Rewriting the Bible, Reforming religion

[ichneumon]

This could, in fact, be done - Jesus was pretty much a hippie/commie, anyway. This is not a thread for trashing religion, but debating ways of changing it. There have been Christian communes that worked fairly well in the past. CONSTRUCTIVE thoughts, anyone?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Source?

I don't think religion can be formed in the traditional sense. I look at the world this way:

Science: a method of determining conclusions based on perceptions of reality.
Philosophy: a way of determining one's perceptions of reality.
Mysticism: an acceptance of the idea that certain perceptions of reality are valid rather than perceptions.

Whether mysticism is neccessary for humanity is a question and am curious about.

[More Fire for the People]

Look up reconstructivism. It basically takes Derrida’s deconstructionism and deconstructs something and then puts it back togethor in the most progressive manner [of the concrete-historical condition]. There is a reconstructionist Christian movement known as Christian existential humanism. I think liberation theology may fall under reconstructivism as well.

Edit: not be confused with fascistic reconstructionism .

[Free Left]

Jesus was pretty much a hippie/commie,

Render unto Caesar what is Casaers'.

Dosen't sound like commie talk to me!

[violencia.Proletariat]

Jesus was pretty much a hippie/commie, anyway.

No he wasn't. In fact, I would like you to show me that he even existed.


This could, in fact, be done

Why the hell would you want to.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

It's a nice idea in principle... Unfortunately "reform" in this case might as well mean burn it all down and start again. What's needed isn't taking away the bad apples, it's cutting down the whole tree, because it's rotten to it's core.

-Alex

[Eleutherios]

Sorry, but you're not going to be able to rewrite the Bible and convince Christians that your text is better than the one they currently call their holy book. They believe that book was written by God or at least inspired by God, and they're not going to believe that he told you he changed his mind about the stuff he said in the first edition.

And no, sorry, Jesus was not a communist or anything like one. Turning the other cheek, rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's, and loving your enemies will not make a proletarian revolution happen.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 9 2006, 06:43 PM

Jesus was pretty much a hippie/commie,

Render unto Caesar what is Casaers'.

Dosen't sound like commie talk to me!
Actually, "Render unto caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's" was the quote. It implied that you should use all your possessions to serve God because everything is God's. This in fact leads to the question of private property itself - clearly the statement antagonizes private property. It was viewed as subversive and many say that statement led to his crucifixion.

Taking a statement out of context is not going to prove a point at all.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

RELIGION IS REFORMING!!!

The majority of what it says in the bible, is clearly wrong, and educated workers these days who also hold religous belief tend to "interpret" the bible in a more liberal way. They Ignore the bad things about the bible, like its homophobia because its not acceptable behaviour in society.

When a religous text loses its monompoly on explaining how the universe, the earth and life was made, it also usually looks pretty redundant in the areas of morality and eithics too,

Modern "christians" are not real christians, since they have had to reform their religion so much to try and keep it acceptable.

[Comrade-Z]

Actually, "Render unto caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's" was the quote. It implied that you should use all your possessions to serve God because everything is God's.

How exactly would I go about rendering all my property to god? Does god run a storage depot somewhere?

Oh wait, I forgot, of course he does. It's called The Catholic Church. Or, the Anglican Church. Or whatever. No thanks. :angry:

Oh, wait, are you saying that those aren't the "real" storage depots for god? Okay, tell me, where do you propose I take my property in order to offer it up to god? Oh yeah, sacrifices! Okay, I'm going to need an altar, a great big machete....

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:41 PM
RELIGION IS REFORMING!!!

The majority of what it says in the bible, is clearly wrong, and educated workers these days who also hold religous belief tend to "interpret" the bible in a more liberal way. They Ignore the bad things about the bible, like its homophobia because its not acceptable behaviour in society.

When a religous text loses its monompoly on explaining how the universe, the earth and life was made, it also usually looks pretty redundant in the areas of morality and eithics too,

Modern "christians" are not real christians, since they have had to reform their religion so much to try and keep it acceptable.
Okay, so those who don't take their religion very seriously and marginalize its importance in their lives tend to be less reactionary. That's pretty obvious, and it does nothing to show that Christianity is any less reactionary than it used to be; it's just weaker now. But as long as they're still publishing the Bible, promoting it as a holy text, and distributing it to children, that's going to lay the foundation for others to take it more seriously and become more reactionary.

What I can't stand about the moderate Christians is how they pick and choose what they personally like in the Bible (the golden rule, not killing or stealing, etc.) and reject what they don't personally like (usually things like animal sacrifice, genocide, homophobia, sexism, slavery, etc.) At least the fundamentalists are being somewhat intellectually honest and taking their holy scripture seriously. I mean, if we can decide for ourselves what is good and what is bad in the Bible, why do we need the Bible at all? Why do we continue to publish all the crap alongside the good stuff?

Whenever Christians support progressive or revolutionary ideals, it is in spite of what their religion is teaching and not because of it. They are taking their modern ideals and either ignoring what the Bible says or performing lots of linguistic gymnastics in order to fit what the Bible says into their belief system. But when you get down to it, the Bible and Christian dogma are inherently reactionary, and the more seriously one takes them, the more reactionary one is. The fact that people are moving beyond the Bible to define their morality and ethics is not a sign that Christianity is reforming; it is a sign that Christianity is disappearing.

Just take a look at the Muslim world if you want to see what it's like when religion hasn't disappeared to the extent it has in the West. Muslims are obliged to consider the Qur'an to be the infallible word of Allah as dictated to Muhammad. As a result, Muslims are much more religious and much more reactionary than your average run-of-the-mill Christian in the US or Europe. When the Qur'an says to treat women and gays like shit, they do it, no questions asked.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by Dean+Aug 11 2006, 05:54 PM--> (Dean @ Aug 11 2006, 05:54 PM)Actually, "Render unto caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's" was the quote. It implied that you should use all your possessions to serve God because everything is God's. This in fact leads to the question of private property itself - clearly the statement antagonizes private property. It was viewed as subversive and many say that statement led to his crucifixion.

Taking a statement out of context is not going to prove a point at all.[/b]
What about the Sermon on the Mount? Doesn't that pretty much demolish the idea that Jesus would have supported a proletarian revolution?

Matthew 5:38-44
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you
Basically, Jesus is saying "don't ever fight back, give your boss whatever he asks for, do whatever he says plus some, and do good to anybody who treats you like shit". That doesn't exactly sound like the rhetoric of a communist.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Yeah i would much rather tell a fundementalist how wrong they are about thingsif only because they dont "interpret" the bible. They do what it says.

Interpreting the bible must piss of god, you would think an amnipitant being could master language it was written in.

(PS. i dont think god even exists, i was just saying is all)