BBF religious matrix

[Cyberyeti]

We have a massive irony (and tragedy) here. The world has much to thank the Jews for bringing to everyone else this incredible story: God’s ultimate purpose with creation; an invisible God becoming visible in you and me and everyone else.

 

The irony? After bringing us this incredible story, the Jews themselves have rejected the second half of the story (the New Testament).

 

The tragedy? Non-Jews have to a large extent gone and corrupted the second half of the story to fit in with what they want their followers to believe. Why? Personally I believe it has to do with power, greed, money, control of the masses, etc; fallen man unable to make it or find recognition in open society has gone and created titles, positions, roles, et el, in religious organisations in pursuit of the recognition he was unable to gain for himself. To do so that which the Jews originally wrote is misrepresented. And it won’t be fixed by the religious organisations either because they have the most to lose.

 

Here is a typical example of what you will NEVER HEAR in these organisations:

It has to do with the tithe, the 10% placed in the coffers. That is all Old Testament. Jesus himself effectively did away with the tithe in Matthew 17:24-27. Go and read it if you are so inclined. Paul himself took pride in the fact that he was never a burden to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 12:13). He never accepted any financial assistance from the Corinthians, instead supporting himself making tents. You can read the whole passage from verse 11. He did the same in Ephesus, supplying his own needs and those of his companions through hard work (Acts 20:33-35).

 

These religious organisations will instead twist circumstances to squeeze extra money out of you for their own purposes. A favourite scripture they quote is 2 Corinthians 9:6-15. But you must read that in context. Paul was busy making a monetary collection for the starving believers in Jerusalem which had suffered a famine. When he finally delivers the collection, Luke makes no mention of it in Acts 21 because of the hostility of the Jews against Paul. In Acts 24:17 Paul himself mentions the collection before Felix.

 

Start your own pursuit of the truth. I use something called PC Study Bible distributed by BibleSoft. It contains something called an Interlinear Bible, the original Greek with the English translation of the Greek directly above it. By double-clicking on the Greek word, a Greek-English lexicon opens up on the right. This gives you what the English should be. There are 4 lexicons for you to compare with each other.

 

One final word on the tragedy: I get much of my information from this website http://bible.cc/ . In the commentaries below the parallel translations, the commentators more often than not point out the inadequacies in their own translations. So if they know that the translation is inadequate, why not fix it? It just won’t happen.

 

You think I’m joking about institutionalised religion. As early as AD 95 in Revelation 18:4 Jesus was calling on his followers to “Come out of her my people.” You are encouraged to read the whole chapter.

Err no, not at all.

 

Most Jews as I understand it simply don't believe the New testament is much to do with the old testament.

 

Something that was written the best part of 4000 years later, and 100 or so years later than the events described in most cases, by the followers of the central character is just not viewed as a reliable historical record let alone anything with any divine significance. Sourcing your "truth" from there is like saying "wolves will dress up as your granny to attack you" by reference to a book of fairy tales to many jews.

[BunnyGo]

Yeah, is it really necessary to quote several paragraphs of his to give a one-line response? I'm looking at you, BunnyGo!

 

Very true...I do feel bad about that, I should probably learn to start <snip>ing.

[dustinst22]

on a related note, anyone read this piece of garbage?

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337673/atheist-response-sandy-hook-dennis-prager

[dwar0123]

on a related note, anyone read this piece of garbage?

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337673/atheist-response-sandy-hook-dennis-prager

I have now!

 

Dunno that I actually disagree all that much.

 

Theism certainty has a better story when it comes to the afterlife and consoling people through death. Of course, that is just what it is, a story. Far less realistic then making plans to spend your lottery winnings when buying your ticket(and less intelligent).

 

But it is a better story, as stories go.

[dustinst22]

I have now!

 

Dunno that I actually disagree all that much.

 

Theism certainty has a better story when it comes to the afterlife and consoling people through death. Of course, that is just what it is, a story. Far less realistic then making plans to spend your lottery winnings when buying your ticket(and less intelligent).

 

But it is a better story, as stories go.

 

Guess I disagree. I find through personal experience that atheists are more genuine, and thus more consoling with situations like this. The last thing I'd want to hear as a parent if my child suffered such a horrible tragedy is someone telling me they are in a better place now.

[dwar0123]

Guess I disagree. I find through personal experience that atheists are more genuine, and thus more consoling with situations like this.

I am not sure you are really disagreeing, you find atheist more genuine and thus more consoling in such situations, fair enough. If you bought into the theist fairy tale, I am sure you would find theist's genuine and their story consoling as well.

 

If you treat both points of view equally, I still have to say the theist story is better, as we both reject it, it is not at all consoling. This is a result of your rejection of their core point of view, not as a result of theist's being bad at consoling people, many happen to be very good at it.

[mikeh]

Err no, not at all.

 

Most Jews as I understand it simply don't believe the New testament is much to do with the old testament.

 

Something that was written the best part of 4000 years later, and 100 or so years later than the events described in most cases, by the followers of the central character is just not viewed as a reliable historical record let alone anything with any divine significance. Sourcing your "truth" from there is like saying "wolves will dress up as your granny to attack you" by reference to a book of fairy tales to many jews.

I confess that I know very little about the practice of Judaism. Those friends of mine who are jewish are non-religious, or if they are religious, are very private about it. Is it common to the religious jew to think of the Old Testament as factual? As allegorical/metaphorical? Or as a mix, and does the mix vary from sect to sect?

 

IOW, are there jews who claim that the stories from 4000 years before the NT, and which stories are not now found in texts that physically date from that period, are more 'true' than the 'fairy tale' of the NT?

 

I am not arguing that those jews should pay more heed to the NT: I am arguing that it is inconsistent for modern jews to argue against the NT on the grounds that the NT was written 100+ years after the events in issue while arguing that the OT tales are true, when the documentary basis for the OT is of even more dubious provenance...not to mention that archeological findings strongly suggest that many of the tales are plain wrong....the peoples, cities, wars, leaders and events described as occurring cannot be reconciled with the remaining physical evidence.

 

Of course, if it boils down to 'faith' such appeals to fact and evidence become irrelevant: as these threads (and much psychological research) have shown, for many people, when faith conflicts with reality, reality loses.

[Vampyr]

IOW, are there jews who claim that the stories from 4000 years before the NT, and which stories are not now found in texts that physically date from that period, are more 'true' than the 'fairy tale' of the NT?

 

An atheist Jewish professor once gave us his take on this...

 

It doesn't matter whether the stories are "true" in the sense that they actually happened. The Old Testament is about a people who believed that they were in the presence of the divine.

[ArtK78]

I am not arguing that those jews should pay more heed to the NT: I am arguing that it is inconsistent for modern jews to argue against the NT on the grounds that the NT was written 100+ years after the events in issue while arguing that the OT tales are true, when the documentary basis for the OT is of even more dubious provenance...not to mention that archeological findings strongly suggest that many of the tales are plain wrong....the peoples, cities, wars, leaders and events described as occurring cannot be reconciled with the remaining physical evidence.

Jews do not argue against the New Testament on the grounds that it was written 100+ years after the events in issue - we just ignore the New Testament. From a Jewish point of view, the New Testament is a non-issue. It is not part of Judaism. We don't argue against it, anymore than we argue against the Koran or any other religion's sacred texts.

 

And the vast majority of Jews do not look at the Old Testament as a literal retelling of the history of mankind. There is a great deal of historical information in the Old Testament. It is a very interesting story. But was the universe created 5773 years ago? You will not find many Jews who read the Old Testament that literally.

 

[i asked Dave Treadwell about this once. He said he didn't remember the creation. Funny, I thought he was somehow involved in it.]

 

As I understand Judaism, much of the religious teachings through the ages are contained in the Talmud and other religious works. The Old Testament (the "Torah"), while the central piece of Judaism's sacred texts, is far from the entirety of the religion.

[mikeh]

Jews do not argue against the New Testament on the grounds that it was written 100+ years after the events in issue - we just ignore the New Testament. From a Jewish point of view, the New Testament is a non-issue. It is not part of Judaism. We don't argue against it, anymore than we argue against the Koran or any other religion's sacred texts.

 

And the vast majority of Jews do not look at the Old Testament as a literal retelling of the history of mankind. There is a great deal of historical information in the Old Testament. It is a very interesting story. But was the universe created 5773 years ago? You will not find many Jews who read the Old Testament that literally.

That view of the NT was what I had assumed before I read Bunnygo's post. Thanks for clarifying.

 

As for the 'historical' information, it is that part of it (or at least much of it) that doesn't seem at all accurate.

 

For example, I understand that the OT teaches that the jewish people lived in Egypt for many years.

 

Yet there is literally (as I understand what I have read on the topic) no archeological evidence of this. There are many historical artefacts from the relevant period in Egyptian history, and no indication of the presence of a jewish population, enslaved or otherwise. I gather that analsyis of language demonstrates no intermingling of languages, such as invariably happens when two disparate groups live together.

 

In addition, as I mentioned earlier, the OT is replete with the names of Kings and tribes, including rivals or enemies of the jewish people, yet the historical and archeological record suggests that most, if not all, of those purportedly historical descriptions are untrue.

 

Its sort of like watching a Hollywood movie about the Wild West (say High Noon, or True Grit, or the The Good, the Bad and the Ugly) and accepting it as historical fact.

[Vampyr]

I am not sure you are really disagreeing, you find atheist more genuine and thus more consoling in such situations, fair enough. If you bought into the theist fairy tale, I am sure you would find theists genuine and their story consoling as well.

 

I found this passage amusing:

 

I understand atheism. Anyone observing the terrible amount of unjust human suffering understands the atheist.

 

This person does not understand atheism.

 

And it seems that he is a theist mainly so that he can avoid much of the pain of loss by believing that his loved ones have gone to heaven and he will see them again someday. Well, I admit I'd be really pleased to believe that. It is a shame the odds are vanishingly small...

[lalldonn]

My friend just linked to this on facebook. It's an athiests reply on Reddit to a Christian mother asking how she should accept her son telling her he is an athiest.

 

Hi Unsuremother,

 

First, off, though I am an atheist myself, I want to empathize a little: this must be difficult for you and your family. Your faith commitment is an important part of your life and it is bewildering to have your own child turn away from this. I don't know exactly what you believe, but you might be worried about his soul in the next life, or his behaviour in this one. If you don't believe in God, how do you know right from wrong? If you reject God, how will you be reunited with Him in the next Kingdom?

 

The most important thing to understand is that these kinds of concerns, while very vivid and real to you, only make sense within a belief system your son no longer accepts. There is no sense in making threats of Hell or damnation anymore: atheists do not believe such a place exists. We don't believe such a place could exist. The thing that is important to remember is that while we no longer believe that there are places beyond the world, the world he lives in has now become all the more important. That's all we have. That's all we ever have. His world is family, and school, and friends: all these things structure his life and he will need them more than ever. He needs you. He's still a kid, and he's a kid dealing with Really Big Questions in the only way he can: honestly and critically.

 

Most of us have come to this point honestly. This must be emphasized. We're not angry at God, we're not trying to get attention or going through some cultural phase. We looked at the arguments on both sides and came to the best conclusion we could. We only have 70 odd years on this planet. We make mistakes, too; we are fallible creatures prone to error and haste. We do our best. And sometimes our best is 'well, I don't think any of this is right.' I don't pretend to have all the answers. I don't rightly know where the universe came from, or how life began at first. But I don't need all the answers to know that some answers are the wrong ones. I don't know, and I don't think Christians, or Muslims, or Taoists know either. They claim to know; I claim to not know.

 

Suppose I'm wrong. Suppose your son is wrong. I'm standing outside the pearly gates and St. Peter, or God Himself, gives me one chance to explain myself. What would I say except "I'm sorry--I got it wrong. I really tried. But I got it wrong. I saw all the different religions, each saying different things, all changing over time. It seemed just a part of human culture, not ultimate truth. I saw unnecessary suffering and couldn't make heads or tails of it, if you were good and all-powerful. It didn't make sense to me to posit something existing to explain existence: that gets it backwards. I'm sorry, God, that I didn't believe in you, but it wasn't malicious--I just--I just screwed up."

 

What would Jesus say to that? Would he send me to suffer forever? Do I deserve to be tortured eternally because I read Lucretius as a young man--the 2,000 year old Roman poet who professed his atheism before Christ ever walked desert sand? Because I looked at the ontological argument and found it wanting?

 

Or would he press me to Him and forgive me? And wouldn't I desire that forgiveness---?

 

If there is a God that would send me to Hell for making this mistake, I don't want it in my life. Nothing justifies torture. Nothing at all. And He would not be worthy of worship--or even respect. If He is merciful, then I will apologize. If I am right--and he doesn't exist--then I live my life as a free man.

 

And that is how atheists live: under actual freedom. The German philosopher Nietzsche wrote that 'freedom is responsibility'--genuine freedom. I am responsible for the consequences of my actions. So: how do I live? What do I do? Do I want to live in a society where everyone does what they can get away with? What standards do I hold myself up to? This is the essence of the atheist's morality: his freedom, his rationality.

 

Before even Lucretius wrote his atheistic treatise De Rerum Natura, there was another man, Socrates, who asked a simple and startling question: Does God say something is Good because it is good, or is something good because God says it is? We must be careful here. If what is good is whatever God says is good, then we have no morality at all, but caprice. If God says: kill your son! it is good to kill your son. If God says: from henceforth, children shall be murdered--then it is good, by definition, that children be murdered. But that's not morality. That's authoritarianism. And if you say: "But God would never do that," I ask: why? Because if there is a reason, then goodness is independent from God after all. It is grounded elsewhere. In what? Well: maybe in reason itself? Or maybe morality is just part of the universe--a different kind of part, not like your sofa or TV or the moon is part of the universe, but the way numbers, or relations (like 'equal to')--an abstract object, none less the real.

 

There is a very, very long tradition of ethical thinking that is, in fact, older than Christianity itself. In philosophy classes we teach wisdom that was recorded a millennium before Christ. If it is impossible to be good without God, there wouldn't be one virtuous atheist. Yet there are millions of us non-religious men and women on the planet, and we live our lives, as best we can. Atheists don't fill the newspapers with tales of carnage or debauchery--clearly we can figure it out on our own.

 

Well. Not quite on our own. We have each other. No one else--just each other. And that's enough. So be there for your son.

 

All the best.

[dwar0123]

I found this passage amusing:

 

I understand atheism. Anyone observing the terrible amount of unjust human suffering understands the atheist.

 

This person does not understand atheism.

 

And it seems that he is a theist mainly so that he can avoid much of the pain of loss by believing that his loved ones have gone to heaven and he will see them again someday. Well, I admit I'd be really pleased to believe that. It is a shame the odds are vanishingly small...

Yes, I did find that statement to be incredible naïve and highly offensive. I only mostly didn't disagree and as I wasn't responding to the author I choose to ignore it.

[BunnyGo]

<snip>

IOW, are there jews who claim that the stories from 4000 years before the NT, and which stories are not now found in texts that physically date from that period, are more 'true' than the 'fairy tale' of the NT?

<snip>

 

It does largely depend on your sect and time period. Most jewish commentators from the 300s until the 17th or 18th century were of the opinion that:

 

a) Much of the Bible was allegorical, and the historical fictional stuff was still allegorical

b) It didn't affect the religion whether these stories were factual, stories have a truth of their own (as expressed well by Vampyr--this was a middle ages Italian Jewish writer who first, to my knowledge, wrote these ideas)

 

In modern times, the Charedim (a jewish like cult composed of "black hats") believe that the bible is factual and that it has never been changed (there are a number of orthodox jews who believe this too, but sometimes more tongue in cheek). Middle ages commentators were fond of pointing out parts of the bible that had been modified (either accidentally or on purpose), and the idea that it didn't matter if it were factual or not.

 

As for the Christian bible--I think of it the same way I do other religion's texts, completely ambivalently (but often a nice read for literature's sake). That said, I do not go around defining myself in terms of other people's views--it does bother me when people constantly try to define Judaism in terms of Christianity just because it originated that way. There were a lot of people claiming to be the Messiah at that time (5 of them led 5 different armies in a rebellion in 70 CE, another led a rebellion in 132 CE--some had very famous and respected Jewish leaders supporting them, all died in horrific ways). I don't think about any of them as more than historical figures.

 

As for "truth", I find the analysis and philosophical debates of the Talmud (which used the Torah as a basis, but then argues over the meaning) as much more interesting than the bible itself. They use the bible as a basis to argue the legal implications of "if I find money in the street, can I take it?" (they had something like 10 different situations to consider) and how to conduct a capital punishment trial (if a unanimous verdict was found, they threw it out because the trial couldn't have been fair if not one person could find a reason to acquit) and (of course) religious doctrine.

 

One of the main stories studied today from the Talmud is one which basically gives an amendment clause to the bible, and gives humans the exclusive right to amend it, and gives God no say in the matter. I'll let you read it here or the wikipedia, but it's quite a nice clause.

 

Edit: As for my personal beliefs, I find God to be an unnecessary part of the religion (given this clause). I came to this after many years of parochial school, but decided that I couldn't believe that God exists. After another couple years, I decided that it didn't matter whether or not there were a God or the bible were factual, the morals and philosophy of the allegories and discussions were the important part.

[Scarabin]

An atheist Jewish professor once gave us his take on this...

 

It doesn't matter whether the stories are "true" in the sense that they actually happened. The Old Testament is about a people who believed that they were in the presence of the divine.

 

Are you quoting Max I Dimont's "Jews,God and History"? I think Mikeh might find it fascinating although he might not agree with Dimont's "unscientific facts".

[Fluffy]

Why do you say that? It is entirely possible to be sure and still have an open mind to learn something. The learning doesn't need to mean 'learning towards converting', does it? I think many here have learned something about how the other side thinks. They may still be 100% sure that that way of thinking is wrong, but the understanding will have improved.

 

Rik

 

My understanding is that those who were totally convinced have only looked at posts from the other side looking to find the mistakes, never getting into their POV really. Maybe saying that they have learnt a lot less is more accurate, you always learn something even if you don't want to.

[Cyberyeti]

Jews do not argue against the New Testament on the grounds that it was written 100+ years after the events in issue - we just ignore the New Testament. From a Jewish point of view, the New Testament is a non-issue. It is not part of Judaism. We don't argue against it, anymore than we argue against the Koran or any other religion's sacred texts.

 

And the vast majority of Jews do not look at the Old Testament as a literal retelling of the history of mankind. There is a great deal of historical information in the Old Testament. It is a very interesting story. But was the universe created 5773 years ago? You will not find many Jews who read the Old Testament that literally.

 

[i asked Dave Treadwell about this once. He said he didn't remember the creation. Funny, I thought he was somehow involved in it.]

 

As I understand Judaism, much of the religious teachings through the ages are contained in the Talmud and other religious works. The Old Testament (the "Torah"), while the central piece of Judaism's sacred texts, is far from the entirety of the religion.

I think this is fair comment, what I said was a pretty clumsy way of saying this. Basically the New testament is just another book.

 

As said by other posters, the old testament is a holy book but not necessarily to be taken completely literally, the rabbinical interpretation in the Talmud is much more important.

[Fluffy]

This week something that can only be explained as miracle happened:

 

After 32 years of borrowing my money, my brother, for the first time, has returned something I lend him.

 

Yes its true that he had promised to give it back to me in October, but nevertheless, he even gave me the money back without me requesting it! this is such an unlikelly event that no rational mind can deny the implications of god in the proccess.

[blackshoe]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Trinidad]

This week something that can only be explained as miracle happened:

 

After 32 years of borrowing my money, my brother, for the first time, has returned something I lend him.

 

Yes its true that he had promised to give it back to me in October, but nevertheless, he even gave me the money back without me requesting it! this is such an unlikelly event that no rational mind can deny the implications of god in the proccess.

I just heared about a second miracle! The above incredible news led to mikeh being converted!

 

(Careful readers have noticed the third miracle: someone spelling "led" correctly.)

 

;)

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

While spelling "heard" wrong. B-)

[Vampyr]

Irregular verbs are the work of The Devil.

[mikeh]

deleted: misread fluffy's post

[Trinidad]

While spelling "heard" wrong. B-)

I also just heard that mikeh didn't get converted. Maybe Gonzalo should check whether the money is real. ;)

 

Rik

[mgoetze]

3. How many atheists, muslims etc. are healed in christian hospitals? So what is the point in critisze that these hospitals are not payed by the churches?

4. How many nursing homes do you know, which are payed by the state, an insurance or someone else, but are just open for members of a special church? Zero..

Catholic hospitals refuse treatment for rape victim (German news article from today.)