Former Fundamentalist 'Debunks' Bible

Originally posted by concerned190
reply to post by 5thElement

 

I do have the ability to change my current path but I choose not to. I also do not feel like a slave to my beliefs.

My father once told me. "I don't have to drink, I can quit any time I want!"
-He might as well have said, "I do have the ability to stop drinking, but I choose not to."

The reality is, as always, he (and you) do not want to, so you don't. For him it was to hard, for you it is too scary - life is more comfortable.


To the OP, let's from Ehrman, himself.



[edit on 15-5-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by HunkaHunka


I can understand that view.. but when I say "core" I mean strip away specifics to ALL the stories, all the histories, all the beliefs, all the names and characters.. and what your left with is the foundation to all religions.. the same basic principles of bettering the soul, of a higher power. You use language as an example, I would say it like taking all Romantic Languages.. they all are pronounced differently, different verbage, different expressions.. but the basic variety of grammatical distinctions are all the same.

The concepts of Heaven and Hell, concepts of the After Life, the concepts of Prophets, the concepts of god speaking, the concepts of god it's self.. these are all cultural, not specifically religious. Kind of like the chicken and the egg, I believe cultures defined the religion, the religion did not define the culture.

The thing that has always been hard for me to wrap around about the bible, is that it has been a collection of stories from "sources" throughout the ages. It's similar to fairy tales. Fairy tales are stories passed down from generation-to-generation. In this transition, facts are lost, significance is change, and misunderstanding takes root. It is the nature of people to manipulate things to please themselves. If the author decided a story sounded dull, wouldn't it be in their duty to make it more interesting to suit their own needs or maybe even to benefit society more? It would be, in essence, similar to evoking that we as a human race were the creation of a galactic, ancient reptilian civilization and then deciding that it wasn't something that would suit society. So, in light of that, wouldn't the author change it's meaning to do what they believe "served" society for the best, no matter if it was the truth or not?

Would it not be easier to explain life was created from two individuals of Adam and Eve in a era of less logic and reasoning? Try telling someone from 1500 years ago that they were created from aliens thousands of light-years away. In fact, this concept would be mind boggling. The scenario would take an understand of quantum physics, the galactic travel, genetic manipulation, and a whole slew of things that weren't even close to being understood at that time.

Take the book of the Apocalypse for instance, doesn't anyone realize Peter had written an alternative book to this scenario. This is just one instance, and I'm sure their are many others. What kind of info does everyone else have on "non-published" bible stories? And which ones are the truth, which ones have been authored, and which ones are completely void and null? Probably questions we'll never get answers to. Also, there is a good possibilities that other alternative chapters to this book have been lost and/or destroyed.

So, when looking at the insights of Bart Ehrman, it's not hard to believe his conclusion.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by InnateNight]

reply to post by Rockpuck

The concepts of Heaven and Hell, concepts of the After Life, the concepts of Prophets, the concepts of god speaking, the concepts of god it's self.. these are all cultural, not specifically religious. Kind of like the chicken and the egg, I believe cultures defined the religion, the religion did not define the culture.

I've think that the idea that the afterlife is something that evolved out of early people loosing loved ones. Think about children who have imaginary friends, they can produce incredibly elaborate characters out of nothing, and you watch they playing "with their imaginary friend" and you see how easy it is for a brain to engage with a virtual fully developed being.

No think about when we loose someone close and it hurts - especially if we have unresolved issues with that person. People, out of human nature, will frequently believe what makes them comfortable* so it's not hard to imagine people believing that their mother or uncle or whoever, is still there watching them or looking over them,** maybe unconsciously the person invokes the same processes that children use with their imaginary friends, perhaps to protect the sanity of the individual from overwhelming stress.

So, if an individual believes that a person still exists even after their death, the concept of both "souls" and the "afterlife" are born on the spot.


* When I became atheist, I shared in discussion all that I had come to understand about God and the bible with my mum. It was hard for me, sure, but it seems it would be too hard for her. She literally told me not to tell her that stuff because she wants to believe God exists, it's just more comfortable - to the point that she even recognised that she was just choosing the simpler.

** Andy Thompson, a psychiatrist, said on a video on richarddawkins.net that a good example of this was a teenager who'd lost a close friend. This boy was still txting the deceased friend for months after simply because he could not let go at the time.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by Welfhard]

I have read Bart's book.

I found it a very good read.

Did not change my belief system as when I went to Seminary I struggled with the same thing.

I believe the Bible as well as the early Christian teachings.........I do not believe in the American Church or European Church system of so called Christianity whatsover....although many Christians in America are very good people....I have found what I believe is my path...it is different then the standard path

I am open to being corrected though as I firmly believe that I should not firmly believe any one idea.

Originally posted by InnateNight
...Take the book of the Apocalypse for instance...

absolutely... without exaggeration, a self-fulfilling prophecy, based on a fictitious alpha nightmare, that has all of our lives in jeopardy... cheerleading for a WWIII:




[edit on 15-5-2009 by The All Seeing I]

reply to post by Welfhard


Interesting outlook. I certainly hope there is an afterlife.. though my logical way of thinking often holds me back from that particular belief.. some would find it odd that I can believe in a God and not in an Afterlife. Something I have never really been able to put into words. But in a sense, I agree with you on your theory, in fact I would say that is the premises for all religions, not just the afterlife specifically.

I have been quoting Bart Ehrman for the last many months much to the dispair of the Christians on site.

I use some information from him on this thread: Was Judas actually a good guy? Was Paul a conman? I believe that the Bible was inspired by The Gods but to mislead the religious. It obviously has worked!

To me it is a brilliant piece of work that is actually intended by The Gods to be read as a mystery, with its sub-plots, spurious characters and misleading dogma that would eventually be used to form religion that Jesus would have no connection to, yet, his name would be used.

"The Bible is a lie within a lie within the Truth." - MatrixProphet

If we throw it out (due to prejudice), we miss valuable clues that tell us that there is a story, within the story! A lot can be found IF we leave religion out of it.

reply to post by wonderworld

The last verse in the bible says "No man shall add to or take away from this book" dont quote me on that but it seems Ehrman took about 17 chapters out.

That means the one book. There was no bible when Revelations was written.

The Bible is both myth as well as literal.

Myth in the classic sense as well as literal in the sense that one would take a first hand witness of the first hand witness.

The truth of the Word of God is not lost yet the thrust of the church...I mean political system's is very out of touch with the truth.

I believe Thomas Jefferson aproached the Bible in the way one should approach it.

In fact Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the New Testement.

The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was Thomas Jefferson's effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.[1][2

en.wikipedia.org...

What is most interesting is the reason why John Adams and Thomas Jefferson sought to do this.

Both had a very deep distrust of clergy as well as the Church.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by whiteraven]

Originally posted by Welfhard

I've think that the idea that the afterlife is something that evolved out of early people loosing loved ones. Think about children who have imaginary friends, they can produce incredibly elaborate characters out of nothing, and you watch they playing "with their imaginary friend" and you see how easy it is for a brain to engage with a virtual fully developed being.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dfa670044488.gif[/atsimg]

Now think about when we loose someone close and it hurts - especially if we have unresolved issues with that person. People, out of human nature, will frequently believe what makes them comfortable* so it's not hard to imagine people believing that their mother or uncle or whoever, is still there watching them or looking over them,** maybe unconsciously the person invokes the same processes that children use with their imaginary friends, perhaps to protect the sanity of the individual from overwhelming stress.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7c6549852cf0.jpg[/atsimg]
So strong is the desire to have our loved one's come back to us that we create the story of immortality... eternal salvation. The story of resurrection is older then the pagan roots of "easter" itself.

His claims, though, take on some of Christianity's most sacred tenets, like the resurrection of Jesus. Ehrman says he doesn't think the resurrection took place. There's no proof Jesus physically rose from the dead, and the resurrection stories contradict one another, he says.

He says he doesn't believe the followers of Jesus saw their master bodily rise from the dead, but something else.

"My best guess is that what happened is what commonly happens today when someone has a loved one die -- they sometimes think they see them in a vision," Ehrman says. "I think some of the disciples had visions."

[edit on 15-5-2009 by The All Seeing I]

reply to post by king9072





No Sir,
I think it is you who missed the boat. I'll see you on the Great Judgement Day.

You speak of faith, truth and blind truth. I am quite educated on the subject and dont find an educated conclusion to your ideas.

You wont find me here throwing out Bible verses or trying to convert anyone. I'm aware some will remain proud Atheists.

If you dont follow one you follow the other.

P.S other than religion I appreciate some of your other topics.

reply to post by The All Seeing I


As funny as your cartoons are, there is some truth to the "spirit" which comes to us when a loved one is lost.

Buddha refers to this as his Dharma body when speaking with his friends. Jesus calls it "a counselor".

This could be a supra-individual entity within the subjective experience of the adherent, an interpretive echo, or it could have more objective reality, but I tend to believe it to be the former. However, subjective or objective, it exists and is being spoken of in these traditions and has a HUGE effect on the mind of the adherent.

Anyway... I just don't like to see actual phenomena dismissed out of hand.

do u think it has something to do with the deadites?

reply to post by The All Seeing I


Thank you for sharing that video of infinite ignorance, The All Seeing I. A bit lengthy, but interesting none-the-less. I don't understand half of their ideology though. This is what I speak of when mentioning misinterpretation and adapting to one's own manipulative beliefs. A few notes I made when watching this video, maybe you can shed some light on (according to their "accurate" ideology) my ignorance?

If Israel was created in 1848, how is it that this is the only country that God created? How were the ancient, original countries established? Based on their understanding of God, he didn’t create the world? Just Israel? That makes no sense. Or is it that Israel is the only God-willed existence? If that is the case, that also makes no sense.

John McCain's statement of doing “God’s work in a city of Satan” was a bit interesting too.. I’m glad he believes we’re all products of Satan.

Also, what does hurricane Katrina have to do with the Gaza strip?

Arabic people have no soul? Israel and Pakistan is the difference between good and evil? They are “dead-set on death and destruction”? Maybe they wouldn’t be if America didn't attempt to change their beliefs and brainwash their society.

Monitor our news, universities, etc? What the hell is wrong with these people?
This is why we have war, because of ignorant imbeciles’ like this. They ask of its members to spread racism and hate? Write down the name of Islamic owned mosques? Pass judgment on other people, according to the bible, I thought that was supposed to be left up to God?

I’m not saying the Islamic communities, and their beliefs, are products of truth and necessity.. but why wouldn’t they NOT hate us for this bigotry?

Iran manipulating the economy of the world because of nuclear weapons?

If this is "truth" and "justice", I presume I have a lot of growing up to do. Good thing I'm only 21. Haha.

(Sorry if some things seemed jumbled and whatnot. Was typing this as I was listening to the video and don't have time to go back through and edit at the moment.)




[edit on 15-5-2009 by InnateNight]

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Interesting outlook. I certainly hope there is an afterlife.. though my logical way of thinking often holds me back from that particular belief.. some would find it odd that I can believe in a God and not in an Afterlife. Something I have never really been able to put into words. But in a sense, I agree with you on your theory, in fact I would say that is the premises for all religions, not just the afterlife specifically.

The first thing that occurred to me after becoming non-religious was the question of where religion comes from and how are these doctrines formed.

Well, as anyone who has seen Zeitgeist should know, much of the actual detail is borrow off older religions and zeitgeists which are in turn based in astrology. Astrology is based on the passing of the seasons observed by the first agriculturists. But the more spiritual stuff is built on top of all that and it's difficult to say where that comes from.

But as we know, imagining a virtual disembodied mind is a skill we are rather capable at, so the perceived presence of a god and "communication" with it, when compared to a child with an imaginary friend is very obvious.

Brain scans of prayer have shown that when a faithful prays, the brain actually lights up as if it were actually talking to another individual.

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7c6549852cf0.jpg[/atsimg]

If you have ever seen trailer park boys;

"BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMM!"

Originally posted by wonderworld

If you dont follow one you follow the other.

Complete Crap! Are you suggesting that if one does not follow god, (as in god of the bible) the logical (and only) conclusion is that you follow the devil?

Can you say "Indoctrinated"?

I am agnostic and I neither believe in god (as in god of the bible) nor do I subscribe to the reality of a devil. I see both as a complete fabrication. As any script writer in Hollywood will attest, every story needs it's villain/nemesis. It's just a psychological ploy to manipulate people into cheering for one particular person or cause. In the bibles case, it's those guys in white robes. Meh!

IRM

reply to post by InnateNight


Thank you for taking the time to review the video and give your insightful commentary. I find it a classic example of how, even in today's age, the bible is used toward destructive ends (for another scary biblical perspective, google "fred phelps" and/or "god hates fags"). Christians United For Israel brings to light how the scripture has the power to bring out some very insane impulses in people. This is in part why i find such scholars as Ehrman vitally important to our collective survival. To sit in silence, only allows these burning bushes to grow and engulf us all. We need to take a proactive stand in educating the masses... aka assist others in/to deny ignorance.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by The All Seeing I]

a significant quote comes to mind...

"When the churches literally ruled society, the human drama encompassed: (a) slavery; (b) the cruel subjection of women; (c)the most savage forms of legal punishment; (d) the absurd belief that kings ruled by divine right; (e) the daily imposition of physical abuse; (f) cold heartlessness for the sufferings of the poor; as well as (g) assorted pogroms ('ethnic cleansing' wars) between rival religions, capital punishment for literally hundreds of offenses, and countless other daily imposed moral outrages... It was the free-thinking, challenging work by people of conscience, who almost invariably had to defy the religious and political status quo of their times, that brought us out of such darkness."
~ Steve Allen

reply to post by InfaRedMan


If you don't follow one you will follow the other.

It implies that you either follow the religious or the atheists.

Either way your following somebodies ideology.