Quote:
Originally Posted by Liminal Chris  I'm curious, what parts of the bible are specifically relevant?
The whole thing?
or
Just the parts you pick and choose?
Just seems to play exactly into Steve's "Idiocy or Hypocrisy" point |
Hey, hey, hey, wait a minute there. Steve's "idiocy or hipocrisy" point is not correct: at least the hipocrisy point is not. And you have an agnostic talking here: I never believed anything the church told me. I left all church ritual and stopped paying attetion to them at age eleven, which is probably why I never had many problems with the church: good fences make good neighbours.
One day, at university, I realized that the Bible had shaped the world I lived in greatly, and thought it would be a good idea to do the unthinkable, what almost no one does:
I read the damn book.
Here is what you find if you actually read the book:
The Bible includes A LOT of stuff which is anachronical, insane, or directly criminal, and which is NOT approved by the figure named Jesus (whether he existed as a man or was fully mythical).
If you take the Bible, it's comprised of all the books of the Old Testament, where god is quite a xenofobe, vengeful and criminal, and whose people praise for helping them massacrate their neighbours so they can get their promised land. How sweet
In the New Testament, you have:
The Gospels: That's, in theory, Jesus' preachings, sort of. Very similar. Non-contradictory. Pretty ethical, non-xenofobic, non-racist, non-violent, non-sexist. Quite advanced for the time.
The deeds of the Apostles: addendum with stories about the apostles.
St. Paul's letters: Now, this part is EXTREMELY important, because catholicism and most so-called christian movements are based MORE in St. Paul's letters than in the teachings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. St. Paul was Jew, and he "adapted" the way too revolutionary Christ to the tastes of his time. Where Christ says women are equal to men, St. Paul says "wife, submit to your husband". Where Christ doesn't mention sex, St. Paul says it's impure, if you can't resist it you'd better marry, but you'll never be half as cool as those who remain chaste. And so on and so forth. The funny thing is most people absolutely ignore that they are following St. Paul more than they are following Jesus.
The Apocalypse: an oniric dream, written by another John who was NOT the evangelist, and which offers nothing, except inspiration for very cool Damian movies. Nothing serious.
If any person, after reading the Bible, discards everything but the gospels, on ground of the gospels being Jesus' teachings, and everything else being "addendums" that contradict those teachings, that choice would be logical and properly thought, and would not apply neither as idiocy nor as hipocrisy.
Of course, to do that you have to rebel against most organized so-called christian religions. The catholics don't allow you to have sex, and have given great importance to having everyone frustrated on that point... if you think on your own about that, you are discarding religion.
Not that I believe that Jesus resurrected, that's biologically impossible, as far as I know. Her mother being a virgin could be a copy added to his figure, or what gynecologysts call "elastic hymen". Uncommon, but possible. It is not even sure that Jesus existed, though all historical facts so far point to a pacifist preacher in Israel, as the source of the myth of Christianity. There is no better explanation for the root of the Christian myth than the existence of Jesus... yet. It may appear, but so far it doesn't exist.
Another thing... There is a sentence in the Bible, which says "you are Petrus (stone) and over this stone you will build my church". Well, the original Greek word for "church" is "ekklesia". Which means "assembly", not "organized institution which will claim power over you and to have entrance rights to Heaven". So there is no reason why you should blindly follow any organized institution... unless of course, you find an extremely good-working institution in your neighbourhood, and choose to be close to it because you find there people who make you more spiritually aware. That'd be an "assembly". And I see nothing wrong with that.
As I said, I am an agnostic. But after reading and studying deeply into the roots of christianity and church, it's no wonder that many people find Jesus a good moral figure to follow: his morals are very good... and he didn't forbid sex
. He validated all the previous commandments when he said "I leave you a new commandment, love each other as I've loved you". That means that the only thing you should consider from the Old Testament are the commandments, which, if you have a good look upon them, aren't but the basics about not killing, not stealing, not comitting adultery, etc. No, sex is not forbidden: what is forbidden is cheating once you're married. The one with an obsession with virginity was St. Paul. Of course, the catholic church and many evangelist ones do not agree with these conclusions... But frankly, when the catholic high hyerarchy started forgiving pederasts and excomunnicating women who got ordained as priestess, I am only more convinced that they have nothing to do with the message attributed to Christ.
So, if someone chooses the parts of the Bible he or she will believe, it's like if you choose which philosophical theories you will believe. I like Jesus' message and can very well do so without being hypocritical or idiotic, in fact, if I hadn't left the church at so young an age, I might not have been able to look at Jesus with an impartial eye. The same... I love Ayn Rand's work and message in Atlas Shrugged, but I don't like her mercilessness towards non-heroic people. It's a question of thinking deeply about your beliefs and choosing logically.