The Communication Cube

[Klumpen]

That's common misconception that may be based on a text that was later added to some Bibles (1 John 5:7) and hence is not canonical. The truth is that this view contradicts many parts of the Bible since Jesus posses many qualities that God does not have. E.g.:
- God has no beginning, Jesus was created (Psalms 90:2) (also this is implied by the texts I gave previously since Jesus was the first thing created and God created Jesus hence God was there before the first thing that was created)
- God has no end, Jesus has died (Psalms 90:2)
- Jesus said that not his will but God's will must happen (Luke 22:42)
And many more.

Not all "Christian" religions are really based on the Bible. False Christian teachings were actually prophesised in the Bible (Matthew 24:5) (Matthew 24:24) (2 Peter 2:1). Related to this is why Christians do not believe in Mohammed as a prophet (Galatians 1:8). Supposedly Mohammed spoke to an angel in a time during which the Bible states this would not happen anymore.

But really to understand the Bible one should read the context of those texts as well. I've made mistakes in my understanding of some Bible texts that were later corrected by reading the Bible through and thus learning about the context of those texts. The Bible is written in such a way that it can only be easily understood by also reading it through because almost every text depends on context from other texts.

It's rather the other way round. Jesus' divinity was declared much later than most text fragments which the bible is a compilation of are old.

The problem with most religions is, that (apart from Buddhism and Daoism) it's usually not really allowed to question any of it or to really look for the origins.
That's problematic since the origins are the reason why there are so many major inconsistencies.
It has to be made clear that the god JHWH, that the Christians pray to by being splitters from Judaism, originally was the vengeful god of Mountains in times when Judaism still was a polytheism (which they completely deny now).
Back then in Babylonian times when they reduced the number of gods the one left obviously wasn't chosen for being all nice and loving, but for being - first and formost - powerful.

In 325 A.D. the roman emperor Constantine I. arranged the council of Nicäa and it was then that various parts of old religions where mixed and blended together [Gilgamesh epos (Noha); holy trinity of Isis, Osiris, Horus; etc...], they made Jesus a god, declared his mother to be a virgin, etc... all very long after anything happening in these texts. It obviously was important to cultivate an obedient state of mind in the population, they had to think in hierarchies every second of their entire life, so the whole "big brother is watching you" thing was extremely handy for any royalty. Then there's the genocidal "hero" David and the homo-hating Leviticus, etc... etc... I'm not a fan.

From a historical point of view Jesus was first and foremost a reformer like Martin Luther, from a religious point of view his divinity was declared by Constantine centuries after his death and denied by others later.

 

[Null]

My decision on the blog, photo site, Mastodon subject is currently tending towards deleting the blog because it no longer has a purpose. I originally set it up for two reasons, as something relaxing for me to do and as something for Peony and I to do together. The photo site fulfills both of those criteria + it also gets me out and about which is good exercise. The more I read/watch about Mastodon the more interested I am, I just need to decide what instance to join and what sort of stuff I'm going to post on there.

Update: I think I may have found the first Mastodon account that I'm going to follow. https://mastodon.social/@GoatsLive

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

It's rather the other way round. Jesus' divinity was declared much later than most text fragments which the bible is a compilation of are old.

The problem with most religions is, that (apart from Buddhism and Daoism) it's usually not really allowed to question any of it or to really look for the origins.
That's problematic since the origins are the reason why there are so many major inconsistencies.
It has to be made clear that the god JHWH, that the Christians pray to by being splitters from Judaism, originally was the vengeful god of Mountains in times when Judaism still was a polytheism (which they completely deny now).
Back then in Babylonian times when they reduced the number of gods the one left obviously wasn't chosen for being all nice and loving, but for being - first and formost - powerful.

In 325 A.D. the roman emperor Constantine I. arranged the council of Nicäa and it was then that various parts of old religions where mixed and blended together [Gilgamesh epos (Noha); holy trinity of Isis, Osiris, Horus; etc...], they made Jesus a god, declared his mother to be a virgin, etc... all very long after anything happening in these texts. It obviously was important to cultivate an obedient state of mind in the population, they had to think in hierarchies every second of their entire life, so the whole "big brother is watching you" thing was extremely handy for any royalty. Then there's the genocidal "hero" David and the homo-hating Leviticus, etc... etc... I'm not a fan.

From a historical point of view Jesus was first and foremost a reformer like Martin Luther, from a religious point of view his divinity was declared by Constantine centuries after his death and denied by others later.

I've read/heard about this but there are so many contradicting opinions that I'm not sure what to believe anymore. It seems that this part of history has become multiple choice.

But there obviously has been some messing going on. Most so-called "Christian" religions nowadays make up their own doctrines —many of which contradict the Bible— and then say that both their own doctrines and the Bible are correct; despite the fact that they contradict each other. One of the most obvious examples is Christmas which is condemned by the same Bible that the religions that celebrate Christmas use. Clearly Christmas must be based on something that's not Christian in origin (supposedly Saturnalia in this case).

 

[ible]

there are multiple readings of the Bible, so suggesting that you know exactly what the Bible is saying is a way to show you've drank too much of your own Kool-Aid. (when someone says "the Bible says", they are usually taking a very selective reading.) non-trinitarian understanding of Jesus is possible by looking at some passages, but the trinity is AFAIK the more commonly held belief compared to nontrinitarianism, and also has its own supporting passages. (not that being more common makes it truer.)

 

[Klumpen]

I've read/heard about this but there are so many contradicting opinions that I'm not sure what to believe anymore. It seems that this part of history has become multiple choice.

But there obviously has been some messing going on. Most so-called "Christian" religions nowadays make up their own doctrines —many of which contradict the Bible— and then say that both their own doctrines and the Bible are correct; despite the fact that they contradict each other. One of the most obvious examples is Christmas which is condemned by the same Bible that the religions that celebrate Christmas use. Clearly Christmas must be based on something that's not Christian in origin (supposedly Saturnalia in this case).

The new testament is contradicting the old testament most of the time, imho it would make more sense to take those as two separate belief systems.

I've been baptized when I was a baby and therefore had to go to the religion courses in school.
When I was about 7-8 years old we had the whole Noah and Abraham thing through and I wondered, whether this god is the true evil in this world and asked my teacher naively about it, she got really mad and threw me out.
This was the moment when I learned that though shall never reflect upon what thou is told and thou shall never use ones own brain and apply one standard for all entities. I knew that this wasn't for me at all as early as that.
I continued going to the religion courses later on for several reasons, one of which being my last religion teacher (the only dude in the whole timeline) supported me in making my own decision when I was 14 since in Germany you're allowed to decide about your confession with 14.
I stood up to my parents and refused the whole confirmation thing as the first and only one of 5 siblings. They got violent, I stood my ground. Nobody forces me to lie, especially not hypocrites.
Later on I enlisted in the philosophy course as early as was possible and since the pupils were allowed to decide about the topic of the very last semester in school, I and a fellow student (pretty girl with a lot of influence) managed to get the topic "eastern religion" and we learned something about Daoism and Buddhism, including the whole Wu-Wei thing, the various splinter groups etc... this was way more to my liking. The focus was more on trying to avoid causing harm instead of just trying to save one's own soul in order to get a ticket for a ride to a nice place, even sacrificing one's own children (see Abraham, Lot, etc...) for it.
Even later I even studied philosophy at university as long as I could afford (which wasn't too long) and in my free time, religion stayed one of my hobbies. In one of the courses at university, we actually worked together with the judaists (which were able to translate Hebrew) and compared various bible translations, which was absolutely hilarious in its own way, believe me.
By now I have read the Bible (parts even in different translations), Tao-Te-King (Taoism), Dhammapada (Buddhism) and the Quran (also parts in various translations) as well as the Lun-Yu (Kong-Fuzi / Confucious), Meditations (Marc Aurel, Roman Emperor) and I like to add protocols of seminars with Jiddu Krishnamurti to this list, since he is the embodiment of wisdom in my book and his life is deeply intertwined with religion, since he was raised as a messiah only to end his own cult and start travelling to teach people to think for themselves.

The things I have read in the Talmud (didn't read completely) tell me, that Judaism is extremely racist, which is a very dark irony.
When it comes to the Quran, I wouldn't know where to start. It's a terrible piece of hatred and like "Mein Kampf" (which explains why Mr. H actually was a fan of Islam, look it up).
I can show you countless Ayas showing that it's the exact opposite of humanism and the most fascist system I've ever encountered. It's so terrible that I wish everyone defending it would actually read it.

In conclusion: Religion is all screwy and it's really better to make up one's own mind, as Jiddu Krishnamurti suggested after single-handedly dissolving the cult that raised him as the new messiah.

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

This was the moment when I learned that though shall never reflect upon what thou is told and thou shall never use ones own brain and apply one standard for all entities.

You cannot blame the Bible for that, the Bible says to "test everything" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Many so-called "Christian" religions do not really follow the Bible and many so-called "Christian" teachings actually contradict the Bible. That's how I know that most so-called "Christian" religions must be false. They say that the Bible is true and then they contradict the Bible in a lot of their teachings, which means they contradict themselves.

The new testament is contradicting the old testament most of the time, imho it would make more sense to take those as two separate belief systems.

Except for the fact that the New Testament refers to the Old Testament and the Old Testament contains prophesies of which the fulfillment is described in the New Testament. So they really do belong together. They're incomplete without the other.
Either way, can you name a few examples of texts that contradict?


As for the deaths that God caused, many of them can easily be justified. The deaths of evil people are easy to justify. They harmed each other and some even went as far as to burn their own children. When someone insists on hurting others then there really is no way that he can be alive and there not be misery so he'll have to die some time. There's no getting around it. BEsides, God gave them life so it's his right to take it back if it's being abused.

As for the righteous people who die, the Bible states that God gives them a resurrection so it really does not matter. It's just a long sleep. If I were to die right now but then be resurrected e.g. 7000 years later in a paradise and live forever from then on, then I would still be contant with that. I've been non-existent from the beginning of time until when I was born and time really seems to have flown back then. Abraham also knew that his son could be resurrected (e.g. that Isaac's death would just be a sleep) and him being willing to sacrifice his son both forshadowed what God had to do and proved that Abraham trusted God.

 

[Null]

 

[Klumpen]

can you name a few examples of texts that contradict?

There's no point, since everyone who doesn't see all those massive contradictions simply doesn't want to see them and will use anti-logic to have them not be contradictions in his mind, it's one of the problems of dogmatism.

God gave them life so it's his right to take it back if it's being abused.
[...]Isaac's death would just be a sleep

Holy crap, I really hope you don't have children.

 

[Djoga'Ro]

That's how I know that most so-called "Christian" religions must be false.

Don't make it so hard on yourself, go with: all christian beliefs are false.

Holy crap, I really hope you don't have children.

Or neighbors, friends, colleagues, or heavy artillery...

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

there are multiple readings of the Bible, so suggesting that you know exactly what the Bible is saying is a way to show you've drank too much of your own Kool-Aid.

Not as much as you probably think. If you research it thoroughly then you'll find there's often only a single interpretation for most things. The problem is that most Bible verses require context so it's easy to misrepresent the Bible to people who only casually study it.

For example, in the Bible Jesus tells a story that's about someone burning in flames for eternity afer death. But if you then read the context you'll see that it's explicitly stated that Jesus talks in parables and in the story the one in hell asks for only a drop of water which would clearly be useless in literal hell. This makes it both explicit and clear that it's not literal and thus the story does not support the exitence of hell (which is even further supported by the fact that the Bible says in multiple places that dead people cannot suffer). But if you leave out that context then you'll get an alternative explanation which can be used to fool people who only casually study the Bible and won't know any of that context.

The Bible is full of examples like that. It's just written in a way that's confuses the casual student thus forcing people to either really dive into it or not understand it at all.

There's no point, since everyone who doesn't see all those massive contradictions simply doesn't want to see them and will use anti-logic to have them not be contradictions in his mind, it's one of the problems of dogmatism.

Yes, and when asked about their evidence they often come up with an excuse just so that their dogmas cannot be put under scrutiny. Good thing that we're not like that.

Holy crap, I really hope you don't have children.

So if someone is a child molester that insists on staying that way as long as he has the gift of life, then what should God do?
1. Let him die.
2. Reward him with everlasting life.
There is no other option. People either live or die.
You've already implied that I would be a horrible parent for picking 1, so I then you would be the "good parent" and pick 2?

Also, think about it this way: Imagine that God creates his paradise and lets all people live on it, even the really nasty ones like murderers, thieves, rapists, etc. because he does not want to kill anyone. What would happen to a paradise once such evil people enter it? Would you still consider it a paradise while you or your family are being knocked senseless and robbed of your possesions by a group of thugs? There's no getting around it—some people are incompatible with a paradise and will have to be kept out of it. The fact that the societies that God destroyed in the Old Testament were often hellholes of rape and violence is normally conveniently ignored when talking about how violent JHWH is in the Old Testament.

What's also often conveniently ignored when talking about how violent JHWH is in the Old Testament is the length that he goes to spare righteous people. You mention the flood, did you know that their society was a hellhole of violence and that every single human —no matter how bad their crimes were— had years to repent? When the Isrealites took over Nineveh one house was spared because it contained righteous people. The Isrealites also had to spare and take care of people from other nations if God found good in them. When Sodom and Gomorrah were about to be destroyed, God send angels to all righteous people (there weren't many) and Lot and his family even refused to leave and were dragged to safety. When God killed firstborns of the Isrealites every family —including Egyptian families— had the chance to save their firstborn. Some Egyptians later even came along with the Isrealites and shared in some of their blessings. In the case of Nineveh (which also was a horrible hellhole of crime and violence) God send a prophet to warn for the impending doom of the city but later decided to not destroy the city because society as a whole had repented. Had society not repented as a whole then he would have destroyed the city but everyone who repented would have been saved thanks to God's prophet.

 

[Djoga'Ro]

So if someone is a child molester that insists on staying that way as long as he has the gift of life, then what should God do?
1. Let him die.
2. Reward him with everlasting life.
There is no other option. People either live or die.
You've already implied that I would be a horrible parent for picking 1, so I then you would be the "good parent" and pick 2?

I think, Klumpen was rather pointing at the "homocide is a minor offense, since the actual good times really come in the afterlife"-stance.

 

[Klumpen]

Not as much as you probably think. If you research it thoroughly then you'll find there's often only a single interpretation for most things. The problem is that most Bible verses require context so it's easy to misrepresent the Bible to people who only casually study it.

Funny. Have you ever worked with the original texts? I'd say studying a translation is casual.
It's the second time you came with the "True Scotsman"-Argument btw.
Old Hebrew is such a primitive farmer's language that there are tons of interpretations for the most simple sentences.

What's also often conveniently ignored when talking about how violent JHWH is in the Old Testament is the length that he goes to spare righteous people. You mention the flood, did you know that their society was a hellhole of violence and that every single human —no matter how bad their crimes were— had years to repent? When the Isrealites took over Nineveh one house was spared because it contained righteous people. The Isrealites also had to spare and take care of people from other nations if God found good in them. When Sodom and Gomorrah were about to be destroyed, God send angels to all righteous people (there weren't many) and Lot and his family even refused to leave and were dragged to safety. When God killed firstborns of the Isrealites every family —including Egyptian families— had the chance to save their firstborn. Some Egyptians later even came along with the Isrealites and shared in some of their blessings. In the case of Nineveh (which also was a horrible hellhole of crime and violence) God send a prophet to warn for the impending doom of the city but later decided to not destroy the city because society as a whole had repented. Had society not repented as a whole then he would have destroyed the city but everyone who repented would have been saved thanks to God's prophet.

Here's a good example of the other big problem with all abrahamitic religions: The way over the top egocentrism.
Not even a single thought wasted on all the other forms of life damaged in this magical punishment of the humans.
Who cares about collateral damage? No compassion for disbelieving humans, so no wonder there is no compassion or respect for fauna either.

I think, Klumpen was rather pointing at the "homocide is a minor offense, since the actual good times really come in the afterlife"-stance.

Yeah, since it's exactly the reasoning I've read about a few times when it came to fanatics murdering their own children directly or indirectly.

 

[Klumpen]

This is what discussions with dogmatic religious people look like to me:

They basically divide by zero and if you divide by zero all sorts of silly things happen none of which are of any use since they bear no truth and help nobody but the person that desperately needs to be right in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

 

[ElPoco]

I like the anecdote that in early christianity there were Christians who considered that Jesus had been crucified on the moon by demons.

When the canonical gospels were written, there had already been christians for two hundred years. If I was to write a book about someone who lived in 1820, I doubt I'd be able to accurately retell everything exactly as it happened and to use the exact words he used. And that's before you consider the fact that the texts we have are fragments of copies of other fragments with a few layers of translation along the way.

So either you consider that these texts have a "divine nature" that ensure that their message doesn't get lost in translation, or that all the true message can still be found despite all these changes, or that they aren't that reliable and you shouldn't be too literal with them.

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

I think, Klumpen was rather pointing at the "homocide is a minor offense, since the actual good times really come in the afterlife"-stance.

According to the Bible, if someone were killing his own children then he would not even get an afterlife (Revelation 21:8).

There's no point, since everyone who doesn't see all those massive contradictions simply doesn't want to see them and will use anti-logic to have them not be contradictions in his mind, it's one of the problems of dogmatism.

First you refuse to provide evidence of the Bible contradicting itself supposedly because it would not convince anyone anyway and then you continue to argue without evidence. Do you think that you're more convincing without evidence then with?

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

Funny. Have you ever worked with the original texts? I'd say studying a translation is casual.
It's the second time you came with the "True Scotsman"-Argument btw.

No, look again:

Not as much as you probably think. If you research it thoroughly then you'll find there's often only a single interpretation for most things. The problem is that most Bible verses require context so it's easy to misrepresent the Bible to people who only casually study it.

I said that casual study is a problem because people will lack context. I even showed what I meant with that through an example where people misunderstand a text because they did not read some other texts that provide context. So "casual" meant "too casual to know the context of the verse you're reading". For a "No True Scotsman" I would have to change the definition of some word during my argument while pretending that I did not change it. But I've never contradicted the original implied and illustrated definiton of "casual" in my argument. I made clear what I meant and then used the word consistently.

 

[ible]

the fallacy is that "No true scotsman would interpret this part of the bible to be Trinitarian". so when you find a passage that a casual person would interpret as trinitarian, you'd say, "they're not a true scotsman."

(i.e., true scotsman => casual person)

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

the fallacy is that "No true scotsman would interpret this part of the bible to be Trinitarian". so when you find a passage that a casual person would interpret as trinitarian, you'd say, "they're not a true scotsman."

(i.e., true scotsman => casual person)

Nope, I have not done that. Instead I provided evidence from the Bible itself that proved Jesus and God to not be the same according to the Bible. Providing evidence is not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

As for "casual", I've never even used it to support any of my arguments here. All I said was a general statement that if you study too casually then you're going to miss context. So how can I use the word "casual" in a No True Scotsman fallacy if I do not even use it to support any of my actual arguments? When I think that someone studied too casually and is thus missing context, then I provide the missing context as evidence and do not even bother using the word "casual".

 

[Null]

I like the anecdote that in early christianity there were Christians who considered that Jesus had been crucified on the moon by demons.

And lo the Lord did bid them eat of the strange looking mushrooms of the forest.

 

[levi]

The Bible is full of examples like that. It's just written in a way that's confuses the casual student thus forcing people to either really dive into it or not understand it at all.

And why is that, I wonder. What possible benefit could an all-seeing leader benefit from making his tracts easy to read and comprehend?

There is the artifact of older texts being harder to read if they're e.g. from the day's prior to Dr. Johnson's dictionaries, or just because styles of language change over the years, or the general effect of description of environs taking less words in newer texts, but the effect of not being clear enough if you haven't read enough, that's not something I've come across before like that.