Religion

Die Hard · February 28, 2002

redskinsfan71 - You and OrangeSkin have failed to add anything of value or substance to the conversation. You've neglected to respond to all or any of the legitimate thoughts put forth in this discussion. You both continue to repeat sweeping statements like "God loves you" without necessary justifying it. Therefore, you're not even worth my time. If your not willing to put forth the effort to read and address all the finer points in the conversation... then don't expect others to read to bother replying to yours.

JMac · February 28, 2002

Ok. My turn to reply. I am a firm believer in the Lord, Jesus Christ. I have not come on this board to judge any of you. my bible (The WORD) clearly states not to judge anyone so I wont. I do want to say that I appreciate everyones views on this board and I will share why I believe. First of all I have seen the word FAITH in alot of posts. Yes it is by FAITH that we understand and believe in GOD. I believe in the "Holy Spirit". I have read the posts talking about facts and science and all I ask of you non believers is have you ever taken the time to pick up the Bible with an open mind? I know some of you were kids in church but now do NOT believe, but as an adult ever picked up the Bible and read it? The Bible has been around for 2000 years unlike any of the other belief systems.(i.e, Jehovahs Witness, Book of Mormons, Scientology). It is by the Grace of God and the Holy Spirit that he will come into your life. Being saved or born again is a life changing way. For the non believers it hard for you to understand that and its not for me to try and get you to believe that. God has told us Christians through his Word that we are to be light and salt to all the non believers. What I say cannot make you a believer, but God can use what I say to people to help start the process of an open mind. I was not saved until I was an adult and had an open mind to God. he came into my life and changed me. How? I dont know but Im not afraid to say that. I know that he lives in me and I want to live my life that would in some way glorify him. We live in a society now and a generation that is getting progressively self reliant. Technology has given us a sense that we can do things on our own. Look back to your parents and grandparents and even their parents and you will find out many of them were believers in Christ. You ask why? because in their age they didnt have the things we have today with science and technology to make them feel that powerful and secure. One last thing I want to share is the thoughts on why God lets things happen. Lets take Columbine High School for instance. Ive heard stuff like "Why has God let this happen?" and my answer to that is this. God was not there at that school because our new laws and people voted God and religion out of the school system. He was not allowed in there because we voted him out of there and Im sad for that. The Bible says "where 2 or more come together and pray, I shall be there with them" and I belive God was on the outside there that day looking in but nobody called for him until it was too late. This is just my beliefs and you can have a field day on me if you like, but you wont and CANT change my love for Christ!!

gbear · February 28, 2002

Hmmm, I guess I'll way in though I rarely feel the need to put my religous thoughts into words. Everytime I do, it seems to get me in more toruble. I guess I believe in God. Does that seem wishy washy enough? As an economist, it comes down to well what does it cost me versus what do I get out of it. IF God didn't want me to think that way... What it costs me: nothing...well maybe a little time What does it benefit me: I get a sense of purpose. I get some comfort when things don't go my way. Also, it's klind of like God insurance. If there is one, I'd hate to have been wrong all my life and living like a hedonist. That being said, I have some severe reservations. I'd rather (and in fact I do) spend my time doing good things like meals on wheels than going to church. If you asked why, I'd be hard pressed to say. It just feels correct. And that's my other beef with organized religion. It seems to take the ability/responcibility for thinking out of its members. We are asked to blindly believe that we are eating the body and blood of Christ(for example). Ewwww. When I think about that, it just feels wrong. It still tastes like bread and wine to me. My senses tell me one thing...and apon reflextion that's what I believe. THat being said, I think there are some good things to be gained by the breaking bread with neighbor and friends. It helps create an atmosphere where I can be happy and feel fulfilled. That's why I usually have friends over for dinner on Sunday. Occassionally, I'll even go so far as to say a prayer while cooking. I just don't feel the need for organizing it. Heck, I doubt if any of my friends that usually come over on Sundays think of it in any temrs but getting together to watch Sex in the City and the Sopranos. Still, it gives us time to hang out, and gives us a sense of belonging in a group. That's enough.

Die Hard · February 28, 2002

Gbear - I can appreciate your post. You're right in some aspects... in that if the 'belief' in God makes you feel fulfilled and it inspires you to make the world a better place... then it achieves some purpose. Though believing in a God - by default - to 'cover your @ss' so as to avoid being mistaken and appearing hedonistic... is fundamentally wrong. Hedonism has its merits <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" />

gbear · February 28, 2002

I shouldn't have put the bash on hedonism. I'm not against (or above) doing things just because they feel good or are fun. I just ment to say that when I die if it should turn out that there is a God and an afterlife that is dependant on how I lived my life...well atleast I'll have some things that felt right at the time to justify my life. If not...ah well the things felt right/correct at the time. Sometimes I think that people over intellectualize religion, and this comes from a guy who went to six years of Catholic schooling, read all of the philosiphers mentioned in this thread at one time or another, and continued to take philosiphy classes in college (so I'm guilty too). After all of that, I came back to "what feels correct." :-) Hmmm educational money well spent.

mardi gras skin · February 28, 2002

Terry I can understand most of your post. You probably know the essence of my response before I post it, but I’ll do it anyway. The context I described does demonstrate that the relationship God had with his people was appropriate in sociological context. That is found in all relationships. He was a God of grace and justice in a harsh and unjust world. That description of God seems as appropriate for today as it did then. The expression of grace and justice find different outlets today, but the constant character of God is expressed throughout. What I am still not getting is how this leads you to believe that God was created. Its a valid thought, but it does require a leap of faith for you to get there. As far as similarities to other deities go, I find most of them to be contrived. It makes sense to me that there would be some basic similarities that can be found in anyone’s perception of God(s) or in anything else. There are just so many ways you can say, “way-freakin’-powerful.” But I have read most mythological accounts that have been compared to the Hebrew God, and the differences are far more obvious than any similarities. The pantheism present in Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Norse, etc. stand in stark contrast to the monotheism of the Hebrew tradition. The story of Set (Seth, whatever) is one of God-to-God plot, intrigue, sex, betrayal, murder. There’s plenty of that crap in the Bible, but its human-to-human crap. God is always a stabilizing force. In justice or grace, he is always the stabilizing force. Can you flesh out your ideas concerning the political advantages of the Bible to its writers and give examples you see of God’s evolution? I don’t have a point of reference for your statement. The 4 points of similarity between Yahweh and Set: Nowhere in the Bible is God confined geographically. Of course, the Hebrew people had spent some time in the desert, but after their 40 years they got several hundred prime years in the fertile Jezreel Valley. Regardless, the topography of the land people inhabit will make for some similarities in the way civilations live, but it does not point to one people “borrowing” their theology from the other. Yahweh has a storm-cloud aspect? You could just as easily say he had a burning bush aspect, dream aspect, silence aspect, star aspect…you name it. The bible makes it clear that God exists beyond any physical manifestation. If by temperamental you mean not stoic in all situations I agree. If you are going for the dictionary type definition of excessively sensitive, irritable, moody, undependable then I disagree strongly and would appreciate an example. All theistic models are connected to disaster…part of the job description. Who was Yahweh’s consort? Set was married to Nephthys but there’s no Mrs. Yahweh in the Bible. If you’re making a passing run at the virgin birth (fast forward several thousand years) let me know. The monotheistic Hebrew tradition could not be more different from the pantheism you’ve offered up. A much better comparison is found in Zoroastrianism, some form of which seems to be faith system Abraham came from. Still not a very clean comparison, but much better than the ones mentioned in these threads. I do find it very odd that we both seem somewhat knowledgeable on this subject but that knowledge has brought us to very different places in regards to the existence of God. Maybe knowledge is over rated. BTW. If not a God, what was the “prime mover” for the existence of matter in your view? [ February 28, 2002, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: mardi ]

Die Hard · February 28, 2002

Gbear - Seems we've chosen to live our lives in similar fashion. As I mentioned previously, I've lived a life of morality. Probably even better than most religious folk. But I did so because that's ultimately what I wanted to do. And I'm comfortable with the choices I've made in my life and the person I am. I've never behaved in any manner because I was 'told' to or because I believe my actions will have a greater 'purpose' (ie. heaven). I'm ultimately responsible for my own actions. And I approach death knowing that. I live my life for the present. Not eternity. And I suppose you can say I've covered my @ss as well... If there is an eternity.... I'll be pleasantly surprised. But if there's no eternity... there's going to be a whole bunch a people who are going to supremely disappointed <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> That method served me well in my "The Man Contest" picks <img border="0" title="" alt="[big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />

Terry · February 28, 2002

"But I have read most mythological accounts that have been compared to the Hebrew God, and the differences are far more obvious than any similarities. The pantheism present in Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Norse, etc. stand in stark contrast to the monotheism of the Hebrew tradition." Hebrew Bible? Yes. Hebrew tradition? No. The Hebrews did not start out as monotheists, Yahweh was not originally their god (he was one of a Caananite pantheon), and the early Hebrews also worshipped El and Asherah. Indeed, perhaps Israel means children of El. Within that pantheon, Yahweh was the 'jealous' god, quick to anger, yet also quick to forgive. "The story of Set (Seth, whatever) is one of God-to-God plot, intrigue, sex, betrayal, murder. There’s plenty of that crap in the Bible, but its human-to-human crap. God is always a stabilizing force. In justice or grace, he is always the stabilizing force." The reason that the god-to-god stuff doesn't exist in the Bible is because the post-exilic priests had purged the polytheism and most of the mystical allusion. Your Bible is a heavily edited document, and does not in any way reflect other documentary evidence of early Hebrew religious beliefs. "Can you flesh out your ideas concerning the political advantages of the Bible to its writers" My ideas? I think they are more substantial than MY ideas. The Bible as the post exilic-writers modifieded it was the cornerstone of Israelite Kingship! The Bible documents a long-term, special relationship between God, the king, and his people. The bible legitimizes the kingship, and even certain tribes over others (Levites). "The 4 points of similarity between Yahweh and Set: Nowhere in the Bible is God confined geographically. Of course, the Hebrew people had spent some time in the desert, but after their 40 years they got several hundred prime years in the fertile Jezreel Valley. Regardless, the topography of the land people inhabit will make for some similarities in the way civilations live, but it does not point to one people “borrowing” their theology from the other. Yahweh has a storm-cloud aspect? You could just as easily say he had a burning bush aspect, dream aspect, silence aspect, star aspect…you name it. The bible makes it clear that God exists beyond any physical manifestation." Yahweh displayed mostly atmoshperic traits: wind, earthquake, fire, thunder. I'd be curious as to any references to his being a star that did not appear as a lexical mistake. I don't believe he ever existed as a solar cult, water deity, animal, and so forth. "If by temperamental you mean not stoic in all situations I agree. If you are going for the dictionary type definition of excessively sensitive, irritable, moody, undependable then I disagree strongly and would appreciate an example." In Caananite mythology, Yahweh is known as a 'jealous' god. In the Bible he was wrathful and vengeful, prone to violent outburts (Noah, Soddom), yet also capable of compassion and forgiveness. "All theistic models are connected to disaster…part of the job description." Not really, many gods were domestic gods, fertitlity gods, underworld(death) gods, or mischeivous gods, and not associated with disaster at all. Even some the largest cults were not disaster oriented, nor had that aspect - Isis, Ishtar, Osiris, eg. "Who was Yahweh’s consort? Set was married to Nephthys but there’s no Mrs. Yahweh in the Bible. If you’re making a passing run at the virgin birth (fast forward several thousand years) let me know." The Caananite Asherah "The monotheistic Hebrew tradition could not be more different from the pantheism you’ve offered up. A much better comparison is found in Zoroastrianism, some form of which seems to be faith system Abraham came from. Still not a very clean comparison, but much better than the ones mentioned in these threads." As I have indicated, the monotheistic Hebrew tradition was an artifical construct of the post exilic priest/patriachs (Dueteronomists?) who heavily modified the Pentateuch to suit their new found need for monotheism. "I do find it very odd that we both seem somewhat knowledgeable on this subject but that knowledge has brought us to very different places in regards to the existence of God. Maybe knowledge is over rated." Indeed! <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> "BTW. If not a God, what was the “prime mover” for the existence of matter in your view?" hmmm... "prime mover" suggests intelligence. I find that a stretch, because you then have to question where that intelligence came from. And all the answers provided by religion, to me, are ultimatetly unsatisfying. But basically, I don't know. Perhpas our biggest difference is that I am willing to accept "I don't know" as an answer.

Kefka · February 28, 2002

Terry, Israel does not mean children of el, hehe. <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> Israel was the nickname of sorts of Yaqub (Jacob), thus Bani-Israel in arabic, children of Yaqub.

Darth Tater · February 28, 2002

Gravity does not always perform the way I want it, therefore it does not exist. Why argue the point, we all get to find out the truth anyway. To those who wont accept the truth, its their loss.

Terry · February 28, 2002

Under that theory, in the end, we get to find out everything anyway, so why debate ANYTHING? [ February 28, 2002, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Terry ]

Terry · February 28, 2002

Kefka, ""...Thy name shall be called no more Jacob (Ya'aqob), but Israel (Yisra'El): for as a prince hast thou power with Elohim and with men, and hast prevailed." Gen 32:28 (KJV) Why the reference to El and Elohim? Why link Jacob to a foreign god? Because El was a Caananite god, and at one time was linked to Yahweh. Indeed, in the way that many gods merged and took on each other's aspects as cultures came into contact with one another or different power groups within a culture became more influential, it appears that Yahweh and El may have fused at some point, reminiscent of Amon-Ra, Re-Harakhty, Anubis-Wepwawet, Isis-Ishtar, etc. It appears that the El references reflect an earlier period in the formation of Hebrew mythology, and were not expunged by the authors of a more rigorous monotheistic theology.

mardi gras skin · February 28, 2002

LOL. I am SO SORRY for asking, Terry. If I had an idea that this was what you were driving at, I would have left it alone. But here we are, so I’ll jump in anyway. The name Yahweh can be traced back in its various forms from the 9th to 5th century BCE and every time it us used, it is in reference to the God of Israel. No text anywhere has ever attributed this name for God to another diety. There is no reference to Yahweh in the Caananite pantheon. This title is often translated “Lord.” In Semantic languages, the word El is the generic name for God. It is also the name for the high god El of some cultures as found in the Ugaretic texts. Unlike the El of Caananite and like cultures, El in the OT is most often used with a descriptor. El Elyon-everlasting god, El Olam-God Most High, El Sadday-God Almighty, etc. Sort of like the word god for us can mean any god, but when you hear a person say god, you usually think of the god of Christian/Jewish faith. In the Bible, this title is usually translated “God of….” Elohim, another name for the Hebrew God, is never mentioned outside of the OT texts. It is the word used for God in Genesis 1:1. When this word for God is used, it is usually with a broader audience (non-Hebrew) in mind. There is no evidence (source material) that backs up any contention that the Hebrews had numerious Gods. Every extra-biblical souce describes the Israelites as uniquely monotheistic, but that they did have a rich expressions of the same God. Actually, The words Yahweh, Elhoim, and El are used interchangeable throughout the OT depending on context. No move has ever been made to hide one title or another and they are all still there in the Hebrew. If I were purging the text, eliminating the various names would have been my first move. The fluid move from one name to another seems to shout out how remarkably un-edited the OT is. [ March 01, 2002, 06:26 AM: Message edited by: mardi ]

Terry · February 28, 2002

And so we differ. You have your interpretation of the Bible and jewish history, and I have mine. Neither is likely to change the mind of the other. You also have a greater stake in your argument than I have in mine. And therefore, I would like to bow out of this discussion. But it was nice to be able to discuss this subject without rancor.

OrangeSkin · February 28, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If God gave man 'free will' so he wouldn't be rotting in boredom in his 80-year lifespan... what is HE/SHE/IT going to do about it for ALL ETERNITY. Will everyone have 'free will' in heaven? Come on now.<hr /></blockquote>That's exactly what life is. There are two paths, and you can follow God or you can follow whatever else you'd like to. Heaven is a place of eternal happiness, and it is in no way similar to this earth. Therefore, we can't even make comparisons between the two and claim that heaven will be dull and boring. <blockquote>quote:<hr />Sure, let's all listen to the words of men from 2000 years ago. Geez, it wasn't even 200 years ago we referred to an entire nation of North Americans as 'savages'. Think about it.<hr /></blockquote>Why bother learning about history in any way shape or form, then? How do we know that the Incans existed, George Washington was the first president of the United States, and the civil war even took place? Surely none of the people from these events are still alive. So how do we know if they're fact? These people were followers of Jesus. Like I said, it's not as if they got together to write a great work of fiction. Have you ever actually read the Bible, Die Hard? <blockquote>quote:<hr />Interesting. So God created imperfection. <hr /></blockquote>Yes, God did create imperfection. It goes back to what I already said. Life would not be what it's meant to be without daily challenges. Life is a test. What comes next is the reward, and I can't believe that you're unable to see that. <blockquote>quote:<hr />Just wondering... if we accept the potential of the existence of a superior life form to human beings in other galaxies/universes... wouldn't these 'beings' more closely resemble the image of God? Is it implicit that all the most intelligent life forms in all the universes/galaxies look like human beings?<hr /></blockquote>And what if we don't accept the existence of other beings? It's rather simplistic, assuming everybody takes your opinion as fact. [ February 28, 2002, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: OrangeSkin ]

Die Hard · February 28, 2002

OrangeSkin - Let me preface this post by saying I'm glad you decided to join the dialogue by acknowledging the ideas put forth. <blockquote>quote:<hr />That's exactly what life is. There are two paths, and you can follow God or you can follow whatever else you'd like to.<hr /></blockquote>Untrue. It's very evident by the multiplicity of religious faiths and fundamental beliefs that there are definitely more than 2 paths. By predisposing the possibilities as strictly 2 alternatives... it's almost as if you're implying there's only the 'right' way and the 'wrong' way. And that is my fundamental problem with religion, it forces people do identify themselves with something and reject everything else. Whereas I'm suggesting there's an infinite numbers of 'ways'... but there's no right or wrong way. We all end up in the same place in death. And only in life and death are men truly equal. You're not 'wrong' for living the life as you choose... but your 'motives' would be incorrect. You choose religion to justify your motives. And that's what I'm disputing. <blockquote>quote:<hr />Heaven....is in no way similar to this earth. Therefore, we can't even make comparisons between the two<hr /></blockquote>And yet you contradict yourself by saying things like "Heaven is a place of eternal happiness. <blockquote>quote:<hr />Heaven is a place of eternal happiness, and it is in no way similar to this earth <hr /></blockquote>In that death is in "no way similar to this earth' I'm inclined to agree. And I'm also inclined to believe in the 'concept' of eternity (ie. infinite time and space). Though, make no mistake, 'eternity' for all intents and purposes exists strictly in concept. And certainly no 'human being' past or present has had the capacity - given the limitations of our lifespan - to prove otherwise. But to predispose the notion that heaven is an 'eternal place of happiness' is absurd and has no more credibility than someone who claims otherwise. Let's try to be objective shall we? What is happiness? And how can it be applied to the context of 'heaven'? Here's my understanding of the general thoughts and beliefs in everday life: 1) Infinite knowledge and understanding 2) Fulfillment of needs 3) Immortality Take a good long look at that list. It should become evident to you that all those presumptions are made in the vacuum of human life and as such are inherently flawed. And given the fact that you believe "Heaven... is in no way similar to this earth" and comparing the two impossible... why would you attempt to? <blockquote>quote:<hr />Why bother learning about history in any way shape or form, then?...how do we know if they're fact? <hr /></blockquote>Good question. But I would think as a Redskin fan on this message board you would know better than to take the words of 'writers' as absolute fact. <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> You honestly believe the authors of the bible had nothing to gain from it? They've been 'immortalized' for Christ's sake. There have been plenty of instances throughout history when men have attempted to 'leave their mark' on history. Remember, it is only a recent phenomenon where the church and state became seperate entities and the power of church having eroded profusely. There was a time when the church exerted great influence on people. So to say there wasn't anything to be gained by the authors would be ignorant. <blockquote>quote:<hr />Have you ever actually read the Bible, Die Hard?<hr /></blockquote>In it's entirety? No. Probably about 1/4 of the book. I told you I was raised in a Roman Catholic family for 17 years all the while attending masses, listening to sermons and educated by the Roman Catholic school board. I'm very familiar with the Bible. When I read that God created the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th... I pretty much got the picture the bible wasn't meant to be interpreted literally. I mean the very thought of an almighty power such as God could've been PHYSICALLY exhausted was a dead give away. No? So please excuse me that I haven't committed to memory the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul and John or recite the words of Genisis or Exodus. <blockquote>quote:<hr />Life would not be what it's meant to be without daily challenges. Life is a test. What comes next is the reward, and I can't believe that you're unable to see that. <hr /></blockquote>Life is what it is. If you'd like to qualify it as a 'test' because it presents unlimited experiences and circumstance which you equate as challenges with infinite possibilites and choices... I can live certainly live with that definition. It's the 'reward' part I have problems with. And I suspect you will too. Of course, having answered the questions above about the defition of happiness... this point will be moot in the next 'round' <img border="0" title="" alt="[big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <blockquote>quote:<hr />And what if we don't accept the existence of other beings?<hr /></blockquote>I suppose you'd be an atheist <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> Using that rationale... how could you possibly dismiss the idea of the existence of other beings in the same universe... yet unconditionally believe in a God? Do you honestly believe mankind is ultimately God's greatest creation? That's a deadend my friend. That train of thought would categorize you as a narcissist. In which case it would definitely explain a lot. And don't take that the wrong way. [ February 28, 2002, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: Die Hard ]

Kefka · March 1, 2002

So, whats going on over here.

mardi gras skin · March 1, 2002

Terry <blockquote>quote:<hr /> And so we differ. You have your interpretation of the Bible and jewish history, and I have mine. Neither is likely to change the mind of the other. <hr /></blockquote>Yes, we do differ on the existence of God, and I know full well that no discussion on this board is going to change anyone’s mind. I know I didn’t expect to have my mind changed. But I do hope you will at least research some of your final factual statements that can be proven to be true or false. We can disagree on weather or not the Redskins are the best team in football. Those are matters of the heart. But we really can’t disagree about who won the Superbowl last year. Either we have the source material to back us up or we don’t. <blockquote>quote:<hr /> You also have a greater stake in your argument than I have in mine. <hr /></blockquote><img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> I believe we have an equal stake in this. If I were wrong, I’d leave what I’m doing tomorrow. Believe me, I’d make a load more as a graphic designer…probably more if I went back to being a potter/painter <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" /> I have decided that my core beliefs are worth intense scrutiny. I challenge everything. My core beliefs receive the harshest criticism, as I’m sure yours do for you. Either both of us live in a universe with God or neither of us do. <blockquote>quote:<hr /> But it was nice to be able to discuss this subject without rancor. <hr /></blockquote>No question. I can almost never do what we’ve done here because people get so freakin’ personal about it. I mean, yea, its serious stuff but when I hear beievers say, “JESUS LOVES YOU YOU STUPID MORON!!!” or atheists/agnostics say, “your faith is a crutch because you are a weak, mindless follower” I’m disgusted. Take care, Terry. It really has been good to talk this over with you.

mardi gras skin · March 1, 2002

Die Hard <blockquote>quote:<hr /> 'eternity' for all intents and purposes exists strictly in concept. And certainly no 'human being' past or present has had the capacity - given the limitations of our lifespan - to prove otherwise. <hr /></blockquote>Because of those same limitations, no one can say that eternity does exist—for all intent and purposes--strictly in concept. I’m sure that what exists is not limited to my ability to conceptualize it…That train of thought would categorize you as a narcissist. In which case it would definitely explain a lot. And don't take that the wrong way. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> <blockquote>quote:<hr /> What is happiness? And how can it be applied to the context of 'heaven'? Here's my understanding of the general thoughts and beliefs in everyday life: 1) Infinite knowledge and understanding 2) Fulfillment of needs 3) Immortality <hr /></blockquote>I find happiness in quality relationships with God and others. Knowledge does not make me happy. The concept of immortality does not make me happy—an immortal existence separated from God sounds crappy to me. Fulfillment of needs is the only point that I would agree with. <blockquote>quote:<hr /> You honestly believe the authors of the bible had nothing to gain from it? They've been 'immortalized' for Christ's sake. There have been plenty of instances throughout history when men have attempted to 'leave their mark' on history. Remember, it is only a recent phenomenon where the church and state became separate entities and the power of church having eroded profusely. There was a time when the church exerted great influence on people. So to say there wasn't anything to be gained by the authors would be ignorant. <hr /></blockquote>But at the time that the books of the NT were written, they had everything to lose from it. Everything they did put them in opposition to the church and state of their people, as well as the church and state of the occupation nation, Rome. Most of them were killed. Most of them never had any idea of the scope of their influence. So to say that they personally had anything to gain by writing these letters would be…ignorant. <blockquote>quote:<hr /> When I read that God created the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th... I pretty much got the picture the bible wasn't meant to be interpreted literally. I mean the very thought of an almighty power such as God could've been PHYSICALLY exhausted was a dead give away. No? <hr /></blockquote>What I find interesting is that the physical things that define “day” weren’t even present in the for a chunk of the creation process. Even more interesting, the word translated day in the Hebrew is just as easily translated “segment” or “period of time.” Or that the word for rest can have nothing to do with exhaustion…just the cessation of a particular activity. In this case, creation of matter. What’s more, holding the entire Bible to the same standards is silly. You do not expect poetry to have the same purpose as a letter, or a history, or a research thesis. Some parts of the Bible are not to be interpreted literally. No Christians believe God is literally a rock just because God is called “my rock” by some biblical writers. And some parts have to be interpreted literally as there is archeological evidence that proves the words of the Bible beyond question. Ie. There was, literally a town known as Jerusalem. But beyond literal or figurative, there is the essence of a thing. Poetry is every bit as valid as a thesis (more valid for my life) regardless of the content of verifiable material.

Die Hard · March 1, 2002

Mardi - <blockquote>quote:<hr />Because of those same limitations, no one can say that eternity does exist—for all intent and purposes--strictly in concept. I’m sure that what exists is not limited to my ability to conceptualize it…That train of thought would categorize you as a narcissist. In which case it would definitely explain a lot. And don't take that the wrong way. <hr /></blockquote>Ah yes... the 'right back at ya' approach. Unfortunately, the point is moot and therefore non-applicable. My views on religion and eternity are mutually exclusive. If I argue that once you are dead... you're DEAD... I could really care less about quantifying time and space. I have given it some study though... and you may find some interesting thoughts in Steven Hawkins "A brief history in time". It attempts to explain 'eternity' (ie. time and space continium) by applying quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. <blockquote>quote:<hr />Fulfillment of needs is the only point that I would agree with.<hr /></blockquote>Given that we have no evidence of the existence of an afterlife... and even accepting the possibility of an 'afterlife' we've generally come the conclusion that we have no understanding of what it consists of - yet it's understood that those needs should be different than those we have on earth - then how do we qualify what our needs would be? Aren't everybodies needs different? Any under that pretense, why would you assume all of our needs would be fulfilled? <blockquote>quote:<hr />an immortal existence separated from God sounds crappy to me. <hr /></blockquote>Right. So the idea of God was construed to fill a need. You wanted to give your life purpose... and you did. <blockquote>quote:<hr />What I find interesting is that the physical things that define “day” weren’t even present in the for a chunk of the creation process. Even more interesting, the word translated day in the Hebrew is just as easily translated “segment” or “period of time.” Or that the word for rest can have nothing to do with exhaustion…just the cessation of a particular activity. In this case, creation of matter. <hr /></blockquote>Herein lies the difficulty with you joining our discussion where you did. You and I aren't having this discussion. I'm having this discussion with someone who happens to take the bible literally. If I continue this conversation with you... I will use more abstract examples <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> I too believe the bible is open to interpretation. As evidenced previously when I mentioned the bible is an accumulation of parables. <blockquote>quote:<hr />But at the time that the books of the NT were written, they had everything to lose from it. Everything they did put them in opposition to the church and state of their people, as well as the church and state of the occupation nation, Rome. Most of them were killed. Most of them never had any idea of the scope of their influence. So to say that they personally had anything to gain by writing these letters would be…ignorant. <hr /></blockquote>You do realize the disciples were an accumulation of drifters who led fairly insignificant lives don't you? And if you don't think for a minute that they had anything to benefit from abandoning their meaningless lives to join the rodeo show that was Jesus going town to town - especially as the close friends of a 'celebrity'- would be... ignorant. Notice the bible was written well AFTER the death of Christ. What BETTER way to continue the legacy they started than to write the stuff down. <blockquote>quote:<hr />What’s more, holding the entire Bible to the same standards is silly. You do not expect poetry to have the same purpose as a letter, or a history, or a research thesis. Some parts of the Bible are not to be interpreted literally. <hr /></blockquote>See above. But I will say this... who are you to discriminate between which sections of the bible are to be taken literally and which aren't? The bible doesn't have footnotes discerning the difference. It's too convenient otherwise. And excuse my if I don't put any credence in your interpretations. <blockquote>quote:<hr />And some parts have to be interpreted literally as there is archeological evidence that proves the words of the Bible beyond question. Ie. There was, literally a town known as Jerusalem. <hr /></blockquote>I have never dismissed history or empirical evidence. The bible is a decent history book. I tend to ignore the story telling. <blockquote>quote:<hr />Poetry is every bit as valid as a thesis (more valid for my life) regardless of the content of verifiable material.<hr /></blockquote>By its very nature poetry is interpretative writing. And if you don't think the 'meaning of life' deserves greater clarity... I'd say you're a bit diluded.

RySkins · March 2, 2002

I haven't carefully read the entire thread, but I'll weigh in my brief thoughts... I seldom speak about religion. I'm a little uncertain of my religious beliefs at the moment. I'm a Lutheran, but I'm not an overly religious person. I have always believed in a supreme being, but I feel that evidence of evolution goes against a lot of what I have been taught. I'm at a time in my life when I am uncertain of my beliefs and open to knew ideas. I think that there is a good...I want to believe there is one...but I am not certain that there is.

mardi gras skin · March 2, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Ah yes... the 'right back at ya' approach. Unfortunately, the point is moot and therefore non-applicable. My views on religion and eternity are mutually exclusive. If I argue that once you are dead... you're DEAD... I could really care less about quantifying time and space. I have given it some study though... and you may find some interesting thoughts in Steven Hawkins "A brief history in time". It attempts to explain 'eternity' (ie. time and space continium) by applying quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. <hr /></blockquote>It doesn’t matter if you were talking about eternity or a gerbil. I was thinking the very thing about your first paragraph that I read later in your response. The irony had to be noted. <blockquote>quote:<hr /> we've generally come the conclusion that we have no understanding of what it consists of - yet it's understood that those needs should be different than those we have on earth - then how do we qualify what our needs would be? Aren't everybody’s needs different? Any under that pretense, why would you assume all of our needs would be fulfilled? <hr /></blockquote><a href="http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html" target="_blank">Maslow</a> would say that we all have the same basic needs now. But I don’t have to understand what my needs will be later. In regards to the afterlife, I have expresses my belief that being closer to the source of all life seems to be better than being away from the source of life. That is all I get from the Bible and for me, that is enough. The idea of checking off a list of needs for each individual seems rather…narcissistic to me. <blockquote>quote:<hr /> Right. So the idea of God was construed to fill a need. You wanted to give your life purpose... and you did. <hr /></blockquote>You’ve forced your worldview onto my sentence. If an afterlife is allowed, and if the universe did not spontaneously appear, then being near the creator of all this stuff seems a logical place to be. Deriving purpose fulfillment or a God construct on that sentence says much more about your bias than mine. <blockquote>quote:<hr /> Herein lies the difficulty with you joining our discussion where you did. You and I aren't having this discussion. I'm having this discussion with someone who happens to take the bible literally. If I continue this conversation with you... I will use more abstract examples I too believe the bible is open to interpretation. As evidenced previously when I mentioned the bible is an accumulation of parables. <hr /></blockquote>I take the Bible literally. Literally, the Hebrew word interprited "day" can mean what I said. Literally, the Hebrew word interprited "rest" can mean what I said. Literally, there is no question (among reputable scholars, both Christians and atheists) that the Bible is not a collection of parables. The difficulty is that your examples were poor and they could not take the scrutiny of a Christian that does not fit in your box. <blockquote>quote:<hr /> You do realize the disciples were an accumulation of drifters who led fairly insignificant lives don't you? And if you don't think for a minute that they had anything to benefit from abandoning their meaningless lives to join the rodeo show that was Jesus going town to town - especially as the close friends of a 'celebrity'- would be... ignorant. Notice the bible was written well AFTER the death of Christ. What BETTER way to continue the legacy they started than to write the stuff down. <hr /></blockquote>First of all, your assumption that fishermen, tax collectors, tradesmen, etc. had insignificant lives has very little credibility. But even beyond that, it is hardly logical that any collection of drifters would have such a low opinion of their lives that they would be willing to throw them away knowing that it was for a lie. Not just any lie, but one that points out, over and over again, how stupid they are in various situations when compared to this other guy Jesus (now dead by the way) who keeps getting all the credit. I go into Baltimore to pass out food to drifters that you, apparently, would describe as having insignificant lives. I haven’t met the first drifter whose life was so insignificant to them that they would throw it away for a lie. A more logical assumption is that those close to the action would have been willing to lie when it came time to save their own skin. That didn't happen. The most logical conclusion is that what they said actually did happen. <blockquote>quote:<hr /> who are you to discriminate between which sections of the bible are to be taken literally and which aren't? The bible doesn't have footnotes discerning the difference. It's too convenient otherwise. And excuse my if I don't put any credence in your interpretations. <hr /></blockquote>I’m no one. If you accepted my interpretations blindly, you would be a fool. Take the time to do some textual criticism for yourself. There are segments of the bible that are intended to be Poetry, songs, wisdom saying, history, etc. Each of the books of the Bible is categorized as such by all scholars. Different forms of writing have different purposes. That is not a matter of my opinion. That is a matter of fact, but don't take my word for it. Educate yourself. <blockquote>quote:<hr /> By its very nature poetry is interpretative writing. And if you don't think the 'meaning of life' deserves greater clarity... I'd say you're a bit diluded. <hr /></blockquote>And yet art, in any manifestation, is the only form of communication that can express our most powerful experiences without choking the beauty out of it. I’m pretty sure that my faith more than stands the scrutiny of logic, but if logic were the extent of my faith it would not be worth owning. The moments that I experience the beauty of life, it takes me beyond crass reason. [ March 02, 2002, 08:25 AM: Message edited by: mardi ]

Religion

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived

Recently Browsing 0 members