Ye Religion Thread

[|iR|Focalor]

You might want to re-read my post?  I was suggesting that "God is susceptible to illness etc." would seem to be an unacceptable interpretation.

However since we DO get sick, and we're not immortal, etc., it begs the question of in what ways we are really so much like God after all?

I don't need to re-read your post. The purpose of all of that was not to disagree with what you've said. Just stating the obvious. I guess I didn't make that explicitly clear in that post.

According to the text, we are like God in that we resemble his image. Other verses describe God as having emotions, for example "For God so LOVED the world..." "God is a jealous God", etc... This would indicate that we are like God in that we are capable of emotions. All I'm doing is stating what the texts say, I'm not agreeing with it.

Including, presumably nearly everyone who ever quotes the Bible to make any sort of point at all, right? Smiley

Not sure exactly what you mean by that, but I was referring to those who quote "pervert" the bible for their own purposes. It happens with all religions. It happens with EVERYTHING. One guy invented a computer. Another guy said, "Hmm, I can use these computers to exploit people and harvest their personal information...", thus the birth of the identity theft hacker. or.... one man creates Quake 2... another man makes it BETTER with mods like instagib, and weapons of destruction! 

Funny thing is, from my point of view your use of two verses to create your own custom context in order to reason by analogy is not much of an improvement.  Did Jesus also turn the water into grape juice?  (Of course, some folks will go to ridiculous lengths to attempt to support just such a conclusion.)

I was not seeking to prove that the bible is true. I was not attempting to "create" a custom context to fit my own reasoning. According to the bible itself, Christianity is based on faith, a concept I personally find unacceptable. Hell, if turning water into grape juice is enough to convince someone that I'm the messiah, I'd be happy to use smoke and mirrors like any good magician. I'll even take a page from the Wal-Mart bible and underbid the competition, therefore I'll only require a 9% tithe! But since I'm referring to the bible in it's own context, suspension of disbelief is required. Then again, this is the very dilemma that missionaries must face in their quest to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. How do you get thinking people to stop thinking and start just believing?

Which of course doesn't seem to stand up too well to rational inquiry.  The original sin was, what?  Being tempted into increasing our level of knowledge of both good and evil?  And so God is going to curse an entire species in perpetuity for being tempted into trying to expand their mental horizons?  What kind of petty little god would do that?

This is exactly what I was attempting to steer clear of. I was not trying to use things like rationality, logic, or reason in conjunction with the holy bible. It's based on faith, which conveniently denies itself the facility of logic and reason. I won't attempt to play the devils or the lords advocate here. The reasons for God cursing mankind when he cast Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden are clearly laid out in Genesis. There were rules, the rules were broken, punishment was dished out, end of story. Again, I'm not saying that I believe any of it, I'm just saying that it's what the holy bible says, that's all. I can't begin to give anyone reasons WHY God did what he did or HOW he thinks, unless its specifically written in the holy bible. That's all I have to go on. God seems rather illogical and unjust to you? I suggest you take it up with him if you ever meet him.

I'm totally aggravated by these people too.  You'll be happy to know I'm not one of them in this case.  Although I'm not Christian now, I certainly haven't forgetten the decades* I studied the Bible every day, often mornings and evenings, and went to church twice a week without fail.  And it didn't matter if we were on vacation, or camping, or snowed in - we'd hold our own church service.  I've studied the Bible more than I'd wager, oh, 95% of folks who currently claim to be Christian.  Yay for me?

Hmm, oddly enough (or probably not, maybe you've noticed this too) it seems that the majority of people I've encountered who currently attend Christian churches on a regular basis are the ones doing the most "perverting" of the scriptures. It seems to be the ones that USED to go church and now think it's all mythical hogwash who have a firm grasp and understanding of what the texts ACTUALLY say. In case you're wondering... I'm also one of these people who used to attend church regularly. I graduated from a private christian school. And as you can tell from my choice of avatar, Christian I AIN'T!

[quadz]

Which of course doesn't seem to stand up too well to rational inquiry.

[quadz]

"In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. To me it's pretty simple..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-BFEhkIujA&NR=1

One reply: (quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

[haunted]

Why do people keep saying "the Christian God"? Just wondering. The term has never made any kind of sense to me. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the same god, "the God of Abraham". The hebrews simply created monotheism v.1, primarily saul created Christianity (not jesus), which is monotheism v.2, and Muhammad, who came out of nowhere claiming to be the final prophet/messiah FOR the same god, created Islam mainly through political influence(monotheism v.3).

Besides that, being that it's a festive time of the year, I will chime in by saying why each of these religions doesn't make any sense.

Judaism is a crock of shit. The first 5 books are just a collection of fictional stories. These fictional stories, although highly illogical, present some morals to learn in life though. More than anything I view the Old Testament as a set of guidelines through the morals of imaginary stories, that if someone lives by, they will in turn be a happy person. This doesn't change the fact that the foundations in which the religion is based on is composed of fiction. However, at least the outlook to judaism isn't to preach and "spread the word" like v.2, Christianity which may be 1 of the stupidest things ever. Do you honestly think that 'God' wants you to impose your beliefs on to others? Jesus didn't even start Christianity, he was a Jew his entire life and preached the Jewish religion. The highest emphasis in all of his revelations and teachings, is that if you follow JEWISH ways then you will have a place in the kingdom of god. It kills me when some psycho Christians say that they try to 'follow in the footsteps of Christ'. Lol, then why aren't you jewish then idiot? More so they're following in the footsteps of paul/saul. From the mere 3 years Jesus was even involved w/ religion more so than the avg. person, he also never claimed to have supernatural powers. In fact, only 1 out of the 4 gospels even states that he had powers such as these. Then, you have to think about how there's over a hundred gospels, and the 4 that remain in the new testament are there due to church and POLITICAL INFLUENCE. Placing faith in Christianity is like believing in something that has a 1/1,000,000 probability, with the 1 thing you're hoping for is the most illogical choice of the 100. Islam is rather retarded as well. Created by Muhammad, he was not even active in religion for the first 33 years of his life. He then, out of the blue, claimed to have revelations. Another bizarre claim, supposedly explaining his significance, is that he claimed to be part of Ishmael's family-line, a non-significant illegitimate child from the Bible. Muhammad didn't make sense to most of the Arabian Penninsula either. In fact, his 1st spot where he decided to preach, he was rejected in entirety and was sent out of the city with force. This city is Mecca, the holiest city in the islamic religion, and he was forced to retreat to Medina. In Medina he got power through POLITICS, not religion (he got power mainly through resolving problems involving family tribe conflicts on the A.P.), which soon spread throughout the rest of the area. A few years later, Mecca was forced to submit to Muhammad's political power and accept the Islamic faith.

Fact is, people w/ power molded religion into what it is today, and it's simply ridiculous how much faith people put into it knowing that. People in general were not even close to being on the level of intellect that the world is at today.

I was trying not to sum religion up and end all argument in this thread but I couldn't resist!! :>

[QuakeDuke]

Hey QD,

Well...   I'm afraid I have no choice but to agree with your point in general.  There must indeed be lots beyond what we can comprehend, as our brains are of finite size.

However at the same time I don't think it's impossible for us to reason about infinity as a concept in some small ways.  For example, the prospect of there being an infinite number of tones between F and F# doesn't seem too overwhelming to me, from an imagination standpoint.  Nor does the concept of an infinite plane seem to bother me too much, even though I can't literally picture it.

Similarly, I may not be able to visualize more than three dimensions in my head, but that doesn't stop me from being about to reason about additional dimensions even though I can't see them.

On the other hand, I believe it was we humans who invented the idea that God was/is infinite.

As such, I would suggest it is completely within our purview to reason about the characteristics and implications of our own invention?  (In terms of the idea of something being infinite.)

... No?  Maybe? 


Regards,

quadz

IMO, the concept of God itself would necessary entail infiniteness - totally beyond our ability to comprehend, or else God wouldn't be God. That's not to say we shouldn't be able to question, explore, and learn all that we are able at the present time with what we have available to learn with with the view of increasing our knowledge of what infinite (God) means. I believe part of the problem arises when we insist on "God" being bound by our idea of who God is, thus by default ruling anyone who doesn't agree with our idea as being "wrong".

I do believe it would be much better if people would approach it thus: "Hey, this is what I've learned about God & His only begotten Son Jesus" and give everyone else the opportunity to have their own opinions. One thing life itself has taught me is what is beyond our comprehension today may very well be accepted as a necessity in just a very few years. I've seen a LOT of things like this come to pass in my short lifetime.

Unfortunately, people rarely allow what they themselves insist on having - the right to their own opinion without someone attempting to trash what may very well be a deeply held conviction - we've seen a lot of that happen in this very thread. The thing is, truth will always come out on top and that which is false will fall away, and many times what we have held on to as "truth" has / will be proven to be false. If we are fortunate enough to experience this, we then have a choice - change and follow the truth, or die believing that we were right when we weren't and possibly reap the consequences of following a falsehood.

I've never taught we shouldn't learn all we are capable of learning about God or questioning why things happen. We should reason about the characteristics and implications of God. To not question leads to Jonestown and the like. I've never found anywhere in the Bible where God requires BLIND obedience - rather the opposite - everyone gets to choose.

QD

[QuakeDuke]

OK

In the 15th century we had folks who were convinced the sun revolved around the earth.  (...because the any contrary idea was, "expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.")

quadz

Uh..problem is - it's not....

It was, however, against their own interpretation.

Actually, the Holy Scriptures taught the earth was round at a time most of the world thought the earth was flat.

Unfortunately, we will always have those in authority - secular or religious - who will insist they have the truth even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

QD

[DaHanG]

I've never taught we shouldn't learn all we are capable of learning about God or questioning why things happen. We should reason about the characteristics and implications of God. To not question leads to Jonestown and the like. I've never found anywhere in the Bible where God requires BLIND obedience - rather the opposite - everyone gets to choose.

God indeed does not require blind obedience. He doesn't even require thoughtful obedience. Unless of course you don't mind burning in hell for 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years + endless more to come. Sounds more like the ultimate to me.

[DaHanG]

Actually, the Holy Scriptures taught the earth was round at a time most of the world thought the earth was flat.

I just can't help myself, but you're bringing in your own interpretation of the scriptures to support irrefutable 21st century knowledge. You're suggesting round as if this means three dimensional, and you're picking and choosing certain verses to come to that conclusion in the first place (overlooking '"take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it" (Job 38:12-13)' for example.

It seems just about everyone before the 15th century believed the exact opposite of what the Holy Scriptures "taught" about the shape of our planet.

...and the Holy Scriptures taught that the numerical value of pi was 3.1459.... and not just 3....

 

[QuakeDuke]

Actually, the Holy Scriptures taught the earth was round at a time most of the world thought the earth was flat.

I just can't help myself, but you're bringing in your own interpretation of the scriptures to support irrefutable 21st century knowledge. You're suggesting round as if this means three dimensional, and you're picking and choosing certain verses to come to that conclusion in the first place (overlooking '"take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it" (Job 38:12-13)' for example.

It seems just about everyone before the 15th century believed the exact opposite of what the Holy Scriptures "taught" about the shape of our planet.

...and the Holy Scriptures taught that the numerical value of pi was 3.1459.... and not just 3....

 

You have, of course, done all the necessary word origin / meaning studies in the original Hebrew & Chaldean language to support your postulation that I am bringing in my own interpretation of  the scriptures to support irrefutable 21st century knowledge - as opposed to my speaking of the original language word meaning - as well as all the necessary research to support your statement concerning people's belief prior to the 15th century?

 

QD

[DaHanG]

You have, of course, done all the necessary word origin / meaning studies in the original Hebrew & Chaldean language to support your postulation that I am bringing in my own interpretation of

[QuakeDuke]

You have, of course, done all the necessary word origin / meaning studies in the original Hebrew & Chaldean language to support your postulation that I am bringing in my own interpretation of  the scriptures to support irrefutable 21st century knowledge - as opposed to my speaking of the original language word meaning

Is all that necessary? I don't doubt the verse claiming the world is "round" (which has nothing to do with whether the earth has 2 or 3 dimensions). My point was you HAVE to neglect the other verses in the bible that don't support your modernized opinion on the earth's shape (and there are several).

Yes, it would be necessary if I am to accept you are speaking from a knowledgeable viewpoint instead of a personal one. For instance, you say there are several verses that do not support my so-called modernized opinion. Give me the verses please. Also, define the modernized opinion I'm supposed to have and evidence that shows I have such an opinion. As for having to neglect verses, I don't believe I've ever given any indication of doing this, and your strongly insisting I have to do so isn't based on any facts that I'm aware of.

I did not say your interpretation was wrong, only that you pick and chose to support the correct interpretation.

Again, what do you base this statement on? Have you ever sat in any of my classes? Have you read anything I have written to come to such a conclusion? 

So I ask, what's the point of the phrase "take the earth by the edges and shake..." It's just a metaphor right? . Because clearly "shaking the earth" isn't "poetic" enough, and the author thousands of years ago was fully informed on the spherical shape of the planet (and probably would be astonished by the technology in a wheelbarrow) yet simply wanted more symbolic power added to his passage. We must say shaking it by it's spherical edges... Just like the plants coming before the sun, another metaphor

If you will do the word studies in the original languages necessary and keep the verses you mentioned in context you would find it is referring to light that, suddenly springing out, reveals everything the wicked do - a viewpoint consistent with the scriptures teaching there is nothing done in darkness that won't be revealed in the light - and absolutely nothing to do with God suddenly deciding to "shake the earth" to get rid of the wicked. Are you using the World English Bible? The wording of your quote suggests you are.

Why would any early Christian author/leader oppose the idea of a spherical earth? Because the Holy Scriptures allow for the interpretations to take place. There is no place in the Bible that I know of where the word "spherical/sphere/ball-shaped" or anything of that nature shows up in reference to the shape of our planet.

The scripture reference is Isaiah 40:22.

So once again, I was only trying to point out you can't decree by fiat what the Bible "taught" before Galileo by picking out only a select number of vague verses, because now you're left with the problem of neglecting the contradictory ones. We have to go back to the metaphor/literal game again, which is entirely my point. You're using your personal interpretation with the benefit of a 21st century access to scientific knowledge.

Again, I must ask why you attribute to me that I am doing this if you have never been present to any of my teaching sessions or read any of my writings? Please supply me with the verses you say are contradictory. Also, why you consider the verses you refer to me as using as vague.

as well as all the necessary research to support your statement concerning people's belief prior to the 15th century?

I would say I've done enough. Many ordinary Christian people thought the world was flat. Generally, the intellectuals (astronomers/philosophers etc.) did not. This was mostly independent of, sometimes because of, and sometimes in spite of what the Bible said (in the presence of counter-evidence).

According to histories I have read and according to copies of maps of the time period, the general consensus of most nations, even sea-faring nations, of that time period considered the world to be flat. It wasn't restricted to "ordinary" Christian people.

Thanks,

QD

[quadz]

In the 15th century we had folks who were convinced the sun revolved around the earth.

[DaHanG]

You have, of course, done all the necessary word origin / meaning studies in the original Hebrew & Chaldean language to support your postulation that I am bringing in my own interpretation of  the scriptures to support irrefutable 21st century knowledge - as opposed to my speaking of the original language word meaning

Is all that necessary? I don't doubt the verse claiming the world is "round" (which has nothing to do with whether the earth has 2 or 3 dimensions). My point was you HAVE to neglect the other verses in the bible that don't support your modernized opinion on the earth's shape (and there are several).

Yes, it would be necessary if I am to accept you are speaking from a knowledgeable viewpoint instead of a personal one. For instance, you say there are several verses that do not support my so-called modernized opinion. Give me the verses please. Also, define the modernized opinion I'm supposed to have and evidence that shows I have such an opinion. As for having to neglect verses, I don't believe I've ever given any indication of doing this, and your strongly insisting I have to do so isn't based on any facts that I'm aware of.

It seems you do have to neglect the literal interpretation of these verses.
Verse: "take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it (Job 38:12-13)
Verse: "Ps. 22:27 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee."
Verse: "Deut. 28:64-5 And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other"

I did not say your interpretation was wrong, only that you pick and chose to support the correct interpretation.

Again, what do you base this statement on? Have you ever sat in any of my classes? Have you read anything I have written to come to such a conclusion? 

It's based on the fact that you did not "pick" a different verse that may contradict your current position. I don't think I would need to sit in one of your classes. It's not much of a stretch to say you do not believe in the literal interpretation of a flat earth and spherical earth at the same time.

So I ask, what's the point of the phrase "take the earth by the edges and shake..." It's just a metaphor right? . Because clearly "shaking the earth" isn't "poetic" enough, and the author thousands of years ago was fully informed on the spherical shape of the planet (and probably would be astonished by the technology in a wheelbarrow) yet simply wanted more symbolic power added to his passage. We must say shaking it by it's spherical edges... Just like the plants coming before the sun, another metaphor

If you will do the word studies in the original languages necessary and keep the verses you mentioned in context you would find it is referring to light that, suddenly springing out, reveals everything the wicked do - a viewpoint consistent with the scriptures teaching there is nothing done in darkness that won't be revealed in the light - and absolutely nothing to do with God suddenly deciding to "shake the earth" to get rid of the wicked. Are you using the World English Bible? The wording of your quote suggests you are.

I was using BibleGateway on the web, and I'm not aware of the accuracy of their translations. If indeed that verse "take the earth by the edges and shake..." has absolutely nothing to do with taking the earth by the edges and shaking, but only has to do with evil/light/darkness (I'm having trouble seeing how the translation made such a leap), then I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt.

Why would any early Christian author/leader oppose the idea of a spherical earth? Because the Holy Scriptures allow for the interpretations to take place. There is no place in the Bible that I know of where the word "spherical/sphere/ball-shaped" or anything of that nature shows up in reference to the shape of our planet.

The scripture reference is Isaiah 40:22.

Indeed, circle is the translation used. This is not a reference to a three dimensional object. (Is the Earth pancaked shaped like the moon? ). Obviously this can be interpreted as a sphere as other verses can be interpreted the other way.

So once again, I was only trying to point out you can't decree by fiat what the Bible "taught" before Galileo by picking out only a select number of vague verses, because now you're left with the problem of neglecting the contradictory ones. We have to go back to the metaphor/literal game again, which is entirely my point. You're using your personal interpretation with the benefit of a 21st century access to scientific knowledge.

Again, I must ask why you attribute to me that I am doing this if you have never been present to any of my teaching sessions or read any of my writings? Please supply me with the verses you say are contradictory. Also, why you consider the verses you refer to me as using as vague.

As I said earlier, you seem to be picking the word "circle" to support your view of a spherical earth. But you seemingly don't agree with the obvious potential interpretations of a flat earth from these verses. The word "circle" or "round" is vague, because it does not reference the actual shape. I don't call dice "edgy".
Verse: "Ps. 22:27 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee."
Verse: "Deut. 28:64-5 And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other"

as well as all the necessary research to support your statement concerning people's belief prior to the 15th century?

I would say I've done enough. Many ordinary Christian people thought the world was flat. Generally, the intellectuals (astronomers/philosophers etc.) did not. This was mostly independent of, sometimes because of, and sometimes in spite of what the Bible said (in the presence of counter-evidence).

According to histories I have read and according to copies of maps of the time period, the general consensus of most nations, even sea-faring nations, of that time period considered the world to be flat. It wasn't restricted to "ordinary" Christian people.

Well by the phrase "the time period", I can tell we probably aren't on the same page. From the holy texts to the 15th century, I would say that covers 2,500 years or so, give or take a couple hundred years. It seems around the 15th century itself and a few centuries before the leading scholarly consensus was switching to a view of a spherical world. This is much different than the ordinary population. One must wonder, however, even in this time period (perhaps 1300-1500 AD) what percentage of people were still illiterate and uneducated (and those that were who thought otherwise), not having thought much about the subject even though the scholars of the time had made their case for a spherical earth. I would be willing to argue, however, that this shift in consensus happened for secular reasons.

Indeed the view of a flat world in pre-medieval times wasn't restricted to simply Christians, but that wasn't quite my point. It was only that scripture itself didn't seem to lend much of a helping hand on the matter, as it requires personal interpretation and back then the general consensus was that of a flat earth. There seem to be flat-affirming verses as well as spherical(circular at best was the actual word)-affirming verses.


My macro point is that you still DO use your own interpretations, and when seemingly in conflict with another verse there must be a choice made of which one to take literally and which not to. You don't think the earth is a "circle". 

And we haven't even touched on the verses that suggest the sun orbits Earth and Earth doesn't move. 

[[BTF]Sigma]

Reminds me of the discussion between Hiro and the Librarian from Snow Crash. 

[QuakeDuke]

In the 15th century we had folks who were convinced the sun revolved around the earth.  (...because the any contrary idea was, "expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.")

Uh..problem is - it's not....

It was, however, against their own interpretation.

That's kind of my point, though... It seems most anything in the Bible requires interpretation, and as such it seems odd when some folks are just certain that their particular interpretation must be the correct one.

I agree it does happen that way a lot, but I don't necessarily believe things in the Bible "require" interpretation. Perhaps another good analogy for what I've seen happen would be when one of our government officials speaks on TV. After their speech, we get to sit and listen to some talking head tell us what they "really" meant. Now, we've sat and listened, heard exactly what the official said for ourselves, yet many choose to believe what they hear from the talking heads in spite of having just heard the official speak.

Take something in very plain simple language, like supposedly a DIRECT COMMANDMENT from God, "Thou shalt not kill."

Who decides what the correct interpretation of that commandment really is?  Very few people seem to obey it as an absolute, that's for sure...  Most everyone seems to put their own little asterisk after it, "Thou shalt not kill...except ...."
etc.

Agreed. Most people do just that, not only for that commandment, but for others as well. I think some of it falls under the same point brought out in a recent Pearls Before Swine cartoon in our paper - http://www.comics.com/comics/pearls/archive/pearls-20071223.html - people will do what they can regardless of its effect  on others.

It's why I think it's important to understand the constructs of the language being used - especially when translating from one language to another. It's very easy when translating from one language to another to allow one's own (mis)understanding of what they thought the person said enter into the exchange. And, it's easy to make mistakes. There have been quite a few red faces among translators in the bush when they tell someone something different than what the original speaker meant. You might think you're telling someone to have a nice day when what you're actually saying is my donkey has boils all over it's ass and so do you...

To take the commandment you speak of - the phrase "Thou shalt not kill" in a literal translation from the original language it was written in is "Thou dost not murder" - a whole different concept to everyone fight over - but would be the correct concept to define - what is murder, not thou shalt not kill.

I enjoy your dialog as ever quadz,

QD