This is why I do not believe in the Bible. -- LiveWire Teen Forums

Quote: from King kong at 2:02 pm on July 5, 2008

Quote: from TooImaginativeTeen at 10:00 pm on July 5, 2008
Quote: from King kong at 1:58 pm on July 5, 2008
leviticus is outdated

Correction.
The Bible is outdated.

so Jesu's teachings of love, forgiveness and peace are outdated?

No. Just like Buddha's teachings (not in the Bible) on the same subjects are not outdated.

Those types of teachings are never really outdated. That doesn't mean that the great majority, if not everything else in the Bible (except those brief passages who just happen to be perceived by us as 'intelligent' in our age), is outdated. There are some good stories...but they shouldn't be seen as important as people make them to be. It's disturbing that people only feel motivated to be good and so on after reading a story. Especially the bible one. With this you're actually creating a person dependant on a book (and of all, it's the 800 year old Bible!). on works of literary fiction to smile and hug others. Such dependence is depressing and saddening.

They're not "Jesus's" teachings. The Golden Rule, for example, was expressed much earlier by Confucius. Why not call it "Confucius' teachings"? Don't tell me that before this Jesus character came along people didn't really realise or thought to themselves that "Yes...people shouldn't be so mean to each other, they should be less violent."
You'd have people around town thinking this, even if only to themselves. Especially if you witnessed pregnant women being killed and crucifixions on almost a monthly basis. Jesus would not be the only one thinking about this. Perhaps he mouthed it to groups... but that doesn't make his point, then put on a book, any more important than anyone else.
One could argue that is was advanced thinking for that time but now, he's not the only one advocating that. Thus it's outdated.
Are other people advocating it because of him, perhaps? But if it wasn't him, somebody else would have spoken out. If he could think about it in the 1st century, someone else would. He shows no signs of having knowledge that is beyond anyone. ("His miracles!" ... He's not the only one to have done them!!! Surprise! Appolonious of Tyana walked through walls and revived people!)

Why does he get the credit for teaching these to people? He didn't really teach it, did he? To teach is to show people something they didn't know And help them practice it or be aware of it. Everyone who is normal already has 'his teachings' in them. He might have supported this way of being, bring that out in people, he might have mouthed it to people, but that doesn't mean anything.
The Bible isn't just Jesus, and Jesus isn't all there is in the Bible.
I also find interesting, this need people have to see the Bible as JUST teachings, or mainly teachings. Why is that? And why should those teachings be the same for all ages of civilization? Why isn't slavery kept about in New York and England now? Why isn't the populous gathering to stone a person who picked up sticks from the ground on Sundays, or owners of major supermarkets?

Also, Jesus's type of forgiveness, if practiced strictly, would lead to your own demise in society. It's not that society is too full of sin or has fallen(and thus "unfair to honest trying Christians" as some would see it) , it's just that this type of behaviour is, yes idealized by people, but when you think deeper on this type of behaviour, you can't stop seeing disadvantages.
Get shot in a leg, and offer your second as your "other cheek". No, you don't that. And if you do, it's not surprising (if not deserving) if you're consequently deleted from the world. What you do is you shoot the one who shot you, you run, you try to kill if nothing else is available, you do something that gentle Jesus meek and mild wouldn't do. It's just how Nature has worked for billions of Years. Why didn't Jesus say that? Being hyperbolically peaceful just isn't the way to go. I don't care what a man of the 1st century thought. I care or listen with as much attention as I listen to Buddha or Confucius or even Eckhart Tolle .
It doesn't mean that the stuff with which they dress these pearls of thinking isn't total crap.

You don't need Jesus, or religion, or stories, to learn to respect and love other people and help others and so on. Or perhaps stories would help, but the less fantasy in them the better. Having a man turning bread into wine (why not water?) and surviving a crucifixion and the stabbing of a spear and three days without food or drink after that, in a small space,....and then ascend bodily into the atmosphere, not to mention that his mother does the same,...I'm sorry but that's totally needless to make good points. In my view it totally ruins the whole thing. Instead of just having a sort of pamphlet, no....you have to fill it with walks over water and tons of belic displays, and their respective childlike advertisements, and contradicting accounts of the person who supposedly is the only one who could have said it. And on top of that, telling everyone that it comes from the actual creator of the universe and that all passages in it contain SOME SORT of unquestionable truth! It's so stupid and needless and energy consuming.

Name me a moral action that no non-religious atheist human would be able to perform.

Lot's of stuff in Tolkien, Grimm's Fairy Tales and even other 'holy' stories, contain truths with which every human can identify with.
Why is the character of Jesus special for you to realise those good things? Why not drop the Jesus after you learn it? Because the book and people in churches or television tell you to hold on to the character, because the character has a monopoly on your soul? See what I mean by stupid pointless needless stories? They close you in this deluded mindset that the stories from 2000 years ago actually matter for the survival of your consciousness after death.

C'mon.... think a little bit for yourself, will you?

969 users online 186447 members 1942 active today Advertise Here