The Bible

SEPT 23 1989

I enjoyed Bible stories as a child

Maybe I'm the only one who will admit it

irish coldplayer

me_right_one wrote: »

You're wrong about claims not being historically corroborated, but thats for you to go and look up.

I asked earlier about this and will ask again can you link me to any document contemporary with Jesus (i.e not a gospel) that proves he existed?
Also as you are one making the claims that it is easily corroborated surely you could easily provide such?

me_right_one wrote: »

St. Thomas! He was with Jesus as one of his apostles for years, saw miracles being performed, saw Jesus being crucified, and at the end of it all he said, "lads this is bollox. Nobody can rise from the dead. Whatever about curing the blind and walking on water, I'm sure there's some explanation for it all, but rising from the dead is impossible. We had a good time helping people etc., but now our boss has been murdered, and we're next. Best of luck lads, but I'm out". There you have it, atheist numero uno! Long before Darwin was born!

you genuinely think Thomas was the first human that ever lived to not believe in a deity?

me_right_one wrote: »

Now your talking! And in another 2000 years, people will regard your idea of the universe as superstitious, but thats just the way it goes! We're getting closer to scientifically discovering God all the time.

I would argue we're at the point of proving the lack of any need of any God for the universe to exist.

Shenshen

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I enjoyed Bible stories as a child

Maybe I'm the only one who will admit it

You're not, I love a good story and the bible has plenty.

Chancer3001

To the guy who was wondering why apostlr matthew doesnt show up in the gospel til halfway through...

Its cos the guys who wrote tge gospels werent apostles. The guys who wrote those never even met jesus

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I enjoyed Bible stories as a child

Maybe I'm the only one who will admit it

I prefered the less evil ones, like Tom and Jerry

Ted111

Twitter

Pherekydes

Chancer3001 wrote: »

To the guy who was wondering why apostlr matthew doesnt show up in the gospel til halfway through...

Its cos the guys who wrote tge gospels werent apostles. The guys who wrote those never even met jesus

This is from catholic.org:

According to the Gospel, Matthew was working at a collection booth in Capernaum when Christ came to him and asked, "Follow me." With this simple call, Matthew became a disciple of Christ.

From Matthew we know of the many doings of Christ and the message Christ spread of salvation for all people who come to God through Him. The Gospel account of Matthew tells the same story as that found in the other three Gospels, so scholars are certain of its authenticity. His book is the first of the four Gospels in the New Testament.

So the Matthew who wrote the gospel was indeed an apostle. And he personally witnessed most of the events of Jesus' life. Like his conception (Matthew 1:18), his birth (1:25), his (Mary's and Joseph's) abandonment of the innocents (2:14 - 2:16) and so on.

Shenshen

Pherekydes wrote: »

This is from catholic.org:



So the Matthew who wrote the gospel was indeed an apostle. And he personally witnessed most of the events of Jesus' life. Like his conception (Matthew 1:18), his birth (1:25), his (Mary's and Joseph's) abandonment of the innocents (2:14 - 2:16) and so on.

Considering that most scholars estimate the Matthew gospel to have been written between 80 and 110 years after Christ, that lad must have not only been blessed with extremely long life, but also with extrodinary good eyesight to be able to still write at that age.

MonkieSocks

Roger Mellie Man on the Telly wrote: »

Is the Bible classified as factual work?

Also, is it worth a read?

If it was true, it would probably be;










"The Greatest Story Ever Told"

Choochtown

Pherekydes wrote: »

This is from catholic.org:



So the Matthew who wrote the gospel was indeed an apostle. And he personally witnessed most of the events of Jesus' life. Like his conception (Matthew 1:18), his birth (1:25), his (Mary's and Joseph's) abandonment of the innocents (2:14 - 2:16) and so on.

He personally witnessed Jesus' conception???
He personally witnessed Jesus' birth?

What was he? A peeping Tom in a donkey suit?

Avatar MIA

Choochtown wrote: »

He personally witnessed Jesus' conception???

Considering it's mentioned Jesus met him when Matthew was at a collection booth it's just another one of those contradictions, but sure they don't really matter.

Skommando

From what I've learned about the bible, it's not one book but a collection of books concerning Jewish (old testament) and Christian (new testament) scripture, gathered over very many years.

There's 73 books in the original Catholic bible and 66 of these books are included in the Protestant Bible. (They dropped seven books from the Old Testament used at the time of Christ [the Septuagint] , and considered dropping some from the New testament that didn't fit Protestant doctrines )

These different spiritual books use numerous literary devices from allusion, diction, epigraph, euphemism, foreshadowing, imagery, metaphor/simile, personification, to poetry and song. They are books chiefly concerned with spirituality and man's relationship with God.

For anyone actually interested in studying them, they require careful interpretation, as in places and read through the eyes of spirituality, as the reader can interpret them to mean anything they want them to mean, and that which is not always correct.

E.g. the true meaning of the expression "it was raining cats and dogs" is a well understood phrase in today's literature, but if it had been used in the bible, you'd have both ill educated American Christians and anti-Christians both claiming it is meant literally. Also in 2000 years time, that phrase is just as likely to cause confusion to readers in the future, who are not familiar with the phrases and context we used them in.

For anyone who doesn't want to read the whole bible, I'd recommend one of the Gospels, e.g. Mark is the shortest and a quick read. It's often very illuminating to read in full what Christ actually said and did for yourself, as apposed to the edited out of context quotes. Christianity is primarily centered around the New Testament. The old testament is useful for Christians because it was refereed to by Christ, and gives the background and context to many things in the New testament.

Avatar MIA

Skommando wrote: »

For anyone actually interested in studying them, they require careful interpretation, as in places and read through the eyes of spirituality, as the reader can interpret them to mean anything they want them to mean, and that which is not always correct.

This old chestnut

Tell us, was God just being a douche or a bit dim to have allowed his word to be opaque and culturally illiterate to anyone that isn't 2,000 years old?

lawlolawl

The Bible, as with other religious texts, is a bit silly and shouldn't be taken even slightly seriously.

Imagine you were from another planet and you came down and read it and realised that millions of people actually think things in it are worth living by.

Skommando

Tell us, was God just being a douche or a bit dim to have allowed his word to be opaque and culturally illiterate to anyone that isn't 2,000 years old?

Neither.

Avatar MIA

Skommando wrote: »

Neither.

You would say that, but that's how it would seem if God were real. Thankfully, it's just another control mechanism that ancient man devised. For other such examples I refer you to the countess other religions and their Gods.

Chancer3001

Those who wrote the Gospels did not know Jesus personally. None of them were eye witnesses: they did not wander around with Jesus with pens and paper writing down everything he said and did! Instead, they came to believe in Jesus through hearing others speak about him. So, when they came to write down what they had come to believe, they used the oral stories they had heard.

Thats from the bible doctor...seems gospel writers didnt know jesus....

Skommando

You would say that, but that's how it would seem if God were real. Thankfully, it's just another control mechanism that ancient man devised. For other such examples I refer you to the countess other religions and their Gods.

I'm not interested in countless other religions or cults or figures, as for me having examined all the major ones, in totality none of them come close to what Christ said and did.

Whether someone chooses to believe Christ was telling the truth, or mad, bad, or lying, or his early followers were, that's up to the individual.

Skommando

Those who wrote the Gospels did not know Jesus personally. None of them were eye witnesses: they did not wander around with Jesus with pens and paper writing down everything he said and did! Instead, they came to believe in Jesus through hearing others speak about him. So, when they came to write down what they had come to believe, they used the oral stories they had heard.

Thats from the bible doctor...seems gospel writers didnt know jesus....

That's not entirely correct. Historians can't say for certain, who did or did not write the gospels as the authors themselves don't explicitly say as their focus is the subject not the writer, and therefore historians can only speculate with regard to authorship. Christian tradition subscribes them to the authors names in the case of Mark and Luke. Mark was an assistant to Peter, Luke was a doctor who was an assistant of Paul's, and it's likely that John's and Matthew's were also written by assistants who collected their accounts. Certainly there is absolutely no proof, that the writers were not eyewitnesses to the events, or had not collected the accounts from eyewitnesses.

Avatar MIA

Skommando wrote: »

Certainly there is absolutely no proof, that the writers were not eyewitnesses to the events, or had not collected the accounts from eyewitnesses.

Can you link to any source that states or even proposes the gospels were written by eye witnesses. I've never heard this before being suggested by believers.

kylith

Skommando wrote: »

These different spiritual books use numerous literary devices from allusion, diction, epigraph, euphemism, foreshadowing, imagery, metaphor/simile, personification, to poetry and song. They are books chiefly concerned with spirituality and man's relationship with God.

For anyone actually interested in studying them, they require careful interpretation, as in places and read through the eyes of spirituality, as the reader can interpret them to mean anything they want them to mean, and that which is not always correct.

Time for this, methinks.

Guy:Incognito

Just don't get too hung up on the facts lads, it's not Gospel.

uck51js9zml2yt

People are getting hung up with those of whom the gospels are attributed to as having actually written them.
It would have been common for scribes to have been dictated to. This is reference to by Paul. We know he had bad eyesight and often said he signed the letters with his own hand.

People thinking matthew actually saw the birth as just plain ridiculous. It's quiet acceptable to say that Mary would have recounted the stories of Jesus Birth and early life to the disciples which were eventually written down.
It's commonly accepted that John lived longest and there are 5 letters attributed to him.
Don't forget, these guys weren't writing the "Bible". They were writing letters to various people and churches.

Skommando

Can you link to any source that states or even proposes the gospels were written by eye witnesses. I've never heard this before being suggested by believers.

I'm not sure I understand. The Gospels were either written by eyewitnesses to the events they were present for, and/or by people who were not direct eyewitnesses, but instead recorded later in writing the accounts of contemporary eyewitnesses. If they were not written by such, who are you claiming they were written by ?

"
John 21:24

This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
"
"
Luke 1

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

JRant

Kamari Round Unit wrote: »

People are getting hung up with those of whom the gospels are attributed to as having actually written them.
It would have been common for scribes to have been dictated to. This is reference to by Paul. We know he had bad eyesight and often said he signed the letters with his own hand.

People thinking matthew actually saw the birth as just plain ridiculous. It's quiet acceptable to say that Mary would have recounted the stories of Jesus Birth and early life to the disciples which were eventually written down.
It's commonly accepted that John lived longest and there are 5 letters attributed to him.
Don't forget, these guys weren't writing the "Bible". They were writing letters to various people and churches.

It is also extremely common for people to make shït up all the time.

Is it not a fair question to ask who exactly wrote these texts? I mean we're all supposed to believe this is the word of god. Surely a god would know about referencing his work and attributing the correct sources rather than a smorgasbord of waffle, half truths and makey uppey stuff.

Avatar MIA

Skommando wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand.

"Although some scholars disagree, the vast majority of researchers believe that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, sometime around the year 70. This scholarly consensus holds that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were composed, independently of one another, sometime in the 80s or 90s."

http://www.bc.edu/schools/stm/crossroads/homepage.html

I take it you believe otherwise - but why would Matthew wait until he was an old man (especially for that time) to write about Jesus. It's okay for you to believe Matthew was a contemporary of Jesus, just don't expect others to take your word... as gospel.

Pherekydes

Skommando wrote: »

They are books chiefly concerned with spirituality and man's relationship with God.

For anyone actually interested in studying them, they require careful interpretation, as in places and read through the eyes of spirituality, as the reader can interpret them to mean anything they want them to mean, and that which is not always correct.

Skommando wrote: »

I'm not interested in countless other religions or cults or figures, as for me having examined all the major ones, in totality none of them come close to what Christ said and did.

Says every single religious person ever about their own holy book and/or religion.

Me? I'm inclined to think that if there was a god and if that god was interested in promoting a religion then the text laid down or inspired or dictated would be true for all languages and for all time. Without any need for interpretation. Ever.*




*Just coz I like single word sentences.

Skommando

"Although some scholars disagree, the vast majority of researchers believe that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, sometime around the year 70. This scholarly consensus holds that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were composed, independently of one another, sometime in the 80s or 90s."

Mark was believed to be an eyewitness teenager during the ministry of Christ, and and later, an assistant of Saint Peter's (Mark's gospel is primarily from Peter's point of view), so in 70AD Mark would be in his 50's. I can't see how that does not make him or his account not reliable ?

As for Matthew, he was believed to have executed sometime around 70 AD in Ethiopia, and I can't see why an assistant who knew Matthew's account well could not have written an account events as relayed to him by Matthew ? Nor why they would also not use Mark's earlier document a basis as well ?

As for Luke's account, he was a Doctor and assistant to Saint Paul and knew many of Christ's disciples, he died around 84 AD, and again I cannot see why he, or an assistant of his, could not write an account of what Christ's disciples saw and did during his ministry according to Luke ?

It's okay for you to believe Matthew was a contemporary of Jesus, just don't expect others to take your word... as gospel.

I don't mind what others believe, or don't believe, just don't expect me to believe it's not possible for the Gospels to be accounts of what the people familiar with Christ saw him and his apostles and disciples, say and do.

brickmauser

If you want to reconstruct the Kennedy assassination or the sinking of the Titanic you can read the official inquiry reports and transcripts of sworn testimony by eye witnesses online.

The Gospels are nothing like credible eye witness accounts.

Any serious student of the gospels knows they are fabrications. The Gospel of John is clearly the most elaborately embroidered version. The Gospel of Mark is the most plain text and there is good justification in thinking it is based on an original long lost work.

It is a narrative patched together with snatches of stories and quotes from Jesus and is probably based on collected and memorized sayings from Jesus's movement.

There were many messiahs at that time who led religious and political opposition or rebellions against the Romans and Jewish hierarchy who typically ended up on a cross.

The Jewish Kingdom was destroyed when the Jewish authorities joined forces with Jewish rebels when they provoked war with Rome.
The Jerusalem Church led first by a Jesus and then by his "brother" James perished along with the Jewish authorities when the Roman legions flattened the Temple.

What we know of Christianity comes from the tradition of Paul and Pauline Christians among the Jewish diaspora and Christian converts among the Romans and pagans. Removed from the inner circle of Jesus and the Jerusalem Church which a Jewish sect Christianity morphed into the Christianity we know today.

Jesus was just another Jewish politician as David Bowie's Pilate calls him.

He was transformed and mutated over time into the long haired robe wearing hippy of modern Christianity.

Shenshen

So while it's quite obvious that there are a number of questions around the authenticity of the gospels that made it into the bible, what do people think of the dozen or so that were not included when people in the 4th century made a decision of what is the word of god and what isn't?

JRant

Shenshen wrote: »

So while it's quite obvious that there are a number of questions around the authenticity of the gospels that made it into the bible, what do people think of the dozen or so that were not included when people in the 4th century made a decision of what is the word of god and what isn't?

That would be an ecumenical matter.

lawlolawl

Shenshen wrote: »

So while it's quite obvious that there are a number of questions around the authenticity of the gospels that made it into the bible, what do people think of the dozen or so that were not included when people in the 4th century made a decision of what is the word of god and what isn't?

They were all good and well written or whatever but they didn't make enough explicit references to unquestionably worshiping something and donating a heap of money to it like the ones that are in there.

Those were the Godliest texts so they made the cut and religion as a whole honestly isn't just a scam on a par with homeopathy, healing crystals or "nutrition" at all.

You owe me money now because God is mad as **** and you believe this garbage for some reason.

Skommando

If you want to reconstruct the Kennedy assassination or the sinking of the Titanic you can read the official inquiry reports and transcripts of sworn testimony by eye witnesses online.

The Gospels are nothing like credible eye witness accounts.

Any serious student of the gospels knows they are fabrications. The Gospel of John is clearly the most elaborately embroidered version. The Gospel of Mark is the most plain text and there is good justification in thinking it is based on an original long lost work.

It is a narrative patched together with snatches of stories and quotes from Jesus and is probably based on collected and memorized sayings from Jesus's movement.

There were many messiahs at that time who led religious and political opposition or rebellions against the Romans and Jewish hierarchy who typically ended up on a cross.

The Jewish Kingdom was destroyed when the Jewish authorities joined forces with Jewish rebels when they provoked war with Rome.
The Jerusalem Church led first by a Jesus and then by his "brother" James perished along with the Jewish authorities when the Roman legions flattened the Temple.

What we know of Christianity comes from the tradition of Paul and Pauline Christians among the Jewish diaspora and Christian converts among the Romans and pagans. Removed from the inner circle of Jesus and the Jerusalem Church which a Jewish sect Christianity morphed into the Christianity we know today.

Jesus was just another Jewish politician as David Bowie's Pilate calls him.

He was transformed and mutated over time into the long haired robe wearing hippy of modern Christianity.

Actually some of the best books about Kennedy and the Titanic were written in recent years, when time allowed the measured consideration of the collection of all the events and accounts. I've still seen nothing convincing that the gospels could not be written and complied by those who either witnessed the events themselves, or recorded those who had. As for your Pauline claim, only a third of the New Testament is Pauline and details the councils of Jerusalem. Jesus was anything but a politician. Politicians crave earthly power and aims, they don't reject them. As for hippy's they came and went in the 60's. As for claimed messiahs, they still come and go today, yet none of them have the following of Christ.

Skommando

So while it's quite obvious that there are a number of questions around the authenticity of the gospels that made it into the bible, what do people think of the dozen or so that were not included when people in the 4th century made a decision of what is the word of god and what isn't?

The reason they weren't accepted by later Christians in the 4th Century, is that they were never accepted by the vast majority of earlier Christians as being authentic even when they were originally written.

Shenshen

Skommando wrote: »

The reason they weren't accepted by later Christians in the 4th Century, is that they were never accepted by the vast majority of earlier Christians as being authentic even when they were originally written.

Interesting - so Christianity was all about what you choose to believe is the word of god and what isn't right from the start? The earliest pick'n'mix religion?

nozzferrahhtoo

Kamari Round Unit wrote: »

For God so loved the World, that He gave His only Son

Yet if you read the book this god did no such thing. He did not "give" any such thing. At best.... if you were to summarize the tale..... he "LENT" us his son. For a period of time that in relation to infinity is not EVEN a blink of an eye.

Kamari Round Unit wrote: »

Why has he allowed it? He gave us freewill. Maybe he should have made us to be robots!

The issue with that line of reasoning is that currently the concept of "free will" divides our literature. Scientific AND philosophical. Mounting a case that we even HAVE free will at all.... is very difficult to do.

Kamari Round Unit wrote: »

He knew Adam was going to sin. He gave Adam the option not to.

If you set up a system, where you know the result before it even happens, then how is that giving someone a "choice"? The whole concept of choice.... the whole hypothesis of "Free Will" is predicated on the simple concept of "could have done otherwise".

But if this god knew in advance, before this character even existed, what the choice would be.... then where does "could have done otherwise" come into it at all? How could someone be genuinely said to be capable of doing otherwise when the person setting up the system in advance already knows what they WILL do?

The whole thing is self contradictory nonsense.

nozzferrahhtoo

Arghus wrote: »

Sure, it's the greatest story ever told.

I could think of a few improvements though. For example the story was meant to be about the Jesus character giving his life for mankind. But the Jesus character is now living in a state of bliss and dominion beside daddy. Hardly a sacrifice so much as a trading up.

A better story would have been the Nazarene being OFFERED an eternal life of bliss and dominion, but to Daddys despair turned away and accepted the True Death for mankind at the last minute.

That story would be worth the telling, rather than the one they tell now as an insult to any parent who actually has lost a child, or anyone who has given their life for a person, a place or an ideal.

All that said the language used in the KJV is such that it is hard to deny it's beauty. And I feel that attempting to enjoy and understand English literature from Milton to Shakespeare without a firm grounding in Biblical language and knowledge..... is certainly doable..... but like being color blind you can enjoy just about everything everyone else can.... but you are still missing something.

Deleted User wrote: »

So far, the best posts on this thread are from those who have actually read it and are providing an interesting take on it, rather than those who are saying "nonsense, Dawkins, Flying Spaghetti Monster, crap..." and ridiculing it.

Yea, there is a lot of reasons why Atheist Ireland are promoting that MORE people should be reading the Bible. And those reasons are not all what people might guess.

solodeogloria wrote: »

You are entirely free to decide what to believe. Admittedly to say the least it is sad to see so many people not give Christianity a hearing on the basis of clear misinformation.

Well I myself find it difficult to give it a "hearing" given that the core claim the entire thing is based on...... that a non-human intelligent and intentional agency created out universe and the life within it....... is itself not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated by even a modicum or iota of argument, evidence, data or reasoning.

That said I do not throw it entirely out in one big lump. Jesus, if he existed, was clearly a moral philosopher ahead of his time.... if behind ours in many ways. There is not an ounce of useful moral teaching in his words that requires one to subscribe to anything from the annals of woo or nonsense.

me_right_one wrote: »

God doesnt send people to hell, people willfullly (or through lack of understanding) go there themselves.

I have always thought that the tone of that sounds like a polite mugger saying "I am not threatening to stab you with this knife between your ribs if you do not give me all your money and jewelry.... so much as by not giving me your money and jewelry you are choosing to accept my knife between your ribs".

It just has that air of spin about it for me and does not sit well. It just makes me glad that there is not a shred of evidence any of it is true.

me_right_one wrote: »

Then it would be up to God to judge. But I dont think rapists are ever really sorry, do you?

Hard to imagine how we got to THIS from the OPs question. But yes I think many rapists are genuinely repentant. I believe many are not. I would not summarize one whole groups as a whole and simply declare they all share one single characteristic.

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I enjoyed Bible stories as a child

Maybe I'm the only one who will admit it

Nah I enjoyed them in School too. My teacher in primary school used to read one or two stories from it daily. I never at any point recall thinking the stories were "true". It was all just "storytime" to me.

ScumLord

Skommando wrote: »

Actually some of the best books about Kennedy and the Titanic were written in recent years, when time allowed the measured consideration of the collection of all the events and accounts.I've still seen nothing convincing that the gospels could not be written and complied by those who either witnessed the events themselves, or recorded those who had.

It's possible that some people witnessed the events, but it's bordering on unlikely. To be fair to people of the time they had ways of preserving stories through song. I heard of a study that showed that folk songs that contain historical data can retain the critical data for generations without any data loss. But compressing the data into a song means losing the majority of the details.

As with all historical documents of the time, the people writing are going to be heavily biased, promoting gods back then meant making up stories of them doing something miraculous or even creating advanced machines to fool people. The bible can tell us things happened and be fairly accurate on who was involved, when and where but outside of that it would need to be compared to other historical documents describing the same event to get an idea of what actually happened.

Avatar MIA

Skommando wrote: »

Mark was believed to be an eyewitness teenager during the ministry of Christ, and and later, an assistant of Saint Peter's (Mark's gospel is primarily from Peter's point of view), so in 70AD Mark would be in his 50's. I can't see how that does not make him or his account not reliable ?

So, you admit three of the 4 gospels are at best second hand accounts. 3 down, 1 to go.

Re Mark, let's say he was 16 in the year 33. That makes him 53 in 70 Ad (62 in 79 AD) if it was Mark's gospel.

Why did he wait so long to write it down, if it is Mark's own words?
Do you know how many people lived to 53 2000 years ago - It would have been considered a very good age.
How reliable is a 13-16 year old boy (assuming Jesus preached actively for 3 years) - Even modern adults can believe very foolish things, like David Koresh being the Messiah.

So, while possible (if Mark was a spotty teenager during the time of Jesus' last years and very lucky sickness wise) it's unikely. Although, admittedly, not as unlikely as the flood story being true - I'll give you that.

B.A._Baracus

I say believe in what you want to believe in and let others do the same.

Shenshen

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I say believe in what you want to believe in and let others do the same.

Couldn't agree more.
I'm actually quite fascinated with people who are very religious. Not so much about religions, but about the people who follow them. I'm curious about their motivations, about their perception of their religion and about their reasons for being religious.

ScumLord

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I say believe in what you want to believe in and let others do the same.

What if I believe you deserve to be tortured for not believing what I believe.

This is something all Christians have to square away in their head. Everyone else is going to sent to a land of torture and suffering because they won't get down on their knees and worship their god. It's not about being bad, it's about not worshiping their king/god. All those Buddhist monks, eternity of torture. All the people suffering through a dictatorship in N.Korea, there's no relief in death, it's only going to get worse when you die.

nozzferrahhtoo

Shenshen wrote: »

Couldn't agree more.
I'm actually quite fascinated with people who are very religious. Not so much about religions, but about the people who follow them. I'm curious about their motivations, about their perception of their religion and about their reasons for being religious.

I have a different fascination myself. I have a genuine strong fascination for people who can "believe in what you want to believe in". How does that even work? What does it feel like?

I myself can not choose what to believe. I am COMPELLED to believe in things in the face of the evidence for them.......... or I simply fail to believe in the absence of any.

For those of you who can simply believe what you want..... how labile does your credulity get? Can you, for example, look into a clearly empty box and simply choose to believe it stuffed full of cash? Do you actually then start to see the cash there?

It is probably a wonderful skill to have. For example I can only imagine my personal feeling of well being, as good as it is, would be elevated if I could simply choose to believe Lisa Hannigan is deeply in love with me.

There is a genuinely interesting phenomenon where people can lose use of a limb. An entire arm following something like, say, a stroke can simply stop working. But these people will simply believe it is fully functional. And if you ask them to touch their nose they will actually use the working hand to LIFT the "dead" hand, touch their nose with it, put it back..... and they will tell the doctor they did what was asked and the arm is fully functional.

Is it a bit like that??

Shenshen

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have a different fascination myself. I have a genuine strong fascination for people who can "believe in what you want to believe in". How does that even work? What does it feel like?

I myself can not choose what to believe. I am COMPELLED to believe in things in the face of the evidence for them.......... or I simply fail to believe in the absence of any.

For those of you who can simply believe what you want..... how labile does your credulity get? Can you, for example, look into a clearly empty box and simply choose to believe it stuffed full of cash? Do you actually then start to see the cash there?

It is probably a wonderful skill to have. For example I can only imagine my personal feeling of well being, as good as it is, would be elevated if I could simply choose to believe Lisa Hannigan is deeply in love with me.

There is a genuinely interesting phenomenon where people can lose use of a limb. An entire arm following something like, say, a stroke can simply stop working. But these people will simply believe it is fully functional. And if you ask them to touch their nose they will actually use the working hand to LIFT the "dead" hand, touch their nose with it, put it back..... and they will tell the doctor they did what was asked and the arm is fully functional.

Is it a bit like that??

I get that, to some extend. For me personally, though, the fascination is linked with the decision on which religion to go with.
Let's face it, there's more choice of religion out there than there are wines in your off-license. You can try a few, yes, but if you're serious you can't give them all the same consideration. And you will not find out until it's too late if your choice was the right one.
Yet most religious people I've spoken to have told me that they have no doubt whatsoever that their's is the one and only correct one.
I'd be very curious to understand that - so far, I can't.

nozzferrahhtoo

Shenshen wrote: »

I get that, to some extend. For me personally, though, the fascination is linked with the decision on which religion to go with.
Let's face it, there's more choice of religion out there than there are wines in your off-license.

Indeed, I read an interesting statistic from the "World Christian Encyclopedia" that suggests there is over 33000 brands, off shoots, sects and divergences in Christianity alone. Let alone all the other world religions.

Another interesting statistic I remember reading was that Americans change religion more often than they change Cell Phone Providers. And often for the most mundane of reasons that should, you would think, pale in comparison to the goal of choosing the "right" religion rather than the most convenient.

You would think peoples reasons for choosing a religion would be more like "I genuinely think this is the right path to god" and less like "Well this religion has their meet ups on tuesdays and that fits in perfect with my schedule"

Fascinating stuff, as you say.

brickmauser

Skommando wrote: »

Actually some of the best books about Kennedy and the Titanic were written in recent years, when time allowed the measured consideration of the collection of all the events and accounts. I've still seen nothing convincing that the gospels could not be written and complied by those who either witnessed the events themselves, or recorded those who had. As for your Pauline claim, only a third of the New Testament is Pauline and details the councils of Jerusalem. Jesus was anything but a politician. Politicians crave earthly power and aims, they don't reject them. As for hippy's they came and went in the 60's. As for claimed messiahs, they still come and go today, yet none of them have the following of Christ.

Jesus had aristocratic pretensions - his ancestry linking with the Dravidian line is trumpeted in the gospels - he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey during Passover when the city would have been full of pilgrims much as Mecca today would be full to burst during the Haj. The cleansing of the Temple was a clear act of rebellion against the Jewish puppets who the Romans allowed to rule the city. His speeches preaching equality for Jew and pagan, Roman and slave before God and brotherhood of man challenged the Empire.
This is why he was arrested and crucified.
The Jews wanted to prevent an explosion precisely like the explosion that led to the Jewish uprising that brought about the destruction of Jerusalem decades later.
In a less rational age mesmeric men like Martin Luther King and Ghandi and Elvis would be considered prophets and religious figures.