|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,553
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,553 |
I am not a Christian and I do believe that the Bible is mythology. That is not to say that it's fiction. That is to say that it is a grand telling of archetypal muths that provide structure and meaning for the bases of human existence. Well, the problem I have with that -- and with many Fundamentalists -- is the treatment of "the Bible" as if it is one thing. Anyone out there actually read the Bible? I mean, cover to cover? If you do, you realize it is something compiled over millenia, and a very mixed bag of different books. To "believe" the Psalms is nonsense -- they are songs, expression of faith through songs. You can't "disbelieve" it any more than you can "disbelieve," say, Bob Dylan. Similarly with the collection of sayings known as "Proverbs." You may not agree with them -- but it is not a matter for belief or unbelief. Ruth is a sweet tale of human kindness -- family legend, perhaps. Much of the other books are geneologies. Who was around to write down Genesis as it happened? Obviously, it signals truths, but what actually "happened" in the Garden of Eden was unwitnessed by any but the principals, and presumably passed on for centuries before it was recorded. The New Testament, on the other hand, was written within decades after the events. The letters of Paul and others began 15 years after the Crucifixion. The authors take great pains to anchor their testimony in history -- "In the time of Caesar Augustus..." -- and they keep telling you it's true. Take the first few passages of Luke, where he talks about sifting through firsthand accounts of the events described. Now, you may say the people are deluded or lying, but it's obvious that they did not see themselves as describing a myth, but rather describing what "really happened." They did not mean it to be taken as myth, but rather as historical record. And as a historical record, I don't know of anything like it at that time (Thucydides and Herodotus, for example, have a very different feel to them -- so does Suetonious.) "The Bible" is not one, homogenous thing written at one time by one author. And each of its many books must be considered separately for its "literalness" (which is why we don't stone adulterers, though many of you are probably tempted, and why most Christians eat pork).
"Virtue -- even attempted virtue -- brings light; indulgence brings fog." -- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,621
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,621 |
Mythology?
I agree parts of the Bible are allegory (as in: parable, symbolic, metaphor) though.
And it's prety well established that parts of it are garbled in translation and hand-copying time after time before the printing press.
"Never forget that your pain means nothing to a WS." ~Mulan
"An ethical man knows it is wrong to cheat on his wife. A moral man will not actually do it." ~ Ducky
WS: They are who they are.
When an eel lunges out
And it bites off your snout
Thats a moray ~DS
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712 |
Since I did cover this in Mimi's thread about FH, I thought I would repost here what I said. Take it as you will...and I know FH can speak for himself...but my feelings about this book and movie I describe below. I think that may be where FH is also. And some that might want to cast FH as being too "stuff shirted" about this...please read below. For many believers...this IS personal! Well, to start off...I am not sure where FH is coming from on this, so I will let him speak for himself. For me...for believers...I am not much worried about this book/movie. Why? Because my God is bigger than Mr. Brown. I really do not need to fight God's battles...I believe He can cover it.
But, at the same time, I have a visceral feeling of righteous anger when the Jesus I know, the one who bled and died for everyone of us...is villified and treated this way. I know He can handle it Himself. But it still gets my blood boiling a little to know that the Man that I know personally, who gave everything for me...is treated this way.
It's as if someone wrote a fictionally story about my Dad, but changed many things in it which misrepresented who he was and what he was about. While my Dad would be big enough to handle it...it still would irk me that people that do not know my Dad are writing these things. Albeit, they say that what they are writing is "fiction." But, the message in some way or another still sticks. And that aint fair.
Same goes for Jesus. Obviously, Mr. Brown does not know Jesus, or he wouldnt have written what he wrote. But, he writes a fictional accounting of Jesus, using his gift as a writer, and does so in a professional way. And because of this, others entertain such thoughts as stated above..."I know it is fiction, but it does seem plausible."
Well, if Mr. Brown was writing an accounting of my Dad's life, but doing so in a "fictional" way...and he was obviously way off mark...but did so in a way where people would say "I know it is fictional, but it is plausible that your Dad was all of these things Mr. Brown wrote..." then that would be a disservice to my Dad. It would cast him in a light that he didnt deserve.
So, that is my thoughts. The Passion of Christ was a great illustration into just a small portion of the debt Jesus paid for all of us. When I walked out of that movie, I couldnt talk about it for three days. All I could say...all I could pray...was "I'm sorry." For it was me that put Him there.
Then, to know the truth about Jesus, to have met Him and declared my life His...to have someone that obviously does not know Him write this...well, it is a feeling that more than upsets me.
One more illustration that might help. Let's say a buddy of mine threw himself on a handgrenade and died for me in combat. And when I got back, someone had written a "fictional" book about him, and it did not describe at all who he was or what he was about. Even if the book was a good read...I would be more than upset my the mistreatment of a man that gave his life for me.
Jesus is big enough to handle Mr. Brown. And in some ways, the book will drive many towards the truth. God will use anything for His own purposes.
But, as a personal affront...I dont like it at all when people who do not know Jesus, want to mischaracterize Him and try to minimize what He did. In His arms.
Standing in His PresenceFBS (me) (48) FWW (41) Married April 1993... 4 kids (19(B), 17(G), 14(B), 4(B)) Blessed by God more than I deserve "If Jesus is your co-pilot...you need to change seats!"Link: The Roles of Husbands and Wives
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712 |
I am not a Christian and I do believe that the Bible is mythology. That is not to say that it's fiction. That is to say that it is a grand telling of archetypal muths that provide structure and meaning for the bases of human existence. Well, the problem I have with that -- and with many Fundamentalists -- is the treatment of "the Bible" as if it is one thing. Anyone out there actually read the Bible? I mean, cover to cover? Yes. I have been in a Bible study that has gone on for ten years. It took us 7 years to go thru the Bible once. we are o nthe second time thru. If you do, you realize it is something compiled over millenia, and a very mixed bag of different books. To "believe" the Psalms is nonsense -- they are songs, expression of faith through songs. You can't "disbelieve" it any more than you can "disbelieve," say, Bob Dylan. Similarly with the collection of sayings known as "Proverbs." You may not agree with them -- but it is not a matter for belief or unbelief. Ruth is a sweet tale of human kindness -- family legend, perhaps. Much of the other books are geneologies. I wont break this down because it would take too long. But let me agree with you for a minute (mostly). So, what's the point here? Just because they tell stories about people who lived thousands of years ago...what does that have to do with the accuracy of the Bible? Who was around to write down Genesis as it happened? God. Obviously, it signals truths, but what actually "happened" in the Garden of Eden was unwitnessed by any but the principals, and presumably passed on for centuries before it was recorded. Presumably passed on? Hhhmmmmm?!?! Well, unbelievers "believe" it was presumably passed on. Believers know that Scripture was inspired by God. Which means that while these guys wrote these 66 books...while the people that copied them over the years...God was standing over their shoulder making sure His word was kept accurate. The New Testament, on the other hand, was written within decades after the events. The letters of Paul and others began 15 years after the Crucifixion. The authors take great pains to anchor their testimony in history -- "In the time of Caesar Augustus..." -- and they keep telling you it's true. Take the first few passages of Luke, where he talks about sifting through firsthand accounts of the events described.
Now, you may say the people are deluded or lying, but it's obvious that they did not see themselves as describing a myth, but rather describing what "really happened." They did not mean it to be taken as myth, but rather as historical record. And as a historical record, I don't know of anything like it at that time (Thucydides and Herodotus, for example, have a very different feel to them -- so does Suetonious.)
"The Bible" is not one, homogenous thing written at one time by one author. And each of its many books must be considered separately for its "literalness" (which is why we don't stone adulterers, though many of you are probably tempted, and why most Christians eat pork). I do agree with you here. But, not one part of the Old or New Testament has been disproven. The historical accuracy is unmatched. The OT is the Old Law, what we lived under until the New Law came into being. That is why we dont stone adulterers now. As I said, the Bible has been proven accurate as a historical document. It also has been proven accurate as a prophetic document. I hope I havent misinterpreted what you were trying to say here. In His arms.
Standing in His PresenceFBS (me) (48) FWW (41) Married April 1993... 4 kids (19(B), 17(G), 14(B), 4(B)) Blessed by God more than I deserve "If Jesus is your co-pilot...you need to change seats!"Link: The Roles of Husbands and Wives
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816 |
I haven't read all the posts either... Check how WAT responds to anyone who says, or intimates, that Evolution is wrong and that Gould and his "punctuated equilibrium" is a lot of unproven nonsense being passed off as "fact." FH, Have you lost your mind? weaver: The man has little 2 lose... ...okay, that was a cheap frontal attack. Sorry, FH! I am so sick of you bashing WAT ever single chance you get, and over the stupidist reasons, right out of the blue. Hey, at least he left me out that time! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> WAT is one of the most decent, intelligent, caring & straight up guys on this board. Yep. -ol' 2long
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,553
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,553 |
Not entirely, Mortarman. But I'm not sure "accuracy" means 100 percent literal truth -- rather than a symbolic truth (in the case of Eden). The Fall is the best and most profound explanation I know for the existence of evil. Whether or not there was actually a snake in an actual garden isn't all that important to me.
And accuracy...well in the first chapter of Matthew, three generations are made to account for the 450-year period in Egypt.
But again, does it matter? And I think your points about a prophetic document, a description of the way God works, and a surprising amount of historical accuracy, given what we are finding out, hold.
My point was that people who describe Jesus as a "myth" are missing the very point the gospel-writers tried to make. This isn't a myth; they didn't mean it to be taken as one. And you may say that all the people who wrote it are nuts, but if so, they had a surprising degree of agreement among them about the very subject of their nutsiness -- more than you'd get from the participants at last Thanksgiving dinner. And if this is some sort of fraud, as some have maintained, then you have to get a lot of people working together to do it -- not only including the gospel authors (Thomas, too), but Paul of the Acts and letters, and the authors of the other letters, too. Always keeping in mind that these were mostly devout Jews (one of the gospel authors was presumably gentile), who would have had a lot of thoughts about "bearing false witness."
And what would have been the motive? Money????
Now THAT stretches credibility.
"Virtue -- even attempted virtue -- brings light; indulgence brings fog." -- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 665
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 665 |
Which means that while these guys wrote these 66 books...while the people that copied them over the years...God was standing over their shoulder making sure His word was kept accurate. What is the evidence do you have for this? Or should we just take your words or the words of other apologists like you for this? Btw, I believe in God, so I am not coming from an atheist perspective, but from that of a former philosopher. That is to say, as Hume would say, how do you know that your statement above is true?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,179
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,179 |
And to think....I'll I wanted to know is if I should shell out the $16.00 for me and a date to see this movie while it is still first run....WOW.....sometimes you just have to say: "What the F*** ?"
Lem
Some people just don't get it, they don't get it that they don't get it.
I had the right to remain silent.......but I didn't have the ability.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996 |
The MOVIE
does not dispute the Godliness of Jesus
FYI
Pep
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,553
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,553 |
Save your bucks. Get the David Icke book, LM, and read it together. Lizard Men. That's our future.
"Virtue -- even attempted virtue -- brings light; indulgence brings fog." -- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,424
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,424 |
Ha! My answer is "no" without seeing the movie, because I think the cost of a first run movie date can be better spent by the time you add in snacks and drinks.
Take her bowling or somewhere fun where you can actually interact.
Me - BS
DDay 1 (Multiple affairs while overseas) - Feb 2003
DDay 2 (AdultFriendFinder Profile) - April 2007
Seeing a counselor. I think we have him stumped.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 665
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 665 |
not one part of the Old or New Testament has been disproven. This does not prove that all the relevant parts were proven to be true either. Last I checked, no one has proven that the red seas parted as depicted in Genesis, or that Elijah was indeed taken to heaven by a chariot, and so on. The absent of ~p does not prove p, where “p” stands for propositions. Thus, if I say that the events concerning the Hindu God Krishna as depicted in the Bhagavad-Gita have not been proven to be false, it does not mean that they are true either. I am sure you will agree with me on that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 665
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 665 |
LM, You know that you love starting sh*t, so don't pretend to be surprise. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,621
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,621 |
"Which means that while these guys wrote these 66 books...while the people that copied them over the years...God was standing over their shoulder making sure His word was kept accurate." Not hardly. We have some very old copies of original Greek manuscripts. And they differ significantly. Which is the correct one? (Oldest is not necessarily the right answer.) We have sequences of copies tracing a series of changes in the text over many hundreds of years. Sometimes changes are tracable to specific scribes. Many changes in the text can be traced directly to scribes being paid by someone powerful (we often even know who they were) to put their political or personal bias into their own personal copy of the text. And many of these known changes to the early texts still live on in current translations. Some scribes were just lazy or incompetent and made mistakes. Some of these mistakes are obvious, others have produced serious confusion. And they are still in current translations. None of this invalidates the basic messages. But it does invalidate literalism. Interested people may want to check out any of these books: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search...6665610-1561422 With prayers,
"Never forget that your pain means nothing to a WS." ~Mulan
"An ethical man knows it is wrong to cheat on his wife. A moral man will not actually do it." ~ Ducky
WS: They are who they are.
When an eel lunges out
And it bites off your snout
Thats a moray ~DS
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816 |
Who was around to write down Genesis as it happened? God. Did he use ink? Did he use pencils? If pencils, were they lead or much safer graphite? God was standing over their shoulder making sure His word was kept accurate. God stands? He has feet? He's about 6' tall? My point with this is 2 hope that people will consider how they convey their "truths." Mythology is, certainly was, a very effective way 2 convey great truths. Clearly, some stories in the Bible are mythology - Noah's and Gilgamesh's flood, for example. That doesn't diminish their importance in human development at all, certainly not in my view. The thread is about a movie. I haven't seen it, but do want 2. I also want 2 see Gibson's movie. I did see "The Last Temptation of Christ" many years ago, and loved it. It was OBVIOUSLY fiction, but very cleverly done - religious fiction, and even mythological fiction (that's NOT reduntant, think about it). Clearly designed 2 make the viewer "think." I also loved "The New World", which my W and her historian friend hated because of the inaccuracies it portrayed. The movie was a visual and musical STUNNER, in my humble view, and had a very important underlying message about the vast gulf between old and new world cultures at the time. I also saw the latest version of "Pride and Prejudice" over the weekend with my sisters. I admit it - I'm a guy and I love that story. And it's been fascinating comparing the different depictions of it. I was worried that this latest would be 2short 2 do the story justice, but like "The New World" perhaps, it was a visually stunning piece of work - and the actors and the story were superb. My belief system - or lack thereof in some's eyes - came out of all those movies entirely intact. ...but they do make me think! -ol' 2long [edited: that 2nd 2long was an imposter! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />]
Last edited by 2long; 05/22/06 04:36 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,179
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,179 |
LM, You know that you love starting sh*t, so don't pretend to be surprise. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> UVA: My friend, I can't take credit for this one. I honestly wanted a review of the movie from someone who saw it. I read the book and really enjoyed it, but being on call this weekend precluded me from going to see it, so I wanted some reviews from those who saw it...yet this thread degenerated into this...After it started going down hill, I changed the thread so the thread topic matched what was being discussed. I won't take an ounce of responsibility for that or the angst in some who it might have caused. I think it is all pretty redicoulous if you ask me. . <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Lem
Some people just don't get it, they don't get it that they don't get it.
I had the right to remain silent.......but I didn't have the ability.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,553
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,553 |
LOTS of guys love Pride & Prej, 2long! It's probably the most perfect novel in the English language. A perfectly cut little diamond.
I think it appeals to all of us whose lives are in disorder -- because the society is so perfectly ordered.
The appeal of that world is terrific and soothing.
When I'm feeling in the dumps, there's nothing like rereading Lizzy's rejection of Mr. Collins ... or Mr. Darcy. It always happens the same way.
"Virtue -- even attempted virtue -- brings light; indulgence brings fog." -- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996 |
I watched P&P on DVD last nite... LOVE IT .... it's one we own.
Mr Pep is out of pocket and I watch movies ..... what else is there to do???
*pout*
Pep
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 665
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 665 |
Ok buddy, fair enough. Here is a link to rottentomatoes.com for the DVC. Based on 161 reviews it does not look promising. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/da_vinci_code/
Last edited by UVA; 05/22/06 04:39 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,179
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,179 |
??? I am a little slow here..help me out with this one...
Some people just don't get it, they don't get it that they don't get it.
I had the right to remain silent.......but I didn't have the ability.
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
777
guests, and
71
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums67
Topics133,624
Posts2,323,516
Members72,023
| |
Most Online6,102
Jul 3rd, 2025
|
|
|
|
