What do you reckon of this long arse post?

[Al Swearegen]

OK let me say that in the earliest of man's devlopment as a human, there have been Gods. Many Gods. One per tribe. They were a necessity. Life was cruel and confusing for primative man. They were assailed by nature and by the forces around them. They lived short lives. Mostly they died in childbirth but enough women gave birth (at frightening ages) and if they in turn did not die of animals, attacks by other tibes, injury or illness, or other creatures, they could probably live up to 30 years of age.
So these pitiful creatures had no understanding of most of what they saw around them. They see lightning in the sky and crashing thunder, and it is dragons fighting or some entity. Fighting for or against who...? We have the start of a primative belief. It will get fleshed out.

Someone dies and their carcass is no longer animated. Where does that animation go? They imagine the "spirit" is now somewhere else. Perhaps the God who was fighting in the clouds yesterday would be strong enough to protect this little soul. We have an afterlife belief now infused with a general religious belief. It did not take too much.

Mighty volcanic eruption scares hell out on the primative locals. It looks angry and lethal and certainly voilent, unexpected and supernatural. A visitation and angry from the Gods? Better bet on it. time for a few babies into lava to prove their loyalty and commitment to the God. Blood sacrifice has joined the party.

Minor sin cleansing or god appeasements may require less than a human sacrifice sometimes the sins are cast from themselves onto an animal. This is where the term scapegoat comes from. The ridiculous, immoral and primative assertion that someone else or something else take on my burden or debt of sin and through their own sacrifice absolve it.

Think about these points because I have to go out but in a few hours will start to use this to show you Christainity in a different light.

Now, with this context I think it fair to take this a bit further.

Marcia says

The various stories within the Bible should be read in conjunction with an understanding of their historical, social, political, economic and geographical context.  You should also consider when, by whom, and at what period oral traditions were written down.

The Bible isn't one book, but many, and it can be read and understood in many different ways.  The historical, social, political, economic and geographical context of the reader is also important.

Yes. This is true. But as much as this may be seen as a way of saying. "Oh well that region and those beliefs are not what we more sophisticated believers think. That is not our belief structure and we do not hold to that way of thinking", I think that this is a bit too pat and a little too convenient.

All Abrahamic Beliefs are based on and derived from this belief structure. The Old Testament is built on the foundation of the smiting vengeance based cruel and capricious God of the Old Testament. It is part of the belief and not an independant and unimportant part of the whole religion.

Jesus is intrinsically linked to this God. The God approved indictments and doctrines and morality is based on the Old Testament God. Jesus is a very importnat figure in the religious beliefs but it did not all start with him and his teachings.
jesus was a blood sacrifice and scape goat in no more or less than i described above and no more or less primitive than the prehistoric savage beliefs systems I described. No more valuable and no less abhorrent.
The Old testament god may have made similar demands of faith (as ancient now non-existent religions made of scapegoating beasts or sacrifical altars to sun gods or sacrificing of babies to volcanoes) to Abraham or of Jobe, as he made of his own son, Jesus.
Jesus was a scapegoat of the sins of the community and a blood sacrifice by any definition.

But ok. Let's look at more of what was said. I am personally in absolute agreement, with the fact that the traditions were oral and suffer from all that such a story telling device can generate. Do any of you honestly think that the generic volcano worshipping and sky dragon fighting God i described above would not have been believed absolutely or that the stories surounding such a supernatural god would not have been embellished and magnified, and more so believed totally by the tribe. The best or wisest or most charasmatic of the tribe would have no doubt started to take a position of oracle or sign reader or shaman of the religion. Oral traditions and religious doctrines would be generated and remembered and embellished. It would keep a community strong and righteous in their conviction. Oral traditions would like that game Chinese Whispers evolve of their own accord. Not questioned just as the preachings from the few literate "educated" preists of yesteryear were not questioned by their illiterate and uneducated clergy.

OK so in all reasonableness we could well assume without much "leaps of faith" come to underatadn taht much of the oral traditions by the time they were written down had been around for a while and were written by people with a agenda (good or bad) perhaps for example when they said that God sanctioned the destruction of the Caanites, that was an agenda and a want of some well thought of Jewish cleric to gid rid of someone he was not well disposed to and not God sanctioned at all.

"Ah.....but that is not the same as the biblical stories around Jesus. See that is different entirely. Jesus's disciples and contemporaries wrote the bible and the Gospel writers can not be classed in the same way as the old Testament that could well have been written down from ancient oral traditions" right? Wrong.
Where was Jesus born? Were his parents poor or wealthy? Did they flee to Egypt? Were they citizens of Nazareth or Bethlehem? Was there even a census that Herod demanded? In the latter question we can say no and in the others we can cite NOT collaborating evidence between the three Gospels writers but alternbative and contrary accounts of these things.
Why? Oral traditions by separate people with separate beliefs and separte agendas. It is exactly the same as the oral traditions as the Old Testament and suffers from the same woes.

Why does any of this matter? Because it is not enough to wave away some aspects of the bible as perhaps not perfectly ascribed or right then but not now. What are you believing in or teaching or what values are you furthering and what do you base this on?

It is not that christianity has evolved. It has been dragged from one century to the next kicking and screaming. There is always resistance to any adaptapion to teaching. It creates fissures and new denominations and clashes with Governement and the populace and wars. Because the bible is the word and the bible is not a 21st century conversation. It has not the relevance to an educated rational free-thining 21st century person. It is a 1st century conversation with scapegoating, blood sacrificing tribal savages living in Palestine under Roman rule and wanting to throw their lot in with a saviour to help their people turn away from the smiting Yaweh. They could not afford the salvation in the form of people like Simon bar Kokhba. There were plenty of fringe lay preachers like Jesus around. Apollonius of Tyana was an example and very popular. There were also charasmatic "magicians" like Simon Magnus. They threw their lot in with Jesus as a saviour and created a brilliant back story that was brilliant for all its inconsistencies and even borrowed from the then popular Egyptian beliefs of the virgin birth story from Isis (of Horus).
They incorporated the blood sacrifices that were understood to the people of the time to martyr Jesus and give him a sense of greater force and conviction in his preachings.

This is history and understandable. THIS is contextualised in a time and place. This is YOUR Jesus.

Nowdays people do not get away with being the mouthpiece of God in the literal sense or calling God their literal father. Such people are locked up and/or medicated. Even very charismatic people. Back then they needed to have a saviour. They got one and the rest is history (that is to say worldwide inconsistent religious doctrine preaching the word of God and truth).

But what i said about religious inflexibility? It is fine to say "that is just allegory" or "we interpret that differently" or "that belonged to a time and a place that is not our own" or "who would have ever believed such things?". I see this as a bit of a cop out. More than a bit. People did and people do and people have fought and died over this and people have wept over unbaptised children going to limbo because they died in childbirth (as so many did in very recent times" and people believed the things said because they were in the bible. The Christian bible. The word of god.

We have come along way as a society but the religious dogma and beliefs are held onto. The banning of condoms in AIDS ravaged Africa. The subjegation and alienation against gay people. The  badgering of sick unbelievers to accept god or be given over to everlasting hellfire. This is christian belief and be individually as accepting or what have you, fine, but this is biblical teaching and word of God. No argument to be entered into.

Religion has HAD to give ground as science opens up and people are not so uneducated or frightened of the world as they were in the generic example above BUT there is one lynchpin that holds sway now and I believe always will. Afterlife.
With this on their side the preachers and religious believers will always have a flock of believers. They will fear becoming nothing after they die and likely seek to accept other aspects of regious faith all for this. Pascal's wager.

It is cruel. It is irrational and it is not a something I think one should place their life's experience on. Life ought to be more than that. What we have, we have now. This fear is simply primative beliefs and fears of a concept derived by men of ancient prehistoric times to an outdated ideology.

There. i think that will do

It was for a member there Marcia (a christian minister) wonder if she responds or what she says?
What are your thoughts on these things though?

[lutra]

Bloke is right as rain. Very well put also.

[Al Swearegen]

Bloke is right as rain. Very well put also.

Thanks mate

[lutra]

Aah, bloke is you. Um, figures (now). Cheers.

Tbh, I gradually stopped 'reasoning' with christians about religious stuff though. Or stopped? Can't be that arsed to give my view on such matters any more.  'Debate' tend to go quite black/white pretty soon. 'Sides' tend to preach before their own chores too often also, is my opinion. 

Well, tiny bit then? What always strikes me how a lot of the believers (christians but basically a lot of all monotheistic believers) are so NOT seeking the thruth and ja, exclude doubt in the debate. Some are so frikkin' certain they're right in, what I (skeptic mostly) view as, very very iffy areas.

[Al Swearegen]

My thoughts too. I also fully believe theat Christians CAN be good people but the 'I am good because i am christian" line niggles at me. I think it the other way. they are up against it to be good and are good despite their beliefs and doctrines and do themself a service being the good people they are and choosing not to take on board the uglier aspects.
If any religious people want to believe whatever and they gain a sense of identity that is great. But they can do this at home. When it is forced onto others, in the classroom and in policy making and whatever then it grates on my sensibilities.

[TheoK]

 

[Jesse]

tl;dr

[midlifeaspie]

tl;dr

Can't read, can't spell, pussy is so big he loses things in it.  Life is haaaard.

[Jesse]

Life is hard? for you. must suck trying to pwn me and fail each and everytime, isnt it fatbaby?

[midlifeaspie]

Life is hard? for you. must suck trying to pwn me and fail each and everytime, isnt it fatbaby?

Fail?  :lolwat:

Granted, making fun of the retarded is really low hanging fruit, but I think I do an adequate job.  You don't come around much anymore, I can only assume you are busy offline drying your tears and wishing that mean man would go away so you could get back to the only social interaction you have in your whole fucking life.  You are pathetic son