in his name...wait what?

[Swordsman3003]

Oh yeah, check out jewish writings. Their idea of God isn't "Love love love" or "mercy mercy mercy."

It's "power power power." (to put it simply)

[Oniphire]

Didn't we just have a religion thread?

[Swordsman3003]

yes...

[Gengar003]

"God is a carnivorous pimp"


.......

[BriHahn]

But you still believe that the bible is the word of God.

I view the bible as poor a guide to living a good life as the Illiad and the Oddessy.

Actually, I don't.

I believe God inspired many of the books of the Bible to be written; but as I said, it was interpreted individually by the writers to come out in probably different ways than what God actually said. It's a humanly skewed version of the word of God. Not the word of God itself. And as I said, I view it as a good GUIDE, but I don't take it as "gospel", so to speak. It contradicts itself too often to do that. If God had truly wanted His/Her word to be from God, the manuscript would have appeared or been given to man already written. The fact that man had to write it just points out to me that God gave us free will and we must make of our lives what we can.

I apologize; after re-reading my previous post, I can see how you would come to that conclusion. But it's not what I meant to say.

Yet another example of an individual's perception can interpret something differently from what the other individual meant! *G*

[Swordsman3003]

No, I think I understand quite clearly. You've said that God has sent messages to humans, and those messages have more or less ended in what we know as the bible. Do you disagree?

And I'm understand the impression that an all understanding, all powerful being-~ if it wanted us to know something, it would tell us. It wouldn't write a book.

[Linkara]

Ah, and this is where faith comes into the picture. ^_~ I don't KNOW that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving. To the best of my knowledge, there's no way to know for certain. As such, I have to have faith that that's the way it is. I have faith that God is a wonderful, loving being that cares about all the people on Earth and wants only what's best for us. I could ultimately be wrong and I suppose I'll find out when I die. ^_~ ...Or I'll become nonexistant. In that case I won't really be caring about anything, will I?

As for God creating good and evil, I believe they were forces that existed long before humanity did. Perhaps God simply wished there to be a right and a wrong and it was. Who knows? ^_~ Maybe it was a package deal - you had to have evil if you were going to have free will. I know I'd rather live in a world where I had free will but there was still evil in the world than a world without free will that only had goodness.

I'll be sure to check out Stranger than Fiction!

As for where I got the ideas of ficitonal characters being real from, you can read the article here or I can just give you a brief run down:

In the late 1980s, comic writer Grant Morrison wrote for the first 26 issues of the comic "Animal Man." The series was consistantly good, with particular note to two storylines. One was a stand-alone issue about an anthropomorphic coyote in the desert who kept getting killed and resurrected brutally. Yes, it was Wile E. Coyote (or, at least, an equivalent of him) who had grown weary of the cartoon violence of his world and asked the God (the writer of the world) if there was anything he could do to save the world its pain. The God sent the coyote to the "hell above" to suffer the sins of his world while he corrected the violent place.

And then there was Grant's opus piece, strung together through most of his run. During it, Animal Man's family was killed and he went on a journey to try to get them back, through aliens, time travel, drug-induced hallucations, and etc. During it, Animal Man became aware of his comic book existence, even seeing characters that had been written out of continuity (many of whom were dragged back into obscurity while screaming, "Why?! Why can't I live again in the pages?! Wasn't I good enough?! Why can't I live?!"). After a journey through comic book limbo, Animal Man finds himself with Grant Morrison, who shows him that every one of his actions is controlled by Grant's writing and, of course, reveals the shocking and horrible twistedness of the writers, who put these people through hell just for the entertainment of others. Of course, Grant decides to end it happily for Animal Man since he's suffered so much, and gives him his family back. Animal Man's recent appearances in the comic "52" have hinted that he still remembers his experience with Grant and is still aware of his existence.

It was pretty dark and well-thought-out stuff, and the article describing it got me thinking about how fair I should be to my own characters. Later, my Modern Philosophy class got me more into the idea of their actual existence through their thoughts (even if I'm the one who's giving them thoughts).

[Linkara]

And I'm understand the impression that an all understanding, all powerful being-~ if it wanted us to know something, it would tell us. It wouldn't write a book.

Ah, except he wants us to come to him of our own free will. He doesn't want to just dictate to us and have us follow the rules because we're afraid of him or simply "to know." It's a matter of belief and choice.

[Swordsman3003]

And I'm understand the impression that an all understanding, all powerful being-~ if it wanted us to know something, it would tell us. It wouldn't write a book.

Ah, except he wants us to come to him of our own free will. He doesn't want to just dictate to us and have us follow the rules because we're afraid of him or simply "to know." It's a matter of belief and choice.

So instead it opted for falsity and corrupted ideas. You've said that to some extent [though not what] that the production of the Bible was influenced by god.

God wants us to know specific things, but buries them under layers of what you acknowledge is bogus?

[Lulujayne]

My favourite line about what God is, comes from a shockingly bad Eric Idle (very post python) movie called "Nuns On The Run," it goes as follows -

While ruminating on the nature of The Trinity:

"God is like a shamrock.... small, green, and uh, split three ways!"

It still makes me chuckle.

Also, Linkara, maybe you'd enjoy that web-comic Jack. It's got some very interesting christian/life/nature-or-existence themes. My favourite thing about it is that within the comic's world, God leaves the characters to utilize his gift of free will and choice, and it's actually the Devil that actively tries to write/author our lives (as a comic artist.) Me likes Jack

[Squidflakes]

And I'm understand the impression that an all understanding, all powerful being-~ if it wanted us to know something, it would tell us. It wouldn't write a book.

Ah, except he wants us to come to him of our own free will.

So instead it opted for falsity and corrupted ideas.

Ahhhhhhhh, here we go. Time to get some church up in here!

Or something along those lines.

Anyway, what I've noticed in these last couple of posts is that the Christians seem to be pretty on the ball as far as their religion goes. Linkara, Bri, don't let me down here kids, ok?

Now, originally, this post was much longer, rantier, and chock full of useless facts about religion. However, since the post really seemed to be going nowhere, I've deleted it, and I'm going to reach towards some sort of brevity.

Swordzie seems to be on the warpath against the Bible, and for the most part, I agree with him. However, I think he's missing the forest for the trees and assuming that a very vocal minority of Christians represents the whole. A Fundamentalist Christian will tell you that yes, the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and if it says turn around three times before shitting, then you better damn well do it if you want to go to heaven. Compare this with Fundamentalist Islamics who can point out the passage in the Koran where it does tell you how to take a shit, and you'll start to get a good idea of how scary some of these people can be.

Both books have some amazing wisdom, however, as was the style at the time, this wisdom is imparted though stories and allegory. It isn't spelled out like some great technical manual on how to find everlasting peace and harmony. Because of this, some very evil people have taken passages from these two books out of context and used them to drive groups of faithful people into situations that they would never normally accept.
In Islam, you get suicide bombers, while Christianity has evangelists. Both are destructive, but in very different ways.

So, yes Swordzie, the Bible contradicts itself. It says some pretty fucked up shit, then 2 pages later, takes it all back and starts talking about whales or something. However, a good Christian knows that the Bible is allegory. A good Christian knows that they are followers of a set of teachings, laid out by a man they believe to be divinity, and not mindless zombies who shuffle off to the same place every Sunday before going out to lunch with the family. A good Christian can read the Bible with a critical eye and pick out the gems from the rubble, the wheat from the chaff, and the good from the bad and ugly. They know that the glaring inaccuracies, contradictions, and bullshit don't get in the way of the message.

How does that line from Firefly go? You can't stop the signal Mal.

[Swordsman3003]

I'm not even going to talk about it anymore...

[Jetsetlemming]

It was pretty dark and well-thought-out stuff, and the article describing it got me thinking about how fair I should be to my own characters. Later, my Modern Philosophy class got me more into the idea of their actual existence through their thoughts

So you "cheat" while writing, and change the scenario unnaturally while creating the story, just to get happy endings? Then your writing is completely seperated from how anything would happen realistically. It breaks the illusion of the reader and knocks him firmly out of your world. Deus Ex Machina can ruin a story, you know.

[BriHahn]

Ah, except he wants us to come to him of our own free will.

So instead it opted for falsity and corrupted ideas.

Ahhhhhhhh, here we go. Time to get some church up in here!

Or something along those lines.

Anyway, what I've noticed in these last couple of posts is that the Christians seem to be pretty on the ball as far as their religion goes. Linkara, Bri, don't let me down here kids, ok?

Now, originally, this post was much longer, rantier, and chock full of useless facts about religion. However, since the post really seemed to be going nowhere, I've deleted it, and I'm going to reach towards some sort of brevity.

Swordzie seems to be on the warpath against the Bible, and for the most part, I agree with him. However, I think he's missing the forest for the trees and assuming that a very vocal minority of Christians represents the whole. A Fundamentalist Christian will tell you that yes, the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and if it says turn around three times before shitting, then you better damn well do it if you want to go to heaven. Compare this with Fundamentalist Islamics who can point out the passage in the Koran where it does tell you how to take a shit, and you'll start to get a good idea of how scary some of these people can be.

Both books have some amazing wisdom, however, as was the style at the time, this wisdom is imparted though stories and allegory. It isn't spelled out like some great technical manual on how to find everlasting peace and harmony. Because of this, some very evil people have taken passages from these two books out of context and used them to drive groups of faithful people into situations that they would never normally accept.
In Islam, you get suicide bombers, while Christianity has evangelists. Both are destructive, but in very different ways.

So, yes Swordzie, the Bible contradicts itself. It says some pretty fucked up shit, then 2 pages later, takes it all back and starts talking about whales or something. However, a good Christian knows that the Bible is allegory. A good Christian knows that they are followers of a set of teachings, laid out by a man they believe to be divinity, and not mindless zombies who shuffle off to the same place every Sunday before going out to lunch with the family. A good Christian can read the Bible with a critical eye and pick out the gems from the rubble, the wheat from the chaff, and the good from the bad and ugly. They know that the glaring inaccuracies, contradictions, and bullshit don't get in the way of the message.

How does that line from Firefly go? You can't stop the signal Mal.

Okay, you said that better than I could ever hope to, and I agree with it wholly. Saying the Bible is the definitive word of God is something I would never do, because quite plainly, it's not. If it were, God would have written it Him/Herself. I can't explain myself any better than to say I view the Bible as a guide, but now I've got this whole lovely post from Squiddy to help me out!! Yay!

I would never follow the Bible exactly because, as you said, it contradicts itself quite often, and let's face it, it was written by MEN. (Not a man hater, but I am pissed that several of the gospels discovered that have been written by women were not included in the Bible; seems to me we've got just as much to say as the men do.) Man is falliable. Man is influenced by their own perceptions and outside influences to sometimes see things that may not be there. And the fact that numerous gospels written at or around the same time were ignored in favor of some of the more narrow-minded books irks the bejesus out of me. If I want to use the Bible as a guide, include ALL religious writings in it, not just the ones that suit one particular group of people.

I'll put it this way; there have been things in the Bible that I liked and that I felt I could follow. Numerous things. There have also been numerous things in the Bible that I thought were flat-out biased and ridiculously useless in the context of today's world, so I felt safe in ignoring them in favor of the things that DO make sense. In another forum I occasionally frequent, someone once posed the question, why doesn't the Bible evolve and change the way we do? Why are we to be expected to follow archaic laws that make no sense in today's world? I don't believe God could have given us free will and still expected us to follow laws and rules that make no sense in the changing world we live in.

So therefore, I feel religion is ultimately an individual thing; each person is going to find what they are comfortable believing and living by. The same is true of the Fundamentalists; not all of them follow the EXACT same narrow-minded version of their beliefs. The Muslims certainly don't; Osama bin Laden had to search to find something that could justify his fatwa against the US, and got it from a radical cleric named Muqtada al Sadr who is often viewed as slightly insane by members of his own church who ALSO advocate conversion of the whole world to Islam. They just don't think that al Sadr's way is the way to go. And then of course, there are the Fundamentalist Christians, who have all of THEIR different factions, some of whom go to public places and preach one way, while others knock on doors and preach another way. It's largely because of that that I feel Fundamentalists could not possibly hope to convert the whole world; if they can't even agree on what people should believe, how could they hope to change the whole world?

Okay, got off topic there; sorry about that. Regardless of my mini-rant above about Fundamentalists, I want to thank you, Squiddy, for offering a more comprehensive version of an answer I've been struggling to explain for years. You rock, and you get numerous tentacle-lovin's for life now.

[Warmachine]

The trouble with using the bible as a guide is that the stories of atrocities, over-the-top laws and punishments and the god frequently being a sadistic wanker suggests an evil philosophy. In order to identify the good bits from the general WTF, you have to use a solid, moral philosophy and powers of critical analysis as a guide. For example, I shall choose not to make deals to sacrifice the first person to come out of my house as a burnt offering when a war is over. (Judges 11:29-40 (English Standard Version))

So, if one already has a solid, moral philosophy and the powers of critical analysis to apply it, why bother with a hostile book in the first place? Especially when it doesn't justify its laws and punishments - just demands obedience. Could it, perhaps, explain why a man lying with a man as one might with a woman is detestable? Leviticus 18:22 (New International Version) We're supposed to be after a guide here - a set of principles and philosophies - not mindless rules.

You'd be better off reading Neitzsche. At least he argued his philosophy.

[Kingofthemorlocks]

They're your characters, you have no obligation to "be fair" to them. When I write, my characters suffer and occasionally suffer horribly (the narrator, for instance, holding his wife as she lay dying after being mauled by a wendigo, and later being haunted by dreams of her accusing him of not even trying to help her) because I'm firmly of the belief that when characters suffer, especially suffering believably (while the wendigo is in the realm of myth, the narrators reactions were believable) it improves the story and develops the character further.

[BriHahn]

The trouble with using the bible as a guide is that the stories of atrocities, over-the-top laws and punishments and the god frequently being a sadistic wanker suggests an evil philosophy. In order to identify the good bits from the general WTF, you have to use a solid, moral philosophy and powers of critical analysis as a guide. For example, I shall choose not to make deals to sacrifice the first person to come out of my house as a burnt offering when a war is over. (Judges 11:29-40 (English Standard Version))

So, if one already has a solid, moral philosophy and the powers of critical analysis to apply it, why bother with a hostile book in the first place? Especially when it doesn't justify its laws and punishments - just demands obedience. Could it, perhaps, explain why a man lying with a man as one might with a woman is detestable? Leviticus 18:22 (New International Version) We're supposed to be after a guide here - a set of principles and philosophies - not mindless rules.

You'd be better off reading Neitzsche. At least he argued his philosophy.

Why bother with Neitzsche when everyone you meet will eventually get around to debating religion amongst themselves? Seems to me that's all the debate religion needs, since God gave us free will (in my beliefs anyways.)

I'll be honest; I have not read the entire Bible. I know most of the major stories though, and I am always actively searching out different viewpoints of religious ideas, many of which lead me back to the Bible, so I learn bits and pieces more that way. But like you said; why follow mindless rules? I already stated I typically don't; especially if they don't make sense to me. That whole idea of men not being able to lie with men and women not being able to lie with women (although to be fair, I've never seen a passage that prevents lesbianism; it seems they wanted to confine it to the male of the species) to me is ridiculous for several reasons I won't get into here; it would take me at least five paragraphs or more, during which I'd likely end up rambling off topic and having to drag myself back on. I have a bad habit of doing that. Anyways, my whole idea of using the Bible is confined to using the aspects that make sense to ME. Isn't that the whole idea behind belief anf faith, anyway? You find what makes sense to YOU; what is believeable to YOU, not everyone else. So why not use the Bible for some of that? It's there; it's no different from reading philosophy to try to understand the human condition. To me anyway; I'm sure someone will try to explain the difference to me before long, but it works for me for now, so I'll be content with that.

I don't debate this sort of thing very well in messages; I do a lot better in person, unfortunately, so if any of that seemed incoherent, that's the only excuse I have.

[Linkara]

You know, you're absolutely right. I am under no obligation whatsoever to be fair with my characters. In the same sense, God has no real obligation to us to love us or care about any of us. And yet I believe he does. To myself, I have a moral obligation to my characters to treat them in as just a way as possible while still maintaining drama. As a result, they will still experience a great amount of pain and sorrow and loss, but I won't do it in a manner that's completely horrible and meaningless (*CoughStephanieBrownandCassandracainCough*).

Ditto on Squiddie's post. Also, one thing to understand about the Bible is that it was assembled in the first few centuries of A.D. I can't remember who it was that officially commissioned its creation, but I do remmber that it was a large group of church leaders that decided by committee which holy books would be included in the official Canon and that a lot of material was left out (including a story that was supposed to explain that Adam and Eve populated the Earth after their exile due to incest by their offspring). I will say though that I believe that the New Testament offers less stories of allegory and metaphor and do try to recount the tale of Jesus as best as possible from the eyes of the people existing then.

Funny you should mention that, Jet, 'cause this is something that's bugged me for awhile. Why is it that when a movie or story ends in tragedy and sadness, people consider it "more realistic?" There are six billion people on the planet, each with their own individual perspective, thoughts, emotions, and story. Is it really fair to say that the majority of those stories ends in unhappiness, pain, and misery? The thing is, I believe in happily ever after. I believe in happy endings for people and I reflect that in my work. Sure, I reserve the right to tell an unhappy ending in my work (which doesn't happen often, but does happen on occassion... or at least more ambiguous "neither happy nor unhappy" endings). I wouldn't call it cheating, more like reflecting how I see the world and trying to get that down on paper. Sure, a deus ex machina can ruin a story, but I don't try to pull one out of my ass for every ocassion. ^_~

And actually, Bri, I find I debate this stuff better in messages. ^^ Gives me a better opportunity to think out my responses.

[Squidflakes]

If you're talking about Bible codification, there have been many many many attempts over the years to do just that.

One of the most famous and the one that most influenced the Bible that is published now was the First Council of Nicaea in 325. It was the first attempt to standardize Christianity, and was convened by the Roman emperor Constantine I in a bid to consolidate power for the Empire though the burgeoning Christian (later Christian Orthodox and Catholic) churches.

During this meeting, there were numerous church laws formed, and specific canon was agreed upon. These decisions on canon had a profound effect on the books included in the Bible, because at this time, Christianity was still very sectarian. There were easily hundreds of sects of the religion, some differing so slightly in opinion that they were nearly identical.

The religion had already become very politicized, primarily due to the efforts of Paul of Tarsus and his followers. (Pauline Christianity)
Instead of a personal religion like that of the Johannine or the epistle of James, Paul wrote very detail instructions for the proper worship of Christ, and placed the power of salvation in the hands of a centralized ecumenical body, rather than in the hands of the individual faithful. Paul also started the tradition of receiving Gospel by revelation with his claims that the resurrected Jesus visited him in visions and told him the direction the church should take. In this way, Paul did more to create a political body than a faithful one. Paul was also responsible for disallowing women full participation in the Church and was one of the first Fundamentalists, albeit with his own writings.

[Warmachine]

So why not use the Bible for some of that? It's there; it's no different from reading philosophy to try to understand the human condition.

That still doesn't answer my objection. If you have a criteria for selecting the bits of the bible that make sense, just use that criteria. If you need to expand using other philosophies, don't waste time with one that's so hostile to your current one. Especially one that demands mindless obedience, rather than rational decision making, and glorifies atrocities towards enemies. Why not use the bits of the bible that make sense? Why bother with a book that provides almost no insight and makes you angry? I only have one lifetime and am better off directing my efforts at ideas that aren't obvious candidates for the bin.

If debates of religion, or Neitzsche, lead to the bible, it must be asked if people are sadistic wankers, have actually read much of the bible or are not aware that they're arguing their morality, not the bible's as is. In the former case, it's probably worth leaving. In the second case, they can't have much insight of the bible. In the latter case, they're hiding behind appeals to authority, rather than arguing their own view point, and you will gain little insight anyway.

In short, one should put one's faith in philosophies and methodologies that are mostly agreeable and reasonable. One should recognise the bible as the wrong choice upon cursory examination.