General question to all siblings...

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

No, to be baptised as a Toadfish it would have to be "in the name of the Great Everything, the beer and the holy mother" and the baptism would have to take place in rum, not water...

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

and the baptism would have to take place in rum, not water...

No minors or minor scratches please.  

[Opsa]

It would have to be an internal baptism, of course. With Root Beer for the minors and teetotalers.

*hic* I wanna be born again!

[anthrobabe]

It would have to be an internal baptism, of course. With Root Beer for the minors and teetotalers.

*hic* I wanna be born again!

Yes internal---
Pass the tankard!
(if I'm born again will the flabby stuff under my arms--- My word where did it come from in the last year- I swear- anyway will it go the frick away?)

[Darlica]

No, to be baptised as a Toadfish it would have to be "in the name of the Great Everything, the beer and the holy mother" and the baptism would have to take place in rum, not water...

Or maybe:
"hereby baptized in the name of the Great Everything, The Rum and the Holy Toadfish"....

I'll take that baptism to morrow if it was available! But then I'm the one that, as a teenager, when my classmates had finished their confirmation studies and started to wear little gold and sliver jewellery crosses around their necks wore a little enamelled Snoopy instead, claiming that he was a source if infinitive wisdom and inspiration to me...
Not that I really believed this, it was very much a tongue in cheek reaction to the fact that most of these kids took the confirmation only because it was a family tradition or to get nice gifts, not because they actually believed in God or was interested in the Bible.

After their confirmation I was still the one with the deeper knowledge about the stories of the Bible and the life of Christ, but I guess that was mainly because I read it in the same way I read the books about Greek and Scandinavian mythology.

To this day, even if my views of things has changed in many ways, that is basically still my personal opinion about the bible. It's not more true or false than any other historical compilation of myths; first retold through verbal traditions, then written down, edited, corrected due to the time and fashion when it was written down then translated, corrected and rewritten again... then finally thanks to Gutenberg printed.

And to answer the introductory question: I was raised by parents baptized in the protestant Swedish (then) state church, and I'm baptized into that church too. I would however say that my family where and are very profane. My paternal grandparents left the church sometime in the early 80's, and my maternal grandparent whom I had a very close relation to never spoke about God, went to church (if it wasn't for a funeral or wedding or such) or listened to religious services at the radio or TV.
I learned the Paternoster prayer as a child as well as some other prayers, and I had a period when I was about 11 years old, when I really wanted to believe, but then I discovered all atrocities made in the name of God. Ever since then I have a quite complicated relationship to religion in general and churches and their followers in particular.
As I became older and hopefully a bit wiser I have reached the conclusion that I have no score to settle with God™ (Or any god for that matter) or even to a less extent with Jesus (if any of them do exist) but I definitively have a bone or two to pick with some of the Apostles, especially Paul (darn misogynist ) and with a lot of intolerant priests, bishops, popes and preachers...

/D

[Griffin NoName]

To this day, even if my views of things has changed in many ways, that is basically still my personal opinion about the bible. It's not more true or false than any other historical compilation of myths; first retold through verbal traditions, then written down, edited, corrected due to the time and fashion when it was written down then translated, corrected and rewritten again... then finally thanks to Gutenberg printed.

I have always seen it like that too. I decided that around the age of 5 or 6 when told, as Jewish, not to listen to New Testement readings in school. The instruction was nuts, I kept hearing bits, but treated it as if it was a fairy tale; didn't take long to decide the Old Testement was likely a fairy tale too.  Great stories !!  As my understanding of story telling and myths grew, I decided it was probably based on a distortion of historical events.

[Sibling Qwertyuiopasd]

It's blindingly clear how many ways the Bibles stories could have been changed through the years.

1) people don't always take good accounts in the first place, and may change details they dislike and deem unimportant, or simply not record some things.
2) Council of Nycea. need I say more?
3) translated from arameic, to greek, to latin, to english? try doing that though babelFish or Google Translator. see what comes up.
4) also, all those monks copying texts were working solo and were probably alone for most of the time. if they disagreed with a particular point or detail, they could have easily changed it.

if christians 600-1600 years ago read the bible as much as they do now, then they probably didn't notice anything.

and they probably did read less, what with the rampant illiteracy.

~Qwerty

[Swatopluk]

The real differences are surprisingly few (there are some really old copies around still). We can pinpoint ideological changes made by St.Hieronymous (of Vulgata fame) because we have several editions (both old and "improved").
The choice of texts to include in the canon was of course a hairy business (how much evil could have been avoided, if the Book of Revelations had stayed out).
But texts had not to be in the official Bible to cause trouble (e.g. the Protevangelium of Jacobus that gave us the most disgusting parts of the Holy Mary cult).
I think the most serious damage was done by some of the 4th century "Fathers of the Church" that combined "Phelpsing" with rhetorical skill and, if that was insufficient, Goon Squads.

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

The greatest problem with the bible is, as Swato suggested above, its interpretation.

Many people can read it, and everyone will interpret it in a different way (as far as these people aren't brainwashed by the society they're in). The bible becomes a large problem, when the interpretation of a few, become the interpretation of the many. Take a few, brainwash them, give them your ideas, and let's rule the world...

Of course, it's not only the bible that gets this kind of result. Take the Koran, for example. Thanks to "misinterpretations" from the side of the clergy, we have holly wars all over the world.

As a result, we have people saying Moslems are bad, Jews are bad, Christians are bad, etc.

But when you read all the "holy" books, you see, that that's not really what they all say. The main idea of those books is tolerance, that's how I interpret it.


On a side note, I don't think, children should be exposed to those texts. IMO, they should face them, when their own opinion of the world is shaped.

I mean, if the bible was a movie, it would be at least R-rated, if not NC-17, as it contains verses descriptive or advocatin suicide, incest, bestiality, sadomasochism, sexual activity in a violent context, murder, morbid violence, use of drugs and alcohol, voyeurism, revenge, undermining of authority, lawlessness and human rights violations and athrocities... (OK, I might be exagerating at this last paragraph, but it actually does include all this. But don't take me wrong, I have nothing against people reading the bible)

[Darlica]

I don't see the Bible as a problem either, as you say it's in the interpretation and in it's status an an document of truth not a compilation of Myths.

I'm using the Bible as an example because it's the religious document I'm most familiar with even though I have read large parts of the Koran and have read a fair amount of with part of Hindu and Buddhism religious history and myths as well. I guess if I had another religious background I would use that religion as a main frame for my view of this (you know, the context is everything! )!

I'm not saying that Christianity is worse than other religions but it's not better either. If I was a Muslim, Jewish or a Hindu I would certainly have bones to pick with the religious leaders of my kind, dead and living, much in the same manner I feel about Paul and others I mentioned above, but as it is now I leave those and pounder about the ones that play the most important part in my frame of cultural references.



In a way this discussion also bleed in to another of my pet pewees; the reason that I can't find a religion/church neither a political movement that I'm able to take an active interest in.
I don't like to mix religion (or spirituality if you so prefer) with politics.
But wherever I turn I see religion becoming political and politics becoming something of an religious movement to the people involved.

I guess it's human nature, wanting to rule others in one way or another, but I don't like it. That's the reason I like to see my self as a humanistic bystander in these matters...

Hmm. maybe I should found my own church...

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I do believe that the thought process of religion is very much in line with the one of politics. Not so much regarding the philosophical overlap (although there is one) but the attitude that most people (in my eyes) takes regarding those two. Most people doesn't like analysis and while confronted with it they rather do it once an be done with it no matter what the facts say about their adopted beliefs.

It is a shame. 

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

I think that Mr. Lennon said it in the best way:

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isn't hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possessions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of men,
imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one..

[Bluenose]

You know Kiyo,  when I first heard that song (I was in high school) I thought it was rather trite.  As the years have gone by I have come to think that it embodies a great truth.  The trouble is, everyone seems intent upon talking about how great a man John Lennon was (and how clever they are in recognising it), instead of listening to what he had to say.

[beagle]

The real differences are surprisingly few (there are some really old copies around still). We can pinpoint ideological changes made by St.Hieronymous (of Vulgata fame) because we have several editions (both old and "improved").

Do you know much about the sacred versus profane documentation of miraculous events ? (what a silly question to Swatopluk...)

I vaguely remember that Edward Gibbon in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was quite sarcy about the absence of mention of some of them in the imperial records, especially given that the Romans weren't generally (J.C. - the other one, excepted), ones to overlook portents.

[Swatopluk]

Unfortunately the official imperial archives didn't survive (and some Christians had a hand in that).
There were a lot of guys like Jesus running around in those days (and several of them even with the same name, not quite an uncommon one). Apart from Tacitus there are few if any independent surviving sources that I know of, and he saw Jesus as a typical Jewish troublemaker (ol' Tac was quite a Jew hater).
The question is less "Was there a real Jesus?" but "Is one of the half dozen Jesuses the one we seek?".
All of this doesn't touch the internal consistency (or potential lack thereof) of the scriptural tradition.

Btw. CIC stands for Caius Iulius Caesar, Codex Iuris Canonici and Commander in Chief. Coincidence?