@Amoh5,
Amoh5 wrote:
For me I think the bible is filled with a lot of unrealistic magical mythical connotations that I get really annoyed with because I'm a realist. I know life is just a lot of blood, sweat and tears which they are the only magical factors of the real world. But there is one more factor that can't be ignored and thats "positive thinking". Lord Jesus for me is a positive influence where I learnt to value human life. I didn't learn that from science or physics. If you subtract all the mythical connotations applied to Lord Jesus you are just left with a great teacher on human morality. Science or physics doesn't teach psychology on why we have certain feelings or emotions about things? what is sacred or insane? our sense of family or morality. Atheism didn't work for me and it didn't encourage a sense of value towards human life for me. I hated a lot of people, I couldn't care a less if they dropped dead in front of me. But I forgot about your query on God, I'm sorry for rambling on about myself. For me I think Christianity is not about the physique of God but rather the spirit or psychology of God, such as our sense of family, respect and morality. They are survival factors which can only come from God if there is a God. Survival and prosperity are the main objectives for any lifeform. I have already explained my view on the physique of God which I always say is the "Sky". Like "Heavenly Father" or "Father Sky". Which is also relative to "Mother Earth". But I have no problem with that if God is the sky, without the sky I wouldn't exist. I know theres nothing magical about the sky but it sure dam well keeps us alive.
In my opinion (and I'll probably invite a lot of trouble by voicing it), the bible suffers from the same problems ALL holy scripture suffers from: Namely that it originally was penned down in ancient times, in a correspondingly ancient culture. And no matter who the protagonist is, and the vector of pure goodness this person draws his/her/its inspiration from (Mohammed from Allah, Zarathustra from Ahura Mazda, Jesus from God, or even Buddha from his own enlightened self), and no matter how enlightened this protagonist is, and if he/she/it is a fount of eternal wisdom or love or knowledge or peace or some combination of all of the above, and no matter if he/she/it has conveyed all of these golden truths to his/her/its followers orally, or through the use of the aforementioned holy scripture, it all boils down to one essential dilemma: The scripture in question was written/composed/divined if not BY people of that ancient time and culture, than certainly FOR people of that ancient time and culture. And in order to get a message across, you will have to make sure it is delivered in a way that the people of that culture and time actually understood it.
Back to us, a heaping bunch of years in the future. We have lost touch with the morals and values of the people of that time, but by the very fact that we have regaled all of these scriptures as 'holy', we have pretty much decreed that they need to stay as true to the original as possible. Which makes for a huge chasm in cultural perceptions between the people the scripture was intended for originally, and the people trying to live by its tenets today.
A chasm that can lead to all sorts of pointless debates.