:idea:
Here's a thought.
From what I've seen in separate ideologies and sects of Christianity, they all interpret the Bible slightly different from the others. Some sects might hold the works of the Bible completely literally, providing a seemingly robotic and indisputable understanding of the bible, since, "well, it is gods word", according to those who take the bible literally. Then, there are those who hold the works of the bible metaphorically, but still credit the scriptures they understand metaphorically, to god, since, "well, it is gods idea that we(christians, catholics...etc.) interpret as truth with the help/ variance of other interpretations of different characters in the bible", and in these metaphorically driven understandings of the bible, arise varying sects. In the variety of these interpretations, lies what seems as indisputability of god on every angle when one is providing an argument against god.
However, I see the bible and god as a metaphor; a book of laws and instructions on how to be happy and not die with regrets or "sins". The laws and instructions, which is the bible, are given by god(god in my idea would be the personal creator of everything, along with our natural morals and instincts, and the bible would be laws and instructions of how to hone our morals and instincts in accordance to what is universally right and wrong. The universal concept of right and wrong is derived from god and presented to people as the bible), and are backed up with examples as stories from the bible. As a side note, many would say they subjectively know what is right and wrong, due to his/her natural knowing of what he/she would want and not want happening to themselves such as; people know that pain is uncomfortable, and deliberately and unreasonably inflicting pain causes discomfort to the other. If the person inflicting the pain is of a sound mind, he will know that what he has done to his victim is wrong, due to his own knowledge that pain causes discomfort.
The heart of my idea is derived from the story of "adam and eve"(my idea of adam and eve is every man and every woman) when the fruit of the tree of knowing good and evil is eaten. In genseis chapter 3 it states the following,
005: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
006: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
007: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
008: And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden
Here's the idea which is taken from the viewpoint of the probable context of the time the King James Version was written.
When the "fruit"(the substance that is knowledge) is eaten, you are given the opportunity to "know"( generally, understanding the universe and having the ability to question what is god). When the "eyes"(minds) of "adam and eve" were open, they realized they were "naked"(incomplete in their understanding of self which is induced after they have eaten the "fruit" of knowing). They would now be in confusion, which is idealized as "hiding from the presence of the Lord", because they have a doubt of their creation. After god confronts adam and eve, he starts to list the hardships they would go through. These hardships are considered only painful and not as rewarding since "adam and eve" have nothing to relay their hardships of their life to. The idea here is, they have only their treacherous work-filled lives to live, with no appreciation of their life, and only death to look forward to. If they believed in god and didn't "eat the fruit of knowing" they wouldn't be in doubt. When "they" were thrown out of "eden"( I interpreted the idea of eden as the utmost comfortable lifestyle to live, with no questioning in your mind due to "gods" word already given, and with a high chance of heaven after you die), "they" lost their comfortable lifestyle, because of knowing!?
Many would agree the Hebrew bible is certain to predate the 2nd century BC. The King James bible, first written in 1611, for the most part, I would guess is derived over time from these writings. Either way, science wasn't very expansive, and peoples lives revolved around only what they can see and take these things at surface value. At this time, there was also not much evidence to go against the idea of god. As soon as you start to question your stance of "believing", you would find yourself drifting away to eternal damnation, unless you want to simply throw out all your questioning, and repent for your "sin" of "knowing" or at that time simply questioning, according to the idea of what "knowing" and "believing" is relative to the bible's probable concept of these terms. But science and "knowing" has advanced drastically since then.
Heaven and Hell is also an idea. Heaven is your thoughts before you die, if you lived your life righteously, you will die comfortably and with no guilt or doubt, and hell would be the opposite of this. Hell would be the thoughts of guilt, doubts, and realization of living a negative life, before you die which is plausible since, every human being would want to live a complete, regretless, contributive life. I would also think, in my ideology, that the generalities are laid out pretty clearly in the first few chapters of genesis according to our time. Meaning, you can realize the complete ideological purpose of the bible, which is to set ones life in a definite path, live and die comfortably.
Sciences have advanced and will continue to advance. "Knowing" this and not acting on your chance to live and appreciate the universe, for the non believer, especially in this time we live in, is the weakness; living a life that is seemingly nothing is "Hell".
A believer believing the bible that is derived from the word of a personal "god" will live a life that is seemingly complete, because they have a heaven to go to after and have lived by the book of instruction, regardless of his/her contributions to society. This can enable a believer to simply live and be lazy in his thoughts. Personally, I wouldn't want to die, knowing that I've lived a life of nothing.
Here's a thought.
From what I've seen in separate ideologies and sects of Christianity, they all interpret the Bible slightly different from the others. Some sects might hold the works of the Bible completely literally, providing a seemingly robotic and indisputable understanding of the bible, since, "well, it is gods word", according to those who take the bible literally. Then, there are those who hold the works of the bible metaphorically, but still credit the scriptures they understand metaphorically, to god, since, "well, it is gods idea that we(christians, catholics...etc.) interpret as truth with the help/ variance of other interpretations of different characters in the bible", and in these metaphorically driven understandings of the bible, arise varying sects. In the variety of these interpretations, lies what seems as indisputability of god on every angle when one is providing an argument against god.
However, I see the bible and god as a metaphor; a book of laws and instructions on how to be happy and not die with regrets or "sins". The laws and instructions, which is the bible, are given by god(god in my idea would be the personal creator of everything, along with our natural morals and instincts, and the bible would be laws and instructions of how to hone our morals and instincts in accordance to what is universally right and wrong. The universal concept of right and wrong is derived from god and presented to people as the bible), and are backed up with examples as stories from the bible. As a side note, many would say they subjectively know what is right and wrong, due to his/her natural knowing of what he/she would want and not want happening to themselves such as; people know that pain is uncomfortable, and deliberately and unreasonably inflicting pain causes discomfort to the other. If the person inflicting the pain is of a sound mind, he will know that what he has done to his victim is wrong, due to his own knowledge that pain causes discomfort.
The heart of my idea is derived from the story of "adam and eve"(my idea of adam and eve is every man and every woman) when the fruit of the tree of knowing good and evil is eaten. In genseis chapter 3 it states the following,
005: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
006: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
007: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
008: And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden
Here's the idea which is taken from the viewpoint of the probable context of the time the King James Version was written.
When the "fruit"(the substance that is knowledge) is eaten, you are given the opportunity to "know"( generally, understanding the universe and having the ability to question what is god). When the "eyes"(minds) of "adam and eve" were open, they realized they were "naked"(incomplete in their understanding of self which is induced after they have eaten the "fruit" of knowing). They would now be in confusion, which is idealized as "hiding from the presence of the Lord", because they have a doubt of their creation. After god confronts adam and eve, he starts to list the hardships they would go through. These hardships are considered only painful and not as rewarding since "adam and eve" have nothing to relay their hardships of their life to. The idea here is, they have only their treacherous work-filled lives to live, with no appreciation of their life, and only death to look forward to. If they believed in god and didn't "eat the fruit of knowing" they wouldn't be in doubt. When "they" were thrown out of "eden"( I interpreted the idea of eden as the utmost comfortable lifestyle to live, with no questioning in your mind due to "gods" word already given, and with a high chance of heaven after you die), "they" lost their comfortable lifestyle, because of knowing!?
Many would agree the Hebrew bible is certain to predate the 2nd century BC. The King James bible, first written in 1611, for the most part, I would guess is derived over time from these writings. Either way, science wasn't very expansive, and peoples lives revolved around only what they can see and take these things at surface value. At this time, there was also not much evidence to go against the idea of god. As soon as you start to question your stance of "believing", you would find yourself drifting away to eternal damnation, unless you want to simply throw out all your questioning, and repent for your "sin" of "knowing" or at that time simply questioning, according to the idea of what "knowing" and "believing" is relative to the bible's probable concept of these terms. But science and "knowing" has advanced drastically since then.
Heaven and Hell is also an idea. Heaven is your thoughts before you die, if you lived your life righteously, you will die comfortably and with no guilt or doubt, and hell would be the opposite of this. Hell would be the thoughts of guilt, doubts, and realization of living a negative life, before you die which is plausible since, every human being would want to live a complete, regretless, contributive life. I would also think, in my ideology, that the generalities are laid out pretty clearly in the first few chapters of genesis according to our time. Meaning, you can realize the complete ideological purpose of the bible, which is to set ones life in a definite path, live and die comfortably.
Sciences have advanced and will continue to advance. "Knowing" this and not acting on your chance to live and appreciate the universe, for the non believer, especially in this time we live in, is the weakness; living a life that is seemingly nothing is "Hell".
A believer believing the bible that is derived from the word of a personal "god" will live a life that is seemingly complete, because they have a heaven to go to after and have lived by the book of instruction, regardless of his/her contributions to society. This can enable a believer to simply live and be lazy in his thoughts. Personally, I wouldn't want to die, knowing that I've lived a life of nothing.
