Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Lord Bane, Apr 10, 2002.
It is completely allegorical
"It is completely allegorical."
In your opinion.
Yes in my opinion, but im right
and in my opinion when looked upon allegorical it is worth a whole lot more. Not only that but it takes alot more insight to view things allegorical than literal.
People put so much faith in this book and its so called historical validity that they fail to grasp what it is trying to say about universal human conditions
Anybody see any parrarels between Fundamentalism and Communism?
yes no other view can be allowed to exist in both
The main difference is that the communism we are familiar with is mainly an economic system; however, both are akin since they seem to advocate no individual identity.
An article at deja news compares the two:
One point that he does make that is rather interesting and significant,
in the manner he intended, is that communism and Christianity have a great
common. He says, "Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a
tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private property, against
against the state? Has it not preached in the place of these, charity and
celibacy and mortification of the flesh, monastic life, and Mother Church?
Christian socialism is but the Holy Water with which the Priest consecrates
vexation of the aristocrat.
Whereas Marx did not at all state the case correctly, he inadvertently
brought up a
point that needs emphasizing, and that is the similarity between Jewish
and Jewish communism, which, we contend, are amazingly similar, although
neither the communists nor the Christians would ever admit this. Nevertheless,
they are extremely alike and we are going to make a comparison of the two.
One of the main planks of the communist program is the abolition of private
property. Christianity, too, promotes such, in fact it castigates again and
against those productive members of society who have the energy and the
foresight to provide for their families. The New Testament says again and
"sell all thou hast and give it to the poor." "It shall be harder for a
rich man to enter
the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to walk through the eye of a
kingdom is not of this world." "Lay not up treasures on this earth but lay up
treasures in heaven." "Behold the lily in the field, it toils not yet your
Father cares for it." And so on and on. The theme is repeated again and
anybody that is energetic and ambitious enough to work for a living and
for his family is an extremely poor candidate to enter into the kingdom of
Then we come to the matter of family life. On this we find that Jesus is
saying, (Matthew 10, Verse 34) "Think not that I am come to send peace on
earth: I came not to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set man at
variance against his Father and the daughter against her mother and the
daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they
own household. For he that loveth father or mother more than me is not
me and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Here
we have clear evidence as quoted by Christ himself that the objective of
Christian religion is to divide - divide the household, divide the family,
This is getting surreal.
I'm fine with most christianity. It's fundamentalism/literalism I find dangerous....
There is no such thing as a "True" Christian. Those who think there is, are commiting the sin of pride, IMO.
In fact, Jesus himself was against fundamentalism--the Pharisees, for example, were very fundamental.
"In fact, Jesus himself was against fundamentalism--the Pharisees, for example, were very fundamental."
Give me a break... Jesus was not against fundamentalism. Well, not fundamentalism Christianity anyway....
The Pharisees were adding things that God never said to add. That's what Jesus was against. He was against the Talmud. He wasn't against them for being passionate about their beliefs, ot taking what the Bibles says literally. I assure you, Jesus wanted His followers to be sold out to Him.
"There is no such thing as a "True" Christian. Those who think there is, are commiting the sin of pride, IMO."
I don't think they are being prideful. Just honest. There is most definitely such a thing as a true Christian. A true Christian has the Holy Spirit of Jesus living inside of him/her. They take what Jesus said at face value, and don't try to make Him out to be some simple, peace-loving Man that only cared for people to get along. They acknowledge Him as not only Savior, but as Lord as well.
Going to church doesn't make you a Christian anymore than working at McDonald's makes you a cheeseburger. So there is such a thing as true Christian (follower of Christ) and a false one (follower of self, that just happens to be enrolled in a Christian church).
Jesus was against people missing the point, which is largely what fundamentalism does.
I'm just saying nobody is perfect-if we followed the directions of the bible *to the letter* we wouldn't want to have anything to do with Star Wars....in fact, many fundamentalists speak out against Star Wars because it appearentally promotes "New age" or occult religion-"The Force", for instance.
Also, if we are to take the bible literally, we apparentally could survive poisons and snake bites.(Written somewhere in Mark, I believe).
I personally don't think god ever said, anything to anyone about how to worship him.
I believe that if you accept god you don't need church, and all that crap that jesus wanted, but thats just me.
Here's some more interesting reading-it's from a site that analyzes all religions, pretty much. I'm not saying we should take all this to heart, but make of it as you will. You can call it blasphemy, heresy, or call it reason, depending on your POV:
On The Bible
For many centuries the Roman Catholic Church resisted translating the Bible into the "vulgar tongue." To this day, you can still get rid of a Bible salesman by saying, "We are Catholics and, of course, don?t read the Bible." The Catholic hierarchy included subtle theologians and scholars who knew very well that such a difficult and diverse collection of ancient writings, taken as the literal Word of God, - would be wildly and dangerously interpreted if put into the hands of the ignorant and uneducated peasants. Likewise, when a missionary boasted to George Bernard Shaw of the numerous converts he had made, Shaw asked, "Can these people use rifles?"
"Oh, indeed, yes," said the missionary. ?Some of them are very good shots."
Whereupon Shaw scolded him for putting us all in peril in the day when those converts waged holy war against us for not following the Bible in the literal sense they gave to it.
For the Bible says, "What a good thing it is when the Lord putteth into the hands of the righteous invincible might."
But today, especially in the U.S., there is a taboo against admitting that there are enormous numbers of stupid and ignorant people, in the literal sense of these words. They may be highly intelligent in the arts of farming, manufacture, engineering and finance, and even in physics, chemistry or medicine. But this intelligence does not automatically flow over to the fields of history, archaeology, linguistics, theology, philosophy and mythology which one needs to know in order to make any sense out such archaic literature as the books of the Bible.
This may sound snobbish, for there is an assumption that, in the Bible, God gave his message in plain words for plain people. A truly loving God would give us a plain and specific guide as to how to live our lives.
Belief in the divine authority of the Bible rests on nothing more than personal opinion. The authority of the Bible, the church, the state, or of any spiritual or political leader, is derived from the individual followers and believers, since it is the believers? judgment that such leaders and institutions speak with a greater wisdom than there own. This is, obviously, a paradox - for only the wise can recognize wisdom. Thus, Catholics criticize Protestants for following their own opinions in understanding the Bible, as distinct from the interpretations of the Church, which originally issued and authorized the Bible. But Catholics seldom realize that the authority of the Church rests, likewise, on the opinion of its individual members that the Papacy and the councils of the Church are autoritative. The same is true of the state, for, as a French statesman said, people get the government they deserve.
Why does one come to the opinion that the Bible, literally understood, is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Usually because one?s "elders and betters," or an impressively large group of ones peers, have this opinion. But this is exactly what the Bandar-log, or monkey tribe, did in Rudyard Kipling?s Jungle Book. They periodically got together and shouted, "We all say so, so it must be true!"
Many people never grow up. They stay all their lives with a passionate need for eternal authority and guidance, not trusting their own judgment.
Nevertheless, it is their own judgment that there exists some authority greater than their own. The fervent fundamentalist, whether Protestant or Catholic, Jew or Moslem is closed to reason and even communication for fear of losing the security of childish dependence. He would suffer extreme emotional pain if he didn?t have the feeling that there was some external and infallible guide in which he could trust absolutely.
This attitude is not faith. It is pure idolatry- actually bibl
Perhaps certain forms of fundamentalism Christianity misses the point, but if you're talking about taking what Jesus said, word for word, and adding it to the rest of the Bible, and taking all of that word for word, then I strongly disagree. Jesus meant what He said. And by the way, He was not all against the OT, but only complemented it. I don't remember Him saying not to take anything in the OT literally...
Whats wrong with the bible being allegorical?
Remember that we're going off of what the authors of Scripture said Jesus said, not necessarily straight up what he said. To that end, I believe the authors included a great deal of symbolism and allegory. To take everything at face value is, to me, missing much of the point.
There's nothing wrong with that, exactly, Sleazo... I'm certain various parts of it are. But when the Bible says that God said something, then He said something. There are times when it describes things using symbolism and metaphors, but when it gives a Law you better believe that the Law is meant to be followed. When it says God did this or that, then that's what He did. Now, when it says a third of the stars fell to the earth, I'm pretty sure it isn't talking about literal stars.
KnightWriter, where do you draw the line then? With that way of thinking, how can you take anything Jesus said or did literally? What if He never existed? Perhaps He's the allegory?
I don't think you believe that, and I certainly don't. But you can't really pick and choose with a Book like the bible. It says what it says, and that's that.
Also, as I mentioned earlier, there seems to be a beief that the "Kings James version" is the only right bible...which is a little odd. Basically that's like saying all pre-1611 bibles are useless; and Bibles translated into laungauges other than English as well.
It should be noted that Christian Fundamentalism/bible literalism is mostly an American belief, interestingly enough. There is not a great deal of Fundamentalism in Europe. You will very rarely find "Fire and brimstone" preachers there.
Another interesting element is that a lot of Fundamentalists seem oppossed to democracy, when democracy is giving them the right to practice the religion the way they want to! Would they rather have a state-chosen religion that is contrary to their beliefs? Because without democracy, that's what would happen.
there are many who believe that he is the allegory , myself included. The story of the dying ressurecting godman was known all throughout the ancient world before the time of a suppossed historical jesus christ. Perhaps this story is meant for everyone to find the jesus that exists in them already. It is suppossed to initiate the begginers into that way of thinking
I don't remember [Jesus] saying not to take anything in the OT literally
hmm, so, we toss human rights out the window, and start killing people left and right for:
not observing the Sabbath
15 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord . Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.
practicing Earth Religions (Paganism/Wicca)
18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
arguing with your parents
17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
engaging in bestiality
19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
being a homosexual male (lezbians are spared)
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
blasphemy or being a "stranger" (to God?)
16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.
not seeking God...
2 Chronicles 15
12 And they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul;
13 That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.
14 And they sware unto the LORD with a loud voice, and with shouting, and with trumpets, and with cornets.
15 And all Judah rejoiced at the oath: for they had sworn with all their heart, and sought him with their whole desire; and he was found of them: and the LORD gave them rest round about.
child abuse is okay...
13Do not withhold correction from a child, For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die.
and so is beating stupid people
3 A whip for the horse, a halter for the donkey, and a rod for the backs of fools!
Jews/Christians are encouraged to kill, or be cursed
10 Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.
so, if the bible is to be taken literally, i would have to be put to death, for one or more of the above "offences"...
Very good passages you bring up plunk, I have yet to see christians defend those lovely messages
I think Jesus's death sort of made many of those laws obselete...'cept the commandments. Also "Death" could be another word for "damnation". So basically God decided that the old laws were a little harsh; so he gave us an alternative:Jesus.
Interestingly, there's a lot of incest in the OT too. Adam & Eve's kids, for instance, as well as Lot & his daughters. Lot's daughters apparentally gave birth to the enemies of the Jews, and it's possible the story had a flight of fancy--the Jewish were practically saying that their enemies were truely bastards. So in this case, it's probably allegory.
"Also "Death" could be another word for "damnation"
well, see.. that's the real problem then
all words could be other words for other words - you can't substitute some words and maintain that the bible should be taken literally whenever "the law" has been spoken by God...
death means death - blood means blood - beating means beating - curse means curse...
if that's what God said, then it's supposedly infallible - unless you can admit that perhaps the people who wrote "Gods words" falsely inferred, and thus misconstrued the true meanings of the words of God
you can't have your cake and eat it to...
and, if Jesus is the eraser of the slate, then he would not advocate taking anything in the OT literally.. just as past threats, convictions, and punishments... ??