The Bible Has Definitely Been Through Some Changes

[Dagda]

Christians would claim that although it was men who compiled the Bible, they were guided by God. This of course is highly unlikely (Constantine was hardly a model Christian), but not illogical IF you are a theist.

Anyway, Jesus Christ spoke in parables and allegory. He made clear that his teachings were hidden in layers and that not all people would understand. St. Paul reiterated this sentiment in his (well probably his) letters. The point is that I know some of the Bible is metaphorical and some factual, but that is the whole point of Christian teachings-not everyone will get it, but those that do will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

Of course this rather elitist view became unpopular some time before the Council of Nicaea because it became difficult to recruit the heard to a religion in which they had to work for Salvation-they had plenty of that in the Pagan Greek tradition. By de-mystifying the Christian religion the early Church Fathers basically created the mass movement which Nietzsche so despised.

[G-Roll]

Christians would claim that although it was men who compiled the Bible, they were guided by God. This of course is highly unlikely (Constantine was hardly a model Christian), but not illogical IF you are a theist.

Anyway, Jesus Christ spoke in parables and allegory. He made clear that his teachings were hidden in layers and that not all people would understand. St. Paul reiterated this sentiment in his (well probably his) letters. The point is that I know some of the Bible is metaphorical and some factual, but that is the whole point of Christian teachings-not everyone will get it, but those that do will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

Of course this rather elitist view became unpopular some time before the Council of Nicaea because it became difficult to recruit the heard to a religion in which they had to work for Salvation-they had plenty of that in the Pagan Greek tradition. By de-mystifying the Christian religion the early Church Fathers basically created the mass movement which Nietzsche so despised.

so how do you as a roman catholic separate what is metaphorical and what is factual?

Of course this rather elitist view became unpopular some time before the Council of Nicaea because it became difficult to recruit the heard to a religion in which they had to work for Salvation-they had plenty of that in the Pagan Greek tradition. By de-mystifying the Christian religion the early Church Fathers basically created the mass movement which Nietzsche so despised.

knowing this you still have no issues with your faith? all that you typed doesnt make it sound man made or like men controle "god?"

[Dagda]

/quote]

With much hard work and study. For instance, I think historical analysis has shown that the Babylonian Exile and the flight from Egypt were real events, however the Garden of Eden etc was probably metaphorical. Now some people criticise me for claiming that some events are metaphorical because they see it as a ‘get out of jail free’ card. I disagree with this criticism. Science constantly updates its theories when new information comes to light, therefore I think it is health when Theology does the same; if science guides us closer to the truth of Scripture (even if it proves it to be metaphorical in its entirety) then this can only be a good thing.  

[quote="G-Roll"]
knowing this you still have no issues with your faith? all that you typed doesnt make it sound man made or like men controle "god?"

Well I am not actually a Roman Catholic (that is just the worldview which best describes my beliefs) never having formally converted for reasons which I would rather not discuss. This of course gives me some wriggling room, but at the end of the day I think that the Roman Catholic Church has attempted to reconcile these facts with that of their faith. For instance the RC does not believe in justification by scripture alone, instead taking account of tradition etc. This means that although RC might be reluctant to change their interpretation, they can and have re-interpreted sections of their faith which makes me think that it is possible for me to be a RC theologically and remain open to re-evaluation of scripture. As I am being a little thick this morning I did not understand the part after the question mark. Would you mind re-typing this section?

[Dagda]

Damn it! Somehow I have managed to quote myself. Oh well, you get the idea.

[G-Roll]

Of course this rather elitist view became unpopular some time before the Council of Nicaea because it became difficult to recruit the heard to a religion in which they had to work for Salvation-they had plenty of that in the Pagan Greek tradition. By de-mystifying the Christian religion the early Church Fathers basically created the mass movement which Nietzsche so despised.

the last paragraph you typed makes it sound as if men controle the word of god.

[elliebean]

the last paragraph you typed makes it sound as if men controle the word of god.

So far nothing in this thread has said anything to suggest otherwise.

Hmmm....maybe that's because.......

[LoneMateria]

Anyway, Jesus Christ spoke in parables and allegory. He made clear that his teachings were hidden in layers and that not all people would understand. St. Paul reiterated this sentiment in his (well probably his) letters. The point is that I know some of the Bible is metaphorical and some factual, but that is the whole point of Christian teachings-not everyone will get it, but those that do will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

Isn't this just a cop out?  Imagine if all important books had this format.  Imagine if you were studying to become a doctor and the medical book you were reading on heart bypass was full of allegory and the real information was hidden in layers.  How screwed would we be you became a doctor?  All that you are doing is coping out so you can pick and choose what you want to believe in.  It's not just you it's everyone, i'm not attacking you here ^_^.  This is also why there are 30,000 sects of Christianity.

Christians tend to ignore the parts of the bible which they don't like and just keep what they do like.  I'd place a bet 90% of Christians don't know that Jesus told his followers how hard they were allowed to beat their slaves.  That as long as you didn't kill them when beating them it wasn't murder.  If they died two days later from those injuries you were fine, it wasn't murder.

[elliebean]

This is why I so love it when people say they think Jesus was a great teacher/good man/good example to follow - and I'm not even talking about the religious people, I mean other atheists/non-believers. Also love it when someone doesn't believe in "organized religion", as if disorganized religion is any better.

[G-Roll]

This is why I so love it when people say they think Jesus was a great teacher/good man/good example to follow - and I'm not even talking about the religious people, I mean other atheists/non-believers. Also love it when someone doesn't believe in "organized religion", as if disorganized religion is any better.

not to change the subject, but i dont think i see the harm in individuals being spiritual. if that is what you mean by disorganized... id much rather have people believing whatever they want without any form of guidance or rules to be christian, jewish, or muslim, ect...
although the people who do believe the same individual things would most likely form together and religious leaders would rise and the sheep... i mean people would follow.
so never mind....  

[bfat]

Also love it when someone doesn't believe in "organized religion", as if disorganized religion is any better.

Hmm.... yeah, no I think "disorganized" religion is waaay better.  Disorganization is far less threatening than hierarchical, organized groups (think Nazis...).  The organization of religion encourages people to stop thinking for themselves and only listen and follow like sheep, so they form into these clusters (mobs) that can only obey and accept everything they're told.  But this, I think, is the nature of most humanity.  Until we evolve past the point where (most) people WANT to be directed, organized, and told what to do, there will always be religion.  Never underestimate people's fear of thinking for themselves.

This doesn't mean that theists and religious people don't think--there are plenty of very intelligent religious scholars who try to decipher the mysteries and enigmatic wording throughout religious texts, to interpret it and make sense of them.  But the point is that most people don't think BEYOND the text, to the fact that what they're studying is completely illogical and needs such immense efforts to decode it in the first place that, in any other context, it would have lost all credence.  The Odyssey is also an ancient text that talks about gods, and it makes a hell of a lot more sense than the bible.  But if someone claimed that it was a religious text, most people would laugh.

So what's the difference?  It's just that a group of PEOPLE said that "this is the word of God" and got a bunch of sheeple 2000 years ago to follow it, then used violence, fear, and intimidation to continue to convert populations throughout history.  

Nothing much has changed.  

[Dagda]

the last paragraph you typed makes it sound as if men controle the word of god.

Of course they do. That is not to say God does not exist, just that He/She/It is not exactly like he is portrayed in his biography. Like all text there is a kernel of truth in the Bible (well somewhat more in my opinion, but that is just my opinion), and it should be dismissed off-hand at your peril.

Isn't this just a cop out? Imagine if all important books had this format. Imagine if you were studying to become a doctor and the medical book you were reading on heart bypass was full of allegory and the real information was hidden in layers. How screwed would we be you became a doctor? All that you are doing is coping out so you can pick and choose what you want to believe in. It's not just you it's everyone, i'm not attacking you here ^_^. This is also why there are 30,000 sects of Christianity.

Christians tend to ignore the parts of the bible which they don't like and just keep what they do like. I'd place a bet 90% of Christians don't know that Jesus told his followers how hard they were allowed to beat their slaves. That as long as you didn't kill them when beating them it wasn't murder. If they died two days later from those injuries you were fine, it wasn't murder.

Cop out would suggest that this interpretation came about because of criticism of a literal interpretation. It did not. As far as I can tell there was a long history of this interpretation in Judaism well before the birth of Christ, and Jesus seems to carry on this tradition in his teaching. So cop out it is not. Instead it may be a return to the original meaning of the teachings of Christ. Now I am criticised sometimes for attempting to make more out of atheism than there really is, and I have tried to take this criticism on board. I know it is easier to attack a literal interpretation of the Bible, but make sure you are not trying to make theists an easier target by defending that literal interpretation.

Your allegory of a medicine journal I don’t quite agree with. Medicine and spirituality are not the same thing, so I do not see why they should be taught in the same way. However, if I stay with the metaphor then perhaps I could describe the allegory as this: any doctor will tell you that someone can read as many textbooks as they like, but nothing is as good as practical experience in the operating room. In the same way spiritual truth becomes all the more spectacular if it is arrived at through experience and experiment. However, unlike medicine, spirituality is much easier and safer to convey through allegory (no one will attack you for publishing a medicine journal, but allegory might hide you from the abuse that tends to attach itself to new spiritual masters-just see the Crucifixion or Crusade against the Cathars).

There is also the possibility that, like medicine, spirituality is a personal thing (what works for me may kill you) hence as an allegory can mean many things to many men perhaps this is the best way for humanity to arrive at the spiritual philosophy which suits them best.

I realise that the above is not perfectly typed, but it is not a dissertation. If anyone struggles just tell me and I will re-type.

[pinkocommie]

Of course they do. That is not to say God does not exist, just that He/She/It is not exactly like he is portrayed in his biography. Like all text there is a kernel of truth in the Bible (well somewhat more in my opinion, but that is just my opinion), and it should be dismissed off-hand at your peril.

What truth exists only in the bible that can't be found anywhere else which would make dismissing the bible somehow perilous?  The bible does have some great stuff in it, but that great stuff is not, to my knowledge, specific to the bible.  Hammurabi's code and the teachings of Confucius, for example, both pre-date the bible but have a lot of similar teachings and laws.

[elliebean]

For that matter, what about dismissing the bible is perilous and could be avoided by reading it?

That is a rhetorical question. I've already read it.

[spoiler:2jp4p6pf]It's far more perilous to read it as though it were anything but mythology.[/spoiler:2jp4p6pf]

[Dagda]

I am sorry, I did not make myself clear there. I agree pinkocommie that the spiritual teachings in the bible are not unique to that book (this actually convinced me to become more spiritual), but it does have a unique insight into Jewish/Christian history which the Tao Te Ching lacks. I meant that we should not dismiss the Bible because even if the spirituality is so much bull, it still gives us a starting point when we are researching the history or culture of the Abrahamic religions.

[pinkocommie]

I am sorry, I did not make myself clear there. I agree pinkocommie that the spiritual teachings in the bible are not unique to that book (this actually convinced me to become more spiritual), but it does have a unique insight into Jewish/Christian history which the Tao Te Ching lacks. I meant that we should not dismiss the Bible because even if the spirituality is so much bull, it still gives us a starting point when we are researching the history or culture of the Abrahamic religions.

Oh I'm sorry, I totally agree with you there.  Historically the bible is very important.