Saturday, December 26, 2009
Posted in
Religion
,|
Seth
|
I'm not a Christian, but like a lot of people in the United States, I have sometimes felt intimidated by the constant ranting of conservative Christians. The cudgel that the Christians use is the Bible, which they claim is the word of God. I decided it was time to look into the issue of the Bible's sources, and I found out some very interesting things:
1. The Bible was written by hundreds of people (perhaps thousands) over a period of about ten centuries. The identity of the authors is unknown, even the ones that have books named after them (Matthew, Mark, etc.). If the Bible is the word of God, then all of those hundreds of people must have been divinely inspired. But it goes beyond that: The authors must have been inspired so completely and perfectly that every word that they wrote reflects God's intentions perfectly (an improbability!).
2. The Bible in its final form was assembled in the third century at the behest of a Roman emperor. Thus, early Christians -- those who lived closest to Jesus' time -- did not have the Bible. Early Christians did have the Torah (the Old Testament) and the gospels, but it is unlikely that they considered the gospels to be divinely inspired. Early Christians would have viewed the gospels as simple biographical documents. The idea that the Bible was the word of God developed after the Bible was assembled into its final form. The Torah at that time was considered scripture; and when the books of the New Testament were combined with the Torah, those books became elevated to the status of scripture also.
3. At the time that the Bible was assembled, the likelihood is that the editors simply included the books that were the most popular, or which had the widest circulation. Many of the available books, such as the gospels of Thomas and Judas, did not make it into the Bible. Thus, the final form of the Bible was determined by human editors, and their decisions may have been arbitrary. If not arbitrary, then their decisions were certainly influenced by their preferences and prejudices.
4. The four gospels that made it into the Bible were written 60 or more years after Jesus died, and none of the authors met Jesus. Thus, all of the information in the gospels is hearsay. At the time that the gospels were written, most of Jesus' contemporaries had died.
5. The gospels that made it into the Bible disagree as to the events of Jesus' life, and they do not use the same language to convey Jesus' words. They also disagree as to the role of Judas. Thus, the Bible contains inconsistencies (many more inconsistencies than the ones I've just mentioned).
I'm not saying that you shouldn't be a Christian. What I am suggesting is simply that Jesus and the Bible are two different things. The Bible is a collection of historical documents, documents which may or may not be accurate. In order to be a Christian, you don't have to believe in the infallibility of the Bible. What makes you a Christian is believing that Jesus was the Messiah (the savior of the Jews) or that Jesus was the son of God. Thus, it should be acceptable for any Christian to take the Bible with a grain of salt, especially those portions which are very negative or prejudicial to various groups (such as women and gays).
One of my childhood friends was a conservative Christian (now a minister), so I have some experience with the Christian mind. In my opinion, people who adhere to the Bible as the word of God are not Christians as much as they are scripturalists. They inevitably have conservative personalities, so it suits them to take a narrow view. To them, the words of the Bible are more important than finding out who Jesus really was. Christians who are unafraid to think independently are the true Christians, in my opinion. It was, after all, a willingness on the part of early Christians to think independently that made Christianity possible. It takes character to make up your own mind about what to believe. Being a true believer doesn't mean adhering to the narrowest point of view.
To be honest, it strikes me as rather conceited of modern Christians to insist that the Bible is the word of God, especially when early Christians did not believe that. I've always wondered where the hubris of modern Christians comes from. Jesus preached humility, but there is no humility in the you're-damned-if-you-don't-agree-with-me attitude that most of them exhibit.
My own religious views are based on various 20th century sources, mainly the readings of the psychics Jane Roberts and Edgar Cayce. Jane Roberts channeled a soul who called himself Seth (you may have heard of the books The Seth Material and Seth Speaks). Seth spoke about Jesus and his era extensively, and he said that many of Jesus' more controversial teachings were censored because they didn't agree with prevailing cultural prejudices. Those teachings included Jesus' statements on sexuality and reincarnation. Seth also said that knowledge was considered a source of power in those ancient cultures. In order to protect their knowledge, authors of the scriptures would sometimes create falsified versions which contained inaccurate information, and some of those falsified documents made their way into the Bible.
Now, I'm not expecting any Christian to look to the Seth Material for answers, but the point is that there is a world of information out there, and no Christian needs to limit himself to the narrow, contradictory and harsh teachings of the Bible.
There are other arguments for why the Bible is not the word of God, but they appeal more to our common sense than to the facts. For example, the Bible is vague and can be interpreted in many ways. If the Bible were the word of God, why would God express himself so vaguely? Also, the Bible exists in clear opposition to scientific evidence. Science has established that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and that dinosaurs dominated the earth for millions of years. Yet the Bible would have us believe that the earth is only about 4,000 to 6,000 years old. If the earth is only 6,000 years old, when did the dinosaurs live? We know that human beings and dinosaurs never coexisted, yet the Bible would have us believe that humans were on the planet from the beginning.
The most compelling argument against the Bible is that it is the product of an ancient and unsophisticated culture. The god of the Bible is a petty and jealous god, modeled after the tyrants of the day. He is a god who demands fealty and obedience; and when those things aren't given, he throws temper tantrums and exacts harsh revenge. He is, in short, the angry Jehovah of the early Israelites dressed up in Christian garb. According to many conservative Christians, when the day of judgement comes, God will condemn 90% or more of the human race to eternal damnation because they didn't believe in him or in his son, or because their faith wasn't vigorous enough. If this is true, then the Christian god clearly lacks love, compassion and tolerance. Such a god simply doesn't exist. It is time for humanity to develop new ideas about who our Creator is. With so much evidence that the Bible is imperfect, there is no longer any reason to feel bound by it.
1. The Bible was written by hundreds of people (perhaps thousands) over a period of about ten centuries. The identity of the authors is unknown, even the ones that have books named after them (Matthew, Mark, etc.). If the Bible is the word of God, then all of those hundreds of people must have been divinely inspired. But it goes beyond that: The authors must have been inspired so completely and perfectly that every word that they wrote reflects God's intentions perfectly (an improbability!).
2. The Bible in its final form was assembled in the third century at the behest of a Roman emperor. Thus, early Christians -- those who lived closest to Jesus' time -- did not have the Bible. Early Christians did have the Torah (the Old Testament) and the gospels, but it is unlikely that they considered the gospels to be divinely inspired. Early Christians would have viewed the gospels as simple biographical documents. The idea that the Bible was the word of God developed after the Bible was assembled into its final form. The Torah at that time was considered scripture; and when the books of the New Testament were combined with the Torah, those books became elevated to the status of scripture also.
3. At the time that the Bible was assembled, the likelihood is that the editors simply included the books that were the most popular, or which had the widest circulation. Many of the available books, such as the gospels of Thomas and Judas, did not make it into the Bible. Thus, the final form of the Bible was determined by human editors, and their decisions may have been arbitrary. If not arbitrary, then their decisions were certainly influenced by their preferences and prejudices.
4. The four gospels that made it into the Bible were written 60 or more years after Jesus died, and none of the authors met Jesus. Thus, all of the information in the gospels is hearsay. At the time that the gospels were written, most of Jesus' contemporaries had died.
5. The gospels that made it into the Bible disagree as to the events of Jesus' life, and they do not use the same language to convey Jesus' words. They also disagree as to the role of Judas. Thus, the Bible contains inconsistencies (many more inconsistencies than the ones I've just mentioned).
I'm not saying that you shouldn't be a Christian. What I am suggesting is simply that Jesus and the Bible are two different things. The Bible is a collection of historical documents, documents which may or may not be accurate. In order to be a Christian, you don't have to believe in the infallibility of the Bible. What makes you a Christian is believing that Jesus was the Messiah (the savior of the Jews) or that Jesus was the son of God. Thus, it should be acceptable for any Christian to take the Bible with a grain of salt, especially those portions which are very negative or prejudicial to various groups (such as women and gays).
One of my childhood friends was a conservative Christian (now a minister), so I have some experience with the Christian mind. In my opinion, people who adhere to the Bible as the word of God are not Christians as much as they are scripturalists. They inevitably have conservative personalities, so it suits them to take a narrow view. To them, the words of the Bible are more important than finding out who Jesus really was. Christians who are unafraid to think independently are the true Christians, in my opinion. It was, after all, a willingness on the part of early Christians to think independently that made Christianity possible. It takes character to make up your own mind about what to believe. Being a true believer doesn't mean adhering to the narrowest point of view.
To be honest, it strikes me as rather conceited of modern Christians to insist that the Bible is the word of God, especially when early Christians did not believe that. I've always wondered where the hubris of modern Christians comes from. Jesus preached humility, but there is no humility in the you're-damned-if-you-don't-agree-with-me attitude that most of them exhibit.
My own religious views are based on various 20th century sources, mainly the readings of the psychics Jane Roberts and Edgar Cayce. Jane Roberts channeled a soul who called himself Seth (you may have heard of the books The Seth Material and Seth Speaks). Seth spoke about Jesus and his era extensively, and he said that many of Jesus' more controversial teachings were censored because they didn't agree with prevailing cultural prejudices. Those teachings included Jesus' statements on sexuality and reincarnation. Seth also said that knowledge was considered a source of power in those ancient cultures. In order to protect their knowledge, authors of the scriptures would sometimes create falsified versions which contained inaccurate information, and some of those falsified documents made their way into the Bible.
Now, I'm not expecting any Christian to look to the Seth Material for answers, but the point is that there is a world of information out there, and no Christian needs to limit himself to the narrow, contradictory and harsh teachings of the Bible.
There are other arguments for why the Bible is not the word of God, but they appeal more to our common sense than to the facts. For example, the Bible is vague and can be interpreted in many ways. If the Bible were the word of God, why would God express himself so vaguely? Also, the Bible exists in clear opposition to scientific evidence. Science has established that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and that dinosaurs dominated the earth for millions of years. Yet the Bible would have us believe that the earth is only about 4,000 to 6,000 years old. If the earth is only 6,000 years old, when did the dinosaurs live? We know that human beings and dinosaurs never coexisted, yet the Bible would have us believe that humans were on the planet from the beginning.
The most compelling argument against the Bible is that it is the product of an ancient and unsophisticated culture. The god of the Bible is a petty and jealous god, modeled after the tyrants of the day. He is a god who demands fealty and obedience; and when those things aren't given, he throws temper tantrums and exacts harsh revenge. He is, in short, the angry Jehovah of the early Israelites dressed up in Christian garb. According to many conservative Christians, when the day of judgement comes, God will condemn 90% or more of the human race to eternal damnation because they didn't believe in him or in his son, or because their faith wasn't vigorous enough. If this is true, then the Christian god clearly lacks love, compassion and tolerance. Such a god simply doesn't exist. It is time for humanity to develop new ideas about who our Creator is. With so much evidence that the Bible is imperfect, there is no longer any reason to feel bound by it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment