I'd say they're both misunderstood by people who don't really study the bible. They're both showing all ranges of human emotions in a very adorable way (IMO), showing great humility towards people, in that way. Both have the same basic values, the love for goodness and righteusness. The misconception is that the old testament tells about a bloodthirsty god, while Jesus never spoke nor did anything provocative or challenged anyone. The reaction to the bible mostly tells about the reader. Ther are the questions going on in the head "so what would've happened to me then?" "what would he think of me?" A humble person starts self examining, a proud person throws the book ut of the window...and a common theme in both parts just happens to be dividing people in sheep and goats.
This doesn't work for me. I am extremely self-examining as well as observant of society. In fact, I live in my head. I am, like a PSB album, introspective. I agree that they might have similar wants, such as rightousness. But it's the acts of the OT God that throw me off. When he says things like I am fair, but I won't hesitate to punish the third and fourth generation of a sinner. Or, if you swear at your parents, get stoned to death.
Yes, pretty much. Not thanks to me of course, but for all the people who've done the research and wrote all the bible study material.
So Hitler and Napoleon are just imperfect people, but these literary criticisms written by man are the truth. Certainly those socilogists who take their paradimatical look at the Bible and report some issues, or look at it differently from theologins are wrong.
It's my personal opinion of course, which I have the right to, since it's my life in question. I'm claiming knowledge, but I've also worked hard to get it. Do you think it's a bad thing?
Bad? That's a value call. I would say, if you can be totally consistent in your views, then your views are as good as any. Thus far, I have never spoken to someone who is religious who is entirely consistent in their biblical/religious versus secular living. I don't know you well enough to make that call. The bible was written by imperfect men. What do you think about the book of mormon? Or any other person who has come up with things "told to them by god"? If Jesus really did the miracles he did, I would expect there to be primary sources of his life, but there are none. Only a couple "mentions" much later outside the biblical work, of which, may have been highly altered, and we dont know who truly wrote it.
The question you havent answered is what is the very foundation of your beliefs. The thing is, following Jesus because he supposedly taught not to hate, etc, is generally fine. Just like "Do Not Murder" is generally a good idea. But it isn't always. I have trouble taking the Bible seriously. It makes me laugh on most pages. Did people really live to be 918 years old? I just have no evidence. The whole setup also makes no sense. I don't believe in sin (T minus 15 sec and...) so really the whole thing doesn't work for me.
I am an agnostic. I don't claim to know one way or the other. For me, morals are only here because of civilization, not God. Go out in the woods on your own for 10 years, and none of that applies anymore. I believe even the most "sickening" things society rails against, incest, pedophilia, murder, et al, are just social constructs. If we all agreed to rape our 3 year olds, and it was accepted, then nothing bad would probably happen. I imagine I'm about to get flamed pretty hardcore now.
I'm trying not to make any statements that aren't completely true and give the wrong impression. You see, I'm not "in" a faith just yet, still working on it... But I'm willing to give you my viewpoint on how the bible is correctly interpreted, if you're intrested, that's how far I'm willing to go for now. 