The Bible: What Is Its Purpose?

[KarlD]

Why blame the Bible for causing war and suffering? Do you really think that other religions, or lack of any religion, would mean no war or suffering?

I would be prepared to bet that a lot of the wars over the last 2000 years wouldn't have happend, maybe other ones would have but at least there wouldn't have been the excuse that god was on 'our' side.
A lot of history would have been very different.

I think you would lose that bet. Virtually all wars are at root level about territory and financial gain. Granted they may use 'God' as a justification but since when does one accept the justification for anything as opposed to the reality?

No-one knows if there would be less war or not. May be there would be far more.

Two pieces of evidence:

1) Humanity is essentially a violent species. There is abundant evidence from prehistory of this nature. For example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1943960.stm which details research into Neanderthal man and associated warlike proclivities.

As it seems highly unlikely that early human ancestors had an organised religious framework and even more unlikely that their violent tendencies derived from it if they did, then this is a problem.

2) Over and above this first point, it is clearly (one would hope but it is by no means a certainty these days) apparent to all objective observers that the founders of the current mainstream religions legislated against such things as gratuitous murder, random killing etc.

So therefore it follows that religions try to go against the human tendency towards violence and redress it....one might argue that they fail and I would perhaps agree but that is generally not the argument - the argument is instead that religion somehow causes it.

This is wooly thinking at best. Probably the nearest analogy would be that medicine is responsible for the diseases it has not yet discovered how to cure. because it fails to cure them.

Not very rational imo.

I don't know if that was meant to be funny but being accused of woolly thinking by a christian made me laugh.Talk about pot and kettle action

 

[segovius]

Why blame the Bible for causing war and suffering? Do you really think that other religions, or lack of any religion, would mean no war or suffering?

I would be prepared to bet that a lot of the wars over the last 2000 years wouldn't have happend, maybe other ones would have but at least there wouldn't have been the excuse that god was on 'our' side.
A lot of history would have been very different.

I think you would lose that bet. Virtually all wars are at root level about territory and financial gain. Granted they may use 'God' as a justification but since when does one accept the justification for anything as opposed to the reality?

No-one knows if there would be less war or not. May be there would be far more.

Two pieces of evidence:

1) Humanity is essentially a violent species. There is abundant evidence from prehistory of this nature. For example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1943960.stm which details research into Neanderthal man and associated warlike proclivities.

As it seems highly unlikely that early human ancestors had an organised religious framework and even more unlikely that their violent tendencies derived from it if they did, then this is a problem.

2) Over and above this first point, it is clearly (one would hope but it is by no means a certainty these days) apparent to all objective observers that the founders of the current mainstream religions legislated against such things as gratuitous murder, random killing etc.

So therefore it follows that religions try to go against the human tendency towards violence and redress it....one might argue that they fail and I would perhaps agree but that is generally not the argument - the argument is instead that religion somehow causes it.

This is wooly thinking at best. Probably the nearest analogy would be that medicine is responsible for the diseases it has not yet discovered how to cure. because it fails to cure them.

Not very rational imo.

I don't know if that was meant to be funny but being accused of woolly thinking by a christian made me laugh.Talk about pot and kettle action

Which Christian? Do you want me to sort him out for you?

I thought for a wild moment you might have meant me - but that would be exactly the sort of irrational preconceived assumptions I was talking about wouldn't it?

And life itself is rarely so postmodern....it tends to the clatteringly obvious rather than the ironic.

 

[DieDieMyDarling]

Why blame the Bible for causing war and suffering? Do you really think that other religions, or lack of any religion, would mean no war or suffering?

I would be prepared to bet that a lot of the wars over the last 2000 years wouldn't have happend, maybe other ones would have but at least there wouldn't have been the excuse that god was on 'our' side.
A lot of history would have been very different.

I think you would lose that bet. Virtually all wars are at root level about territory and financial gain. Granted they may use 'God' as a justification but since when does one accept the justification for anything as opposed to the reality?

No-one knows if there would be less war or not. May be there would be far more.

Two pieces of evidence:

1) Humanity is essentially a violent species. There is abundant evidence from prehistory of this nature. For example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1943960.stm which details research into Neanderthal man and associated warlike proclivities.

As it seems highly unlikely that early human ancestors had an organised religious framework and even more unlikely that their violent tendencies derived from it if they did, then this is a problem.

2) Over and above this first point, it is clearly (one would hope but it is by no means a certainty these days) apparent to all objective observers that the founders of the current mainstream religions legislated against such things as gratuitous murder, random killing etc.

So therefore it follows that religions try to go against the human tendency towards violence and redress it....one might argue that they fail and I would perhaps agree but that is generally not the argument - the argument is instead that religion somehow causes it.

This is wooly thinking at best. Probably the nearest analogy would be that medicine is responsible for the diseases it has not yet discovered how to cure. because it fails to cure them.

Not very rational imo.

I couldn't agree with you more. It's such a cop-out that people use when they argue that religion is the cause of most, if not all, wars.

The simple truth is that religions are man-made, and whether these men (or indeed women) are within a religion or not, they still want to fight over money, territory, women, and whatever else they see as worth it.

Animals have fights over territory and resources too, yet as far as I'm aware, they don't have religious ideology.

I would go so far as to claim that it's not woolly thinking, it's lazy thinking. It's looking for an easy answer, which backs up the pre-conceptions the person already has, when someone just blames religion for the sake of it. It's also denying the facts about mankind and possibly avoiding a reality they'd rather not face.

Religion isn't perfect -- far from it -- but it's no different than anything else man has come up with. It has its good bits and its bad. It can be used for good and bad, depending on the person who is following it and how they want to use it.

A great example of this is how the bible says "man shall not lie with man". So it's saying homosexuality is bad. Much like it says lying is bad, cheating is bad, stealing is bad. But some "Christians" see it as just a sin, where as the bible says: "love the sinner, hate the sin". Others see homosexuals as a disgusting blight on God's creation, who need murdered to avenge the purity of God. The same people aren't out killing liars, thieves, adulterers, etc.

So you have two different types of people following the same bible, yet doing it in completely different ways. This is the reason why there would always be wars, whether religion existed or not. People twist beliefs and reason until it lines up with what they want to do. What they want to be. Or, if needed, they'll create something new all together.

 

[segovius]

@DieDieMy Darling: yes, you are right - great points. And it is lazy thinking....

When did this sort of un-objectivity creep in? It's like these days one has to disparage every aspect of something if one disagrees with it - it must be responsible for ALL ills.

In addition, such an attitude shows a woeful lack of socio-psychological knowledge we have already established.

For example, Freud - an atheist, we can safely assume - showed that religion was in fact a system whereby humans, both collectively and individually, sought to redress the balance of injustice (murders, theft, general wrongs etc) by claiming these wrongs would be punished in the afterlife.

This was needed for certain people who would have a psychological imbalance if these wrongs were not seen to be righted at some point - and they often were not in this life.

It is not so much the point that this was (in Freud's view) the origin of religion but that it necessitates that these 'wrongs' pre-existed BEFORE religion as religion was a psychological response to them.

It matters not whether Freud was right or wrong in this - the point is that it is universally accepted that religion COULD have arisen this way because the 'wrongs' existed before religion did.

No-one disputes that. I mean none of the thinkers in the field.

 

[rynner2]

The Bible is for ...art?

Gallery’s invitation to deface the Bible brings obscene response
Mike Wade

A publicly funded exhibition is encouraging people to deface the Bible in the name of art — and visitors have responded with abuse and obscenity.

The show includes a video of a woman ripping pages from the Bible and stuffing them into her bra, knickers and mouth.

The open Bible is a central part of Made in God’s Image, an exhibition at the Gallery of Modern Art (Goma) in Glasgow. By the book is a container of pens and a notice saying: “If you feel you have been excluded from the Bible, please write your way back into it.”

The exhibit, Untitled 2009, was proposed by the Metropolitan Community Church, which said that the idea was to reclaim the Bible as a sacred text. But to the horror of many Christians, including the community church, visitors have daubed its pages with comments such as “This is all sexist pish, so disregard it all.” A contributor wrote on the first page of Genesis: “I am Bi, Female & Proud. I want no god who is disappointed in this.”

The Church of Scotland expressed concern, the Roman Catholic Church called the exhibit infantile, and a Christian lawyers’ group said that the exhibition was symptomatic of a broken and lawless society.

The exhibition has been created by the artists Anthony Schrag and David Malone, in association with organisations representing gay Christians and Muslims. Mr Schrag, the gallery’s artist in residence, said that he did not believe in God, but that his research for the £7,000 show had underlined his respect for people of faith.

The community church, which celebrates “racial, cultural, linguistic, sexual, gender and theological diversity”, had suggested the “interactive” Bible and pens and Mr Schrag, 34, said he had been intrigued.

“Any offensive things that have been written are not the point of the work,” he said. “It was an open gesture. Are those who say they are upset offended by the things that people write, or just by the very notion that someone should write on a Bible?”

The artist, a Canadian who took a master’s degree at Glasgow School of Art, said that human rights were at the centre of the show. “If we are to open up the Bible for discussion, surely we have to invite people to speak out,” he said. “Art allows us to discuss difficult things, and Goma allows difficult discussions to take place — that is why Glasgow is at the cutting edge of contemporary art.”

Jane Clarke, a minister of the community church, said she regretted the insults that had appeared. “The Bible should never be used like that. It was our intention to reclaim it as a sacred text,” she said. While the exhibition’s supporters insist that the exhibit promotes “inclusivity” and should break down barriers between orthodox religion and gay and transgendered people, most contributors have paid scant regard to matters of sexuality.

One writer has altered the first line of the Old Testament from “In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth” to “In the beginning, God (me) I created religion.” Another has written “The Gospel According to Luke Skywalker”. The main sentiment, however, is rage at Christianity. “F*** the Bible”, one message says. :shock:

Last night the producers of the exhibition indicated that the most offensive pages would be removed, but Christians expressed outrage and disbelief that the show had been staged at all. “This is symbolic of the state of our broken and lawless society,” said Andrea Minichiello Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre. “We have got to a point where we call the desecration of the Bible modern art. The Bible stands for everything this art does not: for creation, beauty, hope and regeneration.”

The Church of Scotland said it condemned any sacrilegious act. “We would discourage anyone from defacing the Bible,” a Kirk spokesman said.

A spokesman for the Catholic Church said: “One wonders whether the organisers would have been quite as willing to have the Koran defaced.”

A video by Roxanne Claxton forms a second element in the exhibition. It shows a young woman ripping pages out of the Bible and stuffing them in her knickers and bra, and in her mouth. The film showed “the word as power”, Mr Schrag said. “Roxanne gave a performance where she ate a Bible and it became part of her.”

Made in God’s Image is part of a series of exhibitions focusing on human rights organised by Culture and Sport Glasgow, part of the city council. The division’s chief executive is Dr Bridget McConnell, wife of the former Labour First Minister Jack McConnell.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 723980.ece

 

[ramonmercado]

Post Modern Performance Art if you ask me.

 

[DieDieMyDarling]

I have to agree with the Catholic Church spokesman on this one. This is nothing more than a silly attempt at being controversial for the publicity and outrage. If they really want to be badass why didn't they use the Koran?

Epic fail.

At least when John Lennon said "The Beatles are bigger than Jesus" it was original. It's too easy to have a dig at Christianity now, everyone is doing it for their fifteen minutes of fame. Borrrrring.

 

[Zilch5]

I have to agree with the Catholic Church spokesman on this one. This is nothing more than a silly attempt at being controversial for the publicity and outrage. If they really want to be badass why didn't they use the Koran?

Epic fail.

At least when John Lennon said "The Beatles are bigger than Jesus" it was original. It's too easy to have a dig at Christianity now, everyone is doing it for their fifteen minutes of fame. Borrrrring.

I'm a lapsed Catholic without any intention of going back there. But I agree. The church today is toothless - it would have taken balls to do this during the Inquisition though... :shock:

It would still take balls to do this to the Koran - that kitty has its claws and teeth fully intact. I don't think they would have dared.

PS: What is the Bible good for? It was the only book available to read during all those Sunday masses endured during childhood. It opened my eyes, but not in the way my parents or the church intended to. No wonder they kept it locked up and untranslated for so long.

 

[ramonmercado]

If secular muslims or ex muslims want to do such a thing then fine. Otherwise such an event might be hijacked by the BNP or their equivalents.

 

[onlyadownstat]

If secular muslims or ex muslims want to do such a thing then fine. Otherwise such an event might be hijacked by the BNP or their equivalents.

But the Bible event has been hijacked by people who seem to hate Christianity. Should certain groups be protected from insults?

The organisers were pretty silly not to predict the type of messages people would write. They're also cowardly if they remove the most offensive ones. What's the point in letting people have their say only to censor them?

I do quite like 'The Gospel According to Luke Skywalker' though.

 

[McAvennie]

What is the bible good for? It is big and heavy enough to properly eliminate any threats of arachnid terror. I guess that is why they call it the good book.

 

[OneWingedBird]

Unless it is a very small bible and a very big spider!

Never fear though, if you're stuck with a dinky little gideon, i'm told the pages make quite good rizla papers when you run out.

 

[ramonmercado]

If secular muslims or ex muslims want to do such a thing then fine. Otherwise such an event might be hijacked by the BNP or their equivalents.

But the Bible event has been hijacked by people who seem to hate Christianity. Should certain groups be protected from insults?

The organisers were pretty silly not to predict the type of messages people would write. They're also cowardly if they remove the most offensive ones. What's the point in letting people have their say only to censor them?

I do quite like 'The Gospel According to Luke Skywalker' though.

But the bible event appears to involve ex christians.

I dont think the Koran is entitled to any more protection than 1001 Nights. But if there is a need to deface it then that should be done by ex Muslims ( I have some in mind). Otherwise there is a danger that it will be used for racist purposes or to drum up a general hatred of muslims.

 

[segovius]

Imo, free speech should extend to rational debate exclusively. That would preclude this sort of stupidity we are discussing.

That is to say someone should not be free to shout racist abuse at a member of an ethnic group but should be free to explain their view that such a racial group is inferior.

Similarly people should be free to construct arguments as to why the Qur'an, Bible, Dawkins or other religio-formulations are wrong but they should not be allowed to burn the books say, or just insult them.

The point is not that people should be protected from insults (this is imo a non-argument proffered by non-thinkers and idiots - can supply academic evidence and rationale if required hahah this is called irony) but rather a question of raising the level of debate.

Of course some people do not want that - probably because it would exclude them from the dialogue (I am thinking of the BNP and associated neanderthals) but that's no reason not to do it.

And if not then, well, let's not call it free speech and debate - it's not exactly the Agora in Athens is it? Let's find another term instead - "playground' might do....

 

[ramonmercado]

But Segovius, should you and I be the arbiters of what free speech is?

I think the behaviour in question is clowning and I'm certainly not advocating that similar things be done to the Koran. Just that if non muslims deface the Koran then there is a danger of might result.

 

[segovius]

But Segovius, should you and I be the arbiters of what free speech is?

I think the behaviour in question is clowning and I'm certainly not advocating that similar things be done to the Koran. Just that if non muslims deface the Koran then there is a danger of might result.

Well, yes...of course - that's what free speech is. We are all arbiters.

But there is such a thing as 'quality' - in a free market some people sell high-end quality goods and some people sell complete and utter *****.

It's all ok. People can choose to buy or not buy whatever they like.

My argument is that if we get a situation where the crap is held as equal to the quality, or worse, the crap is all that is offered and then the justification is "it's the free market" then I say that market is not free.

Speech should be free - but we should have quality control.

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

Imo, free speech should extend to rational debate exclusively. That would preclude this sort of stupidity we are discussing.

But who decides what is rational? You? Richard Dawkins? Pastor Fred Phelps? Each and every one of us has his or her own ideas of what is rational, and each can hold up some nebulous touchstone as to what 'rationality' should consist of. When it comes down to it, anyone who says something along those lines is effectively - if perhaps unwittingly - saying that free speech should be extended only to parties and concerns that I personally approve of.

A surprisingly Dawkinsian line from you, Segovius.

 

[segovius]

Imo, free speech should extend to rational debate exclusively. That would preclude this sort of stupidity we are discussing.

But who decides what is rational? You? Richard Dawkins? Pastor Fred Phelps? Each and every one of us has his or her own ideas of what is rational, and each can hold up some nebulous touchstone as to what 'rationality' should consist of. When it comes down to it, anyone who says something along those lines is effectively - if perhaps unwittingly - saying that free speech should be extended only to parties and concerns that I personally approve of.

A surprisingly Dawkinsian line from you, Segovius.

Not really.

If someone is say a racist and spouting "****ing *****ers. ****Ing P**is out" then I am quite happy to say they are irrational as they cannot structure an argument.

The same person could raise their game and produce a coherent argument as to why ethnic minorities are inferior say, and they would then be rational - although in both cases I would disagree with them on the grounds they are a tosshead scumbag.

So the argument "who's to say who is rational" is really a variant on "who is to say what is hot or cold?" - the fact is we can all play games if we want and for sure there is a time and place for it but imo it is not in areas such as this.

 

[ramonmercado]

But theres no way what they are doing should be banned.

The bible desreves the same protection as Lord of the Rings does.

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

Not really.

If someone is say a racist and spouting "****ing *****ers. ****Ing P**is out" then I am quite happy to say they are irrational as they cannot structure an argument.

The same person could raise their game and produce a coherent argument as to why ethnic minorities are inferior say, and they would then be rational - although in both cases I would disagree with them on the grounds they are a tosshead scumbag.

So the argument "who's to say who is rational" is really a variant on "who is to say what is hot or cold?" - the fact is we can all play games if we want and for sure there is a time and place for it but imo it is not in areas such as this.

Now, I could attempt to refute your argument by saying that rationalism is a concept whereas hot or cold is a physical state based upon the flow of sub-atomic particles or something ... but I really can't be arsed, because I know you'll just come back - as you always do - with a semi-coherent stew of minutae, whilst I have I life to live.

Segovious, are there any other boards here so capable of holding your rapt attention? If not, why?

 

[DieDieMyDarling]

Not really.

If someone is say a racist and spouting "****ing *****ers. ****Ing P**is out" then I am quite happy to say they are irrational as they cannot structure an argument.

The same person could raise their game and produce a coherent argument as to why ethnic minorities are inferior say, and they would then be rational - although in both cases I would disagree with them on the grounds they are a tosshead scumbag.

So the argument "who's to say who is rational" is really a variant on "who is to say what is hot or cold?" - the fact is we can all play games if we want and for sure there is a time and place for it but imo it is not in areas such as this.

The problem is, a lot of racists do provide a structured argument. The BNP for example. We may not agree with them, but they do have a "rationale", a set of rules and theories, as well as a thought out political agenda.

There are many differing opinions around the world, and what barfing_pumpkin is saying, who gets to make the big decision as to who is allowed to be the voice of reason, and who is the nutter?

 

[KarlD]

But Segovius, should you and I be the arbiters of what free speech is?

I think the behaviour in question is clowning and I'm certainly not advocating that similar things be done to the Koran. Just that if non muslims deface the Koran then there is a danger of might result.

Well, yes...of course - that's what free speech is. We are all arbiters.

But there is such a thing as 'quality' - in a free market some people sell high-end quality goods and some people sell complete and utter *****.

It's all ok. People can choose to buy or not buy whatever they like.

My argument is that if we get a situation where the crap is held as equal to the quality, or worse, the crap is all that is offered and then the justification is "it's the free market" then I say that market is not free.

Speech should be free - but we should have quality control.

Free speach is only allowed when you agree with what they are saying?
I cannot help but get the feeling that you are a daily mail reading idiot.

 

[rjmrjmrjm]

KarlD, you should mind your manners a bit. It's all well and good that you disagree with someone but to outrightly call them an idiot is a bit harsh.

I understand what Segovious means... everyone should have a voice and free speech but the inherent problem is that a lot of what people say is bollocks.

What is the answer then? How do we stop the propulgation of bullshit without curbing peoples freedom of expression. The only answer I can come up with is education. We must teach people to be more discerning - leave it to the individual to decide what he or she believes but with the best set of tools to make that decision.

That way scoiety, though some kind of corporate responsibility, can ensure that the true crap is never held equal to quality.

This may sound old fashioned, perhaps slightly scary to those used to the relativism of our modern age, but without some sort of concensus on what is 'quality' and what is 'bollocks' we will end up in a right muddle.

 

[segovius]

Free speach is only allowed when you agree with what they are saying?
I cannot help but get the feeling that you are a daily mail reading idiot.

Well, I said the opposite of this as clearly as I could (and I like to think I have a reasonable command of English although it's true it is not my mother-tongue) and my anti-Daily Mail stance is fairly well projected I think....so perhaps the confusion as to meaning is to be found more at your level of comprehension rather than my delineation?

Or maybe it is just a 'feeling' as you say - that might cause communication errors as we are discussing more tangible actualities here.

Or maybe you are being ironic? Is this the famous English sardonic wit?

 

[jubecrew]

I've heard this said

the bible was created to get out from under roman rule. They did this by starting a movement which eventually found many followers and through this they were able to over throw Roman Rule.

I've heard this said

that the Qur`an was created to eventually bring rise to overthrowing Christian dictatorship and rule as once the rise of Christianity happened, there isn't many other religions that have as many people following and in the event that Christians were to do an " all other religions are bad and therefore you should die witch hunt "

I feel this way regarding the Bible and others like it

that they were first written to carry the good teachings of those whom discovered endless life and smashed the boundaries of the physical realm in which we all get caught up on. over time, through peoples greed and wish for power, they have been re-written to engrain an almost droid like audience that follows its every command, by making people feel that the only wait to obtain enlightenment or getting to heaven is through their own religion. at this point we all become pawns repeating what has been told for us, which is in direct conflict with what we have been given which is free will

if you read and get into most of the main faiths of today regarding Jewish belief, christian belief, muslim belief systems, they all seem to carry the same type of story, yet interesting enough, each one glorifies itself as the one and only path to beyond

I enjoy the many faucets of deities that have been written about and in detail which leaves me to believe someone has a great imagination.

With the power of faith, we could assume that all major deities or God forms being prayed to within the last 100 years of our human civilization, and the belief that faith and human conscious can make these forms real in other dimensions thus making each one no more wrong then the other, as they all come from the 1... I tend to pray to each faiths main deities when in prayer as I feel the power from this would be 3 times the amount of energy then just sticking to 1 human god deity

 

[segovius]

I've heard this said

the bible was created to get out from under roman rule. They did this by starting a movement which eventually found many followers and through this they were able to over throw Roman Rule.

The Old Testament was written in varying stages between 600 - 1500 years before the advent of the Romans.

The New Testament was contemporary but unequivocal about accepting Roman rule and not mounting any form of resistance such as was being carried out by various other contemporary groupings.

I've heard this said

that the Qur`an was created to eventually bring rise to overthrowing Christian dictatorship and rule as once the rise of Christianity happened, there isn't many other religions that have as many people following and in the event that Christians were to do an " all other religions are bad and therefore you should die witch hunt "

The Qur'an and Islam unequivocally accept Christ and the legitimate nature of Christianity.

I feel this way regarding the Bible and others like it

ok.

that they were first written to carry the good teachings of those whom discovered endless life and smashed the boundaries of the physical realm in which we all get caught up on. over time, through peoples greed and wish for power, they have been re-written to engrain an almost droid like audience that follows its every command, by making people feel that the only wait to obtain enlightenment or getting to heaven is through their own religion. at this point we all become pawns repeating what has been told for us, which is in direct conflict with what we have been given which is free will

err......ok...

if you read and get into most of the main faiths of today regarding Jewish belief, christian belief, muslim belief systems, they all seem to carry the same type of story, yet interesting enough, each one glorifies itself as the one and only path to beyond

Except they don't....I think Muhammad himself said that there are as many paths to God as the souls of men...

I enjoy the many faucets of deities that have been written about and in detail which leaves me to believe someone has a great imagination.

Faucets of deities? Is this the spring of living water from the Bible?

With the power of faith, we could assume that all major deities or God forms being prayed to within the last 100 years of our human civilization, and the belief that faith and human conscious can make these forms real in other dimensions thus making each one no more wrong then the other, as they all come from the 1... I tend to pray to each faiths main deities when in prayer as I feel the power from this would be 3 times the amount of energy then just sticking to 1 human god deity

Actually, this is of course a brilliant analysis of how in fact it actually is...if you expand the 100 years by sticking a few noughts on.

Question is: does this make it less real or more?

 

[jubecrew]

I certainly feel so, however those that would be in need of living proof would combat such a claim with the obvious lack of physical evidence. I think that a lot of conceptions of Christians in general is that anything that goes against anything written in the world of the bible is heresy. As I have been lead to believe most will dismiss the metaphysical world and advise those who follow spirituality as taking on the devils works.

If what I purpose would be true, which I have faith and belief that it is, while traveling through the spiritual planes via meditation I have yet to bump into Santa Clause, but I assure you him and rudolph must be up there around somewhere hah

The only time we will know for sure is when you die, depending on you, there may be eternal darkness and searching, there may be a cycle of coming back who knows. The earth is our playground no matter what you believe and throughout our journey there's lessons to be learned. The closer to enlightenment you are, the less likely you are to wander on back

 

[segovius]

I certainly feel so, however those that would be in need of living proof would combat such a claim with the obvious lack of physical evidence. I think that a lot of conceptions of Christians in general is that anything that goes against anything written in the world of the bible is heresy. As I have been lead to believe most will dismiss the metaphysical world and advise those who follow spirituality as taking on the devils works.

If what I purpose would be true, which I have faith and belief that it is, while traveling through the spiritual planes via meditation I have yet to bump into Santa Clause, but I assure you him and rudolph must be up there around somewhere hah

The only time we will know for sure is when you die, depending on you, there may be eternal darkness and searching, there may be a cycle of coming back who knows. The earth is our playground no matter what you believe and throughout our journey there's lessons to be learned. The closer to enlightenment you are, the less likely you are to wander on back

Santa Claus is a different case though as he is an archetype who is known to be unreal..that is to say the idea of Santa Claus contains the element of his being a made up character only kids believe in.

So there may be few sightings.

It may be complicated by another factor; that reality may be conditioned by the percipient so your astral travellings would be a reflection of your own perception and unique to yourself. More so after death even maybe...

 

[rynner2]

The Bible's bad bits: silent women, mass murder and a weary concubine
Jack Malvern

Biblical verses apparently endorsing sexism, genocide and the slaughter of sorceresses have been identified by readers of a Christian website as the least endearing parts of the holy book.

The online survey by shipoffools.com, a humorous online magazine, lists the ten verses people would rather had been left out of the Bible, in an attempt to show the dangers of quoting scripture selectively.

St Paul’s advice about whether women are allowed to teach men in church came top of the “Worst Verse” poll, which received more than 1,000 responses.

The results were discussed last night by a panel of theologians at the Greenbelt Festival in Cheltenham. In 1 Timothy ii, 12, St Paul is quoted thus: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

The verse has been used by some conservative Christians to justify opposition to women priests.

In second place is the order by Samuel, one of the early leaders of the Israelites, for his people to commit genocide: “This is what the Lord Almighty says ... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel xv, 3).

Moses’s indictment of witchcraft, in Exodus xxii, 18 came third: “Do not allow a sorceress to live.” Other disliked verses include Psalm 137, which features a line that is rarely spoken in church: “Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.”

Another distasteful set of verses features in Judges xix, 20-25, when a man is trapped in his house by a hostile crowd and sends out his concubine to placate them. She is raped “throughout the night” and eventually returns to the house to collapse in the doorway. His response is simply to tell her to get up. “But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.”

St Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality in Romans i, 27 is highlighted: “In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

The list also includes stories of parents, such as Abraham, undertaking to sacrifice their children in the name of God, along with the endorsement of female subservience in Ephesians v, 22 which states, “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord,” and questionable advice to slaves in 1 Peter ii, 18: “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.”

Simon Jenkins, editor of shipoffools.com, said: “It doesn’t have to be a textbook of infallible information and unbreakable laws to be God’s book. And it doesn’t have to be one big pile of lies because of its dodgy bits. In Chapter and Worse we are attempting to rescue it from rival takeover bids.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 816422.ece

 

[segovius]

The problem with assessing the Bible is that it is not a coherent whole. It is a collection of books written over the period of nearly 1500 years by authors with widely differing (and sometimes contradictory) cultural, political and religious viewpoints.

So it would be as if someone collected together The Book of Kells, the Arabian Nights, Book of Genji, the complete works of Edgar Allen Poe and Jeffrey Archer and tried to claim they contained a unified coherent message.

It is actually an act of gross hypocrisy that Christians persist in perpetuating this myth of Biblical coherence. Paul was clearly opposed to the disciples both theologically and personally and that's just the NT.

To retain any shred of theological integrity they need to disband the Bible and assess each book individually - even then they often contradict themselves internally as well as each other.