ChatterBank0 min ago
Touchy Subject.
36 Answers
To start i should explain that i am buddhist, and buddhists are brought up to be accepting of other religions, which in this moden society is actually quite diffficult to do, what with 7/7 and 9/11 and i suppose even the glasgow bombings, which with the fact they were mostly, if not all, doctors. But i wish to, not question, but ask others about their genuine thought about the following... the bible, if god did invent the world the universe etc, why was it he said it was flat, surely the maker knew it wasn't.
why was moses the only one who can perform real magic, i.e parting the sea, applies for god and walking on water etc. but also that it is ok to sell your daughter into slavery, and that you can stone disobedient childeren to deathe, but then says it is wrong to kill another human
so it contradicts aswell, anyone care to either explain or give more examples,
why was moses the only one who can perform real magic, i.e parting the sea, applies for god and walking on water etc. but also that it is ok to sell your daughter into slavery, and that you can stone disobedient childeren to deathe, but then says it is wrong to kill another human
so it contradicts aswell, anyone care to either explain or give more examples,
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by king-aslan. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Isn�t Buddhism also contradictory depending upon how you translate the 2,500 year old teachings? Particularly as regards slavery? Christianity and Buddhism are frequently morbid in their degradation of real life, Christians holding that we live permanently in sin and Buddhism that all of our desires and wants are misguided and ultimately betray us to further suffering.
For the first five hundred years the Scriptures were orally transmitted. They were written down only at the beginning of the Christian era, because at that time the decline in faith threatened their continued survival in the memories of the monks. Different schools wrote down different things. Stories of "The Buddha" are compiled stories from multiple people and multiple events, canonized and amalgamated, there was no singular "Buddha" as is traditionally taught in Buddhism, and no aspect of Buddhism is other than that you'd expect to find in early India. In short, it is entirely possible that there was no Buddha and that the stories of the Buddha's life were merely the same stories of similar lives of other sages.
Yes of course wars in the name of Christianity or Islam are widely known about, but various forms of Buddhism in various times have been instruments of war and violence. Buddhist sects have argued and fought over doctrine, over populations and methods, over pride and national independence. Buddhism has integrated itself with governments and found itself manipulating the populace just as many other religions have done.
For the first five hundred years the Scriptures were orally transmitted. They were written down only at the beginning of the Christian era, because at that time the decline in faith threatened their continued survival in the memories of the monks. Different schools wrote down different things. Stories of "The Buddha" are compiled stories from multiple people and multiple events, canonized and amalgamated, there was no singular "Buddha" as is traditionally taught in Buddhism, and no aspect of Buddhism is other than that you'd expect to find in early India. In short, it is entirely possible that there was no Buddha and that the stories of the Buddha's life were merely the same stories of similar lives of other sages.
Yes of course wars in the name of Christianity or Islam are widely known about, but various forms of Buddhism in various times have been instruments of war and violence. Buddhist sects have argued and fought over doctrine, over populations and methods, over pride and national independence. Buddhism has integrated itself with governments and found itself manipulating the populace just as many other religions have done.
I know buddhism is quite contradictory, the focused monks are supposed to train in a kung-fu style art for self defense, whist still being a peaceful civilisation, but is this really possible? again as said, there was no 'one' buddha, this is just a name given to the 'teachers' although the buddha many relate to is called Gautama Buddha, he was the first teacher, the one who started the buddhist religion, and whom all the other teachers are named after, and who the dalia Lama is the reincarnation of. But think of it logically, the whole religion is based around one mans thoughts and beliefs, which were so strong and thought provoking that others wanted to follow, adding their own ideas and thoughts. although yes, maybe it is impossible for anyone to be born calm annd peaceful. But that's what karma's for, to try and regain the innocence and honesty so we can reincarnate happily into the next stage of our lives.
Goodsoulette: I apologise, my last answer was written not long after waking up and didn't come out quite as I had intended it.
The books may have been written to provide moral structure to society, I suppose. However, that being their intention doesn't mean it should be taken seriously. Why should a book written by some people thousands of years ago provide a moral structure, whether that was their intention or not? Also, the Bible was formed over hundreds of years. The intentions of one author of one book wouldn't have been the same as others, especially given the sheer number of people who've contributed to its compilation. How could they have grasped the wider picture and hoped that it would influence an entire society they didn't even know existed? Remember, other continents still had not been discovered by this point, so even if this was their intention it was one made without consideration for anyone but themselves at the time.
And if it's a book that tells us how we live our lives, why aren't you out stoning prostitutes and women who have affairs to death? Why aren't you haranguing governments to bring back capital punishment for homosexuality?
Once again (last time I'm going to do this), the book may well specify some good morals which you agree with and wish to follow. However, it is not the BIBLE which has taught you these morals, it's life. If it were the BIBLE you would be following ALL of its morals, but the fact that you can pick and choose what is good and what is bad is your innate ability as a human being to know what is right and wrong. This does not make the bible true, in fact, it means I could probably write a better version. It also doesn't defend the existence of god, or help the cause of religion's continued existence.
The books may have been written to provide moral structure to society, I suppose. However, that being their intention doesn't mean it should be taken seriously. Why should a book written by some people thousands of years ago provide a moral structure, whether that was their intention or not? Also, the Bible was formed over hundreds of years. The intentions of one author of one book wouldn't have been the same as others, especially given the sheer number of people who've contributed to its compilation. How could they have grasped the wider picture and hoped that it would influence an entire society they didn't even know existed? Remember, other continents still had not been discovered by this point, so even if this was their intention it was one made without consideration for anyone but themselves at the time.
And if it's a book that tells us how we live our lives, why aren't you out stoning prostitutes and women who have affairs to death? Why aren't you haranguing governments to bring back capital punishment for homosexuality?
Once again (last time I'm going to do this), the book may well specify some good morals which you agree with and wish to follow. However, it is not the BIBLE which has taught you these morals, it's life. If it were the BIBLE you would be following ALL of its morals, but the fact that you can pick and choose what is good and what is bad is your innate ability as a human being to know what is right and wrong. This does not make the bible true, in fact, it means I could probably write a better version. It also doesn't defend the existence of god, or help the cause of religion's continued existence.
I probably don't make myself clear either. I am not a Christian anymore, never passed the test of faith thing that most believers go through, despite my upbringing. I have never sat down and read the entire bible and the bits read out in church generally focussed around forgiveness and all the nice bits. Maybe its a task I should undertake this year!
I do think you're exceptionally interesting Campfire and far more versed in the art of debate than I am. You'd be top of the list of my invites for ab dinner party.
I do think you're exceptionally interesting Campfire and far more versed in the art of debate than I am. You'd be top of the list of my invites for ab dinner party.
Hah, I'm flattered!
I fear however that you'd be in for a rather morbid year if you went hunting for the evil that occurs frequently throughout the bible! Lots of genocide, infanticide and slavery. It'd probably be easier to just browse the BBC news website if you want to hear about that kind of thing ;)
I fear however that you'd be in for a rather morbid year if you went hunting for the evil that occurs frequently throughout the bible! Lots of genocide, infanticide and slavery. It'd probably be easier to just browse the BBC news website if you want to hear about that kind of thing ;)
No, I haven't read the bible in full. It's an oft-cited criticism. How can you be so against the bible if you haven't even read it?* The fact is, you don't need to read most of the bible before you realise how dumb it is, and how evil and immoral it is in many places. You don't have to read a book on physics to understand what gravity does. You don't have to read a book on biology to know you have two lungs, two kidneys, one liver, one heart and one brain either. I consider myself knowledgeable enough to form a vaild opinion, and finding an acceptable version of the bible and reading it would be, as I see it, a huge waste of my time.
The Old Testament likes to get right into the good stuff in Genesis. Lot offering his virgin daughters to the (amazingly high number of homosexual) men of Sodom instead of handing over 2 male "messengers". Sodom and Gomorrah then get totally annihilated (including all the women and children), and just because Lot's wife looks back at the carnage she gets turned into a pillar of salt. Their daughters, rather than being overcome with grief at their mother's divine demise, instead get their father drunk and rape him to ensure their family blood line continues. Need I mention Abraham's intention on sacrificing his son Isaac so willingly? Don't even get me started on Moses upon his return from Mount Sinai.
*sidenote: I did once read a children's version of the bible, it was a very long book given the fact I was 8 or so. I was sent to my room, got bored. I just thought it was a good story, nothing more. Nevertheless, I don't think I can cite it in a serious critique of scripture!
The Old Testament likes to get right into the good stuff in Genesis. Lot offering his virgin daughters to the (amazingly high number of homosexual) men of Sodom instead of handing over 2 male "messengers". Sodom and Gomorrah then get totally annihilated (including all the women and children), and just because Lot's wife looks back at the carnage she gets turned into a pillar of salt. Their daughters, rather than being overcome with grief at their mother's divine demise, instead get their father drunk and rape him to ensure their family blood line continues. Need I mention Abraham's intention on sacrificing his son Isaac so willingly? Don't even get me started on Moses upon his return from Mount Sinai.
*sidenote: I did once read a children's version of the bible, it was a very long book given the fact I was 8 or so. I was sent to my room, got bored. I just thought it was a good story, nothing more. Nevertheless, I don't think I can cite it in a serious critique of scripture!
More pertinently, instead of turning the argument around and pointing out where the bible MAY correctly profess the future, perhaps spend your time defending the various preposterous stories which have assimilated the bible into modern rhetoric?
My guess is, you can't.
Likewise though, just after wishing to see such explanations, I'd be just as excited to see a more elaborate argument in support of the bible's predictions - with links to sources.
My guess is, you can't.
Likewise though, just after wishing to see such explanations, I'd be just as excited to see a more elaborate argument in support of the bible's predictions - with links to sources.
Well of course it's "well recognised" by Christian Zionists, or they wouldn't BE Christian Zionists to begin with! It's like saying the fact that god does not exist is "well recognised" by atheists! Besides, as with all so-called biblical prophecies, it's nothing but retroactive clairvoyance maintained to try and give credence to your otherwise inane beliefs.
Either way, you didn't answer the question posed by jackthehat, nor any of my queries.
Either way, you didn't answer the question posed by jackthehat, nor any of my queries.
Jack - Israel had not been a nation for thousands of years, or at least a nation with a land of their own. Yet they remained a distinctive people, persecuted wherever they went .... as the Bible said.
Whils roaming around the world they were victimised, they would become a, "byword", and that is true. "You dirty Jew," found its fulfillment in hitlers Germany, but there was far more than that over the years.
They woulkd return to the land on ,"wings of eagles," there were no planes when that was written!
There are many more.
Whils roaming around the world they were victimised, they would become a, "byword", and that is true. "You dirty Jew," found its fulfillment in hitlers Germany, but there was far more than that over the years.
They woulkd return to the land on ,"wings of eagles," there were no planes when that was written!
There are many more.
Yes, so you keep telling us. But please could you tell us more than the fact that the jews have returned home and that homeland is specifically Israel.
Surely you must recognise that to disemble by claiming 'and lots of other things, too!' doesn't really satisfy the cut and thrust of the AB boards.............?
All claims must be backed up and those claims must be able to be examined by others..............
Surely you must recognise that to disemble by claiming 'and lots of other things, too!' doesn't really satisfy the cut and thrust of the AB boards.............?
All claims must be backed up and those claims must be able to be examined by others..............
