Let's look at it this way for a second. A person calls themselves a Christian.. yet doesn't study the bible. An Atheist calls themselves and Atheist.. yet doesn't study the bible. What is the difference? There is none. Yet, for some reason.. you can call yourself a Christian and not study the bible... and still be a Christian. but for some reason the Atheist is wrong.EmoRevolution

If a Christian doesn't study or know anything about the Bible, then I do question whether he is a Christian, but I'm really not concerned with this at the moment, so let us stick to the original debate.

And let's look at the reverse. Lets say both the self proclaimed Christian and Atheist read the bible.. and interpret it for themselves. They are not in fact coming to a unique interpretation if they align themselves with a specific collective mindset.. If you deviate from the mindset in any way.. you are no longer apart of the collective interpretation and are neither an atheist or a Christian.. you are in fact something else entirely. This is why you cannot interpret the bible for yourself and be a Christian. EmoRevolution

Christianity is comprised of numerous different denominations with their own spin on the mythology. What makes all these denominations Christian is the common principles from which they are all borne from: the belief in Christ as the savior, the belief in the creation myth, the belief in the same book.

A person who believes in the principles yet interprets the Bible differently, is just a different kind of Christian, not a person of a different religion entirely.

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"]

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"] You cannot be apart of a religion if you interpret the bible on your own. A religion requires collectivism. Yes, the most general form of Christianity.. might allow you to claim that denomination.. but when you start saying it's up to the person to interpret the bible on your own.. you are no longer a Christian but something else entirely. EMOEVOLUTION

What nonsense is this? A religion is but a collection of beliefs. A person can still be a Christian, though his beliefs may diverge from the religion itself, which explains the number of Christian denominations that exist. To be a Christian is to not necessarily be dogmatic to any form of denomination, but to accept the core principles that comprise Christianity.

You really should finish what you want to say before posting it, because now I have to make an extra post to something I've thus replied to.

I have not claimed that religions are based on interpretations merely. I have only claimed that a person can still be apart of a religion, even if he follows his own interpretations.

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"]

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"] You cannot be apart of a religion if you interpret the bible on your own. A religion requires collectivism. Yes, the most general form of Christianity.. might allow you to claim that denomination.. but when you start saying it's up to the person to interpret the bible on your own.. you are no longer a Christian but something else entirely. EMOEVOLUTION

What nonsense is this? A religion is but a collection of beliefs. A person can still be a Christian, though his beliefs may diverge from the religion itself, which explains the number of Christian denominations that exist. To be a Christian is to not necessarily be dogmatic to any form of denomination, but to accept the core principles that comprise Christianity.

Neither are you in any position to decide who is a Christian and who isn't. The point is that a person can be a Christian if he follows the core principles of that religion. He can follow his own interpretation of the Bible, but he can still be a Christian, so long as his beliefs don't diverge so radically that they bear no resemblance of the religion whatsoever.

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"]

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"] The bible itself is not an original work. A lot of what is seen in the bible can be seen older mythologies from other civilizations.EMOEVOLUTION

Yeah, so? That doesn't change the impact the Bible has directly had upon literature and art. Plus, much of the Iliad and the Odyssey borrowed from old Sanskrit stories, but I would never be so rash as to pretend that they have not had an impact because they have borrowed certain elements from other stories. Empirically, the Bible, Iliad, and Odyssey are original works.

Neither have I disputed that the Bible has borrowed elements from other stories and mythologies.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"] Not really.. IT's much more complicated than that.. IF you as an individual interpret the bible for yourself.. you're removing yourself from any form of collective theology. So you're no more a Christian than an atheist would be.EMOEVOLUTION

Take the Wiki for what you will:

"Adherents of the Christian faith, known asChristians,believe that Jesus is the Messiahprophesiedin theHebrew Bible(the part ofscripturecommon to Christianity andJudaism). The foundation of Christian theology is expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds, which contain claims predominantly accepted by followers of the Christian faith.These professions state that Jesus suffered, died fromcrucifixion, was buried, and wasresurrectedfrom the dead to open heaven to those who believe in him and trust him for the remission of their sins (salvation).They further maintain that Jesus bodilyascendedintoheavenwhere he rules and reigns withGod the Father. Mostdenominationsteach that Jesus willreturntojudgeall humans, living and dead, and granteternal lifeto his followers. He is considered themodelof avirtuouslife, and both therevealerand physicalincarnationofGod.Christians call the message of Jesus Christthe Gospel("good news") and hence refer to the earliest written accounts of his ministry asgospels."

I think we can safely agree that you need to believe in all these things to be considered a Christian. As such, the only mention of an organized church, the third to last sentence, has its basis in the Bible, Revelation, and is thus a common strand through said denominations. Although I don't literally believe Jesus will come down and judge humanity at the end of the world, I do believe it's a metaphor for the past and future judging the present.As such, by this definition I am, among other things, a Christian.

What nonsense is this? A religion is but a collection of beliefs. A person can still be a Christian, though his beliefs may diverge from the religion itself, which explains the number of Christian denominations that exist. To be a Christian is to not necessarily be dogmatic to any form of denomination, but to accept the core principles that comprise Christianity.

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Also, from the passages I have read... no offense to God, but he's not a particularly good writer.EMOEVOLUTION

God didn't write the Bible. Secondly, the impact of the Bible has had an enormous impact on literature, from the poems of John Milton, to the poems of Dante, to writings of Sir Francis Bacon. Much of the Bible has been quoted in numerous works of theirs, including the works of many other authors that I could enumerate to you.

The Bible is not for everyone, just as any other piece of literature is not for everyone, but it takes an ignorant man to denigrate its importance in literature and art.

Yeah, so? That doesn't change the impact the Bible has directly had upon literature and art. Plus, much of the Iliad and the Odyssey borrowed from old Sanskrit stories, but I would never be so rash as to pretend that they have not had an impact because they have borrowed certain elements from other stories. Empirically, the Bible, Iliad, and Odyssey are original works.

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Also, from the passages I have read... no offense to God, but he's not a particularly good writer.chessmaster1989

God didn't write the Bible. Secondly, the impact of the Bible has had an enormous impact on literature, from the poems of John Milton, to the poems of Dante, to writings of Sir Francis Bacon. Much of the Bible has been quoted in numerous works of theirs, including the works of many other authors that I could enumerate to you.

The Bible is not for everyone, just as any other piece of literature is not for everyone, but it takes an ignorant man to denigrate its importance in literature and art.

Where is anyone in this thread doing that? :?

Perhaps nowhere, but it doesn't make a difference. The point remains that it would take an ignorant man to do such a thing.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

The problem with your theory being that the Bible, like the Iliad and the Odyssey (both books, though well written, lose something in a plain-English version and can't be read by anyone without a Master's Degree in English in a literal translation) are translations of translations of translations of translations.

Dumas' works are from, at most, 200 years ago and were translated from French straight to English.

The Iliad and Odyssey were translated from Greek (several different versions, no less) to probably Latin, then to Arabic, then to Old Italian, then to Middle English, and finally to Modern English. Just as the Bible was, though skipping the Arabic and Italian steps and replacing them with Old English.

_en1gma_

Okay... and (imo) The Iliad and They Odyssey are still much better written than what I've seen of The Bible.

I'd say they're at least on par. The Latin Vulgate is, in my opinion, much better than the translated versions of the Iliad and the Odyssey, and certainly much better than the prose and abridged forms of these two stories.

Also, from the passages I have read... no offense to God, but he's not a particularly good writer.chessmaster1989

God didn't write the Bible. Secondly, the impact of the Bible has had an enormous impact on literature, from the poems of John Milton, to the poems of Dante, to writings of Sir Francis Bacon. Much of the Bible has been quoted in numerous works of theirs, including the works of many other authors that I could enumerate to you.

The Bible is not for everyone, just as any other piece of literature is not for everyone, but it takes an ignorant man to denigrate its importance in literature and art.

White Stripes and Radiohead are good. MGMT and Band of Horses should be on there.