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

[ForEverAfter]

what great religion isn't?

Buddhism.

Gautama Buddha was a real person.

Islam.

Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad was a real person.

Judaism.

All rabbis I have spoken to treat the Torah as allegorical. I think the Jewish community understands the OT better than the Christian community, which has a tendency to not only literally interpret the NT but also - by extension - the OT. You don't encounter a lot of Jewish Young Earth Creationists.

...

That's all the major religions, excluding Hinduism.

Although they are all arguably founded on "lies", in the sense that they refer to God, they do not distort history.

...

Hinduism

There are different rules for Gods in Hinduism and other ancient religions. Hinduism is less dangerous because the Gods - although impossible - are kept relatively separate from our world. Distorting history is dangerous. Believing that God was literally a man, that lived in our world, is problematic for a number of reasons.

Faith cannot blend into reality: we cannot perceive history via faith.

I am not a fan of Hinduism. It is, in my opinion, the weakest of the major religions. My ex-wife came from a Hindu family. I had a traditional Indian wedding. I have had a lot of opportunities, therefore, to observe practicing Hindus. And, I'm an inquisitive person. So I talk to people about their faith. There doesn't appear to be a lot of understanding in Hinduism of how the religion operates. There's a lot of tradition. A lot of ceremony. But, behind it all, there doesn't appear to be a great deal of substance... or, the substance has been lost / forgotten about or has become redundant over time.

Hinduism is a very graphically violent religion, as far as the holy texts go. But it doesn't inspire as much violence as Christianity. It's also confusing: too creative for it's own good; and too vast. Requires a lot of work, for the reader to fully comprehend it, and - therefore - is prone to incorrect / incomplete interpretations.

...

Although I think ceremonial practices are a waste of time, offering sacrifices to archaic Gods doesn't hurt anyone.

I have watched grown men and women go into markets and buy fresh fruit, then leave them in elaborately decorated temples for their "Gods".

It is quite insane behavior, but it doesn't extend beyond that.

They're not inventing history.

meth compared denying Christ to denying the holocaust.

But, this isn't denying history; it's altering history.

We can't make exceptions to the process of documenting our past. Nor can we make exceptions with science.
For us to accept something as fact it must have sufficient evidence. This is important.

You cannot know whether or not Jesus existed.

To insist that he did, without question, is stupid.

Stupidity, on a mass scale, is dangerous.

Half of the United States is Christian.

They have weapons of mass destruction.

...

I understand if you sway towards believing that he did, but nobody knows that he existed because there isn't sufficient evidence.

 

[Journyman16]

I honestly don't mind if people wish to believe things that have no evidence - it's not for me but, if they don't get in my face about their personal views, I'm fine. I do think it is unsane (deliberate choice of word) to know things are 'true' without evidence or ffor that matter, to decide in advance what a particular internal personal experience might mean.

What concerns me is that most of those people believe something that someone else is in control of. Nobody questioned the Church when it rampaged around the world killing because God loves them. Nobody questioned when many thousands of young women were tortured and killed for daring to know about herbs or ways to heal. Nobody said. "hey, those Cathars are living peacefully and they are good neighbours - how about we DON'T burn them all at the stake?"

Why? It wasn't because these were all evil people who thought slaughter was a great way to spend a Saturday, it's because they BELIEVED and the people in charge of their beliefs said it was a great thing to do.

Many Christians are fine people, just as many Muslims are. But their SYSTEM is evil. It preys on the innocent and distorts reality to it's own purposes AND it stands between the congregations and any chance they might have had of achieving spiritual growth.

And, to return to the OP, that's also why the bad bits are left in there - much easier to convince the population to go pillage, rape and murder if you can point to God telling the Israelites to go do it.

 

[ForEverAfter]

A lot of people think the legend of King Arthur is a historical account.
I've seen this question asked in numerous university classrooms and I've conducted my own survey also.

If you think about the story, in detail, it's obvious that it's fictional.
When the question was asked, I knew it wasn't a historical account.

More than half of the people I've witnessed answer the question, however, were unsure or incorrect.

It's in a grey area, between fiction and history, because it isn't clearly defined to us.

Similarly, we take it for granted that Jesus was a real person.
If you think about the story, though, it's obvious that it's fictional.

If there was a man named Jesus, he didn't perform magic and his mother wasn't a virgin.
In other words: if his existence wasn't fabricated, his life was.
You can't take it for granted that the gospels are accurate.

Why do Christians need to literally believe?
Doesn't the message of the NT remain unchanged, if you view the text as allegorical?

Whether or not it happened is irrelevant.
The message is important.

History doesn't function in this way.

 

[Ninae]

I've never had much time for conventional Christianity. I appreciate more the early Essene/Gnostic teachings which to me feel more true. Or that is more what resonates with me.

However, that doesn't mean I don't think Christians don't deserve any respect or acceptance like any other religion. There is more to this world than what I like and can relate to. And Christianity has also brought good things to this world, like a sense of morals and charity, and some kind of notion of the existence of God, and most of all the story of Jesus, which I think is the real main point of it.

I was never much of a fan of the idea of Jesus. Westerners aren't really programmed to be. More like to get sick of and reject the whole idea. But even I know when I'm beaten and the many personal experiences I've had of Chirst (in his eternal form) with his powerful healing energy and the telepathic conversations I've had with him have convinced me there has to be something of worth there.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I know when I'm beaten and the many personal experiences I've had of Chirst (in his eternal form) with his powerful healing energy and the telepathic conversations with him have convinced me there has to be something of worth there.

If you don't mind me asking, how do you know it is Christ (rather than, simply, God) that you're communicating with?

I often ask this of Christians.

There is a common ground between all monotheistic religions, in the sense that God is God.

How - specifically - does Christ identify himself as Christ? (Rather than God as God.)

 

[Journyman16]

Don't be to sure King Arthur wasn't real - last I saw they claim there were 2 Arthurs, one circa 450AD and his great (3x?) grandson in the 600's - the reason it seems fiction is because the stories of the 2 have been conflated into legend.

Also, Ninae, I'm not all that convinced Christianity is the reason we have morals and ethics. It is VERY certain those things were imposed on the common folk but very few at the top of the tree held such ridiculous notions. On the other hand we have stories from everywhere else in the world of the development of social skills that look exactly like what we call Christian morality. The Golden Rule has been found almost everywhere.

Add to that the Egyptian Book of the Dead and the various facets of the creation myth (most of them actually) and we see ethics and morality thousands of years before the Judaics came along.

I think, once more, what we see is evidence of who won the wars - they got to smear everyone else as evil bastards because the winners firstly exterminated anyone who could say differently and secondly, they got to write the histories. Imagine how the people today would feel if our history told the truth about what we did to the Aborigines, or the Native Americans, or the South Americans, or the Indians, or the Chinese, or the Vietnamese... the list goes on.

That stuff IS coming out now we have the internet and most people reject it out of hand because it is too horrific.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Correction:
I meant the fictional story of King Arthur (the sword and the stone, the lady in the lake, etc) being interpreted as a historical event.

 

[Ninae]

If you don't mind me asking, how do you know it is Christ (rather than, simply, God) that you're communicating with?

I often ask this of Christians.

There is a common ground between all monotheistic religions, in the sense that God is God.

How - specifically - does Christ identify himself as Christ? (Rather than God as God.)

No, this is more of a mystical expience, as opposed to what you can learn through texts. It's completely different. And of course I would submit myself to Christ, I might have spiritual skills, but he's the master of embodying them in this world.

 

[ebola?]

While I don't identify as Christian, Christianity is important to me regardless of whether or not it's central figure was historical or allegorical in nature.

My best friend recently converted to Christianity. That he views his religion sensibly (read, as allegory), we are actually able to discuss spirituality and reach mutual ground, without anyone getting angry.

ebola

 

[ForEverAfter]

Yes, the violence caused by Christianity is a result of it being interpreted literally IMO.

The more fundamental beliefs become, the less people tolerate them being questioned.

 

[Ninae]

Personally, if I thought I could come anything close to that I woud feel smug, but sorrily it's nothing like that.

 

[Ransom itch]

Wow! As the original poster of this thread, I'm looking at the general theme arising in the posts and it seems the debate has moved away somewhat from the original posted question. But no matter, good debate has necessarily to expand sometimes, has to stray off course providing it still remains within the general parameters of the original post, which for the most part, all of this still has done ( holocaust references aside)

So here is my take on what had been said so far. Though I believe in Jesus, I cannot prove His existence to anybody and to begin to try to do so, merely begins that age-old grenade lobbing game, which at least in this forum maintains a much commendable civility. The whole point about Jesus is that He appears to those who truly seek Him. And in most instances, this only happens when we have reached the very end of ourselves in our lives. For all sorts of reasons, I had done exactly that. And so, I got down on my knees and prayed that I wanted to know the reality and power of His forgiveness and Love in my life. And wonderfully, soon after, He met with me and in such an extraordinarily Supernatural way. Jeremiah 29 says about God, "When you seek me with all your heart, then shall I be found by you."

Now, shoot me down in flames for this but it is evident from most of the many posts that deny the existence of Jesus or who position Him as just another guru - it is evident that when reading between the lines of these posts, self-determination and self-reliance still rule in these people's lives. These are not necessarily bad traits in themselves (a great deal of good can arise from self-determination) but until we are prepared to hand our 'self' to Jesus or to admit we need help in this life to try and make sense of its oftentimes complete and utter senselessness, until we are prepared 'to bow the knee', we will remain largely blind to His existence. Jesus inhabits this world and the next in invisible reality with a Wisdom that can only come from a New Testament out of this world yet so much part of this world Supreme King of Kings and Lord of Lords - a King Who wants not in any way to force our hand or force us to love Him. That love would otherwise be meaningless. What parent forces their child to tell them to love them? Some may do but the interaction has no real meaning. No, the first step towards finding out about the reality of Jesus - this invisible God - is by and large a step that has to come from us. It's only our pride and self determinism that stops us from doing this. But when we do take that step and bow the knee, and when He then faithfully meets with us, that's when the scales fall from our eyes. As that famous hymn Amazing Grace states, was blind but now I see.

 

[ForEverAfter]

In what form does Christ come to you, personally?

Does he have a physical form?

Is it (the form) Caucasian?

Does he have a human voice?

Is it (the voice) male / English?

Does he declare himself to be Christ?

How do you know it is Christ, specifically, rather than God?

 

[Ransom itch]

Hello foreverandever, thanks for asking directly. The extended family is with us right now and I promise that after we return from our walk over the forest with the dog and other relatives, I will sit down, pray and without pause, write from the heart. Back soon.

 

[Ransom itch]

I posted that I believe I have met with God.

In response, Foreverandever asked me the following questions which I will attempt to answer one by one:

In what form does Christ come to you, personally?

In the initial meeting, by a wholly overwhelming mind, body, spirit-filling Spiritual presence. It is not threatening or confusing. The tangible presence is acceptance, warmth, a prickly, whole body sensation, a complete enveloping in extraordinary love for ME, depite how I might feel about myself, yes, an extraordinary love for ME! And in that instant I also awoke to an immediate and deep heart knowledge that there really is an invisible, REAL spiritual realm that had hitherto been hidden from me.


Does he have a physical form?

There was no recogniseable physical manifestation for me. There was one time though when God's presence filled the room in a prayer meeting we were having and none of us dare open our eyes, such was the power that filled the room, we felt that to open our eyes we might die. I know that sounds extreme but this would seem to fall into line with various Biblical scriptures that write that looking upon the face of Almighty God is not for us on this earth right now. When we stand before Him (which I believe we will do) His face may well be made known to us. All I know is that I haven't yet seen the face of God.


Is it (the form) Caucasian?

As above.


Does he have a human voice?

Speaking with other Christians, it is very rare to have heard the audible voice of God. However, separate to this debate, there have been two occasions when I have heard the distinct audible voice of God, both times directing me to a course of action. If people would like me to expand separately, I would be glad to do so.




Is it (the voice) male / English?

Male and speaking to me in my own language - English.



Does he declare himself to be Christ?

He did not need to. In this first immediate encounter, I knew I was in the presence of a power so beyond any human power. I knew immediately this was God the Creator of Heaven and earth - the God the Bible was telling me about.


How do you know it is Christ, specifically, rather than God?

Having investigated a number of spiritual pathways in my life that promised spiritual fulfilment (but with no sensible or satisfactory end) I simply followed the advice and prayer from an open air Bible-believing preacher I passed by in my local town. So, by reasoned deduction, I believe the God I met with and know today is that same God - the God of the Bible Who gave His only Son Jeus as a once and for all sacrifice on the cross in exchange for confessing our corrupt nature and as it says in Titus 3, "Don't you know. It is God's kindness that leads to repentance." And all I can say is that's how it was for me.

 

[ebola?]

self-determination and self-reliance still rule in these people's lives.

I dunno: this seems to be based merely on supposition. When I relinquish self-determination and reliance regarding spiritual matters (particularly those mystical...this is where my epistemology takes me with sufficiently thorough exploration), it doesn't lead me toward Jesus. Maybe there are some aspects of Jesus's narrative that could be 'validly' transposed onto my spiritual experience, but this is not my preferred symbolic framework for approaching the mystical (ie, for approaching that which defies symbolism by definition).

ebola

 

[Ransom itch]

OK Ebola, so, in my mind then, if you truly want to know, then in true sincerity, why don't you ask Him to met with Him. That is all it takes. However, remember that all the time we have free will then this could possibly be the hardest battle you will face, bowing the knee? Acceding my own will to another? Even contemplating this step? At a very deep level, our humanness opposes this move. But that move is the key to the Kingdom.

 

[ebola?]

Well, I seem to have had better luck relinquishing myself to it (and then finding 'it' at the basis of the experience of all perceiving subjects in general (namely, we could call 'it' the body of conditions of possibility for existence)), and I have 'received' (it is a simultaneous act of creation and discovery) what seems to be a slightly different answer (but maybe it's another aspect of the same basic 'thing').

Another part of this contrast, one I don't expect you to be happy with, is that I lack faith, which holds me back from forming a personal relationship with an entity I don't expect to exist; I prefer to work with "provisional hypotheses", not faith.

we have free will

This, I'm more skeptical of (or more precisely, I think that embracing all the facets of willing as practiced entails radical revision of the concept of "free willing").

ebola

 

[Ransom itch]

I don't wish to sound like I'm being hard hearted but I would never be unhappy about any person's response in this context. My shoulders are simply not broad enough to take on the vagaries of different peoples stances when it comes to the existence or otherwise of Jesus. The simple question Ebola is this, do you want to know for yourself that he is Who He's says he is and that He is real?

 

[ebola?]

I don't wish to sound like I'm being hard hearted

Don't worry: you're just being honest.

do you want to know for yourself that he is Who He's says he is and that He is real?

If that is a useful and accurate description of the conditions of reality, yes. Otherwise, no. It's just that I haven't yet found Christian mythology to be useful interpretive framework for this kind of engagement, for this type of investigation (in technical terms, I would say in approaching epistemology and ontology), and it's not really for lack of exposure.

ebola