|
The basic premise (other than the fact that he works on the notion that the bible is truth) is that all of his points must be correct and true. #6 has been disproven now, because of the find of Judas's bible, wherein Jesus asks Judas to betray him. So, no, Judas did not betray him, rather it was a planned action.
Another thing is the bible itself. How can ANYONE read it and believe half the stuff in it? Seriously. It was originally put together as "collected" tales of this guy, Jesus. Most of it was written many long years after Jesus's time, sometimes 500 years later or more. It was also a vocal "document" long before it was written down, and some parts of it were translated rather liberally. There are likely hundreds of contributors to it, and some are obviously better writers than others, but when a single entity re-translated it, they chose to apply their own style to it and corrupted many different passages.
I can't look at the bible any different than I look at any other work of fiction, except to say that it's "supposed" to give its readers moralistic lectures as well as to appeal to their sense of right and wrong, which to me it does poorly. It is never consistent, and often contradicts its own words in different sections--many people have gone through it and pulled out many passages that are then debunked by showing the opposite in another chapter.
Trying to literally interpret the bible is suspending all belief and all empirical evidence to the contrary. Someone asked one fundie I know about this, and how the old testament says one thing and the new testament says something entirely to the contrary, and the fundie replied that they don't pay much heed to the old testament. I love it! Selective adherence is just another way of saying that they're only taking from it what they want to hear, and ignoring all the rest. If you're supposed to believe in the "bible" and its literal interpretation, this is something which contradicts all fundies and really shows how hypocritical they are.
I personally don't have too much against a man called Jesus from 2000 years ago. By all the evidence that the bible renders, it appears the poor man was schizophrenic and yet charismatic enough to convince people that he was somehow "godly." Nowadays, he would have been sent to Bellevue Sanitarium and given a full psych evaluation, and sedated with Haldol, Thorazine or some other medication to wipe out the hallucinations and voices speaking to him. And, if he was able to avoid such a fate, he would likely have been a cult leader such as David Koresh at Waco, or Jim Jones. To me, personally, I don't see much difference between any of them, except for a sheer thrill at being able to manipulate people to do exactly what he wanted them to do.
However, when you have a religion which claims to be "peaceful" and then begin to wage war simultaneously based on that religion, you immediately show no regard for what you say you believe. True pacifists would never allow themselves to fake their faith in peace by waging war, period.
It is also contradictory to establish a religion and a church to go with it, and begin to selectively remove portions of the bible in order to keep your faithful from reading too much into the words on the page. Martin Luther removed whole segments from his version of the "collected works of christiandom (aka the bible) because he felt they weren't necessary.
So, while I have absolutely nothing against those who want to believe in this literalism of a religion based 90% on hearsay, I don't want them to try to convince me that I'm a sinner because I don't believe one word of it. Most of the ideas currently at work in the fundie and evangelical end of the faith are not those which were from Jesus's day, but inserted many years after by a wide variety of both dictators and other men who wanted to exact more control over their subjects. Eating fish on Friday was a ploy to help fishermen get more sales on fish; celibacy among priests was added to make the priests put church over family in a disaster; and not allowing women into the clergy was done to keep women from thinking too much and not allowing them to put the pieces together. By "allowing" them to be nuns, it restricted their contribution and made it subservient to the males.
If there was one word to describe my own total rendering of the bible and the man who supposedly was the protagonist of it, it would be cynical. One can't help but feel that we're allowing nutcases to try and rule the world, without applying logic of any sort to the goings on.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(32 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
