Obviously that whole story is a metaphor for "stick with what you know."

How do you know which parts to take literally and which to read as symbolism? This is the main problem. I dont think any of it should be taken literally. It's not supposed to be factual. They are fictional stories, the bible is not (or meant to be) an accurate historical documet and anyone who tries to make it so is kidding themself.

How do you select which parts you want to believe as historical truth? As it stands, things are literal until proven otherwise by historians, scientists, etc. Then the stories become symbolism.

The way I see it, the bible was written to teach morals. Nothing else. and it does this well (albeit some parts are pretty outdated now). The problem lies with people taking the stories literally. None of the charaters were/are real nor were they ever intended to be portrayed as such. Sure, the stories may have been set in actual places (for the most part) but it doesn't mean they ever happened. There are plenty of other stories which teach morals. Ever read Aesops Fables when you were a kid? They taught morals rather well but they weren't supposed to be taken literally at all. Hell, there was talking animals and stuff. (genesis, anyone?).

Hmm, i've typed more than I wanted. Ah well.

There are quite a few people mentioned in the bible that we know existed. I'm guessing that you are referring to "specific" people when you say "none".

Who do we "know" existed? The romans? The isralites? Some of the kings mentioned? Really that doesn't help. They're more part of the setting than actual characters.

Jesus

An assumed fact, yes, but that's where faith comes in...

Jesus? You're joking, right?

The only people to write about him are the writers of the bible gospels. No other writers from the time he was supposedly alive mention him. Writings about him (other than the gospels) only start appearing ~100 years after his supposed birth.

Even the gospels are questionable. Paul, for example. In all of his writings he never says he met or even saw Jesus himself.

The origins of stories of Jesus themselves are questionable. The story of Jesus is very similar to egyptian and greek mythology. The story of Hercules is surprisingly similar to that of Jesus. Hercules' father is Zeus (god) and his mother is a mortal woman called Alcmene. Hera (Zeus's wife) wants to kill Hercules, the same as herod in christian mythology. Hercules travels the lands performing miracles. He dies and rises to Mt. Olympia. Jesus dies and rises to heaven. The evidence of both Hercules and Jesus is similar too. The stories of Homer are directly comparable to the gospels in the way they tell narative stories of Hercules. The Egyptian Horus is equally comparable to Jesus.

There are no eye-witness accounts from Jesus' time.

Provide sources of first-hand pre-Biblical accounts of Jesus.

The only one you're likely to find is the Roman historian Tacitus, who mentions a man that went around performing miracles, healing the sick and raising the dead. The only problem is that around this time, there were loads of them (Life of Brian satirises this quite well).

There is no historical evidence from Jesus' lifetime, and it was only about 60 years after his death that Jews considered him a miracle-worker and teacher. Even those accounts are certainly unclear, and most certainly influenced by the traditional wisdom they had held concerning the many crucifixions in Palestine centuries before them.

When putting forward philosophical ideas or thoughts, it was quite the fashion of the time to put it in the form of a story, usually involving people (because this would be easy to remember, and pass on by word of mouth). It is quite likely that Jesus was either that philosopher, or a fictional character of another philosopher, or a combination of lots of different fictional characters of lots of different philosophers.

The mere lack of evidence doesn't really say anything in itself, it would be remarkable if the lifetime of any single individual could be recorded in history for two thousand years.. but if Jesus really was such a remarkable individual, there really ought to exist such remarkable evidence.

What a bad example!!! That makes no sense...Just because it says you can't covet one thing doesn't mean it's the only thing you can't covet, even if you take it completely literally. Awful example.

Yes. Yes I am.

Well, someone's getting some under-the-table favors.

I don't think the Catholic Church has ever officially said the Bible was 100% literally true.

Okay, a classic example... If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it fall, does it make a sound?
Seeing as a definition of sound is "a vibration of air molecules" the tree did make a sound -- it's just that no one had any sensory perception of it.

The same can be said about Jesus -- just because no writings were made of him at the exact time he was around, it doesn't mean he necessarily did not exist.

The stories back then were often, as mentioned, passed down by word of mouth. Things are not always recorded in writing right away.

In addition, the newly born religion was being persecuted during the era (e.g. Nero) so Christians had to secretly worship. This would likely slow down the process as well

Also, Jesus said he would one day return... the apostles were likely expecting Him to return during their lifetimes. Assuming that he would be around again soon, no one bothered to write anything about Him. When they realized He wasn't coming back when they thought, then they decided to write down the accounts, instead of let them continue to be altered through word of mouth.

But Jesus' existance cannot be outruled just because there are no accounts written at the time he was around... what about all the prophets in the old testament who predicted the coming of the "Messiah"? Do they mean nothing?

And I could be wrong, but Paul did not actually meet Jesus in person... at least, not during or after his conversion. He saw Jesus in a vision and was knocked from his horse.

Aradia de Toscano, Sun Myung Moon, Ann Lee, Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia, Abraham Abulafia, Isaac Luria, Menachem Mendel Schneerson.

These are all people that claim to be 'the Messiah' and to have performed miracles. And there's more evidence for most of their existances than Jesus'. Why should we believe Jesus over them?

(Note, a one-word answer of 'faith' isn't a trump card you can play to answer any and all theological issues)

Well considering that we have enough writings from that period to fill a library i'd have to disagree. Word of mouth would have have been documented by someone given all the amazing things he'd been doing, he was (alledgedly) known about far and wide. He supposedly touched thousands of lives. Yet no historian, philosopher follower or scribe that was around at the same time as Jesus even mention him? It's like looking up history in the history of the 18th centuary and not finding a mention of Admiral Horatio Nelson until the 19th centuary.

You answered your own question. I was simply pointing out that your original statement was technically incorrect.

I like waffles.

I like roasted Dj Yoshi nuggets.

As a confirmed Catholic who doesn't truly practice it any more, I can say this won't have an effect on most Catholics. It's not like they read the Bible anyway!



/flamebait

No, it's not flamebait -- it's true.

Some statistic they took (don't know how, just that it was in the past few years) showed that only about 5% of all catholics are "true," practicing catholics.

Well, so far today I've been called a God, an eagle-eating goat, a lazy fat *******, and I've been sigged.

I love this place.

You're a dirty Goa'uld.

kyle90 names +1

As for the topic of the thread, it's about time a small reform was made in the Church. The problems with religion is people interperate it. And then take it seriously.

I've interpreted the hell out of it, to a point where I've boiled it down to only a few simple rules. Besides the big 10, the only other rule I care about it "lead a good life". Don't be an *******, and everything'll be all right, no matter the religion :p

Good. That sounds just about right for your religion.

"When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion." - Abraham Lincoln

[QUOTE=Raoul Duke]What a bad example!!! That makes no sense...Just because it says you can't covet one thing doesn't mean it's the only thing you can't covet, even if you take it completely literally. Awful example.[/QUOTE]

I thought it was a pretty good example myself. Point being it was meant to cover all coveting, not just the one thing.
Rather then look at that commandment and go "oh, ok so no coveting the neighbours wife, but theres no commandments covering coveting anything else so I;m in the clear"

I thought there were actually two lists of commandments in the bible... one in exodus (the one that some protestant denom's use) and one somewhere else that catholics use

I wondered how in exodus, there was one version and yet the catholics used a different version (e.g. "How did we bork up the list and get this?!?"). I remember asking my mom that and she said we drew the commandments from the other list.


Oh, but anyway (almost forgot the point of this post...), on the non-exodus/moses list (or whatever the case...), the last 2 commandments are

9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods

I'm not sure wether your post helps my argument or hinders it. But it's interesting none-the-less

The Torah has over 600 commandments.

Which probably means Moses invented the wheelbarrow, too.

Yikes, 600 commandments. And here I thought 10 was too many to remember.

Comparing Jesus to Hercules is the biggest stretch I have ever heard.

Really?

Jeusus can be compared to a lot of mythological figures.

I sarted typing out some of the comparisons, but then I found this which is a pretty comprehensive list. He's like a hybrid of all of them.

What, the universe wasn't created after the middle stone age???!

I believe in the possibility of miracles, but have yet to see one for myself. Either way, your statement is irrelevant. Assuming that miracles never happened just because they aren't happening today is illogical.



An interesting opinion. I find it fascinating that you have narrowed down the entire point of religion. Please share this wisdom with the rest of us.



Have you been living under a rock? People have been interpreting much of the bible as symbolism for quite some time now.



But that would take away all the fun.

It's more logical than assuming they occured because they're written in a book. Besides, if they used to occur, but ceased, then why did they cease? God does not love us or care anymore?

Jesus is talked about in the Koran - i haven't read it myself but have been told by numerous people and have just googled it.
One link i found below:

http://www.islam101.com/religions/deedat/cii/christ_in_islam2.htm

But the Koran was written many centuraties after Jesus' death.

Still, it's interesting to note that a different religion is acknowledging Jesus...

Agreed. However, in our search for truth, we must explore all possibilities, despite the lack of evidence, at least until something has been totally disproven.



I'm more of a Deist who believes in the possibility of more than one creator. I don't see any reason to believe that god has performed any miracles (unless you consider creation a miracle), but there could be quite a few reasons why he may have ceased performing them. There's no limit to the possibilities. Maybe he truly doesn't care anymore. Maybe we're just too blind to see them. Maybe he's dead (is gods death not just a self-imposed limitation?).



They also love and acknowledge The Virgin Mary. She plays a huge role in the Islamic religion.

I think he's in the can.

If He doesn't care anymore, what is he be doing?

I think anyone who is seeking anything whatsoever spiritually, needs to read "The Power Of Now" all religions, including catholocism, budhism, etc, will make sense...