Indifferent about the Judeo-Christian Bible

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,283
Brassicaland
#1
While the Judeo-Christian Bible is still quite a popular text, I still would like to explain why I'm currently indifferent about it.
The discarding of the Judeo-Christian Bible happened way after I lost interests in the actual texts, and eventually, I found their physical presence in my home annoying.
Plus, I wanted to test the threats of the Christians; as I expected, no consequences whatsoever.
Since I learned about evolution and development of stars and planets, I have no interest in the Genesis.
After I learned that much of the Judeo-Christian Bible is pseudo-historical, I lost interests in the Biblical "records".
Learning that the teachings and lessons aren't that unique to Judeo-Christian Bible and they are scattered and disorganized, I lost general interest in it.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
24,977
Lago Maggiore, Italy
#2
While the Judeo-Christian Bible is still quite a popular text, I still would like to explain why I'm currently indifferent about it.
The discarding of the Judeo-Christian Bible happened way after I lost interests in the actual texts, and eventually, I found their physical presence in my home annoying.
Plus, I wanted to test the threats of the Christians; as I expected, no consequences whatsoever.
Since I learned about evolution and development of stars and planets, I have no interest in the Genesis.
After I learned that much of the Judeo-Christian Bible is pseudo-historical, I lost interests in the Biblical "records".
Learning that the teachings and lessons aren't that unique to Judeo-Christian Bible and they are scattered and disorganized, I lost general interest in it.
This is more common than you could expect, overall in Europe where a social evolution is carrying us towards a pseudo-modern society where religion becomes a form of personal spirituality [if there is any].

Despite I declare myself Christian Protestant, I don't consider the Bible [or the Koran or other Holly Texts] as absolutes, but as relative texts, relative to their own historical context. And this is how they should be read, so, in my opinion, a person is free to be interested or not in the Bible exactly like we are all free to be interested or not in The Lord of the Rings.
 
Likes: macon

Valens

Ad Honorem
Feb 2014
8,258
Colonia Valensiana
#3
own historical context. And this is how they should be read, so, in my opinion, a person is free to be interested or not in the Bible exactly like we are all free to be interested or not in The Lord of the Rings.
The problem with relativism is its tendency to slowly devalue everything to the point of absurdity.

In relation to the OP - in any case, even a very religious person who absolutely believes in the truthfulness of the Bible, will tell you that the Bible is not to be interpreted literally.
Many of the texts there are ambiguous to the point where becomes very hard to determine whether they are to be taken as parables, or in a more literal sense.
In many instances, the Bible and its texts are sending a spiritual message to the reader, doing it through the language of intricate allegories, metaphors and parables, while at the same time, we have many other texts which are clearly to be taken literally.

We are likewise not to overlook that the Bible is, despite it being the proclaimed word of God, written by human hand.
Men have their limitations, biases and are bound to be subjective, hence the Bible is also a mirror of human psychology, together with it being the story of men's relationship with God.

Now, I also believe, that Genesis would turn out quite different if it were written today, simply because of the information we today have about our world that have been unimaginable in Biblical times.
I don't mean of course, that that the potential 'modern Bible' would differ it its fundamental message - the creation of the world by the all-powerful Creator, only that the perspective would most probably change.
It is that men have changed themselves in their knowledge of the world they are living in, as well as in their relation to their surrounding, and see the world quite differently than the Biblical men did.
Maybe we can also say that our circumstances are so much different today than in Biblical times, and that the social, political - even moral aspect of the Bible are largely irrelevant today, but in essence, although we have changed in relation to our external environment and our understanding of the world, we remained the same in our very nature, even if the outer layer is different.
From this reason, spiritual messages of the Bible hold the same importance for the modern men as they did for the Biblical ones in their own time.

We still, for example, have our discussions about the way our universe is created, but due to the fact of us today having incomparably more information about our universe than the men in Biblical times, it becomes obvious that our perspective will be hugely different.
Despite that, we still face the same fundamental dilemmas, even if we are handling them are in a different manner than the Biblical men, as we are seeing the world through the lens unavailable to our ancestors.

To conclude this, the messages from the Bible remain so important today, thousand of years after being written, because they deal with the problems embedded in human nature.
 
Likes: macon

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,283
Brassicaland
#4
The problem with relativism is its tendency to slowly devalue everything to the point of absurdity.

In relation to the OP - in any case, even a very religious person who absolutely believes in the truthfulness of the Bible, will tell you that the Bible is not to be interpreted literally.
Many of the texts there are ambiguous to the point where becomes very hard to determine whether they are to be taken as parables, or in a more literal sense.
In many instances, the Bible and its texts are sending a spiritual message to the reader, doing it through the language of intricate allegories, metaphors and parables, while at the same time, we have many other texts which are clearly to be taken literally.

We are likewise not to overlook that the Bible is, despite it being the proclaimed word of God, written by human hand.
Men have their limitations, biases and are bound to be subjective, hence the Bible is also a mirror of human psychology, together with it being the story of men's relationship with God.

Now, I also believe, that Genesis would turn out quite different if it were written today, simply because of the information we today have about our world that have been unimaginable in Biblical times.
I don't mean of course, that that the potential 'modern Bible' would differ it its fundamental message - the creation of the world by the all-powerful Creator, only that the perspective would most probably change.
It is that men have changed themselves in their knowledge of the world they are living in, as well as in their relation to their surrounding, and see the world quite differently than the Biblical men did.
Maybe we can also say that our circumstances are so much different today than in Biblical times, and that the social, political - even moral aspect of the Bible are largely irrelevant today, but in essence, although we have changed in relation to our external environment and our understanding of the world, we remained the same in our very nature, even if the outer layer is different.
From this reason, spiritual messages of the Bible hold the same importance for the modern men as they did for the Biblical ones in their own time.

We still, for example, have our discussions about the way our universe is created, but due to the fact of us today having incomparably more information about our universe than the men in Biblical times, it becomes obvious that our perspective will be hugely different.
Despite that, we still face the same fundamental dilemmas, even if we are handling them are in a different manner than the Biblical men, as we are seeing the world through the lens unavailable to our ancestors.

To conclude this, the messages from the Bible remain so important today, thousand of years after being written, because they deal with the problems embedded in human nature.
Before I turned to Original Buddhism, I would think these are important; the "fourteen non-issues" rules of Original Buddhism rules out discussions about the issues of nature of the universe and Buddha.
1) The universe is permanent.
2) The universe is temporary.
3) The universe is both permanent and temporary.
4) The universe is neither permanent nor temporary.
5) The universe is finite.
6) The universe is infinite.
7) The universe is both finite and infinite.
8) The universe is neither finite nor infinite.
9) Buddha exists beyond death. (Some form of ego).
10) Buddha doesn't exist beyond death.
11) Buddha both exists and does not exist beyond death.
12) Buddha neither exists nor does not exist beyond death.
13) Life and the physical body are one.
14) Life and the physical body are separate
Reasons for these as non-issues:
1) These issues are unprovable and should not be discussed.
2) All things follow their causes, they are neither permanent nor end.
3) These are baseless and continuous hypotheses that are useless for learning the way.

Even with all the technologies we have today, these will remain non-issues.
In spite of respect toward Abrahamic religions, Original Buddhism and Abrahamic religions don't follow the same path.
 
Likes: macon

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#5
While the Judeo-Christian Bible is still quite a popular text, I still would like to explain why I'm currently indifferent about it.
The discarding of the Judeo-Christian Bible happened way after I lost interests in the actual texts, and eventually, I found their physical presence in my home annoying.
Plus, I wanted to test the threats of the Christians; as I expected, no consequences whatsoever.
Since I learned about evolution and development of stars and planets, I have no interest in the Genesis.
After I learned that much of the Judeo-Christian Bible is pseudo-historical, I lost interests in the Biblical "records".
Learning that the teachings and lessons aren't that unique to Judeo-Christian Bible and they are scattered and disorganized, I lost general interest in it.
As someone interested in history, I find the Judeo-Christian bible far more interesting than any of the Indian sacred text, which I find completely lacking in history and tedious too boot. At least the Judeo-Christian bible is short enough to be combined in one text, a lot more than what you can say of the Indian text.

As for history, there is some genuine history that you can sift through the record. In the book of Kings and Chronicles, there is some genuine history to be found - the account of the Assyrian Siege of Jerusalem can be compared with the Assyrian account of the same event. The details of the Temple construction is similar to what we find in the archaeology of Canaanite temples in the same region and time.

Luke's account of Paul's shipwreck provides interesting detail of 1st century ship, such as using ropes to strengthen the ships hung, number of passengers an ordinary ship could carry, the fact that ships would have figureheads. An interesting item is that the idol makers at Ephesus were complaining about the fall off in sacrifices due to the Christian activity, a complaint that echoes Pliny the Younger's comment to Trajan about how sacrifices had fallen due to Christian activity. It helps understand that some of the opposition to Christians might have been financially motivated by those (sellers of animals for sacrifice, idol makers0 that could be threaten by the rise of Christian influence. (Note, even a work of complete fiction can still give valuable and reliable historical information about the time the story is set in, even if the characters are all fictitious. For example, a wartime detective novel might provide accurate information of things like how gas rationing worked, and how night time curfews operated.)
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,283
Brassicaland
#6
As someone interested in history, I find the Judeo-Christian bible far more interesting than any of the Indian sacred text, which I find completely lacking in history and tedious too boot. At least the Judeo-Christian bible is short enough to be combined in one text, a lot more than what you can say of the Indian text.

As for history, there is some genuine history that you can sift through the record. In the book of Kings and Chronicles, there is some genuine history to be found - the account of the Assyrian Siege of Jerusalem can be compared with the Assyrian account of the same event. The details of the Temple construction is similar to what we find in the archaeology of Canaanite temples in the same region and time.

Luke's account of Paul's shipwreck provides interesting detail of 1st century ship, such as using ropes to strengthen the ships hung, number of passengers an ordinary ship could carry, the fact that ships would have figureheads. An interesting item is that the idol makers at Ephesus were complaining about the fall off in sacrifices due to the Christian activity, a complaint that echoes Pliny the Younger's comment to Trajan about how sacrifices had fallen due to Christian activity. It helps understand that some of the opposition to Christians might have been financially motivated by those (sellers of animals for sacrifice, idol makers0 that could be threaten by the rise of Christian influence. (Note, even a work of complete fiction can still give valuable and reliable historical information about the time the story is set in, even if the characters are all fictitious. For example, a wartime detective novel might provide accurate information of things like how gas rationing worked, and how night time curfews operated.)
I just read that much of the Jewish "historical" materials in the Judeo-Christian Bible is largely bogus.
King David and Solomon did not exist, and the Exodus is largely a fabricated story.
I was more against Christianity previously; now, I decide to leave it alone more or less.
We have limited time and energy, and we can only do so much with our limited time!
 
Nov 2015
757
Australia
#7
While the Judeo-Christian Bible is still quite a popular text, I still would like to explain why I'm currently indifferent about it.
You haven't lived until you've spent years holed up in a monastery! Freezing to death, the occasional self-flagellation, hair shirts and all that.

Sublimate your life energy, sexual and otherwise. The angels become progressively more attractive after that. Great bucket loads of this sentimental striving laid the aesthetic foundations of the modern era. The bible will then make supreme sense. Next you'll have Humanists spouting their brand of sentimental rubbish.

Well, whatever floats their boat!

The problem with relativism is its tendency to slowly devalue everything to the point of absurdity.
:rolleyes:
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,283
Brassicaland
#8
You haven't lived until you've spent years holed up in a monastery! Freezing to death, the occasional self-flagellation, hair shirts and all that.

Sublimate your life energy, sexual and otherwise. The angels become progressively more attractive after that. Great bucket loads of this sentimental striving laid the aesthetic foundations of the modern era. The bible will then make supreme sense. Next you'll have Humanists spouting their brand of sentimental rubbish.

Well, whatever floats their boat!

:rolleyes:
We have spiritual needs for sure, but Christianity isn't the only way to go!
Both Taoism (or Daoism) and Buddhism demonstrate far deeper spirituality than Christianity.
 
Jul 2016
885
Europe/Switzerland/Ticino
#9
We have spiritual needs for sure, but Christianity isn't the only way to go!
Both Taoism (or Daoism) and Buddhism demonstrate far deeper spirituality than Christianity.
The first question is:

Where Did the universe come from ? Don't try to explain the universe be means of phisical laws.. Otherwise the next question will be: Where Did the phisical laws come from?.. And laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.

Science can't tell us whethers science can explains everything: Plato (Alfred Whitehead
once noted: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato... - so forget Kant and his thalers - ..... ) Aristotle, Saint thomas d'Aquin ,Leibniz ( he invented calculus ) Blaise Pascal were aware that science was not enough to answer the fundamental question: - Why is there something rather than nothing ? -

Last century Kurt Godel theorem established the result that it is impossible to use the axiomatic method to construct a mathematical theory, in any branch of mathematics, that entails all of the truths in that branch of mathematics. (In England, Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell had spent years on such a program, which they published as Principia Mathematica in three volumes in 1910, 1912, and 1913.) For instance, it is impossible to come up with an axiomatic mathematical theory that captures even all of the truths about the natural numbers (0, 1, 2, 3,…). This was an extremely important negative result, as before 1931 many mathematicians were trying to do precisely that—construct axiom systems that could be used to prove all mathematical truths. Indeed, several well-known logicians and mathematicians (e.g., Whitehead, Russell, Gottlob Frege,David Hilbert) spent significant portions of their careers on this project. Unfortunately for them, Gödel’s theorem destroyed this entire axiomatic research program

Second question is : Why shoul "I" follow a religion ? It is up to up to follow Jesus Christ or Muhammad prophet or Brahma.


Buddhism and Taoism followers are not religious... because their "philosophy" lacks something very important.. the need of the existence of "God"..
 
Last edited:

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,951
#10
While the Judeo-Christian Bible is still quite a popular text, I still would like to explain why I'm currently indifferent about it.
The discarding of the Judeo-Christian Bible happened way after I lost interests in the actual texts, and eventually, I found their physical presence in my home annoying.
Plus, I wanted to test the threats of the Christians; as I expected, no consequences whatsoever.
Since I learned about evolution and development of stars and planets, I have no interest in the Genesis.
After I learned that much of the Judeo-Christian Bible is pseudo-historical, I lost interests in the Biblical "records".
Learning that the teachings and lessons aren't that unique to Judeo-Christian Bible and they are scattered and disorganized, I lost general interest in it.
So much ado about nothing. Take it as an ordinary (but very PR-ed) historical source.
 

Similar History Discussions