Welcome to Gaia! ::

Your English and grammar are much closer to "right" than most people who grew up with the language. If I might ask, where are you from?

I would, though, correct you on one thing -- and partly, the problem is the way our language is built. You do believe in religion -- you know it exists. You've studied several of them. You don't believe in a lot of religious teachings, or the trappings of religion.

Now, some of what you've said is accurate. Some; not all. I'm going to pick on Christianity. You're right, huge elaborate mansion-style churches are a waste of money and space. But not all groups use those: I've attended a church that met in the basement of the local Parks & Recreation office.

A "hierarchy and ranking of so called priests" is actually logical for large groups: it's no different from any organization, be it a government or a chain of department stores. (Though "so called" is a bit harsh, especially since most Protestant groups don't call our people "priests".) These priests or preachers -- I'll stick with "priests", to make it easy -- aren't extra holy, they aren't more advanced or anything; they're the teachers and leaders we choose to put in charge of us.

(Let me qualify this a bit. I'm Methodist. We cycle through "priests" every few years; the local church looks at a list of preachers and decides which one we want. After a given length of time (from 1-6 years), that one leaves and we get another. This way, we're not focused strictly on one person's interpretation of the Bible.)

Are some texts abused or ignored? Oh, no doubt of that. I'm going to pick on both Christian and Muslim here; we give them a lot of flak for acting hateful, but the Catholic Church led the Inquisition a few centuries ago. And let's never forget the witch hunts of Europe (what happened in Salem, Massachusetts, was the tail end of a centuries-long nightmare). Yet both religions claim to teach peace and love. Obviously, both groups got caught up in their zeal at some point, and lost sight of what they thought they were fighting for, and they focused on texts and mutations that justified fighting.

There certainly are religions that have, as you put it, contradictions inside contradictions. But most religions actually don't have that. It can seem that way, if we aren't used to it -- the same way that the rules of, oh, chess can be confusing to someone who's never watched the game before. (Think about how the pawn moves; only one space at a time, straight forward ... but they can move two spaces on the first move, and they capture by going diagonally. It's the weakest piece, but has the potential to become the strongest through pawn promotion. @_@ )

But ... have these faiths been tampered with? Well, define "tampered with". I don't doubt for a second that all religions that stick around long enough do change and grow. But I also believe most of them keep their core intact. Christianity has kept its core -- the idea of Jesus as the only Son of God, risen from the dead -- for almost two millenia. Islam has kept its core -- Mohammed is the final and ultimate prophet -- for centuries. These ideas have not been replaced or rejected; they are just as important today as when the faith was a handful of people hiding in a basement.

And certainly, foreign ideas have been introduced into these religions -- they are usually spotted by the faithful and loudly disclaimed.

What about the holy books themselves? Well, the Muslims won't permit the Koran to be translated into other languages (they say certain nuances can't be translated), so when I look at my English version, I know it's only a paraphrase -- so I can't verify some things. And the Bible -- well, hundreds of books have been written on the Bible's reliability. I recommend Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell (volume 1 only; volume 2 is a little too technical).

I thought you said "one subject at a time".

You're right, the Bible is a collection of historical documents -- written over a period of several hundred years. Now, I'm not aware of any group of "students of prophets" -- it's possible, certainly, but I'd be surprised if I hadn't encountered that one before.

For simplicity, let's stick with the New Testament. Yes, there are books that are left out. Yes, 'twas humans who decided what books would and wouldn't be included -- usually. Even by the end of the second century, the four Gospels were universally accepted, and most of the other "gospels" floating around were considered spurious. When time came to decide what was and wasn't trustworthy, there was little argument on those four.

What were those other gospels, and why? Well, one portrayed Jesus as a child ... cursing other kids with blindness (this being well before the time when He and His family visited the temple, which is His first recorded instance of being ... unusual). Another barely mentions Him at all, but focuses on Mary. Another is filled not with the teachings universally attributed to Him, but with abstract platitudes that sound like Confucius on LSD -- and disputing the "accepted" gospels.

Who did the selection, and why were they doing the selecting? Well, if you need advice on the law, you go to a lawyer. If you need advice on health, you go to a doctor. For advice on theology ... a group of theologians gathered. Small surprise. Why is that bad, but talking to a doctor or lawyer acceptable?

Also, the books and letters they chose had to be internally consistent with each other. That is, if one thing describes God as being transcendent, above His creation, but another describes everything in creation as being part of Him ... well, something's mistaken someplace. Something that describes God and Satan as equal, when everything else describes God as superior to Satan, obviously deserves a bit of skepticism.

Was this easy? Did the theologians argue? I'd be surprised if they didn't! But whether they did or not doesn't matter. This book is what we've got.

I'm curious. Have you read The DaVinci Code? Some of your statements sound like they were lifted from that book.

By the way, we do have the right to read these other books. We do have the right to decide for ourselves. But if we decide something is good, and we're wrong ...

That book is hilarious. I know, a lot of people got upset about it ... but I was giggling at every page. The way art, religion, history, and even language is presented is so pathetically inaccurate, I can't understand why people were getting upset.

And actually, the doctors-lawyers-theologians argument wasn't about who is better ... it was about "who is the expert?" You wouldn't go to your bartender for financial advice; you'd go to an accountant. You'd not ask your Little League coach for marital advice, you'd ask a marriage counselor. If you want advice or guidance, you go to someone who studies that field a whole lot more than you do.

Thus, if you want to know which books are valid, you ask someone who has studied them for years. It's like ... there's a Sherlock Holmes movie on. My wife asks me about it. I've read Doyle's stories (several dozen times), but she hasn't. I can tell her if the movie is based on one of Doyle's stories, or it's by a different writer; I can tell her if they got the portrayal of Holmes right, or if they got Watson wrong. I can tell her if it's worth seeing or not.

It's rather like I presume you're doing now. You have questions ... so you're asking people who've studied the same questions. Well, you would be if the others would post. I know Deidra has some real-life business going on today, and most of the others are probably at school or work.

It's commonly accepted that the evangelist Mark, aka John Mark, was a student of Peter. That's hardly news.

And you're side-stepping the point of "expert" with this business about being a medical student and misdiagnosing. A psychiatrist would still know how to treat a broken arm, even though they are two different fields of medicine.

But that is irrelevant. Let us focus on the theology. Theology is, despite what some may believe, not nearly so subject to personal bias: if something is bad, it's bad for all. If something is good, it's good for all. There are a few exceptions, certainly, but not nearly so much as some believe.

Since we're dealing with historical records, let me ask you this. Who is more likely to know what was written and what it means: a student of the man who wrote it in the first place, or someone removed by a dozen generations? You'd expect the student to know it better, because he knew the teacher directly.

Does that mean that the newer versions are wrong? No. Do you know what happens when we compare modern versions of ... for example, Mark's gospel ... with ancient versions of it? We find them to be the same! Because the scholars who have copied things over the years ... have copied them.

I am not sidestepping my question,I am merely enforcing it.


Does that mean that the newer versions are wrong? No.

I am merely stating the fact that it is incomplete,I agree that the bible is a book of worth and sound history.

I'm not sure I understand. What exactly do you mean by "the purity of God"?

So ... this is just another version of "all religions are basically the same".

Which is, incidentally, a load of crap. Even most sociologists, who frequently study religions on a scientific, non-faith basis, will roll their eyes at that one.

If, if, your theory is accurate ... then I have to assume whatever deity/deities first got this started was limited. It has done nothing to prevent degradation of its original teachings. Either it can't keep its teachings straight, or ... maybe it won't. For several thousand years, it has just sat back and twiddled its thumbs ... assuming for an instant that it ever gave a rat's hindquarters about earth and humans in the first place.