Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because they have been taught a tradition (slowly changing) that teaching you which bits to pick and defend to the death (someone else's) as God's Commands and which bits can be ignored because they are just for the Jews or..if in the NT..well the same.
Some of them pretty much did. When I read it it was like reading the OT (Kings/Chronicles) plus Acts of the apostles mixed up with Fennimore Cooper and skirmishing on the Fronteer..
There was a discussion on Christianity about picking and choosing from the Bible. The Opposition really couldn't see anything wrong with taking the Bible as divine Authority for morals, behaviour and even laws and then picking the bits they liked and ignoring the bits they didn't. From the OT mainly, but ..you heard the old joke about it being right to persecute gays, keep women at the back covered up and silent and pray for healing, prosperity and guidance because it says so in the Bible, but the bit about giving your possessions to the poor and following Jesus..
"I thought that was metaphorical..."
Aside those who deny they are cherry -picking the Bible, there are those who say of course they are cherry -picking the Bible...so what's wrong with that?
I swear they really don't understand that what they are doing is applying humanist ethical thinking to the Bible and giving the Bible the credit.
True, the 'Jesus changed everything' ploy foggs it all nicely. But in fact it is really just doing the application of current morality (give or take some gay -hate, which will go in time and the religious will be proclaiming how they fought for Gay rights) to the Bible and using Jesus as a smokescreen to cover up that the credit is again being given to the Bible.
P.s and let's save the debate about Jesus breaking the sabbath. You never saw such wriggling, misdirection and evasion to get over that Jesus broke the Sabbath.
Oh yes, I forgot about that scene from the Bible: Where Jesus was confronted by the rabbis for doing whatever on the Sabbath that they think he was not supposed to be doing or condoning his followers/apostles to be doing (working or eating or sleeping or whatever), he said to them in response: "The Sabbath was made from man; man was not made for the Sabbath." But Jesus, you also said that you didn't come to change any jot or tittle of the law of the Jews. Being God Incarnate (the human counterpart of God the Father in our existence, for, as you stated, "I and the Father are one"), can't your mind (being omnisicient) keep perfect track of what you say and what you do so as to not contradict yourself? Even all these thousands of years later, the contradiction stands out to a discerning person like me (as well as to others). It risks coming across as "hypocrisy".
Ah, here it is (the referenced passage from Mark 2:23-27, from the NIV BIBLE):
23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”
25 He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”
27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
So Jesus, you did, in fact, at times, deem that it was appropriate or within your Godly powers to change "a jot or a tittle" of what the Law of the Jews stated . . . or perhaps it can be said "to choose to reinterpret it from how it was commonly understood and applied". But you had said that you would never drop the laws or proscriptions of the Law of the Jews or implement changes to them at all ("not a jot or a tittle", as you stated). Can't keep consistent track of what you say and what you do over the course of time? Hmm, just like all us flawed mere mortals who will lose track of what we say and what we do and come across as inconsistent or even as hypocrites at times. But then, if so, how is that reflective of an entity with claims of omnipotence, omniscience, holyness (moral purity and perfection) and so on?
Oh yes, I forgot about that scene from the Bible: Where Jesus was confronted by the rabbis for doing whatever on the Sabbath that they think he was not supposed to be doing or condoning his followers/apostles to be doing (working or eating or sleeping or whatever), he said to them in response: "The Sabbath was made from man; man was not made for the Sabbath." But Jesus, you also said that you didn't come to change any jot or tittle of the law of the Jews. Being God Incarnate (the human counterpart of God the Father in our existence, for, as you stated, "I and the Father are one"), can't your mind (being omnisicient) keep perfect track of what you say and what you do so as to not contradict yourself? Even all these thousands of years later, the contradiction stands out to a discerning person like me (as well as to others). It risks coming across as "hypocrisy".
Ah, here it is (the referenced passage from Mark 2:23-27, from the NIV BIBLE):
23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”
25 He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”
27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
So Jesus, you did, in fact, at times, deem that it was appropriate or within your Godly powers to change "a jot or a tittle" of what the Law of the Jews stated . . . or perhaps it can be said "to choose to reinterpret it from how it was commonly understood and applied". But you had said that you would never drop the laws or proscriptions of the Law of the Jews or implement changes to them at all ("not a jot or a tittle", as you stated). Can't keep consistent track of what you say and what you do over the course of time? Hmm, just like all us flawed mere mortals who will lose track of what we say and what we do and come across as inconsistent or even as hypocrites at times. But then, if so, how is that reflective of an entity with claims of omnipotence, omniscience, holyness (moral purity and perfection) and so on?
Maybe. But maybe Jesus was saying that for all their study and biblical awareness the Pharisees forgot what was at the center of one of the main themes of Scripture--showing mercy to those who are suffering from hunger (or anything else--ANYTHING). In the very verses you quoted, Jesus pointed out their hypocrisy for not condemning David.
The Sabbath was made for man--exactly as the Bible was written for man, not man for the Bible. Yet fundamentalists are always trying to make men into an image of the Bible rather than using the Bible to enhance the lives of men.
Selecting verses and interpreting those outside the major themes of Scripture is a grievous error--committed by many a christian. It's looking at a tree and trying to describe the forest rather than looking at the forest to see if the tree is really an addition to the overall image of that forest or a detraction. Such is the importance of where one is standing in viewing Scripture.
Fundamentalist Muslims suffer exactly the same problem. Seeing trees and being selective rather than seeing the forest to determine the quality of the trees they are looking at.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 12-15-2015 at 12:05 PM..
Oh yes, I forgot about that scene from the Bible: Where Jesus was confronted by the rabbis for doing whatever on the Sabbath that they think he was not supposed to be doing or condoning his followers/apostles to be doing (working or eating or sleeping or whatever), he said to them in response: "The Sabbath was made from man; man was not made for the Sabbath." But Jesus, you also said that you didn't come to change any jot or tittle of the law of the Jews. Being God Incarnate (the human counterpart of God the Father in our existence, for, as you stated, "I and the Father are one"), can't your mind (being omnisicient) keep perfect track of what you say and what you do so as to not contradict yourself? Even all these thousands of years later, the contradiction stands out to a discerning person like me (as well as to others). It risks coming across as "hypocrisy".
Ah, here it is (the referenced passage from Mark 2:23-27, from the NIV BIBLE):
23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”
25 He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”
27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
So Jesus, you did, in fact, at times, deem that it was appropriate or within your Godly powers to change "a jot or a tittle" of what the Law of the Jews stated . . . or perhaps it can be said "to choose to reinterpret it from how it was commonly understood and applied". But you had said that you would never drop the laws or proscriptions of the Law of the Jews or implement changes to them at all ("not a jot or a tittle", as you stated). Can't keep consistent track of what you say and what you do over the course of time? Hmm, just like all us flawed mere mortals who will lose track of what we say and what we do and come across as inconsistent or even as hypocrites at times. But then, if so, how is that reflective of an entity with claims of omnipotence, omniscience, holyness (moral purity and perfection) and so on?
Not really...In Judaism, it is permitted to break a law in order to sustain life...Like a doctor is not breaking the Law by working on the Sabbath because he is maintaining life or saving a life...This is where those that refuse blood transfusions or deny them to their children are, in fact, breaking G-d's Law to not take a life and do what you must to preserve a life...Thou shall not commit murder, by denying a blood transfusion, you are in fact murdering that person, because it is the blood that will save there life and you are denying it to them...
Oh yes, I forgot about that scene from the Bible: Where Jesus was confronted by the rabbis for doing whatever on the Sabbath that they think he was not supposed to be doing or condoning his followers/apostles to be doing (working or eating or sleeping or whatever), he said to them in response: "The Sabbath was made from man; man was not made for the Sabbath." But Jesus, you also said that you didn't come to change any jot or tittle of the law of the Jews. Being God Incarnate (the human counterpart of God the Father in our existence, for, as you stated, "I and the Father are one"), can't your mind (being omnisicient) keep perfect track of what you say and what you do so as to not contradict yourself? Even all these thousands of years later, the contradiction stands out to a discerning person like me (as well as to others). It risks coming across as "hypocrisy".
Ah, here it is (the referenced passage from Mark 2:23-27, from the NIV BIBLE):
23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”
25 He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”
27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
So Jesus, you did, in fact, at times, deem that it was appropriate or within your Godly powers to change "a jot or a tittle" of what the Law of the Jews stated . . . or perhaps it can be said "to choose to reinterpret it from how it was commonly understood and applied". But you had said that you would never drop the laws or proscriptions of the Law of the Jews or implement changes to them at all ("not a jot or a tittle", as you stated). Can't keep consistent track of what you say and what you do over the course of time? Hmm, just like all us flawed mere mortals who will lose track of what we say and what we do and come across as inconsistent or even as hypocrites at times. But then, if so, how is that reflective of an entity with claims of omnipotence, omniscience, holyness (moral purity and perfection) and so on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Maybe. But maybe Jesus was saying that for all their study and biblical awareness the Pharisees forgot what was at the center of one of the main themes of Scripture--showing mercy to those who are suffering from hunger (or anything else--ANYTHING). In the very verses you quoted, Jesus pointed out their hypocrisy for not condemning David.
The Sabbath was made for man--exactly as the Bible was written for man, not man for the Bible. Yet fundamentalists are always trying to make men into an image of the Bible rather than using the Bible to enhance the lives of men.
Selecting verses and interpreting those outside the major themes of Scripture is a grievous error--committed by many a christian. It's looking at a tree and trying to describe the forest rather than looking at the forest to see if the tree is really an addition to the overall image of that forest or a detraction. Such is the importance of where one is standing in viewing Scripture.
Fundamentalist Muslims suffer exactly the same problem. Seeing trees and being selective rather than seeing the forest to determine the quality of the trees they are looking at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
Not really...In Judaism, it is permitted to break a law in order to sustain life...Like a doctor is not breaking the Law by working on the Sabbath because he is maintaining life or saving a life...This is where those that refuse blood transfusions or deny them to their children are, in fact, breaking G-d's Law to not take a life and do what you must to preserve a life...Thou shall not commit murder, by denying a blood transfusion, you are in fact murdering that person, because it is the blood that will save there life and you are denying it to them...
What you both appear to be saying is that (just focusing here on this referenced verse as an example), you both put the onus entirely on the rabbinate here. That is, that this verse is an example of the religious leadership of whatever belief system being so enamored of and preoccupied by the LETTER of the Law rather than always keeping in mind what is meant to be the HEART of the Law . . . that they don't seem to possess the good sense or perhaps possess the true intelligence that they think they have to gauge what the heart of the Law is meant to be in the mind of the originator and implementer of the Law (i.e., God Himself) (i.e., to possess the sensibilities to deem when it is appropriate to read beyond the exact wording and proscriptions in the written law to accurately gauge how "the Law" should be manifested in the lives of us humans under whatever life circumstances). That is what you are both saying.
I could agree with BOTH of you in your specific point as stated here (just focusing on this specific referenced Bible story). This does not altogether negate, however, the varied other instances (over the course of time) of the Jesus character as described in the written Bible story, in fact, engaging at varied times in choices of behavior or words which contradict His prior or even later edicts, proclamations, proscriptions, preachings and teachings to the masses (I have gone into this topic and laid out that case at considerable length in varied other postings in the C-D Religion and Spirituality Forum over the course of time, so it is too lengthy to totally lay it all out here at length in this singular posting . . . for no one would want to read it all and would likely complain that it is too much to read in a singular posting). Wardendresden, you mentioned about some people "selecting verses and interpreting those outside the major themes of Scripture" . . . but, in the big picture, I don't do this. Rather, I have noted a multitude of discrepancies, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the entire Bible narrative taken as a whole (not just focusing on one or two actual or alleged discrepancies, inconsistencies, and contradictions). The overarching point trying to be conveyed by myself in pointing out the alleged or actual multitude of discrepancies, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the entire Bible narrative taken as a whole is that an allegedly all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise, all-benevolent, and morally pure and perfect being should not, by definition of these omni terms all being taken together, be capable of being guilty of contradicting Himself a multitude of times and therefore coming across as hypocritical if He is, fact, truly ALL that He is said to be. That is, He should be able to keep perfect track, at all times, of what He has previously said and how He has previously behaved in the past, what He says and how He will behave in the present tense, and what He already knows ahead of time He will ever say and how He will ever behave in the future (that is, He should know the entire future as well ahead of time and how it will prevail ahead of time, for He is said to be all-knowing). For this to NOT actually be the case across-the-board (through the entire Bible narrative from beginning to end . . . and the Bible as laid out to all of us is promoted to all of us as being "God-breathed" or "God-inspired) shows the contradictions in the Bible story as it is written and then taught. It contradicts itself numerous times . . . and YET it expects all of us mere mortals to exemplify behaviors at all times that even the alleged human incarnation of God Himself (i.e., Jesus) can't consistently and continually succeed in exemplifying. THAT is my overarching point in making postings such as the posting of mine that you both responded to (and similar postings of mine over the course of time making the same or similar points).
What you both appear to be saying is that (just focusing here on this referenced verse as an example), you both put the onus entirely on the rabbinate here. That is, that this verse is an example of the religious leadership of whatever belief system being so enamored of and preoccupied by the LETTER of the Law rather than always keeping in mind what is meant to be the HEART of the Law . . . that they don't seem to possess the good sense or perhaps possess the true intelligence that they think they have to gauge what the heart of the Law is meant to be in the mind of the originator and implementer of the Law (i.e., God Himself) (i.e., to possess the sensibilities to deem when it is appropriate to read beyond the exact wording and proscriptions in the written law to accurately gauge how "the Law" should be manifested in the lives of us humans under whatever life circumstances). That is what you are both saying.
I could agree with BOTH of you in your specific point as stated here (just focusing on this specific referenced Bible story). This does not altogether negate, however, the varied other instances (over the course of time) of the Jesus character as described in the written Bible story, in fact, engaging at varied times in choices of behavior or words which contradict His prior or even later edicts, proclamations, proscriptions, preachings and teachings to the masses (I have gone into this topic and laid out that case at considerable length in varied other postings in the C-D Religion and Spirituality Forum over the course of time, so it is too lengthy to totally lay it all out here at length in this singular posting . . . for no one would want to read it all and complain that it is too much to read in a singular posting). The overarching point is that an allegedly all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise, all-benevolent, and morally pure and perfect being should not, by definition of these terms all being taken together, be capable of being guilty of contradicting Himself a multitude of times and therefore coming across as hypocritical if He is, fact, truly ALL that He is said to be. That is, He should be able to keep perfect track, at all times, of what He has previously said and how He has previously behaved in the past, what He says and how He will behave in the present tense, and what He knows already knows ahead of time He will ever say and how He will ever behave in the future (that is, He should know the entire future as well ahead of time and how it will prevail ahead of time, for He is said to be all-knowing). For this to NOT actually be the case across-the-board shows the contradictions in the Bible story as it is written and then taught. It contradicts itself numerous times . . . and YET it expects all of us mere mortals to exemplify behaviors at all times that even the alleged human incarnation of God Himself (i.e., Jesus) can't consistently and continually succeed in exemplifying. THAT is my overarching point in making postings such as the posting of mine that you both responded to (and similar postings of mine over the course of time making the same or similar points).
Except you are making the mistake of thinking the Bible is infallible and inerrant. I see it as written by different men attesting to their own faith, and following the oral traditions ABOUT Jesus. That's why the synoptics are similar--but some specific stories are told not quite the same. It's why John, written much later, has a different Jesus altogether--one who had been developed by the early church--farther from the oral traditions.
The gospels are testimonies about Jesus--filled with as much information about how the writers VIEWED Jesus as about what Jesus actually did and said. Consider that most conservative bible believers readily admit to Jesus being angry with a fig tree that didn't bear fruit, and with the moneychangers in the Temple. But there was a third instance which doesn't "jive" with the personality of Jesus provided in the NT.
Quote:
A leper came to him begging him, and kneeling he said to him, "If you choose, you can make me clean." Moved with pity, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, "I do choose. Be made clean.
Mark 1:40-41
But in recent years older manuscripts of Mark have been discovered that reveal a different emotion coming from Jesus, one that is so disturbing almost all bibles sold leave the old verse that says "moved with pity." For the original verse states:
Quote:
Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!"
NIV Mark 1:41
In other words, scribes "tidied" the wording up to keep with the persona of Jesus that they wished passed on. It's just not factual. In textual criticism of any written work, the idea is to take the oldest existing manuscripts as "gospel." That is unless you are a fundamentalist and it doesn't fit with your dogma--then change it to whatever seems best--just like the scribes did.
When one's faith is based entirely on a perfect, holy book, then anything that changes it becomes anathema. People with faith in Jesus Christ aren't so concerned about the intricacies of words. They have the spiritual Christ in their hearts to lead them to truth.
Except you are making the mistake of thinking the Bible is infallible and inerrant. I see it as written by different men attesting to their own faith, and following the oral traditions ABOUT Jesus. That's why the synoptics are similar--but some specific stories are told not quite the same. It's why John, written much later, has a different Jesus altogether--one who had been developed by the early church--farther from the oral traditions.
The gospels are testimonies about Jesus--filled with as much information about how the writers VIEWED Jesus as about what Jesus actually did and said. Consider that most conservative bible believers readily admit to Jesus being angry with a fig tree that didn't bear fruit, and with the moneychangers in the Temple. But there was a third instance which doesn't "jive" with the personality of Jesus provided in the NT.
Mark 1:40-41
But in recent years older manuscripts of Mark have been discovered that reveal a different emotion coming from Jesus, one that is so disturbing almost all bibles sold leave the old verse that says "moved with pity." For the original verse states:
NIV Mark 1:41
In other words, scribes "tidied" the wording up to keep with the persona of Jesus that they wished passed on. It's just not factual. In textual criticism of any written work, the idea is to take the oldest existing manuscripts as "gospel." That is unless you are a fundamentalist and it doesn't fit with your dogma--then change it to whatever seems best--just like the scribes did.
When one's faith is based entirely on a perfect, holy book, then anything that changes it becomes anathema. People with faith in Jesus Christ aren't so concerned about the intricacies of words. They have the spiritual Christ in their hearts to lead them to truth.
I see your points. Yet it is not I myself who think it is infallible and inerrant but rather promoted as such by many other parties and authorities. My deeper point is that, whether the Bible is promoted as being infallible and inerrant or not by whomever is promoting it or considering it, it can be said that ALL that humanity-at-large knows about Jesus (if He was even a real character in human history at all) was given to us by the Bible and what is presented by the Bible . . . although it is the case that there is not ONLY one single Bible that has been made available to humanity-at-large over the course of history and to the present day but rather a great multitude of Bible versions with all their varied nuances and differences in implementation of the "proper" Bible story.
You appear to be saying that there are those who deem themselves as Christians (such as yourself) who conclude in their own minds that are in touch with the true Holy Spirit which always or nearly always keeps them clear about what is the actual truth and what isn't. But that is just an assertion which neither you or anyone else can really know (like you saying "Well, I am one who truly knows the heart of God and those others don't or don't necessarily, for I have the Holy Spirit to guide me at all times . . . whereas the others sometimes do and sometimes don't." Your saying "People with faith in Jesus Christ . . . . . have the spiritual Christ in their hearts to lead them to truth" may be seen as a case of what is called "confirmation bias" on the part of such persons. That is, they go with what they, as individuals, subjectively feel to resonate in their own particular hearts and minds and hence, if it subjectively feels or seems good to them in their own particular inner beings (for, after all, they assert that they individually are being guided by the true Holy Spirit), then it "must" be right. Yet how can you truly know that you are guided by a so-called "Holy Spirit" (if such an entity is even real) in making these determinations of who is right and who is wrong? You can't know; it is merely self-confirmation. Those who contradict you (e.g., those who you call the inerrantists or literalists or fundamentalists) will proclaim that they are guided by the Holy Spirit. I guess that is why this whole enterprise that you are engaged is referred to, even by yourselves, as "faith". And who can "prove" who is right versus who is wrong when it is spoken of within a faith context? The alleged "God" or "gods" behind it all never ever steps directly into the fray between us mere mortals to straighten everyone out at the same time (other than allegedly just in your own minds and hearts but not publically for ALL of us to witness together by being spoken to directly all together at the same time by said "God" or "gods").
I see your points. Yet it is not I myself who think it is infallible and inerrant but rather promoted as such by many other parties and authorities. My deeper point is that, whether the Bible is promoted as being infallible and inerrant or not by whomever is promoting it or considering it, it can be said that ALL that humanity-at-large knows about Jesus (if He was even a real character in human history at all) was given to us by the Bible and what is presented by the Bible . . . although it is the case that there is not ONLY one single Bible that has been made available to humanity-at-large over the course of history and to the present day but rather a great multitude of Bible versions with all their varied nuances and differences in implementation of the "proper" Bible story.
You appear to be saying that there are those who deem themselves as Christians (such as yourself) who conclude in their own minds that are in touch with the true Holy Spirit which always or nearly always keeps them clear about what is the actual truth and what isn't. But that is just an assertion which neither you or anyone else can really know (like you saying "Well, I am one who truly knows the heart of God and those others don't or don't necessarily, for I have the Holy Spirit to guide me at all times . . . whereas the others sometimes do and sometimes don't." Your saying "People with faith in Jesus Christ . . . . . have the spiritual Christ in their hearts to lead them to truth" may be seen as a case of what is called "confirmation bias" on the part of such persons. That is, they go with what they, as individuals, subjectively feel to resonate in their own particular hearts and minds and hence, if it subjectively feels or seems good to them in their own particular inner beings (for, after all, they assert that they individually are being guided by the true Holy Spirit), then it "must" be right. Yet how can you truly know that you are guided by a so-called "Holy Spirit" (if such an entity is even real) in making these determinations of who is right and who is wrong? You can't know; it is merely self-confirmation. Those who contradict you (e.g., those who you call the inerrantists or literalists or fundamentalists) will proclaim that they are guided by the Holy Spirit. I guess that is why this whole enterprise that you are engaged is referred to, even by yourselves, as "faith". And who can "prove" who is right versus who is wrong when it is spoken of within a faith context? The alleged "God" or "gods" behind it all never ever steps directly into the fray between us mere mortals to straighten everyone out at the same time (other than allegedly just in your own minds and hearts but not publically for ALL of us to witness together by being spoken to directly all together at the same time by said "God" or "gods").
Maybe you are correct about confirmation bias. But confirmation bias is primarily among people who have arrived at the "truth." They no longer look further.
I am close to entering my seventh decade of life and my views have changed drastically from that of the young man who met Jesus initially. Elsewhere I am pointing out to others that Scripture supporting the Trinity directly is simply absent. It can only be reached with some great leaps of logic. But I have accepted the Trinity all my life--until textual criticism began to show me there are good reasons not to accept it. So while many enjoy the comfort of "owning the truth," I live the spiritual life of a wanderer always wondering if there is something more, and never satisfied with where I am.
If God is the Ground for Being--not just a Creator--then thinking one has found the ultimate answer is simply idiotic. There is so much more to God than anyone can ever hope to delve into.
Most people, when first confronted with this phrase, "being itself" assume that it means that the fact of our existence is the same as God. Naturally, that would be a nonsensical notion. How could the fact that this desk in front of me, the computer I am writing on, and the lamp that illumines the screen, the mere fact of all the things I see around me and I myself existing be God? Some have concluded that by this theologian Paul Tillich meant that God is just a regularative symbol for the fact of existence. But I think that this is not at all what Tillich or any of the other theologians who use this phrase mean. We, as temporal beings limited by our finitude cannot help but think merely of the fact of existence as the nature of being. So contemplating God is not contemplating existence as we grasp it. The God we really seek is the God above God--the One so far and away beyond us that we have no choice but to use anthropomorphic descriptions about Him.
Tillich believed, and I agree with his approach, that God was such an exalted concept that any attempt to prove Him was to deny him. Look at the number of people on these very threads who seek to "prove" God--almost all their efforts are in such a futile exercise. It can't be done. The only hope anyone has of approaching God is like a grain of sand on the largest beach in the world. He will not be understood. But then the very best concepts of God come from the simplest of statements.
"Love the Lord your God with all your strength and heart and mind, and your neighbor as yourself. (the Bible)
Muslim scholar Muhammad al-Bukhari writes, “In three things man finds the sweetness of faith: that for them God and His Prophet be loved above the rest; that in loving human beings he only loves him in God.”
In the Hindu Vedas a summation of the two things man must know begins with ‘iham’ – how to live when we are in the physical body. This relates to keeping our body and mind strong, spreading peace and love to our neighbors, strengthening the society by producing good children, working for others’ welfare, etc.
Even Buddhism relates to this concept in a slightly different manner:
Verse five of the Pali Theravadin Dhammapada text (of 423 verses) states:
"Hatred is never appeased by hatred.
Hatred is only appeased by Love (or, non-enmity).
This is an eternal law."
The Pali term for "eternal law" here is dhamma, or the Buddhist teachings. So, this verse on non-enmity has to do with a tenet of the Buddhist faith that is fundamental, namely, peace and non-harm.
[SIZE=2]Buddhist traditions tell us that from the very moment the notions of 'I' and 'mine' arise, there simultaneously arise the notions of 'not me' and 'not mine.' That is, from the moment we conceive of 'us,' there is a 'them.' Once the notions of separateness, difference, and otherness enter our thinking, they then go on‹literally and figuratively--to color all of our subsequent experience, judgments and perceptions. We see the world in terms of us vs. them, me vs. everyone else, mine vs. yours. We are immediately caught up in a world of mistaken, logically unfounded, and seemingly uncontrollable hatred and prejudice. And all these dualistic bifurcations occur at lightning speed and for the most part imperceptibly.[/SIZE]
It is a theme that runs rampant in most religions: to overcome hate with love. At our innermost cores we are all exactly the same: we are human beings who wish to have happiness and to avoid suffering. Yet, out of ignorance, we go about seeking these goals blindly and without insight. We live our lives seemingly oblivious to our own prejudices even though they are right in front of our eyes. In short, we suffer because we embrace the mistaken notion of our separateness from one another.
God is about unity--but it's the one thing His earthly followers simply cannot grasp. When one begins to think of Me and Mine, he simply establishes You and Yours, and the cycle of selfishness perpetuates itself. In Christianity that dualism is defined by the invention of the "Devil," a much different entity than the original Satan of the OT who was but a servant of God.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 12-18-2015 at 07:58 PM..
Maybe you are correct about confirmation bias. But confirmation bias is primarily among people who have arrived at the "truth." They no longer look further.
I am close to entering my seventh decade of life and my views have changed drastically from that of the young man who met Jesus initially. Elsewhere I am pointing out to others that Scripture supporting the Trinity directly is simply absent. It can only be reached with some great leaps of logic. But I have accepted the Trinity all my life--until textual criticism began to show me there are good reasons not to accept it. So while many enjoy the comfort of "owning the truth," I live the spiritual life of a wanderer always wondering if there is something more, and never satisfied with where I am.
If God is the Ground for Being--not just a Creator--then thinking one has found the ultimate answer is simply idiotic. There is so much more to God than anyone can ever hope to delve into.
Most people, when first confronted with this phrase, "being itself" assume that it means that the fact of our existence is the same as God. Naturally, that would be a nonsensical notion. How could the fact that this desk in front of me, the computer I am writing on, and the lamp that illumines the screen, the mere fact of all the things I see around me and I myself existing be God? Some have concluded that by this theologian Paul Tillich meant that God is just a regularative symbol for the fact of existence. But I think that this is not at all what Tillich or any of the other theologians who use this phrase mean. We, as temporal beings limited by our finitude cannot help but think merely of the fact of existence as the nature of being. So contemplating God is not contemplating existence as we grasp it. The God we really seek is the God above God--the One so far and away beyond us that we have no choice but to use anthropomorphic descriptions about Him.
Tillich believed, and I agree with his approach, that God was such an exalted concept that any attempt to prove Him was to deny him. Look at the number of people on these very threads who seek to "prove" God--almost all their efforts are in such a futile exercise. It can't be done. The only hope anyone has of approaching God is like a grain of sand on the largest beach in the world. He will not be understood. But then the very best concepts of God come from the simplest of statements.
"Love the Lord your God with all your strength and heart and mind, and your neighbor as yourself. (the Bible)
Muslim scholar Muhammad al-Bukhari writes, “In three things man finds the sweetness of faith: that for them God and His Prophet be loved above the rest; that in loving human beings he only loves him in God.”
In the Hindu Vedas a summation of the two things man must know begins with ‘iham’ – how to live when we are in the physical body. This relates to keeping our body and mind strong, spreading peace and love to our neighbors, strengthening the society by producing good children, working for others’ welfare, etc.
Even Buddhism relates to this concept in a slightly different manner:
Verse five of the Pali Theravadin Dhammapada text (of 423 verses) states:
"Hatred is never appeased by hatred.
Hatred is only appeased by Love (or, non-enmity).
This is an eternal law."
The Pali term for "eternal law" here is dhamma, or the Buddhist teachings. So, this verse on non-enmity has to do with a tenet of the Buddhist faith that is fundamental, namely, peace and non-harm.
[SIZE=2]Buddhist traditions tell us that from the very moment the notions of 'I' and 'mine' arise, there simultaneously arise the notions of 'not me' and 'not mine.' That is, from the moment we conceive of 'us,' there is a 'them.' Once the notions of separateness, difference, and otherness enter our thinking, they then go on‹literally and figuratively--to color all of our subsequent experience, judgments and perceptions. We see the world in terms of us vs. them, me vs. everyone else, mine vs. yours. We are immediately caught up in a world of mistaken, logically unfounded, and seemingly uncontrollable hatred and prejudice. And all these dualistic bifurcations occur at lightning speed and for the most part imperceptibly.[/SIZE]
It is a theme that runs rampant in most religions: to overcome hate with love. At our innermost cores we are all exactly the same: we are human beings who wish to have happiness and to avoid suffering. Yet, out of ignorance, we go about seeking these goals blindly and without insight. We live our lives seemingly oblivious to our own prejudices even though they are right in front of our eyes. In short, we suffer because we embrace the mistaken notion of our separateness from one another.
God is about unity--but it's the one thing His earthly followers simply cannot grasp. When one begins to think of Me and Mine, he simply establishes You and Yours, and the cycle of selfishness perpetuates itself. In Christianity that dualism is defined by the invention of the "Devil," a much different entity than the original Satan of the OT who was but a servant of God.
Just focusing on the Christian and Muslim quotes you offered:
But even the verse you selected from the Bible ("Love the Lord your God with all your strength and heart and mind, and your neighbor as yourself") is immersed within the midst of a whole clutter of verses and stories which convey something quite the contrary . . . so how is each and every person supposed to know which exact passage or passages to focus on while then knowing (at the same time) which exact passage or passages to filter out or to rephrase of reinterpret in their own minds? Such determinations on their part become rather subjective by their very nature.
As to the quotation made by one particular Muslim scholar (with him stating "In three things man finds the sweetness of faith: that for them God and His Prophet be loved above the rest; that in loving human beings he only loves him in God.”), that is one man speaking as he individually sees it -- unless you will state here that that, in fact, is taken directly from the Koran or the Hadiths. Yet, whether it is taken directly from the Koran or Hadiths or is instead rather just his own conjured-up phrasing or teachng of what he individually thinks the central message of the Muslim teachings is or should be, when we take the Koran and Hadiths as a whole, can that saying of his that you quoted be said to be the CENTRAL message and then also the EVER-PERVASIVE message which permeates and is conveyed through-and-through by the Koran and Hadiths? How can that, in all honesty, be proclaimed to be so (even among Muslims themselves who are not supportive of or condoning of the violence-prone elements that apparently pervade a seemingly significant portion of the Muslim world population)? Can it be honestly said, even by them whom I referenced in my last sentence, that the Koranic teachings promote such a message and theme through-and-through that should be plainly obvious to ALL who are exposed to the entirety of the Koran and Hadiths?
Any teachings taken-as-a-whole from which multitudes can draw encouragement to subjugate other peoples, to force one's ways upon others, to have the males place all the females in what can truthfully be perceived and deemed as a subjugative status, and so on cannot possibly be what should be honestly meant to be derived from saying "In three things man finds the sweetness of faith: that for them God and His Prophet be loved above the rest; that in loving human beings he only loves him in God.” For if I truly love my fellow humans as God/Allah is said to command me to, then how can I either take it upon myself (as a male) or condone other males taking it upon themselves to subjugate, demean, and oppress the female half of our species (as one example of a plain-and-obvious deviation from what that quotation from that Muslim scholar should be taken to teach us all)? Does that Muslim scholar himself really really think that his quote is, in fact, THE VERY HEART of what is actually taught and promoted by Islam-at-large throughout the course of its history (including up to the present times)? Is that even a verse which is inserted into the very Koran itself (or the Hadiths)? And if it is and, and that, it is the Koran's very central and ever-pervasive message, then why are there so very very many in the world population who take on the label "Muslim" who do not derive this from the overall teachings of the Koran and the Hadiths? What is wrong with this picture? I mean how could anyone at all who would say that the Muslim scholar's quote IS, in fact, the Korans's and/or the Hadith's central and ever-pervasive message AND YET, AT THE SAME TIME, somehow find justification in themselves to instead do or support the polar opposite of what that quote's message conveys?
IN SUMMARY: What I am trying to convey is that it is rather apparent that these "holy books" (taking each book together as a whole in all its content, whether the Bible or the Koran) do not really come from the mind or inspiration of a supreme creator being (for they are so very rife with contradictions) but are rather quite apparently the products of the human mind and the human mind alone (with all our many failings as well as our redeeming qualities represented in both books). No supposed supreme creator being with all the purported omni powers can inspire a set of written and spoken works so fraught with contradictions and which fail to convey a consistent message through-and-through that ALL mere mortals can plainly take to teach that they should exemplify a way-of-thinking and a way-of-life which wholly reflects that which is TRULY taught by those two sample quotes that you offered for the Bible and for the Muslim scriptures, respectively.
You quote Paul Tillich (whom I am familiar with). You said "Tillich believed, and I agree with his approach, that God was such an exalted CONCEPT that any attempt to prove Him was to deny him. Look at the number of people on these very threads who seek to 'prove' God--almost all their efforts are in such a futile exercise. It can't be done." and so on. Just his or your very choice-of-wording conveys that you and him both truly KNOW, in your own heart of hearts, that "God" can't be shown or demonstrated to be anything more than just an invented concept . . . kind of like an idealized human being invented by our own minds which exemplifes the most redeeming virtues, qualities, and character that we should all always aspire to. "God" (by whatever name) cannot thus far be shown to be anything more than an invention of the human imagination. Why don't we just instead all say simply "Do the right thing because it is the right thing to do and then don't do the wrong thing because it would be wrong to do this thing . . . not because you are (supposedly) told to do so or not do so by some imagined overarching supreme being but because the thing in question is either morally right or morally wrong. Let that be your motivator." Hence, don't rape or molest children or teens or even other adults because you KNOW that you wouldn't want that done to YOU . . . so therefore don't ever do it to any of your fellow humans. And likewise (for the same reasoning), don't steal, cheat, scam, bully or brutalize, et al." We might call this "common-sense morality" or, in case it isn't "common sense" to all discerning humans, then call it "humanism" or "humanistic-based morality" (for lack of an even better, more fitting descriptor or term to apply to the concept).
Oh yes, I forgot about that scene from the Bible: Where Jesus was confronted by the rabbis for doing whatever on the Sabbath that they think he was not supposed to be doing or condoning his followers/apostles to be doing (working or eating or sleeping or whatever), he said to them in response: "The Sabbath was made from man; man was not made for the Sabbath." But Jesus, you also said that you didn't come to change any jot or tittle of the law of the Jews. Being God Incarnate (the human counterpart of God the Father in our existence, for, as you stated, "I and the Father are one"), can't your mind (being omnisicient) keep perfect track of what you say and what you do so as to not contradict yourself? Even all these thousands of years later, the contradiction stands out to a discerning person like me (as well as to others). It risks coming across as "hypocrisy".
Ah, here it is (the referenced passage from Mark 2:23-27, from the NIV BIBLE):
23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”
25 He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”
27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
So Jesus, you did, in fact, at times, deem that it was appropriate or within your Godly powers to change "a jot or a tittle" of what the Law of the Jews stated . . . or perhaps it can be said "to choose to reinterpret it from how it was commonly understood and applied". But you had said that you would never drop the laws or proscriptions of the Law of the Jews or implement changes to them at all ("not a jot or a tittle", as you stated). Can't keep consistent track of what you say and what you do over the course of time? Hmm, just like all us flawed mere mortals who will lose track of what we say and what we do and come across as inconsistent or even as hypocrites at times. But then, if so, how is that reflective of an entity with claims of omnipotence, omniscience, holyness (moral purity and perfection) and so on?
Good post. One of the pleasures of posting here are the pleasant surprises I get. Yes indeed, there is a contradiction there. But can it be put down to a lapse of memory on Jesus' part? Never mind he was supposed to be god, suppose he had the same human failings we all have. Wouldn't he at least know whether his agenda was upholding the law to the last jot and tittle or sidelining it as not mandatory?
I know the answer, but I will leave it to discussion.
Not really...In Judaism, it is permitted to break a law in order to sustain life...Like a doctor is not breaking the Law by working on the Sabbath because he is maintaining life or saving a life...This is where those that refuse blood transfusions or deny them to their children are, in fact, breaking G-d's Law to not take a life and do what you must to preserve a life...Thou shall not commit murder, by denying a blood transfusion, you are in fact murdering that person, because it is the blood that will save there life and you are denying it to them...
Yes. It is permitted to break the Sabbath to deal with some serious disease that will not wait. But the man with the withered arm could have been told to come back in surgery hours, not during a church service. In fact he wasn't even asking to be healed, but Jesus hauls him out of the audience and heals him just to stick his finger in the Pharisees' eye. He is making a show of Sabbath breaking using the argument that doing good deeds is more important than observing the Law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsAll
... I have noted a multitude of discrepancies, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the entire Bible narrative taken as a whole (not just focusing on one or two actual or alleged discrepancies, inconsistencies, and contradictions). The overarching point trying to be conveyed by myself in pointing out the alleged or actual multitude of discrepancies, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the entire Bible narrative taken as a whole is that an allegedly all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise, all-benevolent, and morally pure and perfect being should not, by definition of these omni terms all being taken together, be capable of being guilty of contradicting Himself a multitude of times and therefore coming across as hypocritical if He is, fact, truly ALL that He is said to be. That is, He should be able to keep perfect track, at all times, of what He has previously said and how He has previously behaved in the past, what He says and how He will behave in the present tense, and what He already knows ahead of time He will ever say and how He will ever behave in the future (that is, He should know the entire future as well ahead of time and how it will prevail ahead of time, for He is said to be all-knowing). ...
Yes. (parden me for cutting your post) This is the argument I used when Eusebius referenced Jesus' using Genesis to make a point and arguing that this proved it was true. There is too much evidence of Not having perfect knowledge of all things - just on God's 'need to know' basis. Apart from that the knowledge was as foggy as any other humans...if one accept the report of the gospels as reliable.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-18-2015 at 10:06 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but I will leave it to discussion.
