# The wrong Bible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 10, 2003, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wrong-bible/218154 "2003-12-10T15:27:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2003, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wrong-bible/218154/1 "2003-12-10T15:27:26Z")
I was reading the Infidel’s artles on the Historicity of Jesus, specifically [this one (a review of the Doherty book)](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml) and I just finished reading this paragraph: > [@](#): > > A Note on the Peculiar Context > > It is common to argue over the historicity of Jesus by calling upon analogies with other historical questions. However, this is fraught with peril. Most analogies break down due to the unusual nature of early Christian history. First, there is the general incongruity between ancient and modern societies, which I discuss in " Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story " and " Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels." But more important than that is the peculiarity of Christian history itself. From very early on Christianity was wracked with bitter ideological disputes and competing sects with conflicting claims. Even the letters of Paul are full of references to his opponents and the desperate struggles he had with them to maintain control of his own congregations. Yet the sect that “won” this internecine propaganda war achieved victory by political rather than epistemic means. > > Every Patristic historian remarks on how regularly the surviving (“orthodox”) literature of the second and third centuries slanders opponents with exaggerated or even false charges, how they employed shunning and other acts of social intimidation rather than open debate, and how routinely complaints are heard of forged texts and other tools of deception in the ranks. Numerous extant orthodox works have been proven to be forgeries, and even many canonical texts are universally agreed to be dubious. There is also an endless record of persistent ideological doctoring of the canonical texts from the earliest dates (see Bart Ehrman’s The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, 1993, and the works cited there; also, my essay " The Formation of the New Testament Canon "). Though the New Testament in its entirety is a rather small book by ancient standards, it contains over a thousand passages that have so many early variants we cannot confidently identify the original reading (there are 19 such passages in 1 Timothy alone, a letter only 134 verses long, meaning 14% of the letter is to some extent uncertain; see my " Two Examples of Faulty Bible Scholarship "). Many of these conflicting readings cannot be explained as mere scribal errors, but are ideological in nature. > > \*To make matters worse, when the Church finally acquired absolute political power under the Constantines, opponents were compelled by force to fall in line. The sect that gained the emperor’s ear did not win this trophy through convincing him by sound evidence and argument in an open and equal debate with opponents, but by mere luck: they just happened to be the ones in his entourage. As the threat of death, prison, or dispossession was used to eliminate opponents, “disapproved” texts were collected and burned, or simply never copied and thus left to disintegrate, never to be read again. And thus, though we know there were radically variant sects even in Paul’s day, we have not a single text from them. Instead, the vast bulk of surviving material is solely what was approved by the victorious “orthodoxy,” who did not win because of their greater adherence to the truth, but their more effective and fortunate politics. > > Devout Christians have the most reason to be alarmed at this: a church that engages in murder, slander, deceit, compulsion, and intimidation could not plausibly be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Like Jesus himself, true Christians did not write down their beliefs to argue or prove them, but simply had faith, accepting their deaths without a fight. Thus, if there is any true Holy Spirit, it was more likely inspiring the first believers, none of whose literature survives, and those souls who turned the other cheek to the “orthodoxy’s” bullying and machinations rather than fight back. And so true Christianity could well have died a silent death. But even if you turn aside from that awful possibility, you are faced with the original problem: Christian literature, and history, holds almost no analogy with any other literature or history we could care to name. From Homer to Tacitus, there is by comparison virtually no such background or context of ideological conflict affecting the texts–affecting not only the doctoring or editing of their content, but their very selection and preservation. Christianity’s own history, and above all the nature of Jesus, was the very target of contention here. I cannot think of any comparable problem in ancient history that is as seriously challenged by such biasing of the source material.\* > > **Yet the “victorious” sect happened to be historicist. Since that was an accident of their tactics and good fortune, we cannot be entirely confident that the orthodoxy, much less the surviving source material, reflects the truth about Jesus. This is all the more troubling since we know the orthodox sect was credulously eager to latch onto any piece of nonsense that supported their historicist position. Prominent examples include the obvious fantasies inserted into the Gospel narrative by Matthew, the wild legends believed and repeated by the early 2nd century Christian Papias, and Eusebius’ belief and reliance upon a forged letter of Jesus himself. More troubling, though more debatable, examples include Luke’s “importation” of historical details into the basic combination of Mark and Q so as to make a hagiography look like a history (see my " Luke and Josephus"), and John’s probable invention of the Doubting Thomas tale (not mentioned by anyone else, least of all Matthew, who was clearly prone to recording the fabulous, or (Ps.-) Peter, and Paul, who had several occasions to call upon the story, e.g. 2 Pet. 1:16-19; 1 Cor. 15:5-7, 35-58).** > > All this does not entail that the historicist sect was wrong and that Jesus didn’t exist. But it does throw a wrench into any argument that draws on analogies with other historical questions which were not subject from the start to this unusually intense and persistent ideological conflict and behavior. Historians are in a worse position regarding early Christian history than any comparable (and comparably preserved) institutional history (such as the origins of the major schools of philosophy), and the most suspect elements are, by an unfortunate coincidence, the very ones a historicist needs to settle his case. Naturally I’d like other’s opinions on the validity of this, and I’d also like to know if there are any possible ‘other versions of the bible’ out there (from the article I gather the answer is ‘no’). If this is true, how does this effect the Christian’s faith? ---
**Author:** ![spingears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@spingears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spingears)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2003, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wrong-bible/218154/2 "2003-12-10T17:30:23Z")
“Naturally I’d like other’s opinions on the validity of this, and I’d also like to know if there are any possible ‘other versions of the bible’ out there (from the article I gather the answer is ‘no’).” The answer is a qualified yes, it is known as “The Book of Mormon.” Many claims are made for it and it’s presentation of things in the new world. Many of its cannot be reconciled with the hard facts of the new world. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2003, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wrong-bible/218154/3 "2003-12-10T19:04:20Z")
I guess it depends on how you define “Bible.” There are apocryphal books, of course, including several “gospels,” one of which, Thomas, is contemporary with Mark. There are also the Dead Sea Scrolls but those make no mention of Jesus. If you’re simply asking about variant manuscripts of canon, there are a few but none of them are so dramatically different from each other as to really constitute a “different” Bible. I think maybe the closest thing to a preserved alternate tradition would be the manuscripts discovered at Nag Hammadi. ---
**Author:** ![\_possum\_stalker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/b77776/32.png) [@\_possum\_stalker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_possum_stalker)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2003, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wrong-bible/218154/4 "2003-12-10T23:44:09Z")
[Here ya go. Apocrypha your brains out.](http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html) As a biologist who loves Bible history, I am required by law to recommend [_Darwin’s Cathedral_](http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14817.ctl). It is no coincidence that the “winning” form of Christianity was organized like an army and destroyed all opposing beliefs; it was natural selection. (If anyone says “but it wasn’t natural,” I’m mailing them this handsome Cursed Monkey Paw, suitable for framing :)) ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wrong-bible/218154/5 "2003-12-11T03:55:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Meatros \* > Naturally I’d like other’s opinions on the validity of this, and I’d also like to know if there are any possible ‘other versions of the bible’ out there (from the article I gather the answer is ‘no’). The books that were removed from the Bible in 364a.d. by the Catholic church are slightly different. They contain things that actually contradict some of the church’s precepts. Like the command to observe the sabbath at home and not go to a church made by human hands. Hard to collect money and influence people if you can’t get them in the door. Can’t have that.🙂 > [@](#): > > If this is true, how does this effect the Christian’s faith? I don’t believe it will affect most Christian’s faith or any aspect of their belief system at all. Christians would one, just not think about it or two, consider it an evil trick. I was a Christian my entire life and knew there were some questionable things about Christianity but it was just “a mystery” and we would learn the whole truth later. When I came to SDMB a couple of months ago and started trying to defend my religious beliefs, I had problems. The temptation to go away and just “have faith” was overwhelming. After all, if I questioned anything it was almost like I was doubting God. That is the third reason most people wouldn’t be affected by bad religious PR. When I really started defending my “religious” beliefs in debate here, I was stunned at how lame and indefensible many were. That made me feel like an idiot. Almost pushed all the questions out of my mind again, so I could go back to my comfort zone. I went back and forth in my mind like this for almost two months. I had to force myself to figure out why I held each belief about my religion and then had step back and see how it felt to let each one that wasn’t mine, go. I grieved for each one and almost quit everytime. I know this must sound ridiculous, but it was grueling, depressing and heartbreaking, but I had by then gone too far to fool myself anymore. When I was done I felt odd and empty, but also stronger and better. It took me two months and almost every waking moment and thought I had, to do this. Most Christians will not ever get past the first 2 reasons not to. It wasn’t unlike what I would imagine a showdown with the devil would be.🙂 Most of my “religious” beliefs died in the struggle, but God still remained. I have my own personal reasons for believing in God, but couldn’t come up with good enough reasons to keep beliefs that were someone else’s. Long answer, sorry. The indoctrination I received from Christianity had a lot of built in safeguards that made it hard to do my own critical thinking. So no, Christianity will remain strong and intact. I don’t think there would be any impact at all. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wrong-bible/218154/6 "2003-12-11T12:45:23Z")
IWLN- > [@](#): > > The temptation to go away and just “have faith” was overwhelming. After all, if I questioned anything it was almost like I was doubting God. That is the third reason most people wouldn’t be affected by bad religious PR. When I really started defending my “religious” beliefs in debate here, I was stunned at how lame and indefensible many were. That made me feel like an idiot. Almost pushed all the questions out of my mind again, so I could go back to my comfort zone. I went back and forth in my mind like this for almost two months. I had to force myself to figure out why I held each belief about my religion and then had step back and see how it felt to let each one that wasn’t mine, go. I grieved for each one and almost quit everytime. I know this must sound ridiculous, but it was grueling, depressing and heartbreaking, but I had by then gone too far to fool myself anymore. When I was done I felt odd and empty, but also stronger and better. It took me two months and almost every waking moment and thought I had, to do this. I know _exactly_ how you feel, I went through a similar process a few months ago. In some respects, _I’m still going through it_. I’m still examining practically everything I can get my hands on (hence this article), but my beliefs have radically changed-yet I haven’t really found comfort _yet_. My Wife says that I shouldn’t stress about it as much as I have been (I regularly bring home 10-40 pages of stuff I’ve printed off of the internet-from this site and others). 'possum stalker- Well, now I have another book on my Amazon wishlist…😃 Diogenes the Cynic- > [@](#): > > If you’re simply asking about variant manuscripts of canon, there are a few but none of them are so dramatically different from each other as to really constitute a “different” Bible. This might sound like a stupid question, but I’m asking it anyway: What are the chances of a pretty radical version of the current bible (the letters) having been destroyed during these ‘Christian’ wars (perhaps not a good term for it) mentioned in the article I linked? spingears-True, I suppose I should have been a little more specific-but your information helps me realize a few things that I didn’t consider. Thanks all for the help. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![spingears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@spingears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spingears)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wrong-bible/218154/7 "2003-12-11T13:06:06Z")
I assume that you are a seeker of truth and as such you are sure to find it if you continue to weigh and evaluate the evidence. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. There is a powerful bible study program available at no charge at: [http://www.theophilos.sk/](http://www.theophilos.sk/) including the KJV and extensive help in features of the program. Additional material and add-ons aslo available. The American Standard Version is recommended as being closest to the original greek text . ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wrong-bible/218154/8 "2003-12-11T13:53:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Meatros \* > I know _exactly_ how you feel, I went through a similar process a few months ago. In some respects, _I’m still going through it_. I’m still examining practically everything I can get my hands on (hence this article), but my beliefs have radically changed-yet I haven’t really found comfort _yet_. My Wife says that I shouldn’t stress about it as much as I have been (I regularly bring home 10-40 pages of stuff I’ve printed off of the internet-from this site and others). You probably shouldn’t stress so much about it. You don’t need to do what’s fast, just what’s right; or as close to right as you can figure out. I don’t think you’re going to get your answers from anything written. The only thing that’s helped me is to go off someplace quiet and ask God “Now what?” I don’t get a booming voice(thank God), but if I wait long enough, I feel peace. I was definitely more comfortable being a clueless Christian. Don’t worry, be happy. I liked that safe feeling. This is a lot harder, but I think it’s supposed to be, so we can learn. You might want to stay out of Thessalonians for awhile though.:eek: ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wrong-bible/218154/9 "2003-12-11T15:41:15Z")
> [@](#): > > This might sound like a stupid question, but I’m asking it anyway: What are the chances of a pretty radical version of the current bible (the letters) having been destroyed during these ‘Christian’ wars (perhaps not a good term for it) mentioned in the article I linked? The New Testament was not fully canonozed until the fourth century so there wasn’t really an accepted version of the current Bible for quite a long time. I’m not aware of any destroyed letters of either Paul or any apsotles and it’s highly unlikely that a letter with any apostolic authority would have been destroyed by the early church. There were and are several letters which are spuriously attributed to Paul or to apostles (and some are in the NT) but I’ve never heard or read anything about a _destroyed_ apostolic letter. Mostly what was destroyed was alternate gospels (such as the Gnostic stuff found at Nag Hammadi) and other manuscripts which contained early heretical teachings. Some of those manuscripts were lost forever and some survive but I’m not aware of any alleged “lost” apostolic letters even being talked about by historians or writers of the time. The letters of Paul and others circulated around in various churches and were frequently copied. The copies also made the rounds and some of those copies contained mistakes. Then _those_ copies were copied and even more mistakes were made. Eventually there were enough copies with enough mistakes that it was no longer possible to discern precisely what the original had said. This is the problem that Dougherty was referring to when he talked about variant letters. It wasn’t that they were really different versions but that they were just all copied differently. So I guess the answer to your question is that no, there was no radical version of the current NT which was ever destroyed. The current canon is there _because_ it consisted of books and letters that were accepted by the church. As I said before, the closest thing to another burgeoning “canon” would have been the Nag Hammadi library. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wrong-bible/218154/10 "2003-12-11T21:07:23Z")
Meatros and IWLN, I’m in the midst of all that, too. Study of the history of the Bible and Christianity’s origins showed that what hadn’t been made up several different ways had been borrowed from some other faith and a lot that had been included in the canon was contradictory or just obvious bullshit. I asked myself if Jesus’ message of love would be changed were He not God. “Not really,” I said. How about if He had never existed at all? “The message is still valid.” So what’s the problem? “I guess there isn’t one.” But are you going to keep your mouth shut at church? “You bet I am!” The most I’ve done was to mutter “It get worse!” in Bible class when a student asked the pastor if what he was saying was that not everything in the Bible was to be taken literally. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wrong-bible/218154/11 "2003-12-12T03:23:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dropzone \* > \*\*Meatros and IWLN, I’m in the midst of all that, too. Study of the history of the Bible and Christianity’s origins showed that what hadn’t been made up several different ways had been borrowed from some other faith and a lot that had been included in the canon was contradictory or just obvious bullshit. I asked myself if Jesus’ message of love would be changed were He not God. “Not really,” I said. How about if He had never existed at all? “The message is still valid.” So what’s the problem? “I guess there isn’t one.” But are you going to keep your mouth shut at church? “You bet I am!” > > The most I’ve done was to mutter “It get worse!” in Bible class when a student asked the pastor if what he was saying was that not everything in the Bible was to be taken literally. \*\* I’m sure that speaking up in church would do no good. I asked countless questions when I was younger. I didn’t receive answers but I did quickly get the impression that it was not okay to question anything. I was doubting God if I did. It was magnificent psychology and it worked. I still have those feelings that I’m somehow wrong to be questioning anything. Emotional baggage. I’m not questioning God, just the facts man wrote about him and the churches set up for him. It’s a stretch, but you could even consider those who question things - quality control.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wrong-bible/218154/12 "2003-12-12T06:36:13Z")
" Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with **all your mind.**" (Matthew 22:37) To think is to follow the greatest commandment. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wrong-bible/218154/13 "2003-12-12T07:29:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*" Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with **all your mind.**" > (Matthew 22:37) > > To think is to follow the greatest commandment. \*\* I can think of a dozen verses that talk about having cunning and evil thoughts overcome your mind. 😉 **DtC** , I have an “in _your_ honest opinion” question. Do you think that the steps myself or others like me have taken away from our religious traditions, usually lead to eventually not believing in God? ---
**Author:** ![FriendRob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecc23a/32.png) [@FriendRob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendRob)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wrong-bible/218154/14 "2003-12-12T14:56:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Meatros \* > \*\*This might sound like a stupid question, but I’m asking it anyway: What are the chances of a pretty radical version of the current bible (the letters) having been destroyed during these ‘Christian’ wars (perhaps not a good term for it) mentioned in the article I linked? > > spingears-True, I suppose I should have been a little more specific-but your information helps me realize a few things that I didn’t consider. > Thanks all for the help. 😃 \*\* I have to differ with **Diogenes** here. First of all, there are several letters of Paul that seem to have been lost. I think there is a verse in 1 Corinthians that mentions a previous letter to the Corinthians. Some scholars think that 2 Cor (and possibly 1 Cor) are actually cobbled together from several originally independent letters. There is also some mention of a letter to the Laodecians in early Christian writings. (Someone forged a letter to the Laodecians, but it was never accepted as genuine by large numbers of Christians.) Secondly, there is the NT according to Marcion. Marcion was a second-century Christian from Egypt (IIRC) who later went to Rome. He is sometimes credited with being the first to realize that the Christian writings were getting out of hand - infancy gospels, the Acts of various apostles, fake letters of Paul, etc. - and decide to make a “canon” of acceptable books. His canon was very different from our NT. He accepted only a version of Luke as a gospel, and some sort of collection of Paul’s letters. Later Christian writers declared him a heretic, and claimed he had mutilated both Luke’s gospel and Paul’s letters. But, as the article cited in the OP points out, these “orthodox” views are biased towards a certain theology. Who’s to say that Marcion’s version of the NT was not more historically accurate than ours? I recommend finding a good “Introduction to the New Testament”, like the one by Bart Ehrmann. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wrong-bible/218154/15 "2003-12-12T15:43:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > \*\*I can think of a dozen verses that talk about having cunning and evil thoughts overcome your mind. 😉 > > **DtC** , I have an “in _your_ honest opinion” question. Do you think that the steps myself or others like me have taken away from our religious traditions, usually lead to eventually not believing in God? \*\* Only if an individual identifies “God” as being inseparable from religious dogma. A lot of people become so disenchanted with with the nonsense that is tied up with specific religious doctrines that they decide it’s _all_ bullshit and become atheists. Others just decide that God is beyond specific dogma and just have faith without entangling themselves in religion. I think it’s about 50/50 as to whether people go all the way over to atheism but those who don’t have to do some mental house cleaning as to what is important to their faith and what isn’t (as it sounds like you’ve already been doing). I think that one of tne of the hardest things to let go of is any sense of exclusivity when it comes to how God(s) can be imagined or worshipped. For Christians this may mean letting go of the notion that one must go through Christ to get to heaven or that the religious experiences of other traditions are less legitimate than those of Christians. From the Hindu perspective it’s _all_ allegory. All gods are Brahman and Brahman is unknowable. God appears to people in ways that will move them in an individual, personal way. Some people are moved by communing with a Mother Goddess, others by a protective father or by empathizing with the suffering of of Christ. Some folks are comforted by the notion that nature is filled with benevolent spirits and others think of the universe itself as God. It’s all true and none of it’s true. If there is something transcendent in the universe then it is shown to humans in endless ways. I know there are some who would question whether one is being moved by God or being tricked by something more malevolent, whether it be the devil or “evil spirits” or even insanity. I think that the prophets who have endured (Jesus, Mohammed, the Buddha) have been the ones who stressed compassion as being the thing that ultimately matters. Love is an emotion which can always be trusted and which can never be wrong. Whatever makes you feel love is “right” (and at this point I often get asked by fundies about child molesters and the like. Obviously that wouldn’t qualify as love. Love is not sexual. I’m talking about compassion, empathy, the ability to be able to feel another person as one’s self). Socrates said that he had a _daimon_ (“little spirit”) inside him which didn’t necessarily tell him when he was right but which _always_ told him when he was wrong. Bruce Lee said in _Enter the Dragon_ that if somebody points at the moon, don’t look at their finger. Religions are like signposts all pointing at the same thing but too many people climb up the post instead of following where it points. Jesus talked about polishing the outside of the cup when what mattered was what was inside the cup. Religion is the outside of the cup. Don’t drink the outside, drink the inside. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wrong-bible/218154/16 "2003-12-12T15:43:18Z")
So you’re saying the New Testament was assembled by Martians? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Cyrokk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f08c70/32.png) [@Cyrokk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyrokk)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wrong-bible/218154/17 "2003-12-12T23:55:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > \*\ ***DtC** , I have an “in _your_ honest opinion” question. Do you think that the steps myself or others like me have taken away from our religious traditions, usually lead to eventually not believing in God? \*\* I must be the rare exception in that I became _closer_ to God when I dropped the Christian dogma. I spent a couple years doing research on the historicity of the bible and I reached basically the same conclusions stated in the excerpt in the OP. My initial reaction was a small repulsion to the possibility that what my parents religiously instilled in me was wrong, but that feeling was very short-lived and was replaced by a sense of complete freedom. Like many people, I cannot accept the possibility that blackness awaits us when we die, but I have come to my own pseudo-Deist conclusions of the nature and purpose of life on earth and the role of God, and once I found a belief that made sense to me, I felt a comfort that I had never found within the confines of modern Christian dogma. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2003, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wrong-bible/218154/18 "2003-12-13T00:02:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > I think it’s about 50/50 as to whether people go all the way over to atheism but those who don’t have to do some mental house cleaning as to what is important to their faith and what isn’t (as it sounds like you’ve already been doing). It’s probably not hard to figure out from my question that I’m worried about this being the road to not believing in God and some how I could get there without quite realizing it. I don’t see how that could possibly happen, but I also don’t feel as sure of me anymore. I’m continually amazed at how much of me was molded and affected by that religion. I enjoy the sense of irony I feel at asking you questions, when early on your’s was one of the hardest arguments for me to deal with. Stockholm sydrome or something.😃 > [@](#): > > I think that one of tne of the hardest things to let go of is any sense of exclusivity when it comes to how God(s) can be imagined or worshipped. For Christians this may mean letting go of the notion that one must go through Christ to get to heaven or that the religious experiences of other traditions are less legitimate than those of Christians. This one isn’t hard for me at all. I have never doubted the story of Christ, but have always known that the impact, the Christian interpretation of it was not correct. I have always thought that all religions were legitimate. They are all just different reflections of the same God. I even include the decent loving people who believes in no God. Their life is a reflection of God. He doesn’t need a name. > [@](#): > > I know there are some who would question whether one is being moved by God or being tricked by something more malevolent, whether it be the devil or “evil spirits” or even insanity. This one I’ve wondered about. Maybe not like evil spirits, but just evil internal dialogue, produced by my rebellious brain. I also keep remembering how we were taught not to get too close to non-believers because this could damage our beliefs. They were kind of right on that one, but how much of it was the church’s self interest and how much was concern. It should never be a bad thing to get as many facts as possible. Unless, I guess they think atheists are guided by the devil or something. There’s a little twist in there too, being guided by something you don’t believe exists. Hmmm…That’s funny. > [@](#): > > I think that the prophets who have endured (Jesus, Mohammed, the Buddha) have been the ones who stressed compassion as being the thing that ultimately matters. Love is an emotion which can always be trusted and which can never be wrong. Whatever makes you feel love is “right”. That should be enough. But I’ve never been in a “religion” where it was. I’ve spent years saying I was a Christian, but always needed to qualify it with explanations that actually went against Christian beliefs. I was a Christian by default, but not fact. Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions. You’re pretty good for an infidel.😉 ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wrong-bible/218154/19 "2003-12-14T06:55:45Z")
what made Marcion & his revised New Testament heretical was his anti-Judaic theology which regarded the Old Testament Jehovah as Satan, from whom we are saved by the pure Spiritual Teaching of Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wrong-bible/218154/20 "2003-12-14T09:05:43Z")
> [@](#): > > what made Marcion & his revised New Testament heretical was his anti-Judaic theology Not of all this work was heretical, however. Some of it was deeply connected to a larger and ongoing rethinking of how Christianity fit into and on top of Judiasm. It’s a pretty intriguing subject, because despite the very clear picture of how they fit together that many Christians have today, it was once a pretty controversial, traumatic, and confusing issue, and a lot of work was done to try and gell the traditions together. It’s also important to realize that doing so was not simply a theologically motivated project, but also one born out of the need for social acceptance. As a “new” religion filled with new and radical ideas, Christianity would be much more suspect and much less compelling to establishment people than if it could lay claim to an ancient and established tradition. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wrong-bible/218154.md?page=2)