Yeah. I kind of view Jesus as the Christian Buddha and vice-versa.
We are all sons and daughters of God...and since there is only one
God then it is the same God for EVERYBODY - So you see... Buddha and
Jesus are brothers!



Your preference for perfect Buddha over perfect Jesus is pure
favoritism! I love them both equally the same. Meditate on it
some more!

So in other words, Slowhand is just Abracadabra in a suit.

Like Jesus and Buddha, we are just cosmic brothers who's purity is equal but unique.

Not even close.

Did we get this thing discredited yet? I have a lot of shelves to clear.

As far as I know it's already been discredited a long time ago. I've already cleared my shelves and filled them with far more interesting stuff. Stuff that has truly proved to be more productive for me personally. I only wish I had been given these more productive and positive philosophies when I was a young child. I can't help but wonder how much it would have changed my life for the better at that early age.

Results are impressive.

Alternative 1. Most people believe the bible is an interesting story which
holds valuable lessons on life and religion as long as it is interpreted
properly and it does not matter if your personal beliefs or interpretations
vary a little bit or which exact religious observance you follow.
After all we are all only human.

Alternative 2. The bible is historically accurate and the inerrant
word of God and if you don't believe it you are going to H E double
toothpicks.



Number of people so far who choose Alternative 2: 0

Number of people who have chosen Alternative 1: everybody



The Bible is not discredited merely because it is not historically
accurate. The Bhagavad Gita is not discredited because it is not
historically accurate. The Quran is not discredited because it is not
historically accurate. The Dhamma is not discredited because it is
not historically accurate. The Tao Te Ching is not discredited
because it is not historically accurate.



They are not historical documents! It does not matter if they are
historically accurate or not. They are some of our earliest
philosophical writings and for the most part share common themes
of virtue, discipline and kindness.

With all due respect Slow, comparing the Bible and Quran with the other spiritual philosophical writings that you have listed truly misses the point.

The Bible makes specific claims about that demands and actions of a specific personified Godhead. It claims to have commandments and directives issued forth directly from his mouth. Speaking to people from burning bushes, and clouds, or appearing before people as Jesus after Jesus had died, etc.

It also makes specific claims about history. It claims that this God flooded out the entire Earth to drown out sinners. It claims that this God instructed Noah and his family to build an ark to save all the animals of the Earth from this flood.

Those are specific claims.

Did it happen or did it not?

If it didn't truly happen and it's just a made-up metaphorical story to make a philosophical point, then it's philosophy any mythology and nothing more. It certainly can't be a description of the behavior of a God if the God never actually did the things being claimed.

The same is true concerning claims about this God cursing women with painful childbirth as a punishment for Eve's disobedience.

It this TRUE, or it is it a lie just for the sake of trying to make some metaphorical philosophical point?

This is paramount. Because if it's just a lie made up to make a philosophical point, then what's the point? It's obviously stating something quite deep and profound about are creator and the way he supposedly acts and behaves.

IS it TRUE or not?

Is the pain of childbirth truly a curse created by God for the express purpose of punishing all women for the disobedience of Eve?

Or is that a big fat lie?

Did this god actually instruct people to judge each other and stone sinners to death? Or was that just a man-made metaphor created by men in the name of a God for whatever motivation they may have had.

Did this God truly impregnate a virgin woman for the purpose of bearing his "Only begotten Son"?

Is that a historical event? Or just a made up metaphor in a fable?

Was it God's Plan to have this supposed "Only begotten Son" brutally butchered by the hands of men for the purpose of paying for their sins?

For me, these questions are paramount. Because if they are actual events they speak volumes about this God and his character. And if they are nothing more than man-made metaphors, then personally I think they are pretty sick.

In fact, I don't see them as being any better if they were the actual actions of an actual Godhead.

These stories are suggesting that this supposed God cannot be appeased unless someone suffers physical pain for having disobeyed him.

To me, that already suggests that this God is truly weird and untrustworthy. What kind of an entity would require that people suffer physical pain for having disobeyed him?

From my perspective Slow, such a God would be one sick puppy.

And then to top it all off, these scriptures claim that this God actually sends some people into a state of "everlasting punishment" where there will be wailing and the gnashing of teeth.

Excuse me? Are we speaking about an all-benevolent divine loving supreme being here?

These behavioral traits sure don't sound like the traits that I would assign to any such God.

I personally would never cast anyone into an state of eternal suffering and torture. Not even the most despicable evil demon that I can imagine. Destroy them and put them out of their own misery? Perhaps. But what would I have to gain by casting them into an eternal state of punishment? How could that serve me? Is that supposed to make me feel good because I got vengeance against them?

I have no desire to get vengeance against anyone, why should I believe that a supposedly all-benevolent all-intelligent supreme being would be such an immature ignorant thug?

Casting someone into a state of eternal pain and suffering is no better than what an evil demon would do in the first place.

So is this just a man-made metaphor to try to make a philosophical point? Like to scare people into believing their tales?

Or is it the actual true behavior of our Creator?

If it's the former, then I'd flush these cannon of lies down the toilet.

If it's the latter than I am gravely sadden and disappointed to discover that our Creator is such a sadistically sick puppy.

So yes, to me it's paramount whether these stories are true or not. Because they make extreme claims about the actual behavior and personality character of a personified creator.

According to the Bible our Creator enjoys seeing people suffer when they fail to do his will.

What other purpose could their be in his tactics?

Sending someone into a state of everlasting punishment certainly isn't going to do them any good. And if it's not doing God any good, then what GOOD is it?

If it serves no one any GOOD when why would a supposedly all-benevolent God even bother with it?

IMHO, the ONLY rational explanation that makes any sense at all is that the whole fable was made up by men who were trying to scare people into believing in it.

The idea of an all-benevolent God who actually enjoys seeing people suffer for having disobeyed him is nothing short of SICK, and there would be nothing "all-benevolent" about such a God.

~~~~

So as far as I'm concerned these stories don't have a prayer in hell of being true.

~~~~~

But I suppose that's what you're saying. They aren't historically true, and no God actually did or said any of the things that are being claimed by these fables. They are just lies made up by men for the sake of trying to instill moral values in people via metaphors and false parables.

The only problem I have with their fables is that they have created an "Fatherly" image of a God who not only condones physical punishments for disobedience but actually practices it himself to max by condemning everyone who refuses to obey him (or even believe in him) with eternal punishment.

So that's the 'model' of our moral values? God not only condones physical punishments for children who disobey him, but he actually practices himself as a MODEL of divine behavior?

Quite frankly I would cast that very book into an eternal fire and hope that no copies survive.

I short, I don't approve of the tactics and behavior of the God that is described in the ancient Hebrew stories.

If that's our creator, then please excuse me whilst I go throw up.

Did it happen?

Some of it might have. We will never know!!


I get you Abra, but I am not missing a point I am making one.

You are actually adopting the viewpoint here of the literalists
who you (correctly) excoriate.

These are allegorical. It is NOT history. It is NOT issued directly
from God's mouth any more than pronouncements actually issued from
Buddha, Ganeesh, Shiva, or Vishnu or for example.

The appropriate way that I was taught and learned about this is that
one MUST continually interpret and examine them as philosophical
and ethical parables or teachings.

Now there could have been floods or tsunamis etc. on which the
story of Noah's Ark was modeled. There could have been an Ark
built by Noah with animals on it! There will never be definitive
proof on how such events may have transpired.

There could have been a bush aflame. Hit by lightning and an
accompanying religious vision by Moses. There could have been a
sudden and dramatic cloud gathering and soaking rain.

But as you rightly note there are too many contradictions and
downright weird stuff in the Bible and the same is true for
almost all religious writings to take them literally.

That does not make them discredited or valueless however. It only
means that they require thoughtful interpretation and can be
twisted and misused.

A good example is how many Islamic fundamentalist extremists try
to use the Quran to justify murder through jihad while the rest
of the Muslim world abhors violence and would never condone murder.

Interpretation of the Quran to allow murder of innocents is the
evil here not the Quran itself of course. Similarly for other
religious writings.

That is my point. You cannot discredit these writings but it is
certainly correct to speak out against their use to place one
group over another or to inflame ethnic or religious hatred. Such
are abominations and not characteristic of Islam or Christianity
as a whole.

Yes you can discredit it.

If enough effort were put into it, (instead of taking someone's word for it because you fear the wrath of God..) you could discredit the stories that shape the three fake Abrahamic religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism that stem from King David and Abraham who are fictitious characters.

Investigate them, and investigate the reason those stories were spun and you will unravel these religions and you will uncover a truth.

I think I'm getting your point. But perhaps you aren't fully understanding mine. And understandably so, because from your view it appears that I'm merely attempting to discredit the Bible. You don't seem to understand why I'm doing this.

Allow me to try to better explain:

You say:


Even viewing these stories in this way I have huge objections.

First off, if a person needs to interpret and examine these as philosophical and ethical parables then I have no need for them. I could write better philosophical and ethical parables myself, IMHO.

What's to be "learned" from something that I would need to interpret myself for the BEST possible ethics and moral teachings?

This also implies that the readers themselves must already be motivated to want to strive for the best possible moral values. So in that sense the Bible would be moot. Instead of instilling good moral values in people it would require that the readers are already highly moral people who are just trying to use the stories as fodder to mold their own sense of what is highly moral.

From that point of view I see no value in these stories. In fact, I actually have problems with many of them.

Yes if a person looks at them entirely egotistically from a self-centered point of view they can try to use them to model their own personal behavior in an attempt to try to "please" some imagined God that supposedly had something to do with these supposedly "divinely inspired" stories.

But I have problems with these stories on a much higher level. These stories depict a "Fatherly Image" of a God who freely uses physical punishments and threats of physical (or painful) punishments and a means to deter disobedience.

I personally have extreme moral objections to that very notion. Yet this is the foundational character of what this God is supposed to be like.

So in other words, I don't even agree with the moral values that are being associated and "modeled" by this supposedly "Fatherly God".

I disagree with the "Parenting Skills" that are implied by that very mentality.

So I have major problems with supporting these fables as a good model for what should be considered "Proper Parenting Behavior".

I'm not looking at it egotistically like as if I'm the "child of God" and I must strive to "please" this God and ask no questions.

I'm looking at the BIGGER PICTURE. These stories are basically teaching people that to raise childern using techniques of FEAR and PHYSICAL PUNISHMENTS, it simply very POOR ethics, and morals, IMHO.

So these stories don't even work for me on that level at all Slow.

I would reject these stories from that perspective as simply being very poorly written by people who had really bad parenting ideals.

I certainly wouldn't endorse them or recommend them to any parents as being representative of what constitutes good parenting skills.



Well I personally feel that I can "discredit" these writings as being ignorant and ungodly. As well as being utterly absurd in places.

Sure, they also contain some Good Stuff. But the good stuff is so contaminated with the bad stuff, that I would rather just reject the whole thing than to try to point out which parts are worth reading and which parts are negative and useless.

The whole idea of a God who's PRIMARY parenting skill is to use punishments and threats of punishments as his means of obtaining obedience is already unworthy of support, IMHO.

And the story culminates with this God having his son crucified in the name of salvation?

I'm not going to support that as being a "positive" moral story.

It's totally negative in every possible way, IMHO.

And you're right, these religions being based on a "jealous God" concept automatically instill ideals of religious bigotry or superiority in people. And that's not good either, IMHO.

So, yes, I renounce the whole thing as having very little value in terms of teaching people good ethics and moral values. I personally feel that these stories overall teach far more negative ideals than they teach good ideals.

Sure, I know the "Jesus Freaks" see nothing but Love. But that's because they have the blinders on to see everything through Jesus, as if Jesus somehow actually did away with all the negative crap.

Well, I certainly agree that Jesus may have TRIED to do that, but once he was metaphorically "nailed" to the Old Testament by proclaiming that he was the sacrificial lamb of the God who teaches that good parenting skills is to PUNISH people for disobedience, then whatever GOOD that Jesus might have had to offer ultimately becomes LOST in the overwhelming negativity of the "Fatherly Image" of a God who only knows how to solve his problems using VIOLENCE and threats of PHYSICAL PAIN and PUNISHMENTS.

That it truly the bottom line for this story.

~~~~

I separate Jesus from this story by recognizing that he was probably a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist who actually recognized the horrible immoral teaching of the Torah and tried to change that around into something positive.

But to hold Jesus up as the "sacrificial lamb" of that original God only supports more of the same. Here we have this same dastardly God sacrificing his very own Son to torment and punishments to PAY for the disobedience of people.

It just emphasizes the very thing that I totally renounce as being as far from "godly" as things can be.

A "Fatherly Image" of a God who not only condones physical punishments for disobedience but evidently know NO BETTER WAY of dealing with things himself.

It's the epitome of HORRIBLE parenting skills, IMHO.

It teaches people to be ignorant and crude.

It's doesn't teach WISE and PRODUCTIVE PARENTING SKILLS.

The God in these story had no clue what WISDOM even means. Apparently the only "parenting skill" this God has is to cast anyone who doesn't obey him into a state of everlasting punishment.

And I personally believe that this grossly ignorant mentality has actually been carried over into our own "competitive" school systems.

Our school systems are focused on competition, doing as your told, and don't cheat lest you be severely PUNISHED.

Who knows Slow?

If we had been brought up with a religion that depicts a God as someone who encourages people to be the best that they can be and to cooperate with others to help them be the best they can be then maybe our entire society would be a COOPERATIVE based society, rather than a COMPETITIVE based society that simply condemns those who can't keep up as somehow being "disobedient" of the System.

I renounce the whole damn thing Slow.

I renounce the Bible as having no rational credence.

I also renounce it as being a really POOR source of parenting skills.

And yes, I renounce the religious bigotry and false sense of superiority that it instills in some people too.

I renounce the whole shebang.

But you couldn't do it a couple of millenia ago!





Those who are not the pinnacle of moral and ethical behavior
can still learn. They can be taught by the others.





Your fatherly image is wrong. God is described as being beyond
human understanding - so...not paternal.

Also God is described as all encompassing and eternal and capable
of infinite kindness and forgiveness - so not at all jealous or
mean or punishing in general.



The parenting and punishing abuse viewpoint does not really reflect
the Bible as I see it. We are God's children is only a statement
that God is the creator. Not that you are gonna get hot coals and
sulfur if you swipe Billy's Big Wheel.





I still see your interpretations of the Bible as overly negative.
Jesus' sacrifice can be seen as ultimate charity in willingness to
demonstrate selflessness and care for others...etc.

Well, that drives home my point does it not?

If the moral values that are taken from the bible come solely from the interpretations of the readers, then the book itself does not instill any moral values in the person, but just the opposite is the TRUTH.

The Christian monks Kramer and Sprenger were inspired by the Bible to write the Malleus Maleficarum probably the single most hideous book ever written by mankind.

Hitler used it to support antisemitism and his holocaust.

I simply reject it as being a very poor example of parenting behavior.

And yes, some people can use to support good ideals, but that's a rather moot point in light of how many bad things it has inspired.



God that "Father" is used all through the bible, expecially in the New Testament when the Gospels have Jesus referring to God as "The Father" all the time.



I disagree.

That could only be true if Jesus were "sacrificing himself" to appease some evil force that had to be overcome. But that's not the case. Any attempt to try to make that out to be the case cannot work.

The only entity that would need to be appeased in these religious fables was the Fatherly God himself.

Can't have Satan making God jump through hoops by requiring that he 'sacrifice' his only begotten son in an effort to "beat the devil". That would even imply that God viewed the devil as a genuine threat that he would actually need to "sacrifice" his son to beat the demon.

It can't be made to work, IMHO.

It's like a mortal soldier going off to war to sacrifice his life for his country. A soldier has real enemies who are a real thread and really has no choice (other than diplomacy) to solve his problems.

With God can't can't be the case.

So it doesn't work to have Jesus as the ultimate "sacrifice" there is nothing to "sacrifice" him to but God himself.

Now if Jesus was solely a MORTAL MAN who sacrificed himself to appease an angry God, then it could be made to work!

Then Jesus would have been the ultimate HUMAN sacrifice to appease an otherwise wrathful God.

But for Jesus to have actually been the divine "Son of God" born of a virgin, etc. Then it makes no sense for him to sacrifice himself right back to God on behalf of mortal men.

I have serious problems with the whole sacrificial lamb thing.

I'm totally convinced that those rumors are indeed misplaced superstitious. They make no sense in terms of any real God actually partaking in such a plan to appease himself.

So no, the idea of Jesus being the "ultimate sacrifice" can't be made to fly from my perspective.

~~~~

As some kind of weird metaphorical fable I can understand the concept. But even so, I would point out the underlying flaw in the fable.

The fable would work far better to just have Jesus being an exceptional moral man. Perhaps this is why Buddha works well in India. They recognize that Buddha was indeed just a mortal man who achieved nirvana.

That would indeed be exceptional.

A God sending his own son to earth via a virgin birth to have that son sacrifice himself back to the very God who needs to be appeased would be utterly meaningless from my perspective.

So no, that can't be made to work, IMHO.

Many would turn this on it's head and say that yes, some people can use it to support bad ideals, but that's a rather moot point in light of how many good things it has inspired.





I only see that only as continual (although arguably belaboring) the
divinity of Christ as an extension of God. I don't ascribe any
paternal parenting to it at all and certainly nothing which states
you should abuse children.





But that is the case. Jesus is God and is making a demonstrative
sacrifice to show the value of compassion and mercy. It obviously
has nothing to do with real mortality as God is immortal.

You could argue that it is kind of pointless to make a show of
a sacrifice when you are really immortal but that misses the point
of the story.



But it is the case. The enemy of this scenario is sin and it is very
much like a battle. So it does work. You just choose not to see it
this way. Again I think rather cynically over-ascribing more negative
connotations to the story rather than positive ones.



Well I think this is just the limit of your ability to appreciate
the story. Obviously the vast majority of righteous, loving, kind,
moral Christians over the centuries have appreciated Jesus' sacrifice
as the ultimate selfless gift of grace as a demonstration of the
power of giving up of self for a greater good. I think you just
like to tease fundys.





Now you are really getting somewhere!

I see no real big difference between Buddha and Jesus at all. In
the case of Buddha he achieves nirvana and becomes enlightened and
becomes God. In Jesus case he was born enlightened and spreads the
word during his life and ultimately accepts the sins of everyone to
wash them away as a self-effacing demonstration of humility and he
also returns to nirvana. Both leave the earth as one with God and
with their life's work a testament to all that is true, good and
beautiful. It is only dramatized differently. Both stories mix the
mortal with the immortal and both examples are intended to
demonstrate a perfect life example.

Just different ways of looking at the same concepts and not so
different from my point of view.

In fact I think it is rather silly to exalt one story and deride
the other.



It is your ideas about appeasing God and the cockamamie notion that
God somehow is like some abusive parent that I find untenable and
ridiculous. Sure there are passages which portray God as intolerant
of sinful behavior and getting angry and stuff but there are also
passages which describe ultimate kindness and compassion overcoming
anger and vengeance. It's a core message of the story in the
Bible - overcoming these emotions and achieving ultimate kindness.

Since God is NOT human and is beyond these emotions it is not
reasonable to describe God as having real human traits like this.



No. I see Buddha and Jesus as very much parallel stories.
If you are like Buddha then you are like Jesus and if you
are like Jesus then you have become Buddha. Accept the good
and be completely at peace and impervious to negative impulse.
Then you don't have to go around renouncing stuff! Simple as that.

But that's kinda the point, a lot of the negative qualities ARE human! If God is above us, than why does he act like us in that way?

the 'truth' we discover is the one we are seeking,, in most cases,,

the 'proof' we give credit to is the 'proof' that reaffirms the direction we already lean

the bible has withstood all these years, has several books, and far too much information to ever be 'discredited' as a whole

the most people can do is nitpick at certain things and 'gage' them against what science claims to be true ,,, so far

and science itself is constantly being updated and discovered so even that wont discredit things that are said to have happened so far in the past....

You are incorrect about that.

The reason the Bible will be (and has been) EASILY discredited is because people hold it to such a high standard as to call it "the word of God" and "infallible" or "true" etc.

They rationalize and make excuses for the inconsistencies and illogical claims and finally resort to "you can't possibly understand it because you don't believe...blah blah blah etc."

In evaluating any information or book, it is not a good thing to decide it is true before you read it. But that is how people read the Bible and they are taught and told that it is the true word of God Almighty himself.

Even without science the Bible is easily discredited with logic and common sense.

The idea that the 'truth' we discover is one we are seeking is only true when you start with indoctrination and have been told what to believe.

It is impossible for anyone to know "the truth" about anything. All I am asking is that if you want more truth you have to ask questions and investigate logically. If this is done, you will uncover a lot of the truth. But you will only be able to see the truth if you vow to accept it even if you don't want it.

I am willing to change my mind. Are you? I would be very interested in all information that validates the lives of King David and Abraham as a real historical persons without resorting to the stories in the Bible. Evidence outside of the Bible is necessary because if the Bible story is fiction, it cannot be evidence.

Umm.... because God doesn't act like us.

I still stand by the 'common sense' conclusion that a book with that much information can never be as a whole discredited,, only called to question certain parts

like we now question certain parts of what is in american history books but we dont discredit the whole of AMERICAN HISTORY because of it,,,,

it also cant be discredited based upon its 'truth', for the reasons I mentioned before,,,,there has to be an assumed foundation of some other 'truth' to discredit the truth of the bible

I was taught the bible is the inspired word of God, that those who wrote these books were inspired to do so, truthfully, by God

that is not something that can be 'proven' , or 'disproven'

Most people who speak to god these days are in the mental institution but in the old days you talked with god and you wrote a story and it becomes a revered book. I wonder how that works?