Why Don't They Remove Books From The Bible Canon?

[Guest DanielNicholas]

So, from going through the bible. Im sure, as even any atheist could admit. That what Jesus said actually made sense and can be applied to today with some level of relevance.

Even hardcore atheists like Richard Dawkins rave on about how amazing Jesus was.

This is what he wrote, which Im going to write out by hand.

"Well there's no denying that, from a moral point of view, Jesus is a huge improvement over the cruel ogre of the Old Testament. Indeed, Jesus, if he existed (or whomever wrote his script if he didn't) was surely one of the great ethical innovators of history. The sermon on the Mount is way ahead of its time. His 'turn the other cheek' anticipated Ghandi and Martin Luther King by two thousand years. It was not for nothing that I wrote an article called "Atheists for Jesus" (and was later delighted to be presented with a T-shirt bearing the legend)."


I mean, I can't think of one verse Jesus said himself that I would disagree with. However the rest of the bible is just horrendous.

But if you took out ONLY the things that Jesus DIRECTLY said himself, out of his mouth. The bible would be, far better than it is today.

If you had the bible, and then ripped out the entire Old Testament AND the book of Corinthians and Romans,

There would be no problems at all? There wouldn't be the whole "Creationism/Intelligent Design" debate, for one.

There would be no Religion v.s. Science debate.

And, any sane person would take the side of science. Of course,

But didn't they go through the bible (I think at the Council of Nicea) and figure out which books were divinely inspired and which ones were not. And then they were canonised. So it was up to human judgement thousands of years ago wether which books were right and which ones were false.

However, using human judgement and modern science today. Obviously Genesis and Isaiah, Job, those books in particular contradict many things that modern science says, and what we know today. So therefore, they would not be divinely inspired and should be removed from the canon.

Instead of the whole "IT NEVER HAPPENED, it was a METAPHOR" approach, which obviously isn't working in the USA since just under half the population think the entire bible is 100% correct. I think it should just be removed.

Doesn't that make far more sense?

If it's wrong - RIP IT OUT!

Why is nobody doing thins?

[Veridicus]

[quote name='DanielNicholas' date='18 January 2010 - 08:54 PM' timestamp='1263869695' post='2039967']
.......
[/quote]

You really don't get what we believe.

[CatherineM]

I don't even know where to start correcting what you posted.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='DanielNicholas' date='18 January 2010 - 10:54 PM' timestamp='1263869695' post='2039967']
So, from going through the bible. Im sure, as even any atheist could admit. That what Jesus said actually made sense and can be applied to today with some level of relevance.

Even hardcore atheists like Richard Dawkins rave on about how amazing Jesus was.

This is what he wrote, which Im going to write out by hand.

"Well there's no denying that, from a moral point of view, Jesus is a huge improvement over the cruel ogre of the Old Testament. Indeed, Jesus, if he existed (or whomever wrote his script if he didn't) was surely one of the great ethical innovators of history. The sermon on the Mount is way ahead of its time. His 'turn the other cheek' anticipated Ghandi and Martin Luther King by two thousand years. It was not for nothing that I wrote an article called "Atheists for Jesus" (and was later delighted to be presented with a T-shirt bearing the legend)."


I mean, I can't think of one verse Jesus said himself that I would disagree with. However the rest of the bible is just horrendous.

But if you took out ONLY the things that Jesus DIRECTLY said himself, out of his mouth. The bible would be, far better than it is today.

If you had the bible, and then ripped out the entire Old Testament AND the book of Corinthians and Romans,

There would be no problems at all? There wouldn't be the whole "Creationism/Intelligent Design" debate, for one.

There would be no Religion v.s. Science debate.

And, any sane person would take the side of science. Of course,

But didn't they go through the bible (I think at the Council of Nicea) and figure out which books were divinely inspired and which ones were not. And then they were canonised. So it was up to human judgement thousands of years ago wether which books were right and which ones were false.

However, using human judgement and modern science today. Obviously Genesis and Isaiah, Job, those books in particular contradict many things that modern science says, and what we know today. So therefore, they would not be divinely inspired and should be removed from the canon.

Instead of the whole "IT NEVER HAPPENED, it was a METAPHOR" approach, which obviously isn't working in the USA since just under half the population think the entire bible is 100% correct. I think it should just be removed.

Doesn't that make far more sense?

If it's wrong - RIP IT OUT!

Why is nobody doing thins?
[/quote]
I'm sure there are people out there doing it, they are simply not christians. We believe the Scriptures, which is actually a library not a book, is inspired by God, so obviously we don't have the right to pick and choose [ unless you are the heretic Martin Luther].

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='DanielNicholas' date='18 January 2010 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1263869695' post='2039967']
So, from going through the bible. Im sure, as even any atheist could admit. That what Jesus said actually made sense and can be applied to today with some level of relevance.

Even hardcore atheists like Richard Dawkins rave on about how amazing Jesus was.

This is what he wrote, which Im going to write out by hand.

"Well there's no denying that, from a moral point of view, Jesus is a huge improvement over the cruel ogre of the Old Testament. Indeed, Jesus, if he existed (or whomever wrote his script if he didn't) was surely one of the great ethical innovators of history. The sermon on the Mount is way ahead of its time. His 'turn the other cheek' anticipated Ghandi and Martin Luther King by two thousand years. It was not for nothing that I wrote an article called "Atheists for Jesus" (and was later delighted to be presented with a T-shirt bearing the legend)."


I mean, I can't think of one verse Jesus said himself that I would disagree with. However the rest of the bible is just horrendous.

But if you took out ONLY the things that Jesus DIRECTLY said himself, out of his mouth. The bible would be, far better than it is today.[/quote]

Not necessarily. What did Jesus say about abortion? Homosexuality? Jesus doesn't quite literally state what to do about these issues, and the evidence for His position on these issues is more indirect. People on both sides of the aisle think Jesus supports their side. It's clear the Gospels were not written to be a complete analysis on Jesus. Which is where you get His Church to be the visible guide on earth.

[quote]If you had the bible, and then ripped out the entire Old Testament AND the book of Corinthians and Romans,

There would be no problems at all? There wouldn't be the whole "Creationism/Intelligent Design" debate, for one.

There would be no Religion v.s. Science debate.

And, any sane person would take the side of science. Of course,

But didn't they go through the bible (I think at the Council of Nicea) and figure out which books were divinely inspired and which ones were not. And then they were canonised. So it was up to human judgement thousands of years ago wether which books were right and which ones were false.[/quote]

Human judgment guided by the Holy Spirit. Quite honestly, either they were guided by the Holy Spirit, or the whole Judeo-Christian God goes down the tubes.

Also, it's not "religion vs. science" necessarily. Religion and science should go hand-in-hand. However many times religious people ignore the science, and many times, the science would rather follow their god of chance even if the odds of God are better.



[quote]However, using human judgement and modern science today. Obviously Genesis and Isaiah, Job, those books in particular contradict many things that modern science says, and what we know today. So therefore, they would not be divinely inspired and should be removed from the canon.[/quote]

Like what? I am not aware of many contradictions. Unless your reading these books differently than the way they are supposed to be read. For example, if I read a book, and I see the phrase "raining cats and dogs," am I to think it is literally raining cats and dogs, or am I supposed to take that as the current culture takes it, namely that it is raining very hard? Another example would be the two creation stories. Are we to think there is a physical contradiction, or maybe there is a theological message behind it? If you want to debate the contradictions, probably should start a new thread on it.

[quote]Instead of the whole "IT NEVER HAPPENED, it was a METAPHOR" approach, which obviously isn't working in the USA since just under half the population think the entire bible is 100% correct. I think it should just be removed.

Doesn't that make far more sense?

If it's wrong - RIP IT OUT!

Why is nobody doing thins?
[/quote]

Can you prove it's wrong? Humans are not known to logically think all the time, and people should not be cutting up their own version of religion. Either the religion is true and people should form their lives around it, or it is false, and they should find something else to form their lives around. Making a religion "fit" means the religion isn't true to begin with.

[Chestertonian]

[quote name='DanielNicholas' date='18 January 2010 - 07:54 PM' timestamp='1263869695' post='2039967']
So, from going through the bible. Im sure, as even any atheist could admit. That what Jesus said actually made sense and can be applied to today with some level of relevance.

Even hardcore atheists like Richard Dawkins rave on about how amazing Jesus was.

This is what he wrote, which Im going to write out by hand.

"Well there's no denying that, from a moral point of view, Jesus is a huge improvement over the cruel ogre of the Old Testament. Indeed, Jesus, if he existed (or whomever wrote his script if he didn't) was surely one of the great ethical innovators of history. The sermon on the Mount is way ahead of its time. His 'turn the other cheek' anticipated Ghandi and Martin Luther King by two thousand years. It was not for nothing that I wrote an article called "Atheists for Jesus" (and was later delighted to be presented with a T-shirt bearing the legend)."


I mean, I can't think of one verse Jesus said himself that I would disagree with. However the rest of the bible is just horrendous.

But if you took out ONLY the things that Jesus DIRECTLY said himself, out of his mouth. The bible would be, far better than it is today.

If you had the bible, and then ripped out the entire Old Testament AND the book of Corinthians and Romans,

There would be no problems at all? There wouldn't be the whole "Creationism/Intelligent Design" debate, for one.

There would be no Religion v.s. Science debate.

And, any sane person would take the side of science. Of course,

But didn't they go through the bible (I think at the Council of Nicea) and figure out which books were divinely inspired and which ones were not. And then they were canonised. So it was up to human judgement thousands of years ago wether which books were right and which ones were false.

However, using human judgement and modern science today. Obviously Genesis and Isaiah, Job, those books in particular contradict many things that modern science says, and what we know today. So therefore, they would not be divinely inspired and should be removed from the canon.

Instead of the whole "IT NEVER HAPPENED, it was a METAPHOR" approach, which obviously isn't working in the USA since just under half the population think the entire bible is 100% correct. I think it should just be removed.

Doesn't that make far more sense?

If it's wrong - RIP IT OUT!

Why is nobody doing thins?
[/quote]

No wonder you're an atheist.

[havok579257]

[quote name='DanielNicholas' date='18 January 2010 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1263869695' post='2039967']
So, from going through the bible. Im sure, as even any atheist could admit. That what Jesus said actually made sense and can be applied to today with some level of relevance.

Even hardcore atheists like Richard Dawkins rave on about how amazing Jesus was.

This is what he wrote, which Im going to write out by hand.

"Well there's no denying that, from a moral point of view, Jesus is a huge improvement over the cruel ogre of the Old Testament. Indeed, Jesus, if he existed (or whomever wrote his script if he didn't) was surely one of the great ethical innovators of history. The sermon on the Mount is way ahead of its time. His 'turn the other cheek' anticipated Ghandi and Martin Luther King by two thousand years. It was not for nothing that I wrote an article called "Atheists for Jesus" (and was later delighted to be presented with a T-shirt bearing the legend)."


I mean, I can't think of one verse Jesus said himself that I would disagree with. However the rest of the bible is just horrendous.

But if you took out ONLY the things that Jesus DIRECTLY said himself, out of his mouth. The bible would be, far better than it is today.

If you had the bible, and then ripped out the entire Old Testament AND the book of Corinthians and Romans,

There would be no problems at all? There wouldn't be the whole "Creationism/Intelligent Design" debate, for one.

There would be no Religion v.s. Science debate.

And, any sane person would take the side of science. Of course,

But didn't they go through the bible (I think at the Council of Nicea) and figure out which books were divinely inspired and which ones were not. And then they were canonised. So it was up to human judgement thousands of years ago wether which books were right and which ones were false.

However, using human judgement and modern science today. Obviously Genesis and Isaiah, Job, those books in particular contradict many things that modern science says, and what we know today. So therefore, they would not be divinely inspired and should be removed from the canon.

Instead of the whole "IT NEVER HAPPENED, it was a METAPHOR" approach, which obviously isn't working in the USA since just under half the population think the entire bible is 100% correct. I think it should just be removed.

Doesn't that make far more sense?

If it's wrong - RIP IT OUT!

Why is nobody doing thins?
[/quote]


So you come on a catholic phorum just to insult catholics? Time is definatly on your side.... lots of time.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='DanielNicholas' date='18 January 2010 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1263869695' post='2039967']
The sermon on the Mount is way ahead of its time. [/quote]

I'm glad you see that divorce and remarriage should not exist in our world today.

"And it hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery." (Matthew 5:31-32)

[quote name='DanielNicholas' date='18 January 2010 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1263869695' post='2039967']
His 'turn the other cheek' anticipated Ghandi and Martin Luther King by two thousand years.
[/quote]

Urban II was much more Christlike than either Gandhi or Martin Luther King.

[zunshynn]

[img]http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt112/ausador/LolWut.jpg[/img]

[Guest DanielNicholas]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' date='19 January 2010 - 02:45 PM' timestamp='1263872729' post='2039986']
Not necessarily. What did Jesus say about abortion? Homosexuality? Jesus doesn't quite literally state what to do about these issues, and the evidence for His position on these issues is more indirect. People on both sides of the aisle think Jesus supports their side. It's clear the Gospels were not written to be a complete analysis on Jesus. Which is where you get His Church to be the visible guide on earth.



Human judgment guided by the Holy Spirit. Quite honestly, either they were guided by the Holy Spirit, or the whole Judeo-Christian God goes down the tubes.

Also, it's not "religion vs. science" necessarily. Religion and science should go hand-in-hand. However many times religious people ignore the science, and many times, the science would rather follow their god of chance even if the odds of God are better.




Like what? I am not aware of many contradictions. Unless your reading these books differently than the way they are supposed to be read. For example, if I read a book, and I see the phrase "raining cats and dogs," am I to think it is literally raining cats and dogs, or am I supposed to take that as the current culture takes it, namely that it is raining very hard? Another example would be the two creation stories. Are we to think there is a physical contradiction, or maybe there is a theological message behind it? If you want to debate the contradictions, probably should start a new thread on it.



Can you prove it's wrong? Humans are not known to logically think all the time, and people should not be cutting up their own version of religion. Either the religion is true and people should form their lives around it, or it is false, and they should find something else to form their lives around. Making a religion "fit" means the religion isn't true to begin with.
[/quote]

Science would rather follow the god of chance? I hope you aren't referring to evolution, which is the exact opposite of chance. If you are referring to the chances of life on our planet existing, sure its unlikely. But even using pessimistic calculations like the Drakes equation. There should be 1 in a 1000 planets able to support life per galaxy. And there are billions of galaxies, so there should be billions of planets with life on them. Of course we've only visited and surveyed three planets in our galaxy. So you can't say life is unlikely unless you've seen every planet.

And regarding intelligence, there are homo sapiens, homo erectus and the neanderthals of course. So those are a few species on this planet whom were intelligent and capable of art, culture, religion. So I can't see any reason why other intelligent being should not exist on other planets.

IM SURE everybody has been made well aware of the contradictions in the bible, Im sure that's just common knowledge and I've done too much debating about such topics. Its getting so boring.

[Apotheoun]

I see no reason to alter the canon of scripture in order to conform it to the scientific theories of the present moment.

[Winchester]

[quote name='DanielNicholas' date='19 January 2010 - 04:47 AM' timestamp='1263894471' post='2040097']
Science would rather follow the god of chance? I hope you aren't referring to evolution, which is the exact opposite of chance. [/quote]
Could you explain how it's "the exact opposite", because mutation is, actually, chance.

[quote]
And regarding intelligence, there are homo sapiens, homo erectus and the neanderthals of course. So those are a few species on this planet whom were intelligent and capable of art, culture, religion. So I can't see any reason why other intelligent being should not exist on other planets.[/quote]
No one said they couldn't.
[quote]
IM SURE everybody has been made well aware of the contradictions in the bible,[/quote]
The only purpose of the Bible is Salvation.
[quote]
Im sure that's just common knowledge and I've done too much debating about such topics. Its getting so boring.
[/quote]
Yes, you are a weary scholar. All these in depth debates must try you so.

[Skinzo]

Daniel,
I hope you will keep posting here but you raise so many issues in your post, it's kind of hard to deal with them all. When you say the "rest of the Bible is horrendous" that's a pretty broad statement. Consider the many passages in the OT which call on us to care for widows, orphans, etc. Are they horrendous?
I hope you there is a nice parish near you where you can find a priest and people to discuss some of this with. We believe as we do because of our faith, we believe Jesus founded a Church and that He is still guiding that Church. I left the Church myself for several years but I'm glad that God brought me back. When one has an active prayer life and is involved in the sacraments I have found it does so much to strengthen my faith and hopefully has made me a better person for it. We all succeed and fail at times, but the important thing is to keep trying. I wish you all the best,

S.

[Guest DanielNicholas]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='19 January 2010 - 09:31 PM' timestamp='1263897107' post='2040098']
I see no reason to alter the canon of scripture in order to conform it to the scientific theories of the present moment.
[/quote]


Do you think in the future they'll discover the world is flat?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='DanielNicholas' date='19 January 2010 - 04:56 AM' timestamp='1263902207' post='2040109']
Do you think in the future they'll discover the world is flat?
[/quote]
You are laboring under the false notion that the Bible is meant to be used as a science textbook, and in that sense you are as foolish as a Biblical fundamentalist.