The Bible As Truth.

Anyways, the Bible is obviously fiction. It doesn't just make scientific and historical blunders. It makes ridiculous scientific and historical blunders. The only question is when it was written. It supposedly was written a couple of decades after Jesus died. But it appears to be written in the Middle Ages. Probably the time of Constantine at the earliest. Or, I recently read maybe when the Bible was first made available to the public (being translated from Latin) it was probably created then. Apparently to control the masses, by telling them they'll suffer eternal punishment if they break the law or oppose the state. There's nothing wrong with using the Bible as your moral guide sometimes. Parts of it are even touching. That's what the Unitarians say.

As to the larger question whether or not there is a God, who knows. Richard Dawkins says definitely not. But he also says, how do you define God though? But if there is a God, he is very impersonal. He doesn't just allow evil, he created it. He is it, Einstein would say. And he is all that is good too. And he created humans too. Who are the only animals that don't have to follow the law of the survival of the fittest (which God also created).

 

I would put the teachings aside from organized religion, which are corporations in the real sense. Go to the real teachings of "Jesus" (Yesua the Nazarine Jew). Once you have his concepts down return to organized religion with the strength to understand and discuss his message.

 

Earliest surviving fragments of the Bible are short after supposed compilations of NT books, first complete canons a couple of centuries later, first full NT books somewhere in between, I believe?

Which is irrelevant anyway, the date something was compiled is not related to that something being more or less true. It is all religious mythology and belief anyway.

 

Some of the early writings were in a dead language. And were re-written by what they thought was there in the current language of the transcriber.
And then re-written by hand into other languages.

It's like playing telephone when you were a child. One person tells you a sentence. And by the time it gets to the last person, it changed. And had a different meaning.
I am not bashing the Bible. I am not putting it down at all. But you need to know the context as to how it came to be in its current printing.

 

A lot of it is metaphor, which Joseph Campbell told us was an effective way of conveying important truths.

I find that hard to believe. My copy consists of a couple of "Testaments", the Old one written centuries before Jesus. The New One began to be written in the fifties C.E., a couple of decades after Jesus is thought to have died. Most scholars think the first gospel, Thought to be Mark's, was written c. 70 C.E., followed by Matthew and Luke in the 80s and John in the nineties or later. And they drew on what they heard on the grapevine, leaving room for Nudistguy's telephone game. The first major effort at New Testament canonization came is thought to have been the Muratorian Canon compiled in 170. and containing most of the books The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, containing most of the books of our current version. There were, of course, a number of other writings, including those of the Gnostics, which never did make it into the canon. Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, decided there should be only four gospels, since "there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds..." https://classicalchristianity.com/2011/11/12/st-irenaeus-on-the-four-gospels/ That was in c. 180, in his book Against Heresies. The Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397) affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

And you say it was written in the Middle Ages, "probably the time of Constantine at the earliest". Study much history? Constantine reigned from 306 to 337 c.e., before final canonical finalizatiion, but long after the New Testament was written and a canonical version was well underway. As for the Mididle Ages, those are usually dated from the 5th to the 15th centuries--long after Constantine was dead and buried.

 

Would you kindly provide us withe a source on what "Einstein would say". Did he say that or are you putting words in his mouth? He did say he believed in Spinoza's god, which would make him a pantheist. The laws of nature are responsible for many outcomes humans would consider tragically bad: tsunamis, tornados, hurricanes, cancer, Covid, the bubonic plague, etc. Evil is a label we might put on these from a human perspective, but they result from the operation of natural law, which seems to be indifferent to impacts on human species. One might argue that since God created natural law, (S)he is responsible for those effects. But the implication that God was out to get people, or was negligent in not intervening, assumes a Cosmic Helicopter Parent hovering over or a Calvinist puppet master pulling the strings. Those of us with a more Deistic view of the Deity don't make those assumptions. See Charles Hartshorne, Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes. There is of course some scriptural support for the notion that God is the author of evil as well as good. (Isaiah 45:1):"I am the Lord, and there is none else.
I form the light, and create darkness:
I make peace, and create evil:
I the Lord do all these things”.
Later, the evil part seems to have been delegated to Satan.(2 Corinthians 4:4). Bureaucracy triumphs once again! But those who give themselves to God are supposedly under His protection from the Adversary (Psalm 121: 5-9) Hard to prove or refute.

 

My definition is that God is the Mind of the Spirit. All that is is a creation - the product - of that Mind - including every soul within that created cosmos.

As for the Bible - it's a mix of writings from scribes of thousands of years ago. I think much of it is symbolic and mythological, but some of it may be what exists as actual reporting from certain periods in history, centered around the Judaic experience.

 

I also wanted to add, about how people seem to debate this topic online. Some people say they worship Jesus and believe in the Bible literally. That's nice, I always tell them. Then they ask me my opinion of their beliefs. And I tell them, like Francis P. Church said in 1897, if that's real to you, maybe that's all that matters. Maybe those beliefs live in all our hearts that way. Most of us were brought up that way.

But then they start debating the Bible. When you point out the Bible says the earth is flat and 6,000, they say no to the first. And I have proof of the second. Well, that first thing is called cherry picking. The Bible clearly says both. And just because someone says the earth is 6,000 doesn't prove anything. You know some scientist who says that, actually more than one? Some scientists call themselves breatharians. They believe that all you need to survive is air. But they aren't mainstream.

And we asked for reliable information, if you want to debate this. Most people would agree that's not reliable data, that's nonsense.

 

I have some of the same concerns about the over reliance on the Bible. The Bible was a compiled collection of observations and beliefs by people of unknown knowledge in antiquity. The Religious Community passes it off as the word of God or inspired by the word of God. The teachings of Jesus (Yesua) are valuable as a framework to be followed by all believers from the time of Moses. Biblical passages inspired by Constantine the Great need to be put in perspective. These passages were important for illiterate followers from biblical times to present. It is now important for a change in the teachings of the Christian Community and bring Christianity, Islam, and Judaism closer together (in part).

 

I might quibble abut the "passages inspired by Constantine"--since I see no evidence he gave a rats ass about theology except to get the Chrisitians to come up with something they could all agree on. He continued to be a sun worshiper, as well as a follower of Jesus, and he was later baptized by an Arian priest.

 

I think that he was motivated by the concept of supreme power. If you are the politicay appointedl king and the theological king you have supreme power and your decisions are the word of god.

 

Constantine is the only historical figure I know who became a pagan god and a Christian saint (in the Orthodox church) after death. Now that's a politician! CONSTANTINE THE GREAT: A Defender of Christianity? - Christian Publishing House Blog

 

And, on believing the Bible literally...

I have proof that the moon is made of green cheese. The proof is I won't listen to reason or listen to you. And I have proof that Loch Ness Monster is real. The proof is I am right and the other 7,999,999,999 people in the world are the ones that are wrong (what are the chances?). Especially the doctors and scientists (unless I need surgery, of course).

And scientists don't suspend logic and reason. But sometimes Christians must. They said that in the Plain Truth magazine about 40 years ago. The Plain Truth was published by the Worldwide Church of God from 1934 to 1986. And one writer in there said Christians may wonder why the Bible says the earth is 6,000 years old when radioactive decay studies clearly show the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. True he said. But God MADE radioactive elements in the earth's crust that way. To test our faith.

 

And on the question of religion as the source of hope and morality. If God exists, he's not an anthropomorphic bearded man in the sky. He's the God of science. He's the good and the bad. Because he's not moral or immoral, just amoral. And he transcends time. He already wrote the universe's history because to him it already happened. So what would be the point of praying, or asking him for anything? And why would he demand praise? Why would I want to send myself a dozen roses? Especially from the flower shop I already owned? And human problems are caused by not listening to him? Like some Christians say. If you're not sure who to listen to but you want some sound advice, just listen to your heart like Roxette once said.

 

Yes. And folks also said that all those fossil remains were put there for the same reason--by God. Or was it SATAN?!

 

I still regard religion and God as sources of morality. I take an historical-metaphorical view of scripture, and think of God as Ultimate Meaning--the felt presence of a Higher Power "in whom we live, and move, and have our being". My concept of God is a Trinitarian composite: the Father, the laws of science, providing some moral constraints: Thou shalt not jump off the top of a tall building, or I shall spill your guts on the pavement. Thou shalt not pollute the environment, or I shall dry your planet up like a prune!) Stern, yes. But we are warned. This aspect was known to the ancient Egyptians as Maat, to Hindus and Buddhists as Dharma, to Greco-Roman Stoics as the Lex Naturale, To Daoists as the Dao, etc. And the Spirit--"the summation of human idealism", as John Dewey defined God. "God is Love" (1 John 4:7-12) Also, Justice (Amos 5:24). And the Beatitudes. And Buddha's Seven Precepts, etc. And the "Son" their human incarnation in Jesus, and the other great prophets, real or mythical, who inspire humanity (I include some atheists on that list.)

As a Christian, I'm particularly inspired by the teachings and example of Jesus, real or mythical, as presented in the Gospels. Most important among these are love of God and neighbor, the latter broadly defined to include all humanity, including society's rejects and least advantaged. As for His example, I'm particularly impressed by his welcoming the dregs of humanity to table fellowship. Some decades back, Christians went thru a "What would Jesus do?" fad. I think it's still a useful question to ask when considering how to relate to LGBTQs, Jews, Muslims, atheists, and others who are too often rejected and shunned in His name. In particular, I try to follow what Jesus identified as the most important underlying principles of the Law and the Prophets: Love of God "with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind". (Matthew 22:36-40). And Love of Neighbor , as yourself." Forget the miracles and signs. I favor the Hume-Sagan maxim that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I regard idolatry as the most serious threat facing the world today--not the old-fashioned "graven images" kind but the more perennial ones: wealth, status, power, and sensual indulgence. Not that these are necessarily wrong in their place, but they are wrong if pursued, in lieu of God, as paramount life goals. I'd add to the list "Biblidolarty": excessive adherence or reverence for the Bible, Qur'an or other "Holy Book", "especially as taken literally". bibliolatry - Wiktionary, the free dictionary It saddens me to see the religion of Jesus stood on its head and turned into a religion of exclusion by focusing on doctrinal trivia like whether people should be dunked or baptized, whether or not the earth is older than 6,000 years, Mary was a virgin, or non-Christians are going to hell. "Christian nationalism" strikes me as an "oxymoron". I think of "Heaven" and "Hell" as metaphors--"Heaven" as what it would be like if everybody followed the basic principles of "Peace, Love and Understanding", and "Hell" being what would result if everybody doing the opposite. Gen. 3, as I read it, identifies the vulnerability in human nature: two people in Paradise who want to Make Paradise Great Again by eating that apple. Buddhists call it taṇhā (craving).

Anyhow, that's what my "inner Roxette" told me today. Thanks for the thread topic. Remember to love your significant other and you're neighbor on Valentine's day!

 

I dont think following most religions/philsophy s are a bad thing(morals).....................it is more about how humans interpreted it and how it is influenced, christians/muslims/ect.

History(power/politcs/greed).............humannature?

Mzzls

 

How can you relate to what the "Family Values President" Is doing to the country and citing Christian faith as the source of his "Inspiration." Do you all believe that "Separation of church and state" is a good or bad idea. Get ready there is a bumpy ride ahead.

 

I tend to relate to it thru the lens of my religion and Jesus' teachings--the part about false prophets and the test for identifying the real ones from the fakes by their fruits. I've been noticing a lot more lemons and persimmons in the political fruit basket lately.