jar - On Christianity

jar writes: I believe the Holy Spirit exists, I do think he intervenes in our lives, I don't think he selected the words of the Bible but most likely motivated the authors.

Did he motivate them to write untruths?

jar writes: Christianity is the Map, not the Territory.

Can you elaborate.

Did he motivate them to write untruths?

No. Are they really untruths? I don't think so. They used what they had to market what they believed in.

jar said:

quote:

---

Christianity is the Map, not the Territory.

---

and you asked:

Can you elaborate.

Sure. Christianity is not GOD. It is a Map, and like all maps just a representation of GOD. It is a pathway and guide, but it is not the actual Territory. The Bible is just one of the insets in that Map, a key. It shows what the symbol for the road is , paved highways, bridges, there be dragons, but it is not the road, the bridge, or the dragon.

GOD is more than all of those and worshiping the Bible or even Christianity is mistaking the Map for the Territory IMHO.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I have to admit jar that I'm somewhat amazed at your logic that it is just fine for someone to make up a religion.

Isn't that how all religions start?

GDR writes: I'm somewhat amazed at your logic that it is just fine for someone to make up a religion.

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

jar writes: GOD is more than all of those and worshiping the Bible or even Christianity is mistaking the Map for the Territory IMHO.

No problem with that. The Bible is not an object to be worshipped any more than the cross is but they do lead us to He who is to be worshipped.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

Correct, it is but a Map. I agree.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

GDR writes: I'm somewhat amazed at your logic that it is just fine for someone to make up a religion. Ringo writes: 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.

Sure. Faith, jar and myself all call ourselves Christians but there are many things that we disagree on. Nobody has a lock on absolute truth. We are all however searching for as much of the truth as we can get. We use the Bible, we use the wisdom of others, we use the wisdom that God gave us and we can learn about God by observing and learning about his creation.

That however is not the same thing as intentionally writing something that is intended to inform others about your faith that you know to be untruthful. It is one thing to err unintentionally, it is another to change the actual events in order to tell the story the way you want it told. Jar (I can capitalize jar at the beginning of a sentence can't I? :) ), can call it marketing if he wants to, but I still call it lying.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

Jar (I can capitalize jar at the beginning of a sentence can't I? ), can call it marketing if he wants to, but I still call it lying.

But I also have no doubt that the folk believed what they were doing, were sincere in what they were doing. I just think they were wrong. When they quotemined parts from the Old Testament and included them in the New, I don't think they were lying. I think they read Psalm 22 and said "Wow. This parallels our story!" That does not mean though that Psalm 22 was written to foretell Jesus any more than the fact that Jules Verne located the canon to shoot the folk to the moon in From the Earth to the Moon in Florida was written to foretell Kennedy Space Center.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

GDR writes: That however is not the same thing as intentionally writing something that is intended to inform others about your faith that you know to be untruthful.

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.

It is one thing to err unintentionally, it is another to change the actual events in order to tell the story the way you want it told.

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

Here is your original statement

jar writes: The only way that it can be tied in is by quotemining it and that is very likely what the authors of the New Testament did, pulled pieces out of it and incorporated them into their tale.

Your last post

jar writes: But I also have no doubt that the folk believed what they were doing, were sincere in what they were doing. I just think they were wrong. When they quotemined parts from the Old Testament and included them in the New, I don't think they were lying. I think they read Psalm 22 and said "Wow. This parallels our story!"

In your first case the implication is that they just used the OT to try and make their made-up story believable. At least now you think that they were sincerely wrong. How do you discern when they are sincerely right?

Here are some quotes from Psalm 22.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?

Did Jesus really say this on the cross or were the Gospel writers just quotemining. Either He said it or he didn't. It's the truth or a lie.

7 All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads: 8 "He trusts in the LORD; let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him."

Same thing again. It happened or it didn't. It's the truth or it's a lie.

[qs] 14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.

15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me [b] in the dust of death.

16 Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced [c] my hands and my feet. [/qs]

This was written years before the crucifixion. It sure sounds like a foretelling to me.

18 They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.

Again. It's the truth or a lie

Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

Ringo writes: 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.

I have no problem with the concept of metaphor at all. I'm not a literalist when it comes to reading the Bible. Right now though we are talking about the story of the crucifixion. Jar isn't saying that they were speaking metaphorically in the telling of the story but that they were quotemining the OT to make their story more believable.

Ringo writes: 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?

As I've already said I think that trying to take the whole Bible literally robs it of a great deal that the spiritual truths can actually convey. The Jewish people up until very modern times had a long history of teaching by metaphor and as you said so did Jesus. However, I have a great deal of difficulty seeing the story of the crucifixion as a metaphor.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

GDR writes: Jar isn't saying that they were speaking metaphorically in the telling of the story but that they were quotemining the OT to make their story more believable.

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

GDR wrote:

It happened or it didn't. It's the truth or it's a lie.

Was Jesus' name Emmanuel?
If you look into it, I think you'll find his name was Jesus.

It either happened or it didn't. It's the truth or it's a lie.

---

Archer

All species are transitional.

Ringo writes: 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.

Except that one doesn't use fiction without making it clear that it is fiction. If it is fiction masquerading as literal truth then it's untruthful

Ringo writes: 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.

Two of the Gospel writers were Apostles. (Matthew and John) John's Gospel strongly implies that he was there. No record of whether Matthew was there or not.

Ringo writes: 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?

With the possible exception of Luke they would all have gotten the information either first or second hand. The dialogue is written in such a way that I am led to believe that it is a telling of how it actually happened.

Ringo writes: I think you put too much emphasis on the words and not enough on the message in the words.

I hope I'm not guilty of that. The message of the cross is central to my faith.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

Archer writes: Was Jesus' name Emmanuel? If you look into it, I think you'll find his name was Jesus. It either happened or it didn't. It's the truth or it's a lie.

I don't get your point. Emmanuel simply means "God with us" Same thing as calling Jesus "Son of God".

Edited by GDR, : It didn't post correctly for whatever reason

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)