Why should man have spread the word of god to the rest of the world?

[lordlundar]

Well, if the events of revelations is inevitable, I would say advance notice to duck and cover when all hell breaks loose.

[Daskinor]

The Story of Noah's Ark is actually present in allot of Mediterranean cultures for a reason.

At one point in the past the Mediterranean Sea And black Sea was actualy a freshwater lake. And the ocean kept at bay. Throw in a little techtoinic shifting, the last ice sheet from the last ice age melting and maybe and earthquake. The last natural barriers fail and the sea floods the entire Mediterranean Lake area.

Any idea how devastating that would be to the area. A huge amount of farmland was lost and upwards of 100,000 people would of been displaced as the lakes became seas. Land lost to water, and farmland rendered useless by saltwater inlays. The story became myth for the area, and written in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. Also remember before the bible was ever written the Early Jewish people did spend some time in Babylonian Cites before moving on.


The story of David and Goliath is an easy one. Goliath was huge because he had a pituitary tumor. It would put pressure on the brain causing constant headaches and even violent behavior. David would be able to sneak up on him because the tumor would push up against the optic receptors in the brain causing blurred vision or even blindness. One shot to the head ruptures the tumor like an aneurysm and he goes down like a rock.

Take these stories throw in some relation to god and the message you want to send. And the events become reformed to carry what messages you want them to have, aka. "the moral of the story."

[Ghel]

It's easy to see that the Bible is just a collection of folk tales and legends, with maybe a little bit of history thrown in. I can see that some stories were intended to have a message or "moral," but what message are we supposed to glean from stories such as Jesus cursing the fig tree? That Jesus was an idiot for expecting the tree to bear figs out of season?

[Daskinor]

It's easy to see that the Bible is just a collection of folk tales and legends, with maybe a little bit of history thrown in. I can see that some stories were intended to have a message or "moral," but what message are we supposed to glean from stories such as Jesus cursing the fig tree? That Jesus was an idiot for expecting the tree to bear figs out of season?

The power of prayer and of god, Jesus asked the tree to be smited and so it was.

Oops hit enter to early, The tree had leaves but no taqsh. The points where the fruit will grow appear at the same time as the leaves. And the fig precursors are the size of an almond and editable. Not tasty but will keep you alive. Jesus saw the tree would not bear fruit and smote it.

There is also a nice lost books of the bible discussion where Jesus is more like a man and sometimes accidentally hurts people or things with his abilities.

[Gravekeeper]

Let's not forget the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, where 6 year old Jesus was basically written after Loki:

"In another episode, a child disperses water that Jesus has collected, Jesus then curses him, which causes the child's body to wither into a corpse, found in the Greek text A, and Latin versions. Another child dies when Jesus curses him when he apparently accidentally bumps into him. In the latter case, there are three differing versions recorded the Greek Text A, Greek Text B, and the Latin text. Instead of bumping into Jesus in A, B records that the child throws a stone at Jesus, while the last says the boy punched him.

When Joseph and Mary's neighbors complain, they are miraculously struck blind by Jesus."

>.>

[Ghel]

Oops hit enter to early, The tree had leaves but no taqsh. The points where the fruit will grow appear at the same time as the leaves. And the fig precursors are the size of an almond and editable. Not tasty but will keep you alive. Jesus saw the tree would not bear fruit and smote it.

Well, see, that's part of the problem. The apologetic for the taqsh was brought up long after the passage was written. How is anybody supposed to understand the Bible, when it has to be explained by apologists centuries or millennia later? And for that matter, if Jesus saw that the tree wasn't able to bear fruit, why didn't he heal it, like he had so many people in the gospels?

If the Bible were the inspired word of an omnipotent God, I would expect each person to understand it completely and immediately the first time they read it, no matter how many times it's been translated. They shouldn't need decades of study or apologetics to understand God's word.

Daskinor, it looks like your position is that the Bible is a collection of myths and legends, but that you think the stories have a historical basis. Is this something you think you can demonstrate, or is it just speculation? Also, do you think the Bible's central message, that the Biblical God exists, is true?


GK, growing up Catholic, I was always surprised that there weren't any records of Jesus' youth (except for that one time when he ran away when he was 12). I wondered how soon he knew he was God, and what miracles or smitings he performed as a child. I wondered if it was like Firestarter (the movie, not the tv series). Did he ever accidentally smite someone because he was throwing a temper tantrum? Of course, at the time, I didn't know that there were other gospels that the Catholic Church had chosen to leave out of the Bible.

[Daskinor]

The Old Testament side has many similarities to other myths and legends in the area. You can see the genesis of such ideas, by comparing legends and other god like ideology of neighboring cultures. The most potent example is the story of the Ark and the epic of Gilgamesh. They are in essence the same story but a story meant for completely different audiences.

In the Exodus from Egypt, the plagues themselves can all be caused by one natural disaster. A volcano erupting, Santorini about 1500 years ago.

We know little about how the Old Testament really came to be. But most of the stories share a central theme. How god shapes the world and the events of our lives. To bring a sense of order to the real chaos of existing. Bad things happen because people are bad, good things happen because we respect god.

Adapting myth and legend to support this idea that god is all knowing, powerful and vengeful. But if you stay on his good side, good things happen.

The new Testament is another beast all together. We know a great deal more about it and how it was written and put together. It is not a collection of myths and legends like the old testament. The New was written to show a relation between man and god. But it is also a collection of different books written by different authors at different points of time over a span of centuries. Even then some of the books are collections of random writings and correspondence of even more people. All these authors did not share a common language, background or position within the early church. Oh and there is many, many more books of early Christan ideology that where left out.

So the early church had a problem, same problem as today. The splitting on key points of a Religion they where bringing to the people. So they did what any good Romans would do. Sit down, coble together a core set of beliefs and vote on it. Interesting fact, Revelations almost did not make it into the bible.

Now we have to remember the time, how many people knew how to read and write. So the bible was never written to be understood by the masses, only by the educated. After the fall of Rome, the Highly Educated. Imagine going to church over a thousands of years ago. You by all means would not be able to read the bible, it would have to be interpreted for you.

So now I will return to the story of Jesus and the Fig Tree.

This passage is really infamous because it shows Jesus in another light, more human one can say. Its also kinda of a rallying call for literal truth of the bible. The passage visibly shows no importance and goes at odds of Jesus' behavior.
Its also parried with Jesus' trip to the temple, another of his more human actions.

Remember what we are dealing with;

-Events Recorded centuries after they happen
-Events Written down by different authors
-These Authors have different Ideology, language and Backgrounds
-Translated from different languages
-Then taken, cut up and placed together in a more unified book of ideology
-Then that message is interpreted by a set group for the masses at large for over a thousand years.

To simply put it, in the modern bible the passage serves no purpose because its message was lost. Because its message was no longer needed.

This passage, along with the visit to the temple afterwards were most likely used to go against the institutions of old. The Jewish religion before the rise of Christianity. Passages dealing with how the new religion is not corrupt like old would fall out of wide use when the new church has become way more powerful then the old religions. So over centuries and throw in a few bad translations because the translator did not quite understand the passage himself. And there you go, you get a passage that makes no sense.

And that the key right there. It makes no sense to you or me. The bible needs to be interpreted over and over again, two men can read it and reach two entirely different conclusions. The message of the bible has to be interpreted by others. So it is always tainted with their own ideology. There are key points they all agree with but does that make it the work of god?

No, I never thought it was.

It is a work of man, So he could bring order to the world around him.

[Ghel]

It is a work of man, So he could bring order to the world around him.

I don't see that kind of purpose in the Bible, but I agree it is a work of man. I'm all for discussing the Bible as a work of literature or fiction, as long as we agree that it is fiction.

[Kheldarson]

I know I shouldn't respond here but...bah.

I'll go ahead and state for the record that yes I am Catholic. I'm studying apologetics in my free time, so I make no claim that I'm a trained theologian and/or philosopher. But this is the area I want to go back to study from a historical viewpoint.

So my bias being declared, going back to the original question, this seems tied more to the question of free will as is. Simply put, why should we have free will? Well, that's debated but I think it's because God, like all beings, wants to know He's loved. So He lets us choose. So He wants us to all know his message. But again, with free will, we screw things up. So we're spreading near conflicting messages. Personally, I think it's better to do your research and choose something that you believe in and stand for it. Share it if asked, but just let your life stand for itself. God knows who loves Him, no matter what the faith.

[Ghel]

I can't believe you brought up free will. That's like the last rung of the ladder in any discussion. One more step down, and you fall into the abyss.

God wants to know he's loved, huh? How can anyone possibly love God in the way they love a parent, child, sibling, or even pet? You have to know someone to love them, and since God refuses to show that he even exists, much less let us actually get to know him, how can anybody be expected to love him? The way you describe him, God seems like a stalker, constantly watching someone, sending them anonymous cryptic messages, and then expecting his victim to respond positively to his expression of love. Creepy.

[Kheldarson]

Or maybe he's the ultimate thought experiment. And it's the path of discovery that's really important. Hell, God's not even technically a person as he's infinite. We give him human definition. So maybe this ideal of God and the ideas that go along with Him are just a way for our puny minds to encompass the whole of the universe.

And how's God a stalker? In my version, He's laid out the clues, the ideas, the thoughts, the paths that anyone can follow if they so choose in order to find Him along said path so you can get to know him better. Good example would be St. Therese of Avila's book The Interior Castle. She describes the way to God/enlightenment/discovery of the infinite as traveling through the castle of the heart. And guess what? If you don't even start inside the castle, you'll never see God. Or infinity. Whatever. Why? Because you've chosen not to.

But would like to know how waiting for somebody to join you is being a stalker.

[Rapscallion]

If you don't even start inside the castle, you'll never see God. Or infinity. Whatever. Why?

Because there's nothing there?

I'll quite happily look for evidence of the god you seem to believe exists, but only when there's testable proof that there's more than just supposition. I've yet to see any claim for a supernatural being be backed up to a reasonable standard. What I usually see is something akin to, "I can't explain everything, so it's my preference in invisible friend." Sometimes it comes with, "This is the only interpretation of invisble friend that is acceptable," and at other times it comes with, "Every invisible friend is valid, and they all are the same one, so I'm right anyway."

There was something I saw a while back from an atheist on Youtube that I've taken on board as it makes far more sense of my position. I'll paraphrase from memory.

"What can you do to make me believe that your god exists? Nothing. Your god can do it, though. When your god is ready to do what you claim he or she can do, show me."

It's not a closed-mind position. In fact, it's pretty open - all you have to do is give some sort of evidence.

Look at the christian god - according to his biography he's able to slay the firstborn of an entire enemy nation (though he needed help to let him and his assistants know which ones were his chosen people); plagues of locusts ravaged the land; causing the sea to open to allow his chosen people through and then return to drown their harassers; use a burning bush in the way we'd use a phone; turn someone into a pillar of salt; etc.

No semantics, no word games, no definitions - the claims made about the god you believe in need to be backed up with action by your god. Until such time, it's reasonable to not believe in that god.

Rapscallion

[Ghel]

And how's God a stalker?

Somebody who I've never met is telling me that he loves me using cryptic messages and go-betweens (theists) rather than telling me himself. That's stalker-like.

If God is omniscient, he knows that I could never love somebody I haven't met. However, he would know what it would take to convince me that he exists (even if I don't know). If God is omnipotent, he would have the power to convince me that he exists. Being omnipotent and omniscient, he would even have the power and know-how to do so without interfering with my free will. The fact that God has not contacted me in a way that would convince me of his existence says that either he doesn't exist, he doesn't care whether I believe, or he's incompetent.

[Rageaholic]

Somebody who I've never met is telling me that he loves me using cryptic messages and go-betweens (theists) rather than telling me himself. That's stalker-like.

If God is omniscient, he knows that I could never love somebody I haven't met. However, he would know what it would take to convince me that he exists (even if I don't know). If God is omnipotent, he would have the power to convince me that he exists. Being omnipotent and omniscient, he would even have the power and know-how to do so without interfering with my free will. The fact that God has not contacted me in a way that would convince me of his existence says that either he doesn't exist, he doesn't care whether I believe, or he's incompetent.

Exactly. I don't buy this "not looking hard enough" crap. I could buy that god wants us to do good here on earth and will reward us accordingly in the afterlife. Unfortunately, this is not what I hear from theists. You have to have a "relationship" with god which makes no sense. How can you have a relationship with an entity you can't see or hear? I'm sorry, but that is not something I can wrap my mind around. If god is trying to communicate with me, he's way too subtle.