But putting my pipe dreams aside, imagine if the Christian Bible was edited down to, say, all of the nicest things Jesus said about trying to love each other more than ourselves, and valuing the poor, the sick, etc?

It wouldn't magically remove the nastier bits of human nature, but it would make it that much harder for those nastier bits to find cheap rhetorical fodder for claiming that some god said it was OK to be an asshole.

why isn't there a Christian church that disavows the horrible, genocidal, violent, nasty, illogical parts of the Bible?

Why isn't there a church that steps forward and says, "Okay we're keeping the good stuff like The Sermon on the Mount, and "as ye did it unto the least of them, so also you did it unto Me", and "judge not lest ye be judged" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"?

Why isn't there a church with a doctrine like that? Why? They'd have a scripture of about ten or twenty pages, but it would sure beat that violent mass-murdering psychopathic god they say they worship and don't worship at the same time.

1) A deliberate editing, particularly a major editing, makes it harder to pretend that these texts aren't just human constructs to begin with. Religious establishment leaders would be reluctant to "go there."

2) The "sane 99%" tend to focus on the "good stuff" anyway, so they will have a harder time seeing the business case for opening a can of worms by explicitly getting rid of the insane baggage.

They did lots of editing to keep things out (women as human beings, reincarnation) and keep other things in.

Besides, there is the Eastern-Western Schism, the Catholic-Protestant schism, and they use different Bibles.

The Catholics read the Apocrypha. The Protestants don't.

which makes it easy for people to pretend it was all god's will, somehow.

Not that it still couldn't happen, of course. After all, we witnessed the birth of an entire new sect with Brigham Young, not very long ago.

There is no Catholic Apocrypha its just part of the Old Testament. No one really knows why the Apocrypha disappeared from the Evangelical Bible, some printers just stopped printing it others followed and no one seemed to care that it was no longer printed.

The professor has a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. I was not a seminary student, all students had to take six hours of religion to graduate when I went to this college. So are you saying that what I learned at a Presbyterian college is wrong? This was pretty much a history class about the 12 tribes and some other things.

In practical terms, it seems it's Constantine who called the shots in defining the canonical gospels.

He did so by being the final authority on the 50 Bibles he commissioned to be canonical 'yardsticks' to be sent around the world.

He did so presumably around the time he converted, about ten years after Nicaea I.


But as I posted in my preceding post, canonical matters were discussed at Nicaea I, even accepting the gospel of Judith as authentic..

But the fact remains no definitive Canon was issued by the Council and Constantine was not a final authority on the 50 Bibles he commissioned just the check writer.

So Nicaea I cannot be brushed aside as not having contributed to the final pick of the canonical gospels, which one of your posts above (thing debunked) could have led to believe.

And Constantine certainly wasn't just a check writer.
It is common knowledge he was instrumental in the resolution of the Arian dispute.

The Bishops decided to reject Arius and his doctrine and his exile, Constantine concurred with their vote without comment. Constantine recalled Arius to the capital where he continued to cause dissension and reignited the controversy in Alexandria leading to Athanasius' exile. It was Arius' death that finally brought the crisis to an end.

And I'd be interested to learn your credentials to just brush aside the opinion of Karen Armstrong so easily.

She interprets things badly, but she does a lot of homework.

Yours however was not. I don't care what Karen Armstrongs' opinion on this is if it's the same as you and the other poster I replied to she's wrong plain and simple.

You vaguely claimed the "thing" about Nicaea I had been "debunked". What thing?

You then added in the same context (unless your wording is loose) of Nicaea I

The Council took none. The Apocrypha is the seventeen books which were placed in a separate section of the Bible by the reformers there is no such section in the RCC Bible they are simply a part of the Old Testament. You would be well advised to do some research of your own before you expound on something you are evidently poorly informed on. No reading of the account of the actions of the Council mention any action on Judith .

I suppose.

There are no documents from the Council showing any action, there are no documents showing it was even discussed, there are no documents showing it was on the agenda to be discussed and the final statement of the Councils' acts contain no mention of it. There is however a document describing in detail all actions taken by the Council, maybe you should read it. You might learn something.

'saint' jerome said the council of Nicaea validated the gospel of 'Judith' as canonical.

I do not see the point of you making me repeat what I already stated with links.

wherever you attended college.

but never gotten a good response. I usually ask why the Old Testament is needed at all given the horrible stuff in it. The responses range from "it's tradition" to dead silence.

And all the violent, nasty, hateful stuff Jesus said is explained away as metaphors, or "Oh he didn't really mean it that way" or "Jesus was always meek and mild".

I can't even get them to admit that they believe in original sin and substitutionary atonement. I remind them that that is the foundational principle of Christianity and they dodge and swerve and slice in an unbelievable fashion.
They say they don't believe in anything in particular. I point out that if you are a Christian you HAVE to believe in original sin and substitutionary atonement, and they get mad.

What the world needs is to grow the fuck up and throw religion onto the trash heap of history.

the bible has been rewritten. I live in an area in the South where the bible is followed no matter what it says. The Republicans figured that out a long time ago and uses it. The fact that they do makes it harder and harder year after year for Democrats--most Democrats, to realize this. It is happening this electoral year more than ever and if we, as Democrats, allow it to continue we are screwed!

No matter what was written or edited, some asshat would find an excuse to prop up their own special brand of hate with it. It's time to end the tyranny of religion, or at least to minimize its influence, not just rebrand.

50% of Muslims worldwide support death for apostasy.

Catholic bishops in Uganda and their flock agree that gays should be killed or reeducated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Act,_2014

When left to their own devices without firm secular leadership, religions today are a menace.

(and others too) would have to face up to the fact that they have no fucking idea what things their "god" really said or thought, and which things people just attributed to him because they sounded good, but which they follow anyway, because...reasons....

They proposed a new Bible, a "proper" Bible, that correctly reflects the conservative agenda that "is" the Bible. A more perfect version of the Bible, without those pesky things like non-aggression or Jesus condemning rich people.

I wonder what happened to that project. I never heard from them again.

...I mean, obviously YOU can, but it won't count. The only correct version is the one "God" agrees with. Re-writing it to suit human cultural needs is effectively acknowledging that they're all fiction.

Maybe then we can all realize that we don't need them and can move towards treating everyone with love and respect.

I read it understanding it shows the values of the people of the times it was written in. I don't think God requires me to follow it word for word.

People of gaith need to understand God did not write their holy books or dictate it word for word.

We need to use common sense.

Doesn't need the old ones, either.