For Pete, the question of having the right book.

[norman_doering]

Re: How we know that Pete doesn't have the right book.

First, let me congradulate you on not returning flame with flame.
I'll respect your desire to not get into an insult war and try not
to insult you. You seem sincere.

in
news:01bc488e$73546d40$98e795cc@pete
Pete wrote:
> Norman Doering wrote in article <5ing50$q...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>...
>> Re: Religion: How do you know you have the right book?
>>
>> in
>> news:01bc47c7$2f4d7280$b2e795cc@pete
>> Pete wrote:
>> > A thorogh study of religious text reveals that the bible is
>> > eerily different from anything else in existence.
>>
>> So, have you read all the other religious documents and compared?
>> Or, are you just repeating a lie someone told you?
>>

> Yes I have read the Bagavad Gita, the Koran, The book of Mormon,
> and have studied most major religions.

Shhezzz, you take religion seriously.
I confess I've never seen anything worth reading in any of the
books, but I wound up studying the Bible as a child because I was
sent to religious schools that required it.

>> In what way is it different?

> Other religious text are authored as men would author them
> highlighting things men find uplifting, informative or exciting.
> The Bible is very candid in what it reports, it does not attempt
> to glorify or gloss over the imperfections of it's characters as
> it should if men created it from something they merely believed to
> be true.

Hmmm, on one level I see what you mean, David had a man killed so
he could take his wife, some drunkards, whore hounds and other low
life characteristics in those old patriarchs. The late J.C.'s 12
boys weren't so perfect either.

In retrospect, you may be right about the characters being more
believable in the Bible than in other religious texts -- but I
wouldn't compare it to great literature like Shakespear for
character. It's all sort of a surface character with no real
depth, not like Hamlet or Richard.

I'd also guess that some of the later characters were in fact
biography of real people, told from a religious perspective
because the authors were indeed religious, but that doesn't mean
what they believed was true.

>> All religions are different.

> Of course.

And all religions could point to their unique differences as their
special claim to truth.

>> All religions are eerily spooky.

> Not so, most are easily debunked and obviously man-made.

Spooky is relative.
Scientology is spooky, Heavens Gate is spooky.

Sorry, but the Bible seems easy to debunk to me.
The tell-tale signs of not just manufacture, but sloppy editing
and reinterpretations are there.

As has been said many times before, the story of Noah and the Ark
doesn't just require miracles, it requires logical impossibilities
and defies what is currently known of biology and anthropology.

For evidence of sloppy editing, sheer stupidity, and
reinterpretation (and re-writing of the old testament according to
Asimov (the Torah's books of Moses and the old testament are not
the same)) consult these books :

The Age of Reason
by Thomas Paine

Asimov's Guide to the Bible
by Isaac Asimov

It will save me a lot of typing if you go to the source.

>>> The bibles accuracy in prophecy and it's utter fulfillment of
>>> the sacrificial system of the Old Testament in the New boggle
>>> the mind.

Sorry, but most interpretations of biblical prophecy have failed
except where the Bible speaks only to itself. As Asimov points
out, prophecy from the old could have been added to the Jesus
story to make it so (including calling him the Son of God after
his execution), and the Torah's Books of Moses are not exactly as
is the new testament.

You can't judge prophecy by looking back and playing match the
events to the words -- you have to have a working guide to the
future, and at that the bible has failed countless peoples and
groups, David Koresh among them.

>> > Its parallels, themes, contruction, logic, and historical
>> > accuracy are uncanny.
>> No they're not.
>> It's historical accuracy is in serious question.

> Please offer examples

The books I mentioned before have some examples of that too.
If you're interested, I could probably hunt down links to sites
that go into deeper analysis of these issues. At don't have that
kind of time yet.

>> It's logic is typically irrational.

> How so?

Again, consult the books.

>> It's themes are immature.

> Why immature?

Because it focuses on issues like blind obediance (Isaac being
told to kill his son isn't just a foretelling of Christ), raw
power of God, silly worship rituals, and guilt trips its followers
with original sin. I could expand on this later. Right now I'm
just touching these issues gently.

Also, I regret to inform you, I call it immature because of the
character of its followers -- have you read any of Boatwright's
posts?

As a contrast, in both character of followers and what they have
to say, I find Buddhism (though I don't believe in it) to be a
much more mature religion. Buddhism is the product of long
centuries of philosophical speculation, it disposed of the whole
"God" concept very early in its history. It does not threaten me
with hell or talk of a struggle with sin, but of yielding to
reality -- a bit more of a gentle fantasy of "reality" than I see
it though.

The idea of karma also strikes me as being a more effective method
of getting people to behave. Threatening people with hell if they
don't believe something and then giving them commandments and
forgiveness doesn't seem to work. Murderous christians just have
to believe Jesus forgives them and they go to hell, but a well
behaved but differently believing person is told they'll go to
hell.

None of these religions deals effectively with what I consider the
most mature approach to life, scientific methodologies, logic (the
means by which we may judge things true or false included),
humanistic ethics and the responcibilities of personal power. To
me those are the hieghts of human ability and maturity and because
all religions side step or ignore these issues I consider them
immature.

>> It's parallels are artificial.

> I assume you mean the parallels that are read into in present
> time.

Yesszzz!
You understand something.

> I'll grant that it is possible that these are the product
> of people reading too much into the text. Though I personally
> believe them to be valid. However, the parallels in the text
> are very interesting. Abraham's willingness to sacrafice
> Isaac/God's willingnes to sacrafice Jesus. Jesus as he fills
> each requirement of a perfect sacrafice under the systems rules.
> The proto-euengelion...etc.

I consider the issue of sacrifice immature and exploitative.
I find the whole conceptual framework upon which it is based to
have no contact with any reality I know of.

>> > A seroius study of it will lead anyone to the conclusion that
>> > it was not written from the human mind alone.
>> Bullshit!
>> It's very human and very primitive.

> Written by humans...yes. Primitive humans...relatively. It's
> the overall compostion of a complete work assembled by many
> writers over hundreds of years, into such a compelling and
> comprehensive whole that is incredible.

No, remember this was edited together many times over many
generations. The whole is a result of a few decisions made in Rome
during Christianity's earlier years. The books edited out of the
old testament can be found in the twelve huge volumnes of the
Torah, the books edited out of the new are another book in
themselves and yet other gnostic christian texts are being found.

All togather they are quite a huge, confusing and contradictory
collection.

> If not it would not have changed the world as it has.

How do you think it has changed the world?

I think Greek philosophy, suppressed by the church during the dark
ages, was far more responcible for the reawakening of science and
humanism. I don't see Christianity doing any more for its
believers than any other religion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Doering
Here are URLs to 2 of my essays:
http://www.widomaker.com/~piso/hopebait.htm
http://www.widomaker.com/~piso/feartrap.htm

--