The Bible

I am going to decide which religion is correct, and I am going to start by looking at Christianity.

From other threads I see that the evidence that Christianity is the correct religion is the resurrection.

The evidence that the resurrection happened is that it is described in a book called the Bible, which purports to be, to some extent, an historical document.

I know that the Bible is not entirely an accurate historical document. I have been told that some sections are metaphors, and that in some sections there are human errors in documenting the word of God.

My question is this:
How do I know which sections are supposed to be metaphorical and which sections are accepted as containing human errors, so I can separate the factual historical areas and be confident that what I'm reading is true?

In other words, I don't mind that some sections can be factually discredited (showing they were metaphors), but I need a way to objectively know which sections these will be, before reading the content.

It is obvious that we cannot retroactively define the metaphors as the bits that cannot be factually correct, or we aren't achieving anything in analysing the book's credibility.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
I am going to decide which religion is correct, and I am going to start by looking at Christianity.

From other threads I see that the evidence that Christianity is the correct religion is the resurrection.

The evidence that the resurrection happened is that it is described in a book called the Bible, which purports to be, to some extent, an historical document.

I know that the Bible is not entirely an accurate historical document. I have been told that some sections are metaphors, and that in some sections there are human errors in documenting the word of God.

My question is this:
How do I know which sections are supposed to be metaphorical and which sections are accepted as containing human errors, so I can separate the factual historical areas and be confident that what I'm reading is true?

In other words, I don't mind that some sections can be factually discredited (showing they were metaphors), but I need a way to objectively know which sections these will be, before reading the content.

It is obvious that we cannot retroactively define the metaphors as the bits that cannot be factually correct, or we aren't achieving anything in analysing the book's credibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

The prose bits are God's words. The poetry bits are passages that are not literally God's word and are open to interpretation.

So is it fair to say that if any prose bit is factually incorrect, or if any two prose bits are inconsistent, we can cross Christianity off of the list?

[ QUOTE ]
So is it fair to say that if any prose bit is factually incorrect, or if any two prose bits are inconsistent, we can cross Christianity off of the list?

[/ QUOTE ]

Using a literal interpretation you can cross any religion off the list.

That isn't what makes religion unbelievable, however, as religion isn't supposed to be taken literally.

man.. there is so much misinformation on here.

If you are "evaluating" Christianity, I'd highly
recommend "Case for Christ" be Lee Strobol. He was
an atheist, and a reporter - he sought to disprove
Christianity, but ended up converting.

Also, there is an art & science to Biblical interpretation
called hermeneutics, it's very rational and logical.

Also, the orthodox Christian view of Biblical inerrancy
states that the original greek and hebrew autographs
were inerrant. It is also fact that the Bible has been
preserved more than any other document of antiquity.
I.e. there are very few minor errors - that was proved
when the dead sea scrolls were found in 1948, and
were shown to have very few minor discrepencies from
the current documents that we have.

[sweetjazz]

Maybe I can save you some time, because I think your project is not very worthwhile. The Bible is filled with internal contradictions. In some places God is portrayed as wrathful and sought on vengence; in others God is portrayed as full of patience and slow to anger. And there are other inconsistencies, both in terms of general themes and ideas and specific details.

Most theologians and Biblical scholars accept that the Bible was written by various different people and that each author's personal life and situation (especially their cultural background) influenced what they wrote.

Reasonable Christians believe in the Bible as a generally accurate source of religious truth based on faith, as there is little to no evidence available to corroborate (or discount) the Bible's version of events. Basically, any time a book comes along claiming that a person was raised from the dead, the evidence (based on our knowledge of human biology) suggests the book is wrong. To believe that the Bible is correct on this account requires a faith in something which does not fit with the evidence available to us.

Assuming you are willing to take on this faith...

Once you accept that the Bible is basically correct (even though you accept that it may be wrong regarding specifics and many of the statements made reflect partially on the author's perspective and so may not necessarily accurately the will of God), then you rely on a combination of common sense interpretation, the interpretations of other theologians and Biblical scholars, and the tradition of Christian churches.

Believe it or not, pious Christians can sincerely disagree on specific Christian doctrines. That disagreement can even occur among people belonging to the same denomination of Christianity. However, many Christians put aside these differences because the unity of their common shared faith greatly overrides specific differences of interpretation. Indeed, some Christians long for a day when there is more interaction between different denominations and an increased willingness to accept that people of sincere Christian faith can come to different conclusions on specific theological matters.

If you choose not to have this faith...

You will simply not find evidence that supports or corrobates the Bible's account of the events that are central to Christianity. For many people this is the reason they reject religion and choose to be agnostic or atheistic. For others, this lack of evidence is not a hinderance to their faith.

If you are genuinely interested in Christianity, I suggest you become involved in a local church (attend services, perhaps try talking with the priest/minister) and find out what Christians believe. You will not find evidence for what they believe, but you will be exposed to the faith that I speak of. This is a much more worthwhile project than spending your time finding the contradictions in the Bible that are already known to many people. If you take my suggestion, I believe you discern what place, if any, Christianity has in your life.

The point is that I could write a chain of allegories expressing what I believe to be the truth, which is that God is a purple My Little Pony. The allegories, which even I don't believe to be true because they never happened, can be constructed in a logically consistent manner. Does that prove that my allegories should be taken literally?

No. One should see the truth in the message about the My Little Pony with the pretty orange mane.

[J. Stew]

Try understanding all the popular religions, see what they point to, then take what's common and make up your own religion.

[Double Down]

Let's face it. The odds are that none of the main organized religions are "correct." If there does exist a realm of higher consciousness and spirituality (which I do believe), or if there does exist a "God" of some form, then chances are that it has mainfested itself into our reality by man having the awarenes of something greater than himself, but it is beyond our abilities to fully grasp it.

So instead, whenever someone has a transcendental experience, it is documented and included in it are the details of the event. What then happens is that humans get caught up in the details and because of this we lose the original meaning and end up with organized religions arguing over the details. This is completely counteractive to our journey to discover and understand things that are greater than ourselves.

Throughout history, humans have pretty much labeled anything that they couldn't understand as "God." At first, it was the sun. Humans could not touch it or explain it, and it brought warmth, light, and helped crops grow, so it seemed to be the most powerful thing. Then as time goes by, whenever we saw something else that we couldn't explain, we started calling that God.

And then Jesus started walking on water and raising the dead, so a lot of people call him God (Son of God, you still get my point).

I was raised as a Jew, but thanks to other people in my life, I have had the opportunity to witness incredible and miraculous things and realize that the truth of our universe by far transcends the limitations of our organized religions. And I am not a gullible dude, I am very well educated and am pretty cynical in nature. Now, if I were to tell a Christian about my incredible experiences, he would tell me that that was evidence of the power of Jesus. A Jew would tell me that it was God at work. An atheist would tell me that my unexplainable accounts ARE explainable and will be someday by science. And so on.

The answer is that all religions are right and at the same time none of them are right. They all are manifestations of the truth but then become inaccurate in the details.

If you are looking for the "right" religion, then you are not asking the right question.
If you are looking for spiritual enlightenment, then check out books and seminars that focus on that. Look into medidation.
The more science delves into the big questions, the more that they are finding concrete evidence of things that transcend our reality. It is to the point where basic things are starting to be questioned. Quantum physics delves into this arena. The movie What the Bleep do We Know was a pretty interesting flick, worth checking out. It had physicists and other scientists describing such concepts like how the power of thought creates matter, and that matter does not exist if there is no observer. Amazing stuff.

Jesus, Allah, and Buddha were all spiritually ascended people with very high levels of consciousness who came here to show us that we, too, can reach that level of awareness. Jesus did not want to be worshiped, he wanted us to be like him. Read a few interesting books on this subject, notably one called "The Disappearance of the Universe: A Course in Miracles" and I believe that the author is Gary Renard, but I'm not sure because my copy is currently being borrowed by a friend.

So my suggestion is not to search out a religion. Religion is the worst thing to ever happen to spirituality. Religion takes concepts that are beyond us and rewords them into bite sized human terms that we can grasp, but in doing this, it takes away the original meaning. The way to raise your level of awareness is to find out more about it, and meditation.
If you still have an interest in staying on the organized religion path, then I recommend the Eastern religions, like Buddhism and Hinduism. They tend to smack of the right idea.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Try understanding all the popular religions, see what they point to, then take what's common and make up your own religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
They all point to man. I believe in mankind.

chez

"Maybe I can save you some time, because I think your project is not very worthwhile. The Bible is filled with internal contradictions. In some places God is portrayed as wrathful and sought on vengence; in others God is portrayed as full of patience and slow to anger. And there are other inconsistencies, both in terms of general themes and ideas and specific details."

This is a total lie. And his example is laughable. The
Bible's anthropomorphic expressions of God's dispositions
are in no way contradictory, and to suggest such shows
blatant ignorance.

[bearly]

ah, sweet reason---or has sweetjazz just had the time to experience what james called "the rich thicket of reality"...................b

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
If you still have an interest in staying on the organized religion path, then I recommend the Eastern religions, like Buddhism and Hinduism. They tend to smack of the right idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

To you.

[Peter666]

The Catholic Church claims absolute authority in interpreting the Bible correctly through the Holy Spirit. The Bible's teachings are reflected in the Church's teachings.

[Double Down]

I just wrote a very long post with a lot of ideas and all you have to respond with is "To you"?
Obviously, everything I am saying is my opinion. But it is based on a fair amount of research and knowledge on many religions and philosophies. I was just sharing my two cents.

I guess before everyone makes posts on this forum we should add "Just my opinion." /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Try understanding all the popular religions, see what they point to, then take what's common and make up your own religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
They all point to man. I believe in mankind.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

And what about mankind do you believe in?