, 2018 by Area201