Are you religious?

[StickyEnd]

I don't believe it was meant to be taken literally - that is where all of the born again, evangelical, dispensational, and/or Calvinistic types have it wrong. Was meant to be an allegory. But perhaps that is true of all of the creation stories. Humankind did not have the vocabulary or the knowledge to do more. For instance, in Genesis where it says, 'And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.' this might refer to the Big Bang. Then there is the whole theology and philosophy relating to logos.

This proves nothing, of course. But science on its own is a cold bed to lie on, and ultimately there may be much more to our existence than we know.

If it was divinely inspired, it is amazing that it got something as simple as whether the Sun or earth does the orbiting wrong, but knows about the big bang (if you interpret it to fit current knowledge).

Which bits are not meant to be taken literally and which bits are?

[BoomShackerLacker]

It is a poetic, prophetic, literal, allegorical, existential, story-telling, historically contextual commentary. (We tend not to turn to a Wilfred Owen poem to learn the geological features of France.) It is concerned with our humanity (we the whole person)

As are many other 'sacred texts' such as the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, Gurū Granth Sāhib and the Mahayana Sutras the contents of which, like the Bible, do nothing to testify to their authenticity. (1)

and it sets out to offer ground for the trouble-maker and rabble rouser known as Jesus. No other purpose.

The grounds of which (the Old Testament) are quite clearly fabricated by human scribes. No original sin, no 'fall' equals no need for a messiah. No messiah equals no religious cults based on that false premise. (2)

A mixture of Eastenders, Shameless, Gladiator and Shakespeare plus a bit more. Its characters are chronically flawed.

Have you even read it? There may well be the odd pearl in there, but for the most part it is diabolically badly written. (3)

Ultimately it is about agape love; 'grace' and 'acceptance'. Horrific notions for our 'advanced society'.

A bit like The Humanist Manifesto you mean? (4)

Brian: There's no pleasing some people.
Ex-leper: That's just what Jesus said, sir.

Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't NEED to follow ME, You don't NEED to follow ANYBODY! You've got to think for your selves! You're ALL individuals!
The Crowd: Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd: Yes, we ARE all different! (5)
Man in crowd: I'm not...

(1) Lots of other texts reflect aspects of God, as we all do - lots of original goodness out there
(2) Christ despised religion ( "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean”) – the church hated him and had him killed (His first church sermon went so well they dragged him to the nearest clif to throw him off.)
(3) It isn’t a work of literature... it’s about a person and his message. There’s some rough types in there. One of the most profound things I’ve read recently was Cyrus Thatcher’s letter to his mother, barely literate but a work of breathtaking beauty.
(4) I think Jesus was the father of humanism (‘Christ’s version of humanism’ that is)
(5) Contextually brilliant film

[Soldier_Why]

(1) Lots of other texts reflect aspects of God, as we all do - lots of original goodness out there

Aspects of God? An intellectually vacuous statement attempting to describe something which does not exist.

(2) Christ despised religion ( "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean”) – the church hated him and had him killed (His first church sermon went so well they dragged him to the nearest clif to throw him off.)

No they didn't, it's a fable. Horus wasn't really born of a virgin and neither was JC. Mithras didn't really heal the sick, neither did Jesus. Admiring the characteristics of a fictional character is laudable, praying to them is laughable.

(3) It isn’t a work of literature... it’s about a person and his message. There’s some rough types in there.

It's a 'holy' text lauded by billions as the word of God. Don't you think that alone should mean that it is subject to more intensive scruitiny? If you want to file it away under 'nice message' and be done with it then I for one have no problem with that. Once you start insisting that it should be revered and used as some sort of moral guide then I will continue to question its validity.

One of the most profound things I’ve read recently was Cyrus Thatcher’s letter to his mother, barely literate but a work of breathtaking beauty.

Agreed and whilst trying to avoid the emotional pitfalls of bringing a dead serviceman into the equation I will point out that there is no dispute over who wrote that letter or its content and no-one has yet set up a religion based on its existence.

(4) I think Jesus was the father of humanism (‘Christ’s version of humanism’ that is)

The mythical Jesus as described in the New Testament may well have found himself drawn to the Humanists of today.

(5) Contextually brilliant film

He's still not the messiah.

[BoomShackerLacker]

I don't believe it was meant to be taken literally - that is where all of the born again, evangelical, dispensational, and/or Calvinistic types have it wrong. Was meant to be an allegory. But perhaps that is true of all of the creation stories. Humankind did not have the vocabulary or the knowledge to do more. For instance, in Genesis where it says, 'And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.' this might refer to the Big Bang. Then there is the whole theology and philosophy relating to logos.

This proves nothing, of course. But science on its own is a cold bed to lie on, and ultimately there may be much more to our existence than we know.

If it was divinely inspired, it is amazing that it got something as simple as whether the Sun or earth does the orbiting wrong, but knows about the big bang (if you interpret it to fit current knowledge).

Which bits are not meant to be taken literally and which bits are?

Jesus told stories so the meaning can be applied contextually to individual’s lives – ‘what did that mean to you where you’re at now’. This is the opposite of Papal Bulls or religious orders. Christ reserved his anger for the church and was only concerned with relationship (to look people in the whites of their eyes, and then go for a meal and eat at their table - racing spoon!). His notion of love was to ‘give and not expect anything in return’; we see this in our own lives when we love to give to those we love. Nothing appears to compare to it. But, for me, the most compelling aspect of his articulation of love was that it meant he appeared interested – I sense his eyes didn’t glance to his wrist-dial or flick round the room during conversation. The bible’s only purpose is to point to Christ. For some churches the Holy Trinity is the Father, the Son and the King James Version. Piss on the bible, it makes no odds, it is not an end in itself. It’s not a Holy Text, it’s a message, albeit hardcore (blessed are the peacemakers, not peace keepers).

[StickyEnd]

Contextually brilliant film

He's still not the messiah.

No! He is a very naughty boy.

[StickyEnd]

I don't believe it was meant to be taken literally - that is where all of the born again, evangelical, dispensational, and/or Calvinistic types have it wrong. Was meant to be an allegory. But perhaps that is true of all of the creation stories. Humankind did not have the vocabulary or the knowledge to do more. For instance, in Genesis where it says, 'And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.' this might refer to the Big Bang. Then there is the whole theology and philosophy relating to logos.

This proves nothing, of course. But science on its own is a cold bed to lie on, and ultimately there may be much more to our existence than we know.

If it was divinely inspired, it is amazing that it got something as simple as whether the Sun or earth does the orbiting wrong, but knows about the big bang (if you interpret it to fit current knowledge).

Which bits are not meant to be taken literally and which bits are?

Jesus told stories so the meaning can be applied contextually to individual’s lives – ‘what did that mean to you where you’re at now’. This is the opposite of Papal Bulls or religious orders. Christ reserved his anger for the church and was only concerned with relationship (to look people in the whites of their eyes, and then go for a meal and eat at their table - racing spoon!). His notion of love was to ‘give and not expect anything in return’; we see this in our own lives when we love to give to those we love. Nothing appears to compare to it. But, for me, the most compelling aspect of his articulation of love was that it meant he appeared interested – I sense his eyes didn’t glance to his wrist-dial or flick round the room during conversation. The bible’s only purpose is to point to Christ. For some churches the Holy Trinity is the Father, the Son and the King James Version. Piss on the bible, it makes no odds, it is not an end in itself. It’s not a Holy Text, it’s a message, albeit hardcore (blessed are the peacemakers, not peace keepers).

I do not object to much of what Christ is supposed to have said. That does not mean that he was God though.

[Soldier_Why]

His notion of love was to ‘give and not expect anything in return’

Have you actually read the book?

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Matthew Ch10 v34-37

Oh, what you meant was that everyone had to 'love Jesus and not expect anything in return'?

Nice message my arse.

[BoomShackerLacker]

(1) Lots of other texts reflect aspects of God, as we all do - lots of original goodness out there

Aspects of God? An intellectually vacuous statement attempting to describe something which does not exist.

(2) Christ despised religion ( "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean”) – the church hated him and had him killed (His first church sermon went so well they dragged him to the nearest clif to throw him off.)

No they didn't, it's a fable. Horus wasn't really born of a virgin and neither was JC. Mithras didn't really heal the sick, neither did Jesus. Admiring the characteristics of a fictional character is laudable, praying to them is laughable.

(3) It isn’t a work of literature... it’s about a person and his message. There’s some rough types in there.

It's a 'holy' text lauded by billions as the word of God. Don't you think that alone should mean that it is subject to more intensive scruitiny? If you want to file it away under 'nice message' and be done with it then I for one have no problem with that. Once you start insisting that it should be revered and used as some sort of moral guide then I will continue to question its validity.

One of the most profound things I’ve read recently was Cyrus Thatcher’s letter to his mother, barely literate but a work of breathtaking beauty.

Agreed and whilst trying to avoid the emotional pitfalls of bringing a dead serviceman into the equation I will point out that there is no dispute over who wrote that letter or its content and no-one has yet set up a religion based on its existence.

(4) I think Jesus was the father of humanism (‘Christ’s version of humanism’ that is)

The mythical Jesus as described in the New Testament may well have found himself drawn to the Humanists of today.

(5) Contextually brilliant film

He's still not the messiah.

(1) You don’t know that God doesn’t exist – you’re guessing. As doubt is the root of good science (and integral to faith as well) your certainty appears mis-placed.
(2) Again, neither of us were there but we can assess its validity personally; does its “truths” apply over time. We revise the histories of our most important figures as none of us can agree. Was Hitler an opportunist politician or a megalomaniac bent on destruction of the Jews? Up for grabs, and he was a recent figure, filmed, recorded and in contact with recently living figures.
(3) It’s a holy text lauded by the religious; but in actuality it’s a personal message to the human being and their heart/mind, not an intellectual exercise alone. It is all about meaning, personal experience and personal change, not a dry text. Burn the book and I’ll take photos for the ‘art’ of it.
(4) He would have identified with many humanists; few of them would have walked slowly to their death on our behalff I hazard..
(5) Bloody do-gooder!

[Soldier_Why]

(1) You don’t know that God doesn’t exist – you’re guessing. As doubt is the root of good science (and integral to faith as well) your certainty appears mis-placed.

Philosophically you may be right, but then I don't know with absolute certainty that Thor, Zeus or the Tooth Fairy don't exist either. Is there any particular reason why I should give more credence to your God than I give to the fairies at the bottom of the garden?

(2) Again, neither of us were there but we can assess its validity personally; does its “truths” apply over time.

Nope.

We revise the histories of our most important figures as none of us can agree. Was Hitler an opportunist politician or a megalomaniac bent on destruction of the Jews? Up for grabs, and he was a recent figure, filmed, recorded and in contact with recently living figures.

Ah, an individual who actually existed, whose existence can be verified, in fact has been verified. Documented by multiple contemporaries and even caught on film. I have no problem with discussing the motives and history of Hitler, in fact there is value in doing so. There is no real point in discussing a mythical figure with mythical properties who carried out mythical acts only documented in one book of dubious origin.

(3) It’s a holy text lauded by the religious; but in actuality it’s a personal message to the human being and their heart/mind, not an intellectual exercise alone. It is all about meaning, personal experience and personal change, not a dry text. Burn the book and I’ll take photos for the ‘art’ of it.

It is the defining text of Christianity. With no book there would be no Christians and certainly no discussion here. You can portray it as simply about meaning, personal experience and personal change but that belies the truth of the matter. Burn the book and there is no record of a 'Christ' figure anywhere else.

(4) He would have identified with many humanists; few of them would have walked slowly to their death on our behalff I hazard..

And why should they? I tend to agree with Christopher Hitchens on that score:

"I don't see what's moral about Christian preaching, for example, apart from the horrible idea of vicarious redemption; I'll say it again in case I missed you the first time what I mean by that ... I can pay your debt even if I don't know you. If I was a friend I could say, "You're in debt? I'll pay!" In extreme cases people have been known to say, "I'll serve your sentence in prison", I could do that for you. But what I cannot do is relieve you of your responsibility; I can't say, "Throw your sins on me and they'll melt away." Immoral! You're not allowed to be, you're not entitled to be relieved of your responsibilities. And vicarious redemption by human sacrifice is a very primitive and horrible scape-goating idea that belongs to a barbaric period of human history."

[BoomShackerLacker]

His notion of love was to ‘give and not expect anything in return’

Have you actually read the book? (1)

(2) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Matthew Ch10 v34-37

Oh, what you meant was that everyone had to 'love Jesus and not expect anything in return'? (3)

Nice message my arse.

(1) Rather a lot
(2) To follow your true convictions is divisive; the day peeps here told their mother or father that they were joining up would have involved tears, shouting and door slamming. If you told your partner you were quitting a lifestyle in favour of another lifestyle it is like a volcanic eruption around you (although it doesn’t have to be like that). Even people who change marginally as a result of, say, a University Course (e.g. use new language) find those around them unsettled. Jesus wasn’t schmoozing anyone about the impact of following him (Peter left his nets and a steady income etc.)
(3) Nearly but not entirely. Jesus represented love personified; to follow him is to follow love (tough love) and put that ahead of all things.
2 Timothy 2:3