csteele
<Those who speak of spirituality as opposed to religion generally believe in the existence of many "spiritual paths" and deny any objective truth about the best path to follow. Rather, adherents of this definition of the term emphasize the importance of finding one's own path to whatever-god-there-is, rather than following what others say works. In summary: the path which makes the most coherent sense becomes the correct one (for oneself). But just as aspects of spirituality can be found in many religions and traditions, spirituality based on spiritual practice rather than belief, with the aim simply of developing inner peace, is another option. This secular spirituality (QV) is consistent with holding any supernatural belief, or importantly with holding none.>

From the same Wikipedia article you quoted.

I am not so generous with fundamentalist Christianity. My contact with fundamentalists has confirmed for me that they prey on the weak and the vulnerable, often using 'love bombing' techniques learnt from the 'Moonies'.

Is it turning a persons live around if an alkie switches his/her drug of choice from Jim Bean to Fundamentalism as did George W Bush? Or the newly divorced person who gets caught in a web of lies?

Swapping one addiction for another or one problem for another problem is not helping. It is not constructive to give people lies so they don't feel so bad. Sooner or later the hangover catches up.

All through these posts I see a continuing theme that 'Something is better than nothing'. Maybe if people could face nothing they would find it is not nothing. It is full of life. Do people hang on to religion only because of the fear of the unknown? I am beginning to think so from this discussion.

PtB Congratulations! Are you a wealth-driven Christian? Why did you & the churches conveniently miss Jesus' most explicit instructions on wealth?

The rule of wealth-driven Christians -

If Jesus' word is absolutely specific, ignore it, then, find the bit that justifies your stance even though it isn't explicit!

Mark 10:21-23

And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!"

Matthew 6:24

"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money."

Luke 6:20

"...Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God"

Luke 12:33

"Sell your possessions, and give to the needy.Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys."

Now I don't think Jesus wanted you to be poor BUT what you are suggesting is a long way from what scripture really states.

Isn't the wealthy Christian syndrome just another way that Jesus' word is watered down by his alleged followers? Isn't it a money spinner for churches when you change Jesus' word to attract more wealthy clientelle?

Should a Christian misuse Jesus' word to justify his own position? Isn't that unChristian?

IF Charismatic and Evangelical Christians misrepresent Jesus' word from the Bible, is that a sin?

And then you jump back onto lawyers again ...

Pericles and csteele go away! I have answered your questions! You have nothing to offer this thread!

There seems to be confusion about Herrod.

Herod the great died in 3BC. Herod named his three remaining sons as successors, Archelaus as king, and Antipas and Philip as tetrarchs.

It was Herod the Great at the time the birth of Jesus and Herod Antipas by the time of his death, so there were 3 Herods. At the time of the story telling it was probably irrelevant as most listeners would have know which Herod was which.

My understanding is the 'eye of a needle' thing was a reference to the 'needle gate'. When the gates to a town where closed at night there was a very small 'needle gate.' People arriving at night could still crawl through, but they had to leave their camels outside till morning.

< “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, and yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel” (Micah 52 KJV).>

So it was prophesized 700 years before the birth of Jesus that the 'King of the Jews' would be born in Bethlehem. Was Jesus born in Bethlehem or was this given as his birthplace because of Micah?

Was Jesus King of the Jews? Probably. And that could be the reason why his crucifixion was such a big deal.

19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
20 This title then read many of the Jews; for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.
22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.
(John 19-22, KJV)

If Jesus had been another wandering preacher he may have been forgotten. It is not the story of Jesus that is the problem. The problem is what the Christians have done with it.

Pericles wrote:
"This is an interesting claim, Sympneology.

>>the words of Jesus form a large part of the Gospels and the Apocalypse, some of them dictated by Jesus to his scribes (it is hard to write when you have had nails driven through your hands!)<<

Who were these scribes? Do they have names?"

Yes, they do. One was a Gentile named Philip, whose knowledge of Greek helped Jesus to write in the two levels of meaning required, since Hebrew and Aramaic were not flexible enough.

Another was John Mark, the 'beloved disciple' who lent his names to two Gospels and the Apocalypse. Like Luke, and Matthew Annas, he was taught by Jesus how to user the pesher to record their activities in a way that meant one thing to the initiates and something else to the 'babes in Christ'.

For the full story I suggest you read "The Book That Jesus Wrote, John's Gospel" by Barbara Thiering.

Hey csteele,

>>You are wrong when you say “this thread is not about anyone's beliefs but about the way the Bible is used to influence beliefs by promoting it as 'inerrant' or 'infallible' (the same thing) or 'God's word'.”.<<

Yes, well asking whether the Bible is true or false is presenting a false dichotomy. The only possible answer is, "Yes", since it, like any other archaic document, is both. There are only a small minority of Christians who hold the fundamentalist view that all of the Bible is literally true, most of them in the USA. They are not going to take any notice of anything Op2 writes and the rest have grown comfortable with the thought that what matters is not whether the words are literally true but whether the ideas presented represent a reliable guide to living a good life.

For many people it is enough to live a good life unencumbered with any obligation to an organization, and these do not feel a need to know which words in the Bible are true or untrue. These people, however, do not have the power to influence the course of events in the way that large and wealthy organizations do. It is therefore in the public interest to know that some LWOs are accruing their power and wealth on the basis of demonstrable falsehoods and threats. In the language of the law they are obtaining money by deception and menaces, i.e. fraud.

When the organization that does this is the Mafia then people are rightly outraged and demand that the police arrest the criminals. When the organization that does it is a big corporation like Enron, HIH, or Goldman Sachs, then there is surprise that such 'respectable' people should behave so dishonourably, and some politicians duck for cover. However, when the organization that does it is a religious one then everyone goes quiet lest they be thought to be discriminating on the basis of religion, and we must not do that!

Bah! Humbug!

Are you sure, Sympneology?

>>[one of the scribes] was a Gentile named Philip, whose knowledge of Greek helped Jesus to write in the two levels of meaning required, since Hebrew and Aramaic were not flexible enough. Another was John Mark...<

This relies very heavily on the pesher theory, which - although attractive to those who want to believe that the Bible has layers of meaning - seems just a little too convenient for uncommitted observers like me. The generally accepted position - not that the majority is always right of course - is that there is no presently known proven direct link between Jesus and the Gospels.

Unless there emerges another information source, we are left with conjecture only. There are still many lively discussions, for example, on whether Jesus spoke Greek, based on the conversations attributed to him that he conducted with Pontius Pilate (assuming he was alive, of course!) and the Roman Centurion.

I am in far greater agreement with your overall summary of the relevance of this entire discussion:

>>asking whether the Bible is true or false is presenting a false dichotomy. The only possible answer is, "Yes"<<

And OP2, you may have started this thread, but having done so, you are going to have to live with the consequences.

>>Pericles and csteele go away! I have answered your questions! You have nothing to offer this thread!<<

On the contrary, you have consistently avoided two key questions:

What are your motives for telling Christians that their Bible is not the "TRUTH!", as you most eloquently put it.

And what result do you expect, if you were to succeed in your quest to discredit the Bible in the eyes of its Christian readership?

Because - and here's the kicker - if you are consistent in your views, you would not be able to use any biblical quotation to justify your actions.

If you genuinely believe that the Bible is a crock, then you should not rely upon it to support your mission.

Whatever that might be.