I've had it with Fundys

[littlegal]

Where to start......
I live in Texas, so I'm in the buckle of the belt.

For Christians around here, the New Testiment is as good as the Old, provided it proves your point. Choose a bit from here, a bit from there, and don't let the contridictions get you down.

Ugg.

I've honestly never met and conversed with so many people who didn't know history. At all. Nor have I met with people who didn't look at the entire Dead Sea Scrolls. Gospel of Thomas? Mary? Never heard of those.

What was the Canon? Oh, it's just a bunch of Catholics from the time of Augustine, who incorporated pagan ideas to make it meld with the townspeople. Christmas Tress? Pagan. Easter, from Estera. Even the bunny rabbit. Colored eggs, the whole shebang.

Take for instance Mithra. Born of a virgin mother, by God's will. Put to death on a cross. Rose 3 days later. Ummmm, 1800 years before Christ's birth.

If you look at the timing, Mark was written at 40ad. Thomas (uncannonized) at 40ad.
Matthew a few hundred years later. John was written (both gospel and revelations at 800 years after Jesus's death.) 800 years.

And if you look at the transformation between the early writings of Mark and the later writings of "John" you will see that the story gets bigger and bigger.
In Thomas, Mark, and Mathew, Jesus never proclaims that he is God's son. Only in John does he do so. In these Gospels, he refers to himself as a profit. Only Matthew tells him him is God Incarnate. Then comes "John". Who actually signed his name as "Q" in the dead sea scrolls. Again, an account written 800 years after the death of Jesus.

If you keep the timelines in mind, and you read from Mark, Thomas, Mathew, Luke, Mark and John, you will see a bigger buiding of the story. Not only was Jesus doing this, but he was providing miracles, complete with a whole story.

Problem is the original story happened during Jesus's lifetime. The other stories were written a Century(s) later.

But for some people around my little buckle of the bible, prefer to only remember the later texts. Those written centuries later. And totally disregard the past history, and earliest texts. I can't fathom why.

[brian.austin]

I got some views on this (when don't I?) but I'll sit and watch for a while...

[Lee4145]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

I got some views on this (when don't I?) but I'll sit and watch for a while...

Ha. Me too, Brian, but don't watch long because it's gonna get locked quick.

[The Viking]

Unfortunately religion is by it's nature more heart than mind. People choose what they want to believe in and often what parts of that religion as well. Often no rationale or critical analysis comes in to it.
I used to work with an almost fanatical christian guy that could not see anything wrong with beating up his wife and kids. He choose to just read the parts of the bible that suited himself, missed the whole thing about turning the other cheek or love your neighbour.

There are seldom any point of arguing with this type of people, even if I personally find it quite amusing from time to time (as a result Jehovah Witnesses no longer call at my house).

Here for a brighter day tomorrow...

[littlegal]

Yay Viking. You get it. And I think Brian gets it. Lee, maybe. I hope so.

Don't get me wrong. Religion is a beautiful thing. I honestly feel that it serves a purpose in our little lives.

What gets me is people who know NOTHING of the history of things, pipe in with all their weird freaky crap. Or at least weird and freaky to me.

This part gets me the most. The bible has two parts. The first part is about God who doesn't see sinners in a kindly manner, and has no problems wacking them with plauges, famon, floods, sacrifices, etc. It's totally ok to hit your wife in the OT. You can kill your kids. Stoning is the preferred method of dealing with things.

Then here comes Jesus in the NT, and he says, basically, we aren't doing that anymore. What kills me is that most Christians still view the Jewish Bible (OT) when it suits them, and less and less in the (NT) because you can't be so judgemental in those books.

This might get pulled. I don't know. We can have post after post about Obama, but not the Bible. Go figure.

[Pony]

Is there a specific event which prompted this thread?

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by littlegal

Yay Viking. You get it. And I think Brian gets it. Lee, maybe. I hope so.

He gets it just like I do.

Don't get me wrong. Religion is a beautiful thing. I honestly feel that it serves a purpose in our little lives.

That's where you and I would differ, Cindy. FAITH is a beautiful thing. Religion is a bureaucratic, political spin on a person's faith in something beyond themselves. I feel that religion is someone's (or some committee's) view on what everyone's faith SHOULD be, not what it actually is.

This might get pulled. I don't know. We can have post after post about Obama, but not the Bible. Go figure.

One does not mess with the new Messiah. The old one, though....we're not supposed to talk about that.

[littlegal]

Absolutely.

[littlegal]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

He gets it just like I do.



That's where you and I would differ, Cindy. FAITH is a beautiful thing. Religion is a bureaucratic, political spin on a person's faith in something beyond themselves. I feel that religion is someone's (or some committee's) view on what everyone's faith SHOULD be, not what it actually is.



One does not mess with the new Messiah. The old one, though....we're not supposed to talk about that.

Ok Brian, you are one of the brain undead. Thank God!
Yes, faith is beautiful. Simple. Loving. Trusting.
Religion is an early political system that raised taxes, tithes, put people in prison. Kinda like the politics of today, only a long time ago.
And I agree with you yet again. I knew from your first post that we would. Faith is up to the person. That is how it is. . God's laws are God's laws, and get this fundies, it's the SAME laws in every religion on the Planet. Pagan, Hindu, Zen, Muslim, Christian, Jewish.......

The difference comes with the judgements.... And you know who you are.

[angelsfort]

Wow. Never thought that I'd see THIS thread on the Camel!

I agree wholeheartedly. I happen to live with someone who knows the bible very VERY well. And depending on who she's talking to, she might be a conservative Christian or a Pagan. She can twist the words of the Bible to suit her particular needs. A verse here and a verse there... skipping over the other parts... just so that it's saying what she wants it to say.

It drives me crazy. She knows that I am a Christian and tries to have Biblical discussions with me - but all she ends up doing is ticking me off with the WAY she's discussing it. She uses "her" verses to prove to me that whatever I am saying is wrong... or immoral, or whatever.

Anyways... I'm with you guys here!

[Douglas]

Guess this is one reason im an atheist. Makes things easier for me. Not basing opinions off 20 different gospals that have been filtered through many hands (and im sure rewrites) over the centuries.

Its like that old joke about a line of people. Whisper something to the first one and see how its changed by the last.

I dont dislike religion. I actually like its fundemental belief of happiness, be good to each other, etc. Its just the radical parts of it I cant get behind. (Plus my lack of belief in a deity and his nemesis.)

So maybe if people would remember the reasons behind religion and not get hung up on the words, then maybe there would be a little less friction out there. But thats just my .02

[littlegal]

Angels,
I hear you but I am more your wife. Sorry.
I honor all traditions and faiths. Just weird that way. I trust that there must be some sort of
God out there that I can't possibly understand. It's just too big for me to understand or get it.
I'm a history freak, and my favorite history books are about religion. That doesn't bode well in my family either. But history is, what history is. And Christianity is a relativly small religion on the global scale. Hindus are number one, the Buddists, then Muslims.
But the deal is, they all basically say the same thing. The fundimentals, are right there. It's the rest of it that goes wonky.

[patterfr]

Wow!
Pony I think this started over breast-feeding, but I can see that it really was an anti-religion thing at it's core. (as I suspected) I'm game, but first we gotta start with some real knowledge about the Bible and the histories of religions. And Littlegal, your synopsis ain't quite what I recall from my study of history and the bible. We both must have our slant, to be sure.

Secondly I'd have to say that anyone that uses the Bible to dish out hate or bring about evil or bad behavior isn't using it as it was intended.


Let's start with a few questions. First, who believes in God or a god?

So I'm in for a discussion

[littlegal]

Originally Posted by Douglas

Guess this is one reason im an atheist. Makes things easier for me. Not basing opinions off 20 different gospals that have been filtered through many hands (and im sure rewrites) over the centuries.

Its like that old joke about a line of people. Whisper something to the first one and see how its changed by the last.

I dont dislike religion. I actually like its fundemental belief of happiness, be good to each other, etc. Its just the radical parts of it I cant get behind. (Plus my lack of belief in a deity and his nemesis.)

So maybe if people would remember the reasons behind religion and not get hung up on the words, then maybe there would be a little less friction out there. But thats just my .02

You are talking about the old game from the 50s called "Telephone". It started out in a big circle. The first person would tell a story, and then the next person would tell the next, and so on, until the end. By the time it got to the end, it was Nutso, much Like Mathew and John. John especially, because it was 800 years of "telephone". The story had gone from " Jesus lost a sheep and found him and honored him", to this whole huge story by John that was completely over the top. In Thomas/Mark it's just a short parable. By the time it gets to "John/Q" 800 years later, we have angels and God at work, it couldn't have been done without a miracle. Not only did Jesus find the sheep, but he had a lesson for all mankind, and you better listen or else, because by John, it was no longer Jesus, it was God speaking through Jesus saying you better listen or else. Again....this "recolection" by "John", was 800 years later.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by littlegal

But history is, what history is.

As another avid history buff, I'm going to have to disagree with that one.

The more I read up on subjects from several different books/authors, the more I realize that each person has his/her own take on history. History is a mixture of fact and biased conclusions.

[patterfr]

Exactly right Brian.
For instance history from a Catholic University may be different than from a liberal college/university.
And your "history" is a product of where you learned it, or sometimes when you rail against where you learned it.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by patterfr

Wow!
Pony I think this started over breast-feeding, but I can see that it really was an anti-religion thing at it's core. (as I suspected) I'm game, but first we gotta start with some real knowledge about the Bible and the histories of religions. And Littlegal, your synopsis ain't quite what I recall from my study of history and the bible. We both must have our slant, to be sure.

Keep it mind that your "slant" is going to be based not only on your own studies but HOW you were taught and your upbringing. It influences your objectivity. (that's a generic "your" and not pointing at you, Fran)

Secondly I'd have to say that anyone that uses the Bible to dish out hate or bring about evil or bad behavior isn't using it as it was intended.

If we know that books were removed and aren't included in the modern Bible, how do we know it's designed as intended?

Let's start with a few questions. First, who believes in God or a god?

So I'm in for a discussion

From an accuracy and historical perspective, though, does belief in God matter?

[littlegal]

Originally Posted by patterfr

Wow!
Pony I think this started over breast-feeding, but I can see that it really was an anti-religion thing at it's core. (as I suspected) I'm game, but first we gotta start with some real knowledge about the Bible and the histories of religions. And Littlegal, your synopsis ain't quite what I recall from my study of history and the bible. We both must have our slant, to be sure.

Secondly I'd have to say that anyone that uses the Bible to dish out hate or bring about evil or bad behavior isn't using it as it was intended.


Let's start with a few questions. First, who believes in God or a god?

So I'm in for a discussion

I'm all for discourse. I am religious. No, actually, I am aware of Biblical Traditions, and God Stories and I honor them.

I believe there is a God. And I believe he/she made this really cool world that I am honored to live on. And he/she made my life really great, as I want for nothing.
You talk about history. So lets talk about histories of religion as that is my strong point over photography. I've spent more than half of my life studying theology, so I'm game.
But have your history ready........

[littlegal]

Originally Posted by patterfr

Exactly right Brian.
For instance history from a Catholic University may be different than from a liberal college/university.
And your "history" is a product of where you learned it, or sometimes when you rail against where you learned it.

No, not exactly. My base is the Dead Sea Scrolls which included most Canonised accounts

[littlegal]

Originally Posted by patterfr

Wow!
Pony I think this started over breast-feeding, but I can see that it really was an anti-religion thing at it's core. (as I suspected) I'm game, but first we gotta start with some real knowledge about the Bible and the histories of religions. And Littlegal, your synopsis ain't quite what I recall from my study of history and the bible. We both must have our slant, to be sure.

Secondly I'd have to say that anyone that uses the Bible to dish out hate or bring about evil or bad behavior isn't using it as it was intended.


Let's start with a few questions. First, who believes in God or a god?

So I'm in for a discussion

Are you serious? The OT dishes out Hate left and right! It's all war and death, and you better act right or else.
The NT, is a bit more forgiving until you get to anything "written" by "John".
Read it. Just as it is. I'm not asking you to read outside your own bible. But look. And see.
But I already know you won't.