The Bible - not 100% literal
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-12-2011, 05:34 PM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
The other day I saw a magician catch a bullet shot from a pistol with his teeth. I could either believe that he was able to time his bite at exactly the right time and have strong enough teeth as to not break. Or that the gun shot a blank and the magician already had a bullet between his teeth. When we have a choice between two options we choose the most probable.

Why don't we use this same scrutiny when reviewing the bible? Is it more likely that this book contains the direct words of a god or that a group of ordinary human beings conceived and wrote down their personal thoughts, feelings, ideas and fears? Until proven otherwise we should believe the most probable answer.

.
I wasn't . . . until I was
I am . . . until I'm not
.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like free2011's post
31-12-2011, 08:27 PM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
Given that Hinduism, Buddhism, Janeism etc .... throw in Zeus too if you like, predates both old and new testaments ,why is Christianity preferable to, say Buddhism?

If a god did exist it would seem very eclectic for it (later on) to choose a specific group, in your case an ultra specific group, to save, for god knows what?

Those who suck up to a specific god, simply through fear and hopes of self preservation, differ from Christians who utilize their religion to provide impetus to do some good in the here and now; they, through faith, disregard nebulous eschatology.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mr Woof's post
31-12-2011, 09:27 PM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
(31-12-2011 01:31 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  "Stone witches to death?" I think what God meant was "treat those who deal with unnatural spirituality disdainfully, and exclude them from your social circles."

Ah, no. If it's the Word of God, it is writing of the prophets - and a prophet is just a type of witch. Ergo, kill the competition. As a way to test the moral conviction of primitive tribesmen, stoning has merit; the fact is, this "meme of merit" still exists. I got to zero-state by using the "stone the blasphemers" simulation. These simulations reinforce the contention that morality is only a primitive form of chemical intelligence; the "mental dress rehearsal" is not just more civilized, it is vastly more functional. For one, i don't need the book no morez; my occasional defense of it a moral exercise. Like how KC got two devils on his shoulders with me and the Preach.

Seeing Exormai comfortable in his moral paradigm of speaking as the Atheist to KC allows for me to be Setian with the guy - to a certain extent. Like how the Bible can be seen as 100% literal but temporally relevant only with such things as the "firsts" of the sacrifice and blood on the lintel. That can be induced from "render unto Ceasar" or the Ecclesiastical "time to sow, time to reap."

But KC is involved in construction of his own moral philosophy; ironically the "two wrongs" in the Satanic forms of me and Preach, are already making "a right."

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2011, 09:35 PM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
(31-12-2011 09:27 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  But KC is involved in construction of his own moral philosophy; ironically the "two wrongs" in the Satanic forms of me and Preach, are already making "a right."

The poor kid just doesn't stand a chance, does he Johnny?

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
31-12-2011, 11:20 PM (This post was last modified: 01-01-2012 10:18 AM by Kaos MD.)
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
This has been mentioned before, but I want to address it further.

If the bible is meant to be taken as metaphorical, how does one explain the verses that contain mass murder, rape, incest, stoning, etc.

How can these possibly be metaphorical in any sense? How can these passages have any relevant meaning to anything, no matter if you take the bible to be literal or not?

What kind of god would command a select group of nomads to beget a book that is of dubious literality?

If god created everything, why would he have to make it so complicated that humans cannot understand it in a literal sense? If god is omnipotent and omniscient, surely he would be able to make the unvierse simple enough for humans to understand if he wanted his "holy" book to be taken literally.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Kaos MD's post
01-01-2012, 06:24 AM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
Didn't read the whole topic but I think enough.

Anyway, I have a better idea for god:
Make people with all the needed knowledge already implanted in their brain.
Just like we have reflexes, the knowledge that there is a god and how he did it and how to exactly contact him would just be planted. No need to write books that sound bogus and make no sense, no need to write parables and stories and examples, just put the important stuff in the brain. No?

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Leela's post
01-01-2012, 06:54 AM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
Actually you have something good there, Leela.

My thoughts are slightly different, but roughly along the same lines.

I think everybody would agree on the fact that everybody who reached adult age, has already asked the fundamental questions more than once: who am I? why am i here? what is my purpose? what's going to happen to me?

Second premise: Adam and Steve, when they were in Eden, actually did have access to all the answers to these questions.

Third premise: We all have a straight parental genealogy linking us to BOTH Adam and Steve.

Now, since all of us asked the questions and our ancestry already had every single answer that should have been transmitted from parent to child all the way to each of us:

1. Why did people need Genesis to tell them how it all happened? You'd think that such important answers that everybody has required would have never been lost.
2. If, at some point, people decided to put it in writing, why is there only ONE book telling us this particular story? Why do we not have dozens or hundreds or even thousands of convergent written stories about these particular answers as they have traveled across time in each of our family lines?
3. All other genesis versions are conflicting across religions. How did this particular story become so deteriorated over time when all other knowledge developed into something better and/or more accurate and useful? The more knowledge advances, the more people agree on their findings. Not in this case though.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2012, 07:19 AM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
(01-01-2012 06:54 AM)Malleus Wrote:  Second premise: Adam and Steve, when they were in Eden, actually did have access to all the answers to these questions.

Third premise: We all have a straight parental genealogy linking us to BOTH Adam and Steve.

Now, since all of us asked the questions and our ancestry already had every single answer that should have been transmitted from parent to child all the way to each of us:
disaggreed, they got the knowledge by eating a fruit from that tree, so we would need a tree like that to have everyone eat from it. Because when you eat a sandwich today, you son/daughter will not genetically receive the sandwich information. Same in your theory.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2012, 07:26 AM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
Quote:1. Why did people need Genesis to tell them how it all happened? You'd think that such important answers that everybody has required would have never been lost.
Not only that, but apparently the generation following Adam and Eve and their children gradually forgot about the existence of an almighty, furious God and they become evil and start worshipping false Gods. How the hell does that happen? It makes no sense, especially with Adam and Eve and their children living for hundreds of years (Adam lived for 930 years).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2012, 07:49 AM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
(01-01-2012 07:19 AM)Leela Wrote:  disaggreed, they got the knowledge by eating a fruit from that tree, so we would need a tree like that to have everyone eat from it. Because when you eat a sandwich today, you son/daughter will not genetically receive the sandwich information. Same in your theory.

You, M'lady meed to study your bible more. When god speaks to you face to face and never misses an opportunity to tell you that he made you and not the other way around, I think you get an idea about what's what. The fruit only gave them the ability to recognize good and evil. They knew where they came from because it actually happened to them personally. And it doesn't seem like the kind of information that people tend to forget.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: