Forum:Exagerated Religion

< Index | Religious discussion

So, to clarify before you read, I am a Christian (Oh Noes!), but I have always kept an open mind. I'm not some kind of person who thinks that because I believe something, the opposite is true. (example- I think evolution is a perfectly good explanation for humans coming to be. I'm not going to be blinded by my religion. Gay is Okay. Pro-choice. etc.) But, I've always been critical of my religion. So I ask you guys: do you think the events of the Bible were real in the sense that someone sees a natural flood, therefore God flooded them for their sins? Then they saw the animals after the flood, so they thought "Some guy built a boat for them". Do you think this is a logical explanation of religion from thousands upon thousands of years ago? I mean, they didn't really have the technology to explain these things, and some guy who was alone in the desert for a month came to you and said a God spoke to him, you would probably believe him. OrangeMint (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)OrangeMint

There are whole libraries of Catholic theology and doctrine regarding symbolism or literal events in the Bible that can answer your question.

Personally, I have no opinion. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I know a lot of people beat up on religion, but I think it can be a serious account of past events if you look past the hyperbole. What if there really was a great flood, but it just wasn't some world consuming flood - just their community. They don't like pigs because Jesus thought they tasted bad. We really aren't sure about it, but I think it is a possible ending. OrangeMint (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)OrangeMint

There are ways by finding either corroborating evidence around the areas mentioned or histories from other contemporaries. With all of the interpretation, exaggeration, and nonsense there are better ways to figure out what actually happened...and if there is a mention in the Bible...so what?

It's like talking to a crazy person on your commute. Sometimes they say real, sane, normal things (it's nice outside) and other times they say batshit crazy things (moles have invaded my brain banana). It would be more constructive to go to sources with a higher record of being accurate than trying to decode what's real or not from their ramblings. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

"They don't like pigs because Jesus thought they tasted bad." I think you need to start by working out the basic chronology of your subject. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that some ancient people may have seen something happening and then invented a God to explain these natural events. Is so - well, what? Where does that take you?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I know why they don't allow pigs. It's from Leviticus. But I am suggesting that maybe Jesus made some of these things up based on his personal preferences. Now, I'm not trying to suggest the Bible as a reliable form of history, but rather trying to explain the messages in the Bible and why they might have said these things. OrangeMint (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)OrangeMint

Leviticus is in the old testiment, a number of centruies before the new testiment and Jesus being born. In relation, about the number of centuries between now and Columbus finding the Americas is about the time between the old testiment being written down and Jesus being born (only cause that's when it first could be written down). Honestly, you need a bit more grounding in the Bible. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh no. I made a joke. Here comes the fact police. Hide me. OrangeMint (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)OrangeMint

But, OrangeMint, I still don't see what you are getting at. Of course some parts of the bible will be based on things that happened. If I watch a James Bond movie some of the elements will be true but there is obviously a lot of fiction too. So what if some bits of the Bible may have once been vaguely based on something that might have happened? Where does that get you?

I never said that I was looking for some ultimate answer here. I wanted to ask the opinions of the other users on here and see what they thought about this. I'm not here saying "If we agree that these could've happened, then the Bible is true." The only question I proposed is that if this explanation would be possible for some, if not all, of the events of the Bible. OrangeMint (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)OrangeMint

I am sure that we can agree that some things in the Bible are factually true. Pontius Pilate was a real person for example. But one element being true does not stop other parts being arrant nonsense. What possible real-world event could have been interpreted as Jonah travelling in the stomach of a whale? And even if you could imagine such a possible event it would remain in the world of the highly speculative. Or what about all the dead saints getting resurrected and the end of the Jesus story?

Which then leads us to - if we are justified in rejecting some parts of the bible as obvious myth and invention - how can we trust any of it?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"If I don't like something a politician says, should I like them at all?" Just because something isn't true doesn't mean any of it is false. I'm not here suggesting that we use the Bible as some kind of history book, and I think everyone here isn't reading the question right. I asked what you guys think about some things in the Bible being based on facts, not that it's all true and should not be questioned. OrangeMint (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)OrangeMint

If literally everyone is not understanding your questions, the more likely conclusion is that what you didn't do a great job in posing the question in the first place. It's not a terrible thing, but instead try to pose it or clarify it in a way so people do understand instead of getting frustrated when people aren't mind readers. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I literally asked if you guys think that some of the things in the Bible are based off of facts. To quote myself : "So I ask you guys: do you think the events of the Bible were real in the sense that someone sees a natural flood, therefore God flooded them for their sins?" This is the question that I asked, not "should we use the Bible as a 100% accurate historical text?" I don't understand why you guys can't comprehend this. I never said "If this is true then that means the Bible is always correct guys look at this I'm right." Only a few people ACTUALLY answered the question like it was supposed to be answered. I never wanted "But but but OrangeMint look at this the Bible said something weird that means nothing it ever said is accurate." I wanted "You might be right about that, because back then people believed outrageous things caused natural occurrences" or "That's not right, because we have evidence that says this." I was looking for an open discussion on whether or not the Bible could have some historical accuracy, not a discussion about a chronologically incorrect joke I told about Jesus and pigs. OrangeMint (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)OrangeMint

Maybe that's part of the problem, you asked a question and expected a certain answer instead of really listening to what people have to say. People aren't programs where an input results in an expected output. People think for themselves and often their experiences shape that.

Do what you want though. You can help people understand with compassion, and promote a meaningful dialog where everyone engages in learning, or get frustrated and imply people are stupid like above which just results in anger and frustration on everyone's part. Your choice buddy. Personally, I am done dealing with someone who doesn't listen and just reacts to misunderstanding with anger. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I am expecting an answer that fits the above situation. I am saying that I wanted an answer to the question. Period. Not a criticism of the chronology of a bacon joke. I am saying you guys aren't getting the right idea. You guys are thinking I'm asking the question "If this part of the Bible is right, does that mean it all is right?" I asked if some of the events could be historically accurate. You guys thought I was saying that all of the questionable things in the Bible were correct if a few things were right. To quote Bob "Which then leads us to - if we are justified in rejecting some parts of the bible as obvious myth and invention - how can we trust any of it?" I didn't say that it was all accurate. I asked if some of it could be believed. You aren't getting the picture.

In the end, I'm not trying to figure out if the Bible can be considered an ultimate tool of historical accuracy, I just asked if you guys think something could be accurate. It was never meant to be a huge question, just a small thought for a small discussion, not some a question that would lead us humans on a path of historical discovery OrangeMint (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)OrangeMint

I personally think that many of these supernatural events can be explained by science in a way. I also think that the events in the Bible could be exaggerated to a certain point. If there was a "great flood" then could the oceans be the remains of the "great flood"? When Earth was first created by the "Big Bang Theory", Earth was an unlivable place with fire, asteroids constantly hitting the surface, and it was a very hot place. In the Bible, it says that God summoned the oceans, summoned the sun, and summoned everything else. To be honest, I like both sides of the story, but many of these supernatural events explained in the Bible are irrational in a way. Many believe the Bible is 100 percent true, others think that science is the answer. Believe what you want, but I think some of these events could be explained or even the ancient texts could be decoded to prove a reasonable explanation for these supernatural events.Uncle Larry (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Uncle Larry

At no time have I doubted that some things in the bible may be based on fact. I even gave the example of Pontius Pilate being a real person. Nobody is going to argue that every single thing in the bible is false. Now my question for you is - so what?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

There isn't a "so what" factor about it. You guys are missing the point of my question. I wanted to ask about how much you guys think the Bible is based off of factual events. I wanted to see how much stuff in the Bible you guys thought could have been based on fact. I wasn't looking for some ultimate answer. Not trying to answer some bigger idea here. Just asking a little question I thought could start an interesting discussion. Not looking for any deeper meaning. So what if something that the Bible is based off of fact? That's just something interesting to discuss. OrangeMint (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)OrangeMint

OK. So how could you tell how much might be based on fact?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

There isn't a way to tell. But this was made to discuss that. OrangeMint (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)OrangeMint

The flood myth

The story of there having been a global flood with a single or very few survivors was quite common in the Ancient Middle East. Among others it pops up in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which was one of the most written works of literature for several centuries (apparently it was used to train scribes or some such). This may or may not have had some basis in reality. Other stories in the Old Testament are very blatantly legends of the type "And that's why X is called what it's called" or "And that's why you do Y and not Z" Pizzameister (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)