NationStates Jolt Archive

I just don't get why the Bible forbids killing one another yet so many of the troops in Iraq are Christian. (Okay, thats just pulled outta my ass, but ya know;) ) Uh, and why the many Christians that do join the Armed Forces do join it because of course there is a chance that tehy will be shipped over to another country.

Might as well mention the Crusades. Those were some Christians who killed people. They even sacked Byzantium once.

I just don't get why the Bible forbids killing one another yet so many of the troops in Iraq are Christian. (Okay, thats just pulled outta my ass, but ya know;) ) Uh, and why the many Christians that do join the Armed Forces do join it because of course there is a chance that tehy will be shipped over to another country.

I expect if you check the net you will find something on the seven requirements for Justified War.

Also, you'd have to check if those 'Christians' truly believe in their faith or are just nominal (nominal? Nominational? Something like that - where you just say you are) Christians.

A. Just because you're in the army doesnt mean you kill people. For every man on the front lines, theres probably 10 at a base somewhere doing support work.

B. The Bible says not to murder people, not that you can't fight in a war that you believe is just. Plenty of Biblical figures fought in wars and killed people.

There are plenty of centurions mentioned in the bible, and I can't remember if Jesus specifically goes out of his way to criticise them for killing people. Seems to suggest killing people in war isn't a huge sin.

Jesus was a Liberal.

And yet Christianity (other religion's do it too, I'm not singling out Christianity) preaches how wrong it is to be violent against other nations. Of course we can't live in a world without violence, because not everyone is a pasifist and dictators violating human rights need to be taken out of power, but it was nice if religious people weren't the most gun-ho about it (I mean the super fanatical Christian conservatives you go on about how they are the supreme religion, not you're run-of-the-mill nice, devout Christian who doesn't manipulate the bible to fit their own needs...):D

The Bible says not to murder, and from what I hear murder is not killing in general, but the illegal killing of someone, so like the death penalty is legal so it's not murder, or something.

Oh, and God told a lot of people to go to war and kill and stuff so yeah.

so like the death penalty is legal so it's not murder, or something.


As far as I know, the majority of Christians are (supposed to be) against the death penalty as well as abortion and euthanasia, all of which are legal in some part of the world. I think the rule is more like "Only kill if you or somebody else is in danger."

Murder is illegal, but you don't put the army in jail when they get back from war.

I'm a christian, an I think sometimes war and the death penalty are necesary at times. If its to protect others, and we aren't just attacking people for no real reason, then its ok.

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 says "There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven: a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot, a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build, a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance, a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them, a time to embrace and a time to refrain, a time to search and a time to give up, a time to keep and a time to throw away, a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak, a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace."

I just don't get why the Bible forbids killing one another yet so many of the troops in Iraq are Christian. (Okay, thats just pulled outta my ass, but ya know;) ) Uh, and why the many Christians that do join the Armed Forces do join it because of course there is a chance that tehy will be shipped over to another country.
Well, for Catholics, the Pope said something about "Just Wars."

The Bible says not to murder, and from what I hear murder is not killing in general, but the illegal killing of someone, so like the death penalty is legal so it's not murder, or something.

Oh, and God told a lot of people to go to war and kill and stuff so yeah.
*hands cookie for saving me the time of having to type that*

seriously, thou shalt not kill is a translational error. It should be thou shalt not murder. And god condoned a genocide. so yeah. *shrug*

Well, for Catholics, the Pope said something about "Just Wars."

Wasn't it Aquinas who came up with the justifications?

Luke 22:36-38
Then he said to them, "But now, whoever has a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet. Whoever has none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword.
For I tell you that this which is written must still be fulfilled in me:
‘He was counted with the lawless.’ For that which concerns me has an end."
They said, "Lord, behold, here are two swords."
He said to them, "That is enough."

Also, you'd have to check if those 'Christians' truly believe in their faith or are just nominal (nominal? Nominational? Something like that - where you just say you are) Christians.

Nominal - and it means "in name only". And I think you'll find that a majority of "Christians" at least in the US are nominal christians. That is, they might just go to church Christmas and Easter and weddings - or they might not. Some even go more often than that, but attend churches which are more social groupings than they are religious. They say they're Christians, but it goes no farther than the name.

These types are inclined not to have their views on war, or their actions with regard to war, informed by their religious views.

That said, not all more-than-nominal Christians are pacifists, although some are. But I think enough has been said above on that topic by other people more eloquent than I.

Nominal - and it means "in name only". And I think you'll find that a majority of "Christians" at least in the US are nominal christians. That is, they might just go to church Christmas and Easter and weddings - or they might not. Some even go more often than that, but attend churches which are more social groupings than they are religious. They say they're Christians, but it goes no farther than the name.

These types are inclined not to have their views on war, or their actions with regard to war, informed by their religious views.

That said, not all more-than-nominal Christians are pacifists, although some are. But I think enough has been said above on that topic by other people more eloquent than I.

Aaaah thats the bunny. People like that irritate me so much because they give the rest of us a bad name (the rest of us being actual Christians)

As far as I know, the majority of Christians are (supposed to be) against the death penalty as well as abortion and euthanasia, all of which are legal in some part of the world. I think the rule is more like "Only kill if you or somebody else is in danger."
you can't say what most Christians are "supposed to be" because views among Christians are as varied as are views in any other demographic.

Anyway I didn't say what "Christians believe" I was merely stating that murder and killing are two different things.

you can't say what most Christians are "supposed to be" because views among Christians are as varied as are views in any other demographic.

That's exactly why I said what I said. The leaders of most Christian denominations oppose the death penalty, abortion, and euthanasia and have reflected it in the catechism of their respective churches. Therefore, the followers of those denominations are supposed to share that view in order to be in accordance with the rules of the religion.

Anyway I didn't say what "Christians believe" I was merely stating that murder and killing are two different things

If you want to get technical, murder is a form of killing, but I get what you are saying here and you are absolutely correct. A few other posters including myself had made that point previously.

Christianity in my mind is just a label. If it is a label for a personal belief, then it is the Soldier, not the church, that defines what Christianity is for him. If it is a label for a Social construct, then it has no meaning beyond the unified structure of its compound parts; in other words, that manic murderers, soldiers both honourable and otherwise and citizens can all be considered Christian if they choose to do so.

Either way, the problem of Christian soldiers is a non-issue.

Most religious followers bend the rules so it justifies their own lifestyle. For instance, the guy who rooms next to me is a major sex hound, think Quagmire. His justification is that god just wants us to have fun. The Christian next to him stole 6,000$ over the summer and vindicates it because he got in a car wreck months earlier.

People always bend the rules to suit themselves.

If you want to get technical, murder is a form of killing, but I get what you are saying here and you are absolutely correct. A few other posters including myself had made that point previously.
in the same way that stealing is a form of borrowing. The Bible says do not steal, does it mean also not to borrow? I think not. Murder is illegal, so is stealing. Not all killing is illegal, and niether is all borrowing.

B. The Bible says not to murder people, not that you can't fight in a war that you believe is just. Plenty of Biblical figures fought in wars and killed people.
Not post-Jesus. In fact, there's that whole instance where Jesus is about to be taken away and Peter strikes out. Jesus tells Peter to put his sword away--that seems more like pacifism to me than anything to do with justifiable war.

Not post-Jesus. In fact, there's that whole instance where Jesus is about to be taken away and Peter strikes out. Jesus tells Peter to put his sword away--that seems more like pacifism to me than anything to do with justifiable war.
Yet just before that, Jesus asks them if they have swords.

It's because he knows that they will want to resist violently. That's why Jesus says he will be counted amongst the lawless. He knows that some of his followers will want to kill.

It's human to want to lash out and react with violence to things like perceived oppression.

While I don't believe that Jesus would promote war, he seems to have known that we wouldn't be able to stop ourselves.

Not post-Jesus. In fact, there's that whole instance where Jesus is about to be taken away and Peter strikes out. Jesus tells Peter to put his sword away--that seems more like pacifism to me than anything to do with justifiable war.

But that wasn't a statement of general rules by Jesus, He knew that He had to be crucified, so He made sure that He was :/. It's all context there.

But that wasn't a statement of general rules by Jesus, He knew that He had to be crucified, so He made sure that He was :/. It's all context there.
Sounds like an excuse made up by people who wanted to legitimize their violent tendencies. Jesus's later statement there in the Garden of Gethsemane was "Do you not know that I can summon forth legions of angels?" The argument to be made there ought to be trust in God to handle the violent work.

I just don't get why the Bible forbids killing one another yet so many of the troops in Iraq are Christian. (Okay, thats just pulled outta my ass, but ya know;) ) Uh, and why the many Christians that do join the Armed Forces do join it because of course there is a chance that tehy will be shipped over to another country.

Griff: I can't murder anybody.
The Sergeant: We don't murder; we kill.
Griff: It's the same thing.
The Sergeant: The hell it is, Griff. You don't murder animals; you kill 'em.

Yet just before that, Jesus asks them if they have swords.

It's because he knows that they will want to resist violently. That's why Jesus says he will be counted amongst the lawless. He knows that some of his followers will want to kill.

It's human to want to lash out and react with violence to things like perceived oppression.

While I don't believe that Jesus would promote war, he seems to have known that we wouldn't be able to stop ourselves.Yeah. I'm much more of a believer in Jesus as philosopher than as divine, so I read his words that way, that his sayings were discussions of human nature as opposed to being prophecy or divine mandate.

Sounds like an excuse made up by people who wanted to legitimize their violent tendencies. Jesus's later statement there in the Garden of Gethsemane was "Do you not know that I can summon forth legions of angels?" The argument to be made there ought to be trust in God to handle the violent work.

Call it what you want, but Jesus didn't use that particular opportunity to tell everyone that violence was, forevermore, evil to the max, and I don't see why I can't call you on the same objection you've called on me for what you've just quoted. But in the end, there is a valid point indeed against purposefully doing the most war creating thing possible in this case, the golden rule, the change on "eye for an eye", etc. etc., technically speaking, if this whole Iraq thing was handled compleatly Biblically, it seems to me a mass evangelism campaign would be a whole lot better. But that's not what happened, nor do I suspect that such a suggestion would of gotten even onto the floor of the Senate or House of Representatives or near the Pentagon or past the separation of church and state advocacy gauntlet, so in the end, we can't change much about this mess anyway. Besides, Jesus did say there is no greater act of love than to give one's life for a friend, and that's pretty much what happens a good amount of time in the army, and technically speaking, was sort of the argument for going to war in the first place with the WMD thing :/. We're certainly there now at any rate, and the army is certainly often laying down their lives, not just for each other, but often times for the Iraqi people....

I just don't get why the Bible forbids killing one another yet so many of the troops in Iraq are Christian. (Okay, thats just pulled outta my ass, but ya know;) ) Uh, and why the many Christians that do join the Armed Forces do join it because of course there is a chance that tehy will be shipped over to another country.

Biblicly speaking god never forbid killing. the actual translation of the word would be murder. most translators of the bible failed to make this little change. there are neumorous occasions in the bible where god sanctioned war agianst the enimes of the jews. so to say that killing is completly forbiden is a miss representation of what the bible said. but if you say murder is completly forbiden then you are completly correct to do so. And I resent your comment about the armed forces. I am a marine and I joined not so that I could go some where else but because I want to defend what I belive in and defend your punk asses right to the freedom of speach. thats why I joined so Semper Fi! muther fucker

Call it what you want, but Jesus didn't use that particular opportunity to tell everyone that violence was, forevermore, evil to the max, and I don't see why I can't call you on the same objection you've called on me for what you've just quoted. But in the end, there is a valid point indeed against purposefully doing the most war creating thing possible in this case, the golden rule, the change on "eye for an eye", etc. etc., technically speaking, if this whole Iraq thing was handled compleatly Biblically, it seems to me a mass evangelism campaign would be a whole lot better. But that's not what happened, nor do I suspect that such a suggestion would of gotten even onto the floor of the Senate or House of Representatives or near the Pentagon or past the separation of church and state advocacy gauntlet, so in the end, we can't change much about this mess anyway. Besides, Jesus did say there is no greater act of love than to give one's life for a friend, and that's pretty much what happens a good amount of time in the army, and technically speaking, was sort of the argument for going to war in the first place with the WMD thing :/. We're certainly there now at any rate, and the army is certainly often laying down their lives, not just for each other, but often times for the Iraqi people....No, Jesus used his entire life as an opportunity to tell people that violence was wrong and that we ought to remake our lives so as to put the interests of others ahead of our own.

Look, if you want to pretend that war is justifiable under the teachings of Jesus, go right ahead, but it isn't, plain and simple. The parts of the Bible where God glorifies violence are in the Old Testament--post-Jesus, there's a new order in the Bible, one of forgiveness and peace and the promise that God will wipe out violence and wickedness--Revelation 21 is full of that stuff.

Now, if you want to talk about the necessity for armed forces in the world, that's another topic, but don't try to justify it biblically, because it isn't there to be justified, and all the apologia from church elders won't make it so.

I swear, I have, as an atheist, a greater appreciation for what Jesus taught than most people who claim to be Christian do. Most of you guys are a bunch of fucking hypocrites.

No, Jesus used his entire life as an opportunity to tell people that violence was wrong and that we ought to remake our lives so as to put the interests of others ahead of our own.

Look, if you want to pretend that war is justifiable under the teachings of Jesus, go right ahead, but it isn't, plain and simple. The parts of the Bible where God glorifies violence are in the Old Testament--post-Jesus, there's a new order in the Bible, one of forgiveness and peace and the promise that God will wipe out violence and wickedness--Revelation 21 is full of that stuff.

Now, if you want to talk about the necessity for armed forces in the world, that's another topic, but don't try to justify it biblically, because it isn't there to be justified, and all the apologia from church elders won't make it so.

I swear, I have, as an atheist, a greater appreciation for what Jesus taught than most people who claim to be Christian do. Most of you guys are a bunch of fucking hypocrites.

Nazz, let me say this. I fucking love you.

it seems that in general, those who aren't christian have more knowlege of the bible (this may be related to the fact that most atheists I know are also English majors and therefore required to read atleast the major stories)

The bible="the books". literally. As such, it should be treated as several distantly related books (all relating to god). Then, there is the whole original story/sequel thing. The old testament is like the original. It is act 1...all about the wrath of god. The laws, the punishments, the blood and the gore. the NT is the sequel and/or act 2. all about the love of god. The forgiveness, the love, the honor.

the bible says "thou shalt not murder". Christ extends this in his teachings to be forgiveness for all. "May he among us without sin cast the first stone" sound familiar to anyone? Notice that he, too, did not cast the first stone.

No, Jesus used his entire life as an opportunity to tell people that violence was wrong and that we ought to remake our lives so as to put the interests of others ahead of our own.

Look, if you want to pretend that war is justifiable under the teachings of Jesus, go right ahead, but it isn't, plain and simple. The parts of the Bible where God glorifies violence are in the Old Testament--post-Jesus, there's a new order in the Bible, one of forgiveness and peace and the promise that God will wipe out violence and wickedness--Revelation 21 is full of that stuff.

Now, if you want to talk about the necessity for armed forces in the world, that's another topic, but don't try to justify it biblically, because it isn't there to be justified, and all the apologia from church elders won't make it so.

I swear, I have, as an atheist, a greater appreciation for what Jesus taught than most people who claim to be Christian do. Most of you guys are a bunch of fucking hypocrites.

My friend You have a fash understanding of the bible most of what you have been using to justify your views are built on smal mis translations in moddern bibles. Having stuided the bible a bit I se that some of your points would be valid if you didn't account for translation errors. however these errors must be taken into account if you are to have a full understandig of the bible. There three names used by the hebrews to refer to god. each has its own meaning. similarly to kill also has several words that can be used in the latian and hedrew text and each of those words have a slightly diffrent meaning and conotation.

"May he among us without sin cast the first stone"

Your using that quote way out of context

My friend You have a fash understanding of the bible most of what you have been using to justify your views are built on smal mis translations in moddern bibles. Having stuided the bible a bit I se that some of your points would be valid if you didn't account for translation errors. however these errors must be taken into account if you are to have a full understandig of the bible. There three names used by the hebrews to refer to god. each has its own meaning. similarly to kill also has several words that can be used in the latian and hedrew text and each of those words have a slightly diffrent meaning and conotation.
oddly enough, depending on which church you are following, there are rules in place that state that the translations are now the proper text to follow, as divine intervention would mean mistranslations are actually corrections.

Your using that quote way out of context
Am I? Is Jesus preaching forgiveness or not?

My friend You have a fash understanding of the bible most of what you have been using to justify your views are built on smal mis translations in moddern bibles. Having stuided the bible a bit I se that some of your points would be valid if you didn't account for translation errors. however these errors must be taken into account if you are to have a full understandig of the bible. There three names used by the hebrews to refer to god. each has its own meaning. similarly to kill also has several words that can be used in the latian and hedrew text and each of those words have a slightly diffrent meaning and conotation.
It's largely because of my study of translation that I became an atheist, okay? I know there's little to no chance that the Bible we have today is anything remotely like it was written in the Hebrew and Aramaic--large sections of the Old Testament aren't even available in the original languages, and that's assuming that what was available hadn't been changed over time, so you've got original writing into Greek, then into Latin, and then into English, with a few translations that skip the Latin step. No way are you getting a reasonable translation that holds together out of that mess.

But Theorb wanted to argue using the Bible he clings to, so I argued on those terms. You want to talk about problems with translation? I'll do it. Want to start with the whole joke about how the apostle Peter got his name? That Jesus was making a pun and the Gospel writers didn't quite know how to make the leap from the Greek to the Latin in that one?

Nazz, let me say this. I fucking love you.

it seems that in general, those who aren't christian have more knowlege of the bible (this may be related to the fact that most atheists I know are also English majors and therefore required to read atleast the major stories)

The bible="the books". literally. As such, it should be treated as several distantly related books (all relating to god). Then, there is the whole original story/sequel thing. The old testament is like the original. It is act 1...all about the wrath of god. The laws, the punishments, the blood and the gore. the NT is the sequel and/or act 2. all about the love of god. The forgiveness, the love, the honor.

the bible says "thou shalt not murder". Christ extends this in his teachings to be forgiveness for all. "May he among us without sin cast the first stone" sound familiar to anyone? Notice that he, too, did not cast the first stone.
Well, I come from a background that preached the literal truth of the Bible, and that made Bible reading an everyday habit. I'm not an everyday reader anymore, but I retained a lot, and now I appreciate it more that I've done some basic study of world mythology and seen how the sayings attributed to Jesus work in the context of Hindu teaching and the like--Joseph Campbell was a hell of a man to me.

oddly enough, depending on which church you are following, there are rules in place that state that the translations are now the proper text to follow, as divine intervention would mean mistranslations are actually corrections.


Am I? Is Jesus preaching forgiveness or not?

sadly you are correct about the translation errors. most people of religious background don't care for the original translation. and as for your quote. The point of his lecture had some elemnts of forgiveness but was mainly to show the people that they had sinned and had no right to condem a woman for heer sins. "judge not lest ye be judged"

But Theorb wanted to argue using the Bible he clings to, so I argued on those terms. You want to talk about problems with translation? I'll do it. Want to start with the whole joke about how the apostle Peter got his name? That Jesus was making a pun and the Gospel writers didn't quite know how to make the leap from the Greek to the Latin in that one?
How about the fact that the very name Jesus Christ was not the son of gods name?
Jesus=Joshua. Christ is the greek translation of messiah. His last name would have properly have been Joshua bar Joseph...unless he truly rejected joseph as his father, in which case there would be no proper convention except Joshua of Bethlehem

Nazz, have you read the Gnostic gospels (St. Thomas in particular) and the book Lamb? Gnostic gospels are a good read to understand the philosophy of Jesus the man, not Jesus the church. And Lamb is just an awesome story that every atheist should read.

No, Jesus used his entire life as an opportunity to tell people that violence was wrong and that we ought to remake our lives so as to put the interests of others ahead of our own.

Look, if you want to pretend that war is justifiable under the teachings of Jesus, go right ahead, but it isn't, plain and simple. The parts of the Bible where God glorifies violence are in the Old Testament--post-Jesus, there's a new order in the Bible, one of forgiveness and peace and the promise that God will wipe out violence and wickedness--Revelation 21 is full of that stuff.

Now, if you want to talk about the necessity for armed forces in the world, that's another topic, but don't try to justify it biblically, because it isn't there to be justified, and all the apologia from church elders won't make it so.

I swear, I have, as an atheist, a greater appreciation for what Jesus taught than most people who claim to be Christian do. Most of you guys are a bunch of fucking hypocrites.

Im not saying war is justifiable, im saying giving your life for others is :/. And like I pointed out, there's probably a better, more Biblical way to give your life for others than shooting up the enemy, but apparently, that didn't come to pass in Iraq. Might I also point out, that when the Centurion asked for Jesus's help, Christ didn't tell him "Go, leave your life of war, you hypocrite!", He told everyone around that this Centurion had the greatest faith Christ had ever seen in all of Israel. Centurions were not commonly in the habit of being 100 percent pacifist.

That's not to say I know everything about this of course, if you'd care to prove me wrong, feel free to prove Biblically that Jesus explicitly prohibited any and all varieties of war, whether they be in the interest of defense or otherwise, im certainly not infallible.

sadly you are correct about the translation errors. most people of religious background don't care for the original translation. and as for your quote. The point of his lecture had some elemnts of forgiveness but was mainly to show the people that they had sinned and had no right to condem a woman for heer sins. "judge not lest ye be judged"
I feel like we may be arguing the same point with different words with the quote...and that is most likely my fault.

and I think the change from only haing the original languages to saying the translations were the correct forms was because of the protestant concept of a personal relationship with god.

That's not to say I know everything about this of course, if you'd care to prove me wrong, feel free to prove Biblically that Jesus explicitly prohibited any and all varieties of war, whether they be in the interest of defense or otherwise, im certainly not infallible.
was Jesus ever direct and explicit? He spoke in parables. In reality, there is no "right" interpretation.

I feel like we may be arguing the same point with different words with the quote...and that is most likely my fault.

and I think the change from only haing the original languages to saying the translations were the correct forms was because of the protestant concept of a personal relationship with god.

oddly the translation errors occured mainly because man is lazy and most translators don't want to spend howers defining a wors when they can simply put down one word.

How about the fact that the very name Jesus Christ was not the son of gods name?
Jesus=Joshua. Christ is the greek translation of messiah. His last name would have properly have been Joshua bar Joseph...unless he truly rejected joseph as his father, in which case there would be no proper convention except Joshua of Bethlehem

Nazz, have you read the Gnostic gospels (St. Thomas in particular) and the book Lamb? Gnostic gospels are a good read to understand the philosophy of Jesus the man, not Jesus the church. And Lamb is just an awesome story that every atheist should read.
I haven't read Lamb--I'll have to check that out--but I have read the Gnostic Gospels, as well as many of the other early church writings that didn't make the canonical cut. Skimmed them is probably more accurate, but I've certainly gotten a taste for the chaos that was the early church.

That's another thing that, while it doesn't surprise me, disappoints me--the fact that practically no christians have any clue that the early church was a disputatious, schismatic thing, with absolutely no agreement even on major doctrine until one sect got into favor with the Empire and absorbed or wiped out all the others. If only they knew their history.

oddly the translation errors occured mainly because man is lazy and most translators don't want to spend howers defining a wors when they can simply put down one word.
such as having one of the most famous statues of Moses having horns (http://www.planetspaceball.com/trips/Italy/singles/Rome_Vatican/P7250170.JPG) (the word for "horns" and "beams of light" are essentailly the same in hebrew when written without vowels, as the Torah is)

I haven't read Lamb--I'll have to check that out--but I have read the Gnostic Gospels, as well as many of the other early church writings that didn't make the canonical cut. Skimmed them is probably more accurate, but I've certainly gotten a taste for the chaos that was the early church.

That's another thing that, while it doesn't surprise me, disappoints me--the fact that practically no christians have any clue that the early church was a disputatious, schismatic thing, with absolutely no agreement even on major doctrine until one sect got into favor with the Empire and absorbed or wiped out all the others. If only they knew their history.

Lamb by Christopher Moore (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0380813815/sr=8-1/qid=1140244831/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-4814711-2285618?%5Fencoding=UTF8)

I don't think most people really understand that "The Bible" is no different than "a bible" (note small b). It is a collection of books...or more correctly, scrolls. Someone chose which scrolls would be included, and which wouldnt. The sad thing is, the Gospel of St. Thomas is called heresy by the Vatican, despite the fact that nearly every scholar says it is the closest record we have to what Jesus actually said. The important part is "The kingdom of God is inside you, not in buildings of wood and stone. Split a log and I am there. Turn a stone, and I am with you".

The other problem is that the Bible is approached with so much cultural background noise...you can't find parts funny. you can't find flaws. You have to read it as the church says you should. Job is a sarcastic bastard. There are multiple gods in some parts, and 2 creations. Salad is banned. It's just a book, people.

The other problem is that the Bible is approached with so much cultural background noise...you can't find parts funny. you can't find flaws. You have to read it as the church says you should. Job is a sarcastic bastard. There are multiple gods in some parts, and 2 creations. Salad is banned. It's just a book, people.
Yep, and while it's slightly more historically accurate than, say, the Iliad, it's not significantly accurate by any stretch of the imagination. I remember a book I read a while back, called The Bible Unearthed, which made the argument that in the Old Testament, almost everything was actually gathered together and written during the reign of King Josiah, that the stories surrounding David and Solomon were essentially the King Arthur stories of their culture, Moses was the Merlin, etc. They proved that most of the OT stories couldn't have happened the way the OT says they did (for instance, Jericho didn't have walls when Joshua says the walls came down, etc.), but they point to the reign of Josiah as the point where Judah gains its own national identity, making the jump from tribal group to state, and they argue Josiah, credited with discovering the Book of the Law, really just got the priests to put together a national history to give his people a sense of where they'd come from, Founding Fathers, if you will. Fascinating book.

Yep, and while it's slightly more historically accurate than, say, the Iliad, it's not significantly accurate by any stretch of the imagination. I remember a book I read a while back, called The Bible Unearthed, which made the argument that in the Old Testament, almost everything was actually gathered together and written during the reign of King Josiah, that the stories surrounding David and Solomon were essentially the King Arthur stories of their culture, Moses was the Merlin, etc. They proved that most of the OT stories couldn't have happened the way the OT says they did (for instance, Jericho didn't have walls when Joshua says the walls came down, etc.), but they point to the reign of Josiah as the point where Judah gains its own national identity, making the jump from tribal group to state, and they argue Josiah, credited with discovering the Book of the Law, really just got the priests to put together a national history to give his people a sense of where they'd come from, Founding Fathers, if you will. Fascinating book.

I'll have to check that out. Sounds like a very rational argument, and really, several stories are very similar to say, Iliad/Odyssey, Metamorphoses, or Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight...all stories of a national identity and the origins of a peoples. I mean, the Odyssey is based in fact (the Trojan war) but just how factual is hard to say. Metamorphoses is very similar, saying that the original Romans were...um...(okay, totally blanking, but I want to say peloponecians? Carthriginians?) and establishing both a godly endorsed history and a national epic culture. It would make sense that the Hebrews were looking for the same in their conversion from an oral nomadic culture to a written agricultural culture.

I'll have to check that out. Sounds like a very rational argument, and really, several stories are very similar to say, Iliad/Odyssey, Metamorphoses, or Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight...all stories of a national identity and the origins of a peoples. I mean, the Odyssey is based in fact (the Trojan war) but just how factual is hard to say. Metamorphoses is very similar, saying that the original Romans were...um...(okay, totally blanking, but I want to say peloponecians? Carthriginians?) and establishing both a godly endorsed history and a national epic culture. It would make sense that the Hebrews were looking for the same in their conversion from an oral nomadic culture to a written agricultural culture.
I don't know about Metamorphoses, but the Aeneid is based on the idea that Romans descended from the Trojans, and that they came in contact with Carthage on the way from Troy to Rome. (Queen Dido and all that.)

It seems to be a pretty standard step when a culture makes the jump into statehood. Hell, we did it in the US--the stories about George Washington and the cherry tree are rooted in the same impulses as the Song of Roland.

I don't know about Metamorphoses, but the Aeneid is based on the idea that Romans descended from the Trojans, and that they came in contact with Carthage on the way from Troy to Rome. (Queen Dido and all that.)

It seems to be a pretty standard step when a culture makes the jump into statehood. Hell, we did it in the US--the stories about George Washington and the cherry tree are rooted in the same impulses as the Song of Roland.
Okay. I'm an idiot. I definatly meant the Aeneid, and have absolutly no clue how I turned that in to Metamorphoses...wow...um...yeah.

Along those lines, we have Emerson and Thoreau calling for a national culture, and Whitman writing Song of Myself (over and over and over and forcing me to read every single version so I can compare them in a 15 page analysis...but I digress) as a national epic of sorts. It is vital to a new nation to have a culture that is its own...something to have pride in

and why, exactly, are you not one of my professors?

Okay. I'm an idiot. I definatly meant the Aeneid, and have absolutly no clue how I turned that in to Metamorphoses...wow...um...yeah.

Along those lines, we have Emerson and Thoreau calling for a national culture, and Whitman writing Song of Myself (over and over and over and forcing me to read every single version so I can compare them in a 15 page analysis...but I digress) as a national epic of sorts. It is vital to a new nation to have a culture that is its own...something to have pride in

and why, exactly, are you not one of my professors?
Because in this kind of stuff I'm self-taught, i.e. I'm a voracious reader when I'm interested in a subject. Right now I teach two Sophomore Poetry classes and Freshman Composition and I love it, but I have no credentials to teach that kind of stuff.

Because in this kind of stuff I'm self-taught, i.e. I'm a voracious reader when I'm interested in a subject. Right now I teach two Sophomore Poetry classes and Freshman Composition and I love it, but I have no credentials to teach that kind of stuff.
hell, I don't care what class I took with you. Not that I don't like my profs...most of them are brilliant (imho). However, I always look for someone I can learn from, and you seem to be one of those I could.

Of course, I had to take major authors (those works every english major has to read like Divine Comedy, and all that good Greek/Roman stuff and the bible [see? this is all on topic!]) and my prof happened to really enjoy the word play in the bible...taught us some fun random stuff like why it is Ave Maria (Ave reversed is Eva, therefore, Mary undoes Eve) and why it is an apple in Eden (Latin for evil is Manza. Latin for apple is...Manza). I could see you being one of those profs who lets their passion show through, which always helps when you are in dense reading like poetry or, in my current situation, brit lit and shakespeare (read wife of bath in the light of S&M. makes it much easier)

I mean, the Odyssey is based in fact (the Trojan war)...
Um... no.

The Odyessy is a brilliant myth that is based on a collection of folktales interwoven with an original storyline to create an adventure story worthy of any modern writer. Okay, I plagerized that from the back cover, but still... the fact that Troy is a real city does not lend literality to the story.

Um... no.

The Odyessy is a brilliant myth that is based on a collection of folktales interwoven with an original storyline to create an adventure story worthy of any modern writer. Okay, I plagerized that from the back cover, but still... the fact that Troy is a real city does not lend literality to the story.
yes, it is a myth (okay, I'm not a complete idiot...I don't believe in cyclopses and such), but part is still based on Agamemnon, who is largely agreed to have existed

yes, it is a myth (okay, I'm not a complete idiot...I don't believe in cyclopses and such), but part is still based on Agamemnon, who is largely agreed to have existed
But the fact that some elements of the story might have actually existed does not lend literality to the whole myth. It is not "based" in fact, it is "based" in a collection of myths, with some factual elements thrown in for recognizability.

The "myth" is the stories, not the cyclopses.

But the fact that some elements of the story might have actually existed does not lend literality to the whole myth. It is not "based" in fact, it is "based" in a collection of myths, with some factual elements thrown in for recognizability.

The "myth" is the stories, not the cyclopses.
again I say, I'm not an idiot. No shit it is a myth. I already said that. What I said was I mean, the Odyssey is based in fact (the Trojan war) but just how factual is hard to say.
It IS, in fact, based in facts. There was a city called Troy. There was a large war with certain Greeks. There was a warrior named Agamemnon. Yes, it is myths. Same as the bible. Same as the Aeneid. Same as Beowulf, and same as the King Arthur legends. Are they true stories? No. I'm not saying that. Do they take their root in the history of a peoples to explain their mystial right to existance? Yes. Is the key part taking their root in history? yes. Is that what I am saying? yes. Are you even arguing something worth while here, as I already said I know it isn't a "true" story, but said it is rooted in history, as in the history of the Greeks and Trojans? no.

I can almost promise that I have studied the Odyssey in more depth more times than you. I've had to read it six or seven different times now, and write multiple 10-20 page papers on it. I know what I'm talking about here. It has a root in history. Same as the other related texts I have mentioned.

again I say, I'm not an idiot. No shit it is a myth. I already said that. What I said was
It IS, in fact, based in facts. There was a city called Troy. There was a large war with certain Greeks. There was a warrior named Agamemnon. Yes, it is myths. Same as the bible. Same as the Aeneid. Same as Beowulf, and same as the King Arthur legends. Are they true stories? No. I'm not saying that. Do they take their root in the history of a peoples to explain their mystial right to existance? Yes.
No. If it's myth, it doesn't matter how much or little of it is historically accurate. The historical facts are not at its "base".

Is the key part taking their root in history? yes. Is that what I am saying? yes.
No. The key part is holding and encouraging supernatural elements and their symbolic meaning. That is what makes a myth. Any historical elements are practically superfluous. Just window dressing.

Are you even arguing something worth while here, as I already said I know it isn't a "true" story, but said it is rooted in history, as in the history of the Greeks and Trojans? no.
Well, I think I am arguing an important point, that being what "base" a myth has. It is not to be found in the literal.

I can almost promise that I have studied the Odyssey in more depth more times than you. I've had to read it six or seven different times now, and write multiple 10-20 page papers on it. I know what I'm talking about here. It has a root in history. Same as the other related texts I have mentioned.
Considering I have not read the Odyssey once, I'm sure you have studied it more than I. I also think that's irrelevant. Even not having read it through, I can point to its mythical elements with recognition.

Jesus was a Liberal.

AMEN!:p