jar - On Christianity

He should have used more smilies when He wrote the Bible.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Yes, if that's the point you're trying to make.Otherwise, some bozo would think you meant literal wailing and gnashing of teeth. It's too bad that some people can't recognize humour unless it has big neon lights flashing "HUMOUR ---->".Fewer people would be confused about he Bible if Percy had written the software.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I tend to think of it as a "judge-in-training" while here on earth, too - not necessarily that He needed to learn anything, but He needed to make His street-rep.He needed to start at the bottom to establish his creds. He wasn't just the Boss's Son. He was one of us.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

No, I don't think there's any particular "point" to the crucifixion, except that it makes a dramtic climax for the movie. Jesus would have been just as much "one of us" if He had died of old age like George Burns or Nelson Mandela.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

But everybody does make up their own religion.Some internalize a lot of Christianity. Some internalize a lot of Hinduism. Some internalize a lot of Islam. But what you have inside you is what you synthesize from all of your experiences.It's not some absolute, "true" religion. It's your own.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I have a problem with the way you use the word "untruthful".It is certainly possible to convey "truth" through fiction. That is not remotely similar to lying. Jesus told lots of parables. He did change the "actual events" - or even made them up out of whole cloth - in order to tell the story the way He wanted it told.Does a story have to have "---> PARABLE <---" in flashing neon lights for you to recognize it as fiction?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I didn't say anything about metaphors. I was talking about using fiction to convey "truth". A fictionalized telling of the crucifixion story doesn't diminish it's value in any way.Can we agree that the gospel writers may not (probably did not) witness the crucifixion in person? If they didn't, their accounts are second-hand already, only as "truthful" as the versions that they heard.Even if they were eyewitnesses, there would have been conversations that they didn't actually hear (the trial in front of the Sanhedrin comes to mind). Is it not permissible to "make up" some of the dialog to get one's point across?I think you put too much emphasis on the words and not enough on the message in the words.Edited by Ringo, : Recaptured an escaped word.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I have a book that purports to be the "true" biography of James Bond. Truth or fiction? Who says the Bible is "masquerading" as truth?
I'll ask again: Do you need a neon sign flashing "---> FICTION <---"? The "true" biography of James Bond strongly implies - i.e. states flat out - that the author interviewed James Bond in person. Treasure Island strongly implies that Jim Hawkins was an eyewitness.
Truth or fiction? There's a good reason why second-hand testimony isn't acceptable in a court of law - it's unreliable. A lot of writers write good dialog. Good dialog is not a sign of "truth".And what about the dialog that they most likely didn't witness - e.g. the trial(s)? Maybe the message of Jesus should be central to your faith.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

But why? Our standards should be higher, not lower. It seems to me that we have threads in the Bible Inaccuracy and Errancy Forum that suggest that the trial itself is historically implausible - a bit like Alice's trial beyond the looking-glass. Are you paying attention at all? I see the Bible as much more valid than a mere historical document. Yesterday's news is fit for wrapping fish and lining birdcages, but fiction can convey timeless truth. There are good moral teachings in it. There's good poetry in it. There are good adventure yarns in it. There's humour in it. I don't know why you would use the adjective "just". *shrug* I think there's divine inspiration in Hemingway too. Six pounds. (How do you measure "divine inspiration"?) Not much. As I said, it's better than that. Doesn't really matter. It's the message that matters. I've asked other literalists how they separate metaphor from literal truth and I've never gotten a straight answer. How do you? Not really. What He did off the cross was much more important.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Those who lived in that era, in that culture crucified Jesus. How "understanding" is that?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You don't necessarily get the best view of the forest by pressing your nose up against one tree. Sometimes distance gives a better perspective.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That's an entirely different situation.Sure, Jesus' contemporaries knew more about their own culture and traditions than we do.
But we're talking about Jesus' philosophy.Remember that He came to earth for the express purpose of overturning a lot of the traditions and practices that went against His phlosophy. Small wonder that his contemporaries would misconstrue Him - intentionally or not - in order to preserve at least some of their comfortable status quo. You may be starting to catch on. What was written in the Bible was written from the perspective of 1st century traditions and practices. But Christianity ought to be timeless.It ought to be for us as much as it was for Jesus' contemporaries. So of course we have to "modernize" it so that it WILL make sense to us.Do you think we should still be living by "Don't pull your ox out of a pit on the sabbath"? Do you think it's okay to put in seven-day weeks at the office just because you don't own an ox?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The application of "truth" has to be up to date, or it has no value.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

If I slap you, you'll turn the other cheek and like it.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Screw the concepts. Practices are all that matter.Which is why you have such a poor understanding of things like "propitiation". I really don't know why you and robin are so confused about that.If you really do love yourself already, no problem.
Go out and love thy neighbour exactly the same way that you love yourself.But your posts and robin's posts don't ring true (to me and to some others around here) as coming from people who love themselves.I would hesitate to use a word like "self-loathing", but... what's yer shoe size?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC