If you do not believe in God, you must not have read the Bible

Hey Okie. We have had many back and forth in the past from disagreements so I'll remain on the sidelines sort of speak with what you said.

When I first learned about Jesus, and really had a look into the gospels, as far as a child could, I never saw Jesus as God but his great teacher and son. I only started to believe in all the other stuff because I was being taught those things.

So personally, when I was a 'babe', that is how I understood the gospel. I believe children have a certain innocence about them that makes them more open to the truth.

 

If the posters in this thread call themselves christian, then I want nothing to do with the religion.

 

Indeed, it is perfectly rational to judge an entire religion based on the petty disagreement of two of the posters in this thread.

 

Why not? If they are petty, the religion obviously hasn't helped them. If I run a business and my employees behave badly on a night out, doesn't that cast a bad light on the company itself?

 

I wonder who you could mean by two posters having petty disagreements?
The title of the thread is "If you do not believe in God, you must not have read the Bible.," if pettiness is the result it is based on this premise with the addition,
If you do not believe in god, (as I do), then you must not have read the bible, or if you do not believe as I do, you haven't read the bible, correctly. None of these premises do I adhere to.

The statement is indicative of a human mindset that is most brightly exposed to it's weaknesses in practical demonstrations as opposed to plainly theoretical arguments. The theoretical argument in the absence of practical experience leaves one unable to appreciate the practical effect of their stance.

I have personally experienced over a long period the malleable nature of our understanding of the things we read in the bible as we grow to maturity in life. When I was a child I appreciated a passage one way, as an adult my understanding is much deeper and nuanced or tempered by experience, (growing strong in the ways of the lord).

For example one way to comprehend the statement the measure you give is the measure you get is as a linear reciprocity that is fulfilled on the day of judgement. That understanding is devoid of experiential reflection as it is based on something that has not yet occurred as it is presented.

Another way of understanding the statement is as a real time experiential effect. My experience of my surroundings reflects my narrative of what I see.
As I judge, estimate, determine, so I am judged or these are the qualities I contend with or have unleashed upon the world. The regard I give my brother
represents then my prison or my freedom born in love.

These are fundamentally different constructions in their effect on behavior.
You cannot love what you have judged as unworthy of love. There is a kind of understanding of the term judgment that says my determinations are not judgments because the day of judgment belongs to god, and this understanding denies the extent or recognition of ones own devotion.

So the idea that the bible interprets itself causes fundamental disruption of situational awareness. If salt looses it's flavor it is no good for seasoning. The bible means nothing at all without experiential connotation and many on here have stated that they do not believe in god because they have read the bible. As walsh points out the behavior produced by some beliefs is not attractive.

It is at the level of belief we must work however because behavior follows belief. We do not have the power to determine what our inheritance is as we are eternally as god created us, but we do have the power to change our mind. There is no one who is not equal to any virtue. The world is not full of unprincipled men, but men who have learned so well, unsound principles. It is their previous learning that is suspect.

 

I was referring to whether or not it was insulting for you to ask OldWater if his mother taught him to lie. That aspect of your discussion is petty. I understood why you asked the question, but I also understand why he got offended. This particular aspect of your discussion should have been left behind before now. Frankly I'm wondering who the mod is of this particular forum.

Yes, it would cast a bad light, but your company would not be comprised of two billion employees where to look at two, five, or twenty would not be any indication of the whole. Surely you understand that stereotyping a large group based on a very small group is irrational?

 

The experience does not seem to be petty for him and it is so for him because of his misinterpretation of my intent. You understand my intent and you also understand how he came to his conclusion but he does not. I recognize that from a general perspective the exchange looks petty and it gives me no joy to engage him that way, but certainly our assessments must be amended in relation to contravening fact.

Righteous indignation is a mythical creature with two heads. There is no indignity in righteousness and righteousness cannot be had unless you share it with your brother.

 

It's your interpretation that the fact that the religion hasn't helped them is to blame on the religion itself. Your employees behaving badly does cast a bad light on the company but it doesn't have to mean that that means the company or its products/services isn't worth anything.

 

I don't want to be part of the religion myself either, by the way. But not because of it's followers, I'd view my religion as MY belief first, it's personal and if my fellow christian, muslim, rasta or whatever has a different interpretation or even is on a retarded level of comprehension/communication that would not change my faith, view or religion at all. Seems even kind of weird to do.

 

Do you suggest that I report waterbrothers post. Do you suggest that I leave waterbrother behind long ago. The engagement exists to demonstrate principle. I have been devoted to sticking with waterbrother for much longer than a year. There is in fact ignorance in the world. That the ignorance appears petty makes it no less ignorant.

I posed a question to duck about the nature of our discussion and his blessing was that we proceed.

 

No, but personally if I were a mod and saw the apparent venom that was beginning to surface, I would have stepped in to redirect the conversation.

 

Wasn't good form to bring his mother into the conversation tbh.

 

In light of all that was said, I think this verse will for the most part clear things up:

“I have spoken of these matters in figures of speech, but soon I will stop speaking figuratively and will tell you plainly all about the Father. Then you will ask in my name. I’m not saying I will ask the Father on your behalf, for the Father himself loves you dearly because you love me and believe that I came from God. Yes, I came from the Father into the world, and now I will leave the world and return to the Father.”

Then his disciples said, “At last you are speaking plainly and not figuratively. Now we understand that you know everything, and there’s no need to question you. From this we believe that you came from God.”

Jesus asked, “Do you finally believe? But the time is coming—indeed it’s here now—when you will be scattered, each one going his own way, leaving me alone. Yet I am not alone because the Father is with me. I have told you all this so that you may have peace in me. Here on earth you will have many trials and sorrows. But take heart, because I have overcome the world.”

John 16:25-33

In it's context it seems clear that all he had said before that was written in John was figurative.

 

^^
So you are honestly making the assertion that everything Jesus said in his ministry before his words in John 16 was figurative? Is this something you are really claiming? The very verse you quoted quite specifically talks about the subject that Jesus was on about, which would be about the Father. It has nothing at all to do with the bread of life discourse. (Of course John 16 appears to be toward the end of his ministry, which would mean, as you say, the sermon on the mount was figurative, along with just about his entire ministry.)

It's funny you use the term 'in this context', when in this case you had taken the selected verse effectively out of context.
Not only that, but you completely ignored my entire post.
Furthermore, I will quote what I already said in post #356, it was not directed at you at the time, but it is equally relevant:

Naturally this could turn into a discussion of the papacy, which would completely derail the thread. But that doesn't matter - resolutely refusing to accept any central authority figure means the criticism stands regardless. This is why we have several Christians in this thread alone debating different interpretations of the bible.

 

If a religion claims to sort out those matters, I would expect it to do so. If it doesn't, I would want nothing to do with it. Surely these things are the responsibility and domain of religion? If not, then I say it is good for nothing. If it doesn't remove bigotry, anger, selfishness, fear, ambition, pride and violence then for god's sake get away from it and try something else.

 

You speak of religion as if it were some sort of pill that, if taken, we would know of it's effectiveness. Here you speak of a couple of individuals and say, "Look, they have taken the pill and it has not worked. This means it must be ineffective."

The truth is it is nothing like this, anymore than one can judge a diet based upon a person who, on said diet, continues to gain weight because they continue to eat Big Macs. "Look, he's on this diet, and he's just as big as he ever was."

What many people fail to understand, both religious and otherwise, is that holiness takes work. It's much more than simply saying, "I'm a Christian" any more than one can say, "I'm a hippie" and then proceed to throw plastic bottles and dirty needles on the beach. I don't know of any religion that claims to somehow magically remove vice - only that we should work to remove vice.

 

A few people? I'd like to know where you live because where I am, there are no so-called religious people who I would consider happy. Anyone can convince themselves they are happy or appear to be happy but it is obvious from their behavior that they are not. Why should holiness take work? That is very revealing. If I am working to improve another part of myself, the part of me that is attempting to change will still remain the same no matter how much the rest of me changes. This is obvious, and is a good explanation of why these religions do not help.

 

Religious people do not have a monopoly on depression. Also, this doesn't speak at all to the points of my last post - you seem to have ignored it completely.

Why wouldn't it take work? Many people have many difficult vices to overcome, what would give you or anyone else the impression this would be easy? You say it is very revealing, but I wonder how many book on Christian spirituality you've read. If the answer is none, I imagine quite a bit of Christian spirituality would be revealing to you.

I really don't understand what you mean by this. Could you please explain? Are you saying that no one should attempt to improve themselves? Are you implying Christianity demands a change of the entire person? You are being quite vague and at the same time making grandiose assertions (saying religion doesn't help [anyone], a statement that is both unverifiable and unfalsifiable. I'm struggling to understand why you said it). You need to be more clear and thorough.

My last post explained why, as you put it, religion doesn't 'help'.

It seems the entire basis of your opinion is anecdotal.

 

You're saying we cannot know the effectiveness of the religion upon the symptoms of the person. Is that right? Correct me if i'm wrong. That is true, but I think it is unreasonable to pursue something that does not change me wholly for any length of time. If the changes are not visible, they are not worth noting. I'm not sure if I understood you.

I don't say it would be easy. But my view on psychological change is you either "get it" or you don't. This is not what you imply when you say it is difficult, is it?

You said I need to work to effect change. I assume you mean psychologically. Look, if I am moving a box from A to B with me in the middle, I do not change positions, the box does. If I am inside the box, then when the box is moved then I move with it. Any work that I do upon the box automatically places me outside the box, and change must be effected externally.

 

Friend?

See the above, I couldn't make this up if I tried. You actually put these two sentences together. Are you really so deluded, that you think that you can ask me; " if your mother taught you to lie" and that says nothing about my mother and it doesn't insult both me and my mother?

And now you're telling me that I'm not forgiving, because I'm not forgiving you for something that you say you didn't do. Make up your mind.

How is demonstrating love for yourself and disregarding the feelings of others, a display of Christian Brotherhood?