AlphaFalfa said:

I am not arguing for what the actual history of the bible is, rather just bringing to light some contradictions that arise whitest handing over your faith to the bible.

I know that the bible was contrived and I believe it was all to anchor the power structure that existed in that time, into a psychological slavery rather than a physically enforced slavery. I do not believe jesus existed, there is no evidence to believe such a thing, ultimately when it comes to history you have to trust someones information over another as being less/more biased, which with history is almost impossible to acertain.

The bible however is easily contradicted, due to in large that it says one thing and then the opposite at a latter stage.

That what this post is largely about.

---

Yes, and there are reasons why the Bible (including the Tenach, the Gospels, the authentic Pauline letter, and the fake Pauline epistles were packaged the way they were. The gospels built one upon an earlier one, each author having his own agenda. Raised on the third day requires several pages to explain what that meant in earlier Jewish sources (see J.S. Spong, but I'm sure you won't). Clearly there are not 3 days between Friday night and Sunday morning. Were there 1 or 2 'angels' at the tomb, or someone taken for a gardner, who morphed into Jesus? These accounts are not journalistic records, any more than the birth narrative was taken by a reporter from the Bethlehem Gazette.

I have explored the idea that Jesus was a compilation of several wisdom teachers as Albert Schweitzer concluded in his famous book Quest for the Historical Jesus, or what Freke & Gandy concluded in their works,
but it seems more likely that there was in fact a Jesus, and he effected people in a way that one could understand by modern stories, like Ram Dass' Guru Neem Karolie Baba. This is not to equivocate, but to suggest by way of parallel. Just how this person came to form a cult the size of Christianity can be explained by mechanisms other that by the notion of the grace of God. A much-needed archetype emerged at a time of great brutality. Humankind required an influx of compassion for its continued development from the blood-thirsty psychopaths that dominated the world scene. Jesus epitomized that archetype, hence the doctrine of the Incarnation. Indeed, compassion emerging into a norm of brutality would seem to come from heaven itself.

The same kind of cultic development can occur around other, far far less wholesome archetypes as well. A humbled and beaten Germany constellated around an 'incarnation' of the Teutonic warrior deity Wotan, in the form of Adolf Schicklegruber, AKA Hitler. Here, the opposite occurred - the humbled turned arrogant, ruthless, blood-thirsty, and developed along the same lines as the Roman Empire - even taking on the imperial eagle, the Roman standards, and the creation of similar values for world-conquest. There are far worse powers to hand one's faith over to than biblical faith, providing one knows what that faith really means. The multitudes of so-called Christians apparently do not know what faith means in any fully adult way of thinking.

AlphaFalfa said:

I agree - with your last line. I am just skeptical of any if not all theory that occur ed before the ability to capture it on camera. Even still camera's can be deceiving.

Were talking about texts that are some 2000 years old, to top it all off.

On the other hand, carbon dating allows us to be able to grasp at an idea of their antiquity.

Still, it has to be noted that I simply still do not trust carbon dating, due to in part that there are many monetary interests in keeping religion a part of peoples lives and since science is usually funded by wealthy elites and since it is impossible for me to do the carbon dating myself I stick to noting contradictions in any spiritual assertions.

For example, in your pic it says god is light etc. Why make any reference to a god? It's not as if God is aiding us at all in any way shape of form.
Look at the 20 000 who starve on a daily basis....clearly if god exists, something outside of the understanding of the holy texts, these horrible things should show you that if a god does exist he is either narcissistic or inexistent.

---

whileEcubes said:

this isnt a question on what you belief (no offence) its an interprataion question. 

i think the best verse in the bible is  •John 1:1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." 
i mean think about it. this ties into physics and everything..

---

MarkostheGnostic said:

AlphaFalfa said:

I agree - with your last line. I am just skeptical of any if not all theory that occur ed before the ability to capture it on camera. Even still camera's can be deceiving.

Were talking about texts that are some 2000 years old, to top it all off.

On the other hand, carbon dating allows us to be able to grasp at an idea of their antiquity.

Still, it has to be noted that I simply still do not trust carbon dating, due to in part that there are many monetary interests in keeping religion a part of peoples lives and since science is usually funded by wealthy elites and since it is impossible for me to do the carbon dating myself I stick to noting contradictions in any spiritual assertions.

For example, in your pic it says god is light etc. Why make any reference to a god? It's not as if God is aiding us at all in any way shape of form.
Look at the 20 000 who starve on a daily basis....clearly if god exists, something outside of the understanding of the holy texts, these horrible things should show you that if a god does exist he is either narcissistic or inexistent.

---

You are assuming a theistic stance about God. That means that you are assuming that I am taking a theistic stance - a Personal God, separate and eternal, who creates, sustains and destroys the universe. A Being (instead of the eternal Ground of Being) who is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, and who, as a separate Being, takes a willful role in every infinitesimal aspect of the creation, including our brief lives. This is not what I hold to be the case with God. My own intellectual approximation falls more under panentheism (not pantheism). This stance does not anthropomorphize Ultimate Reality in the biblical language of father, king, judge, comforter, wonderful counselor, or any other recognizable human role. The consciousness which created the universe out of which self-conscious beings (us) emerged, operates in and through us. We are co-creators with God on a micro scale. We manifest or fail to manifest the higher aspects of God, which I recognize in human life as Compassion, and instead, we manifest the pre-personal, ruthless, often subhuman aspects of nature. We can be as 'cold-blooded' as reptiles, when we identify with the mere mechanistic aspects of our total nature. This is the demonic, or shadow side of God and human nature. The quote I selected from a recognized version of the Bible admits of God 'creating' evil, but a more radical understanding would use the word 'generate,' emanate,' or 'beget,' to indicate that it is of the essence of God, not a separate, relative reality. From a human, dualistic perspective, God is the Coincidentia Oppositorum - the coincidence of opposites - a unity which transcends the rational mind's ability to grok. It only occurs as insight, mystical apperception, gnosis.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
- Isaiah 45:7

Your conclusion that God is 'either' (as if there are only two possibilities) narcissistic or non-existent is premature and short-sighted. The mythic image of God which you continue to harbor and which you unconsciously assume is the same God that I hold would indeed bring you to that conclusion. Your own construct about God in this instance, is unfortunately, stunted. It has stopped at the 9-10 year old level of Conrete Operations, whereas I'm confident that your thinking and feeling in other domains are entirely age-appropriate. There clearly is no 'Old-Bearded-Guy-in-the-Sky' type God, sitting on a throne. Neither is there a God with Zeus-like capricious personality. Any modern theologian worth anything at all will understand that ancient mythic descriptions of God in anthropomorphic terms belong to child-level conceptions deriving from a child-like stage of human history. The brutality of ancient Rome, for example, is reminiscent of the kids in the book Lord of the Flies by Golding. Left to their own natural motivations, outside of higher order thinking and hence higher order morality, only blood-thirstiness and typical power-mongering develop. Interestingly, 'Lord of the Flies' is the translation of the name Baalzebub [or Beelzebub. Baal means 'lord' in ancient Semitic languages] - another name for the devil. The problem of theodicy is only a problem for human mentality when we assume that "God is light and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5), which contradicts the saying of Isaiah 45:7.
Then, we repress any notion that there is evil as well as good in God, and project that evil onto physical or metaphysical 'others' to create demonic unsaved infidels, and the devil they represent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidentia_oppositorum#Coincidentia_oppositorum

---

Quote:

You are assuming a theistic stance about God. That means that you are assuming that I am taking a theistic stance - a Personal God, separate and eternal, who creates, sustains and destroys the universe. A Being (instead of the eternal Ground of Being) who is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, and who, as a separate Being, takes a willful role in every infinitesimal aspect of the creation, including our brief lives. This is not what I hold to be the case with God. My own intellectual approximation falls more under panentheism (not pantheism). This stance does not anthropomorphize Ultimate Reality in the biblical language of father, king, judge, comforter, wonderful counselor, or any other recognizable human role. The consciousness which created the universe out of which self-conscious beings (us) emerged, operates in and through us. We are co-creators with God on a micro scale. We manifest or fail to manifest the higher aspects of God, which I recognize in human life as Compassion, and instead, we manifest the pre-personal, ruthless, often subhuman aspects of nature. We can be as 'cold-blooded' as reptiles, when we identify with the mere mechanistic aspects of our total nature. This is the demonic, or shadow side of God and human nature. The quote I selected from a recognized version of the Bible admits of God 'creating' evil, but a more radical understanding would use the word 'generate,' emanate,' or 'beget,' to indicate that it is of the essence of God, not a separate, relative reality. From a human, dualistic perspective, God is the Coincidentia Oppositorum - the coincidence of opposites - a unity which transcends the rational mind's ability to grok. It only occurs as insight, mystical apperception, gnosis.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
- Isaiah 45:7

Your conclusion that God is 'either' (as if there are only two possibilities) narcissistic or non-existent is premature and short-sighted. The mythic image of God which you continue to harbor and which you unconsciously assume is the same God that I hold would indeed bring you to that conclusion. Your own construct about God in this instance, is unfortunately, stunted. It has stopped at the 9-10 year old level of Conrete Operations, whereas I'm confident that your thinking and feeling in other domains are entirely age-appropriate. There clearly is no 'Old-Bearded-Guy-in-the-Sky' type God, sitting on a throne. Neither is there a God with Zeus-like capricious personality. Any modern theologian worth anything at all will understand that ancient mythic descriptions of God in anthropomorphic terms belong to child-level conceptions deriving from a child-like stage of human history. The brutality of ancient Rome, for example, is reminiscent of the kids in the book Lord of the Flies by Golding. Left to their own natural motivations, outside of higher order thinking and hence higher order morality, only blood-thirstiness and typical power-mongering develop. Interestingly, 'Lord of the Flies' is the translation of the name Baalzebub [or Beelzebub. Baal means 'lord' in ancient Semitic languages] - another name for the devil. The problem of theodicy is only a problem for human mentality when we assume that "God is light and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5), which contradicts the saying of Isaiah 45:7.
Then, we repress any notion that there is evil as well as good in God, and project that evil onto physical or metaphysical 'others' to create demonic unsaved infidels, and the devil they represent.

---

deCypher said:

He does have a point though, IMO, in that by declaring with emphatic certainty that "there is no God" of such and such characteristics you seem to be behaving with the same dogmatism of the Fundamentalists who you typically rail against. 

---

Quote:

Your conclusion that God is 'either' (as if there are only two possibilities) narcissistic or non-existent is premature and short-sighted. The mythic image of God which you continue to harbor and which you unconsciously assume is the same God that I hold would indeed bring you to that conclusion. Your own construct about God in this instance, is unfortunately, stunted. It has stopped at the 9-10 year old level of Conrete Operations, whereas I'm confident that your thinking and feeling in other domains are entirely age-appropriate. There clearly is no 'Old-Bearded-Guy-in-the-Sky' type God, sitting on a throne. Neither is there a God with Zeus-like capricious personality. Any modern theologian worth anything at all will understand that ancient mythic descriptions of God in anthropomorphic terms belong to child-level conceptions deriving from a child-like stage of human history. The brutality of ancient Rome, for example, is reminiscent of the kids in the book Lord of the Flies by Golding. Left to their own natural motivations, outside of higher order thinking and hence higher order morality, only blood-thirstiness and typical power-mongering develop. Interestingly, 'Lord of the Flies' is the translation of the name Baalzebub [or Beelzebub. Baal means 'lord' in ancient Semitic languages] - another name for the devil. The problem of theodicy is only a problem for human mentality when we assume that "God is light and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5), which contradicts the saying of Isaiah 45:7.
Then, we repress any notion that there is evil as well as good in God, and project that evil onto physical or metaphysical 'others' to create demonic unsaved infidels, and the devil they represent.

---

AlphaFalfa said:

You seem to be behaving in the same way as well, by claiming that I cannot claim to disprove a god with specific and difficult to prove characteristics. You assume that because you are  suspending belief that you hold no belief, but really, you still hold the belief that you should suspend your belief.

---

Err, don't believe I claimed that anywhere in this thread and I never said I was suspending any belief. 

AlphaFalfa said:

Still, when I see 20 000 people starving everyday, I don't see a reason to believe that a benevolent god exists, for example, as is expounded thoroughly by spiritualists and religious folks.

When it comes to god as light, or as conciousness, I really cannot see any proof for it being so and I find no difference in saying he is or isn't light/conciosness, because light and conciousness can exists without the need to label it as god.

---

We are in agreement here. 

deCypher said:

AlphaFalfa said:

You seem to be behaving in the same way as well, by claiming that I cannot claim to disprove a god with specific and difficult to prove characteristics. You assume that because you are  suspending belief that you hold no belief, but really, you still hold the belief that you should suspend your belief.

---

Err, don't believe I claimed that anywhere in this thread and I never said I was suspending any belief. 

AlphaFalfa said:

Still, when I see 20 000 people starving everyday, I don't see a reason to believe that a benevolent god exists, for example, as is expounded thoroughly by spiritualists and religious folks.

When it comes to god as light, or as conciousness, I really cannot see any proof for it being so and I find no difference in saying he is or isn't light/conciosness, because light and conciousness can exists without the need to label it as god.

---

We are in agreement here. 

---

millzy said:

i'm not trying to attack anyone here, but fundamentalism is defined in religious terms as literally interpreting the metaphors of scripture and has nothing to do with being dismissive of others' opinions. mark laid out pretty clearly that his position on god is not fundamentalist, and honestly i see the sense in him labeling yours as such. you two seem to not be understanding each other because you aren't speaking the same language.

also in contrasting the two verses from issiah and john, i don't necessarily think they contradict each other if you take into consideration that all is right in the mind of god, whereas only some things are right for man. so in that sense god does create light and darkness, but at the ultimate macro cosmic level all is the way it should be. imo that's what the scripture is getting at.

---

Quote:

fundamentalism is defined in religious terms as literally interpreting the metaphors of scripture

---

I have not once mentioned anything about a belief of mine coinciding with anything remotely religious yet somehow you agree mindlessly with Mark.

The irony is that mark didn't say that my view is fundamentalist, De_cypher did.



Get your story straight before you attempt to make friends, it works better that way.

AlphaFalfa said:

millzy said:

i'm not trying to attack anyone here, but fundamentalism is defined in religious terms as literally interpreting the metaphors of scripture and has nothing to do with being dismissive of others' opinions. mark laid out pretty clearly that his position on god is not fundamentalist, and honestly i see the sense in him labeling yours as such. you two seem to not be understanding each other because you aren't speaking the same language.

also in contrasting the two verses from issiah and john, i don't necessarily think they contradict each other if you take into consideration that all is right in the mind of god, whereas only some things are right for man. so in that sense god does create light and darkness, but at the ultimate macro cosmic level all is the way it should be. imo that's what the scripture is getting at.

---

Thats obviously because you can't apply a simple definition to your own thinking and like to take the opinion of those who you think have social wieght here.

Why oh why did I say this?

Because this definition cannot be applied in any way to describe my position on 'god'. Why?

Quote:

fundamentalism is defined in religious terms as literally interpreting the metaphors of scripture

---

I have not once mentioned anything about a belief of mine coinciding with anything remotely religious yet somehow you agree mindlessly with Mark.

The irony is that mark didn't say that my view is fundamentalist, De_cypher did.



Get your story straight before you attempt to make friends, it works better that way.

---