• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

If the Bible has been edited, then why leave in the bad bits about God?

Ransom itch

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
68
Many people throughout the ages have claimed and still do claim that for various and most-times nefarious church/state ends, that chapters and even entire books from the Bible have been 'lost', that texts have been chopped about and in some places completely re-written So, why not remove those passages that would seemingly incriminate God? I personally think it's quite telling those passages in the Bible that point to a God who appears to champion war and blood have NOT been magically erased from the main body of the text. Think about it. Wouldn't we all want to edit our own biographies for the better if we knew it was going to be the world's consistent best-seller (which is what the Bible is today)? I think it's the case that some things about the Bible truly are unknowable in this life but of course, are always worth debating.
 
For one thing because "God" can apply to many things and for another because it hasn't been in the interest of the ones who create religions to give us an accurate picture of God.
 
So, why not remove those passages that would seemingly incriminate God?

Generating a constantly surveilling, vengeful god can play a useful role in both the exercise of hierarchical social control and also enriching the degree of meaning one finds in hardship. It can also lend an additional moral dimension to this interpretation.

think it's quite telling those passages in the Bible that point to a God who appears to champion war and blood have NOT been magically erased from the main body of the text.

telling of what?

Wouldn't we all want to edit our own biographies for the better if we knew it was going to be the world's consistent best-seller

Over the course of the period when the bible was written and compiled, no one really credibly predicted the rise of Christianity as a dominant world-religion.

ebola
 
The bible is very anti-rebellion. "The meek will inherit the Earth", etc. That might be true for the main part but I also think there are many things God would prefer to see us not put up with.

I think he's hoping for a sense of discernment to grow up among us. So that we can judge for ourselves and not have to rely on the bible.
 
The bible is very anti-rebellion.

Have you looked into liberation theology though? Its basic premise is that the purpose of forming a Christian religious community is to undermine (all human) hierarchical authority. . .

ebola
 
Wars have been waged and entire empires built using the might of God as justification. The Crusades would have been impossible if all the Bible stood for was peace love and harmony.

Show me an army that doesn't pray before battle and I will show you an army already beaten.
 
Wars have been waged and entire empires built using the might of God as justification. The Crusades would have been impossible if all the Bible stood for was peace love and harmony.

Show me an army that doesn't pray before battle and I will show you an army already beaten.

But religions are DESIGNED to make you bitter and jaded like that. When people turn away from one form of spirituality they are also likely to turn away from others, if they are easily programmed. I don't see the point in complaining about main religions as their purpose was never to enlighten us in the first place. If you expect that you have misunderstood.
 
God before Jesus was meant to be wrathful, vengeful and a punisher - that's why those passages are in there. He was the Big Stick, with laws to be obeyed absolutely and swift punishment to follow. You will note the New Testament God is not like that. (can He spell schizophrenia? :D)

The books were edited and some left out so Jesus would be the Son of God and not just a man. The whole point was to make him special so the priests and Church could be the arbiter between man and God. The Church of James (Jesus' brother) was one that celebrated the Christ as a living man, showing us we could all be as him, but by making him the Son of God, the Church removed that possibility and pushed people back into following what the Church said or meet the master of Hell.

Interestingly the original words that get translated as Hell (I think there are 5 different ones) do not mean the Hell as described by the Church - the stick came in much later to keep the population under control. For much the same reason sex is outlawed and made a sin - EVERYBODy has sexual feelings and by making it sinful it means EVERYBODY has original guilt and so can be controlled better.
 
Wars have been waged and entire empires built using the might of God as justification. The Crusades would have been impossible if all the Bible stood for was peace love and harmony.

Show me an army that doesn't pray before battle and I will show you an army already beaten.
If your a student of history you'll know people were'nt exactly doing so great before Christianity.
The church abused their authority, God deals with it in the end.
If you have trouble with why you are suffering and you feel angry and think you have it all figured out,
1. Read book of Job
-You'll learn meaning for praying for Gods will and not yours.
2. Switch your anger towards tinker bell.
-No conviction with her.
Getting mad a God you dont believe in doesnt make much sense to me.
When you find yourself routinely angry with a God you dont believe it should be very telling to in respect to belief.

Ps.Jesus isnt asking you to hurt anyone.
Just very simply confess you are a sinner and
and except a blamess sacrifice as atonement.
You will notice a change if you do.
Not asking a lot if you ask me.
.
 
Actually meth... people were doing great before Christianity... provided you also say before Judaism... and before Ahkenaten (think I have the right one there - the guy who took on the Egyptian priests to bring in the One God thing)

The evidence says the world before the single male deity wasn't too bad. The Hyksos went and destroyed cities that had been around for more than 1000 years as they ravaged the fertile plains. The Celts (for want of a better name) had a civilisation that lasted better than 3000 years and spread from what became the UK to China. Caral existed and was created with no need for defences because trade was the priority not only for them but for all the other people with whom they dealt.

And there is lots more.

The advent of the 'One True God' cults was the beginning of the downfall of the various societies who were slowly working their way back up the path that the ancestors from before the Flood had walked and mapped. And by The Flood I do NOT mean Noah. As the Ice Age warmed, there were at least 3 MAJOR floods that scoured the world, not just the Black Sea.

But that's probably a subject for a different thread.

We know the world was different before the 'thrust' male-dominated cultures began. People lived differently - when they fought it was battles and everyone who survived would go home to eat. War is a Mars thing, a God thing if you like. The Judaics are among the worst possible things ever to happen to humanity, provided you look at where they REALLY began... in Egypt.
 
Many people throughout the ages have claimed and still do claim that for various and most-times nefarious church/state ends, that chapters and even entire books from the Bible have been 'lost', that texts have been chopped about and in some places completely re-written

There is practically indisputable evidence of Bible editing throughout history.

So, why not remove those passages that would seemingly incriminate God? I personally think it's quite telling those passages in the Bible that point to a God who appears to champion war and blood have NOT been magically erased from the main body of the text... Wouldn't we all want to edit our own biographies for the better if we knew it was going to be the world's consistent best-seller (which is what the Bible is today)?

The men who edited the Bible (and other Holy texts) were not concerned with their immortal anonymous celebrity.

it hasn't been in the interest of the ones who create religions to give us an accurate picture of God.

Really?

According to what?

The bible is very anti-rebellion.

Jesus was a rebel/terrorist.

I find that the NT inspires rebellion, in me. Rebellion against organized religion. Christianity, specifically. Like Jesus rebelled against the Jews.
 
Journyman16,

Saying that the evidence (which you don't cite) indicates that things were "okay" before monotheism and pin-pointing modern religion as the beginning of the downfall of society, is absolutely absurd. The topic of religion always polarizes debates, until they're meaningless. Christianity is far from perfect. It is a product of man. It was written thousands of years ago. We're still amending laws we created 5 years ago. Religion has been misused, but it has also done enormous (and unmeasurable) good.

This world was built on religion. It is an integral part of our society. Labeling it as a "negative" and implying that we'd be better off without it is too much of a simplification for me.

I hesitate to agree with meth, but he's right. The things that people blame Christianity for existed pre-Christianity. Same goes for religion, in general. Things weren't "okay" before religion, or before any particular religion. That's crazy. People used to fucking eat each other! If you were to trace our behavior back to our ancestors, I think you'd find an overall upward trend in terms of morality and civility. (Obviously with a couple of bumps / anomalies along the way.)
 
^

I was thinking same arguement.
Speculation is speculative.

Actually I wasnt going to argue this one (Not that I cant)
Its just too easy of an arguement that Christianity( not mentioning any other religions cause my proposed premise was Christianity) has done more measurable good than bad.
And Christianity is a fullfillment of Judaism.
Even if you believe there are errors in or highjacking of Christianity,
doesnt give you permission to throw baby out with bath water in respect to sweeping statements with no proof.

If you ask proof of me I will site the good christianity does today( will list if I need to but shouldnt need to).This observable proof we can both investigate today..
Would you lack to counter this proof? Ie show it does more harm than good
That burden would be hard to meet.
 
Last edited:
How would someone actually go about making such a comparison rigorously? Religions obviously exert numerous positive and negative effects which are qualitatively distinct and mutually uncommensurable; you can't just add up all the good, add up all the bad, and then compare the two quantitatively.

ebola
 
Journyman16,

Saying that the evidence (which you don't cite) indicates that things were "okay" before monotheism and pin-pointing modern religion as the beginning of the downfall of society, is absolutely absurd. The topic of religion always polarizes debates, until they're meaningless. Christianity is far from perfect. It is a product of man. It was written thousands of years ago. We're still amending laws we created 5 years ago. Religion has been misused, but it has also done enormous (and unmeasurable) good.

This world was built on religion. It is an integral part of our society. Labeling it as a "negative" and implying that we'd be better off without it is too much of a simplification for me.

I hesitate to agree with meth, but he's right. The things that people blame Christianity for existed pre-Christianity. Same goes for religion, in general. Things weren't "okay" before religion, or before any particular religion. That's crazy. People used to fucking eat each other! If you were to trace our behavior back to our ancestors, I think you'd find an overall upward trend in terms of morality and civility. (Obviously with a couple of bumps / anomalies along the way.)
Which was why I said "provided you also say before Judaism... and before Ahkenaten" Christianity has a whole new level of culpability but the invention of a single (and Male) God changed the world.

The evidence is in the archaeology that shows the commonality of pre-Roman civilisation across Europe and most of Asia.

We have to be careful to separate out the propaganda of the Church trying to justify the killing of everyone who had gold or anything else the Church wanted and what things we re REALLY like. Cannabilism is far less prevalent than the 'history' tells us and where it DID occur, was a spiritual or religious observance. In a very few tribal areas it was seen as taking on the strengths of the warrior they killed.

But the precursors to what we now call the Celts left evidence across a very wide area that they lived pretty much like the Amerindians, many cultures loosely allied, perhaps by blood, who would battle occasionally but never to the point of war. Probably, given what happened in the USA, they were most surprised when the Romans didn't go home after losing a battle.

The relics and artefacts across all that area support the idea of a connected world that only changed when the thrust cultures, started by the one god theism, moved into their territories. Even up until the fall of the Roman Empire, the cultures that Rome stood against support the idea of a better view of the world. Women were equally treated and had their own 'magic' and rules. Men had their place as well. Things were different then, even if not as different as the world that existed before the cataclysms.
 
Although it is impossible to remove religion from the events leading up to World War II, it was not a religious war. It is impossible to prove, either way, whether or not the atrocities committed throughout history would have been committed in the name of something other than religion. You can't look at history and say, definitively, this caused that simply because there appears to be a correlation between one thing and another. It's all theoretical. But, even on a theoretical level, you're still not providing any source to back up your claims (which, considering the vastness of their implications, are going to require multiple sources) or a broad enough explanation to cover the scope/implications of your claims.

The fact that cannibalism was performed by archaic religions, prior to the creation of monotheism, supports what I'm proposing.

But the precursors to what we now call the Celts left evidence across a very wide area that they lived pretty much like the Amerindians, many cultures loosely allied, perhaps by blood, who would battle occasionally but never to the point of war.

Don't you think the limitation of technology had something to do with this?

There is a direct relationship between the development of weaponry and the evolution of war. (Of which, I'm happy to provide links.)

The relics and artefacts across all that area support the idea of a connected world that only changed when the thrust cultures, started by the one god theism, moved into their territories. Even up until the fall of the Roman Empire, the cultures that Rome stood against support the idea of a better view of the world.

You might be able to find examples (bumps / anomalies) that go against the trend I mentioned earlier, but that doesn't change anything. Women, homosexuals, and other minorities, have been treated horribly throughout the majority of history. History was a harsh place. The utopian pre-religious world you're painting was never sustained for a long period of time. Would you, honestly, rather be living back then?

Women were equally treated and had their own 'magic' and rules.

Magic? What are you talking about, magic? You can't jump back and forth, in magnification, from specific examples to broad commonalities. It's confusing. What society/ies are you talking about in which women "had their own magic"? Things were different then... When? You're referring to this vague undefined period of time in unknown countries in which things were vaguely different. Sure, I'll buy that... But I'm not sure what it is.
 
How would someone actually go about making such a comparison rigorously? Religions obviously exert numerous positive and negative effects which are qualitatively distinct and mutually uncommensurable; you can't just add up all the good, add up all the bad, and then compare the two quantitatively.

ebola

we are talking about Christianity. Im not responsible for apologetics of other religions in respect to my statement.
Would taking food, time, and money donated by Christians to the poor be a better or worse thing?
I'll go on a limb and say better. I could prove this by obseving Christians giving hungry homeless people sandwiches or some form of a basic need they are not able to provide.
Then ask them if they feel better or worse.
Do this ten/twenty times and check my percentages of positive responses of the homelsess. Same would work for starving children.

If you lose the organizing power structure of Christian oganizations it would mean the poor/ less fortunate getting helped less.
And arguing you dont need Christianity for this doesnt help prove the case of Christianity being more harmful than good.
Helping the poor is just example. Helping those in jail, addicted to drugs, sick etc are more examples if you need them.
See where im going? It's a losing case to say Christianity causes more harm than good.
The commandment of love thy neighbor as thyself stands on its own merit and needs zero defense.
Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength takes focus off self. Which makes said prior commandment easier to accomplish.

Not following these commandments doesnt help someone trying to prove Christianity is more harmful than helpful either.
You need to show harmful effects of Christianity that cancel out the benefits of Christianty and at the same time show how these examples even tip the scales in reverse direction.
See why I said this argument basically waste of time.
 
Last edited:
If you lose the organizing power structure of Christian oganizations it would mean the poor/ less fortunate getting helped less.

History does suggest it does make it easier to molest disadvantaged and marginalised children
 
Its just too easy of an arguement that Christianity( not mentioning any other religions cause my proposed premise was Christianity) has done more unmeasurable good than bad.

As ebola said, it is not an easy argument. You're saying it's easy to compare something unmeasurable to something else unmeasurable? It is, by definition, impossible.

Even if you believe there are errors in or highjacking of Christianity,
doesnt give you permission to throw baby out with bath water in respect to sweeping statements with no proof.

Everyone has exactly as much permission to dismiss Christianity as they do to accept it.

If you ask proof of me I will site the good christianity does today( will list if I need to but shouldnt need to).This observable proof we can both investigate today..

So you're going to measure something that is so vast it cannot be measured, by measuring little bits of it?
Couldn't you do the same for the bad Christianity (and other religions) have caused?

Would you lack to counter this proof?

My counter would be similar examples of bad things that are still happening that are arguably caused by organized religion.

show it does more harm than good

You haven't shown that, by holding a foot long ruler up to an infinite spectrum, any more or less than you have shown the opposite. It is impossible to accurately analyze history and split it into two categories: religious-influenced and non religious-influenced events. Let alone, deciding which ones of those events turned out for the better or for the worse, creating some sort of grading system so that unrelated events can be directly compared, then - finally - adding up the score for good and bad.

If you believe in a single infallible God, there is no good and bad.

There just is.

Everything that has happened has to have happened, for us to be here.

Nature is harsh. Evolution is harsh. Survival is harsh. Life is messy.

...

People are always asking: "If God exists, why do bad things happen?" -> "Is God bad?"

In the context of this thread: "If religion is representative of God, why do bad things happen in the name of religion?" -> "Is God bad?"

Answer: Bad things happen, because they have to happen for good things to happen. -> No. God is neither good nor bad.
 
Top