Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

I believe in all religions, in that they all exist, and that their existence-(atleast as far as they pertain and relate to my own existence)-result completely from my own perception of them. That makes me a 'pantheist solopsist'. It works well as a belief system, in that I can accept that all these different viewpoints are fundamentally correct (God exists, Allah exists, Jesus exists, Buddha exists, Odin exists, Rama exists, everybody's right, etc ad infinium), while still allowing myself to accept or deny their personal relevance to myself-in that the very existence and fabric of the Universe Itself-(as it pertains to me)-exists as a result of my own existence and perspective on it. And, should I at some point entirely cease to exist, the very Universe, Time, and Reality-as I percieve them-will-(for me)-then completely cease to exist. Thus, being my very own Alpha and Omega, the freedom and responsibility of choice falls entirely on my own infinite and ultimate self, while any sense of subservience or obsequity before a higher power is nullified by the fundamental inability for there to be a Universe which I can percieve, which does not also force my existence. To put it as succinctly as I possibly can:

"I, therefore.".

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

If there be an infinite Being, he does not need our help -- we need not waste our energies in his defense.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

Or our money :p

It just ticks me off that churches are tax exempt, and yet religion won't keep it's nose out of politics.
Fine, you want to be part of the political process-pay your part like the rest of us.

I'll respect any church that pays taxes to the government, even when they don't have to.

It even says in the Bible "Render unto Caesar what is Caesars."

I don't think priests, ministers, etc. should be able to vote, unless they also pay taxes.
And I don't think you should be able to donate any taxable income or assets to a church-maybe
that would keep some of the greediest of the evangelists from taking too many houses and mortgage payments.

to (probably mis)quote some comedian I can't remember the name of:

"I don't believe in any god that requires heavy financing"

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Firstly, thanks to all of the people who have thanked me. It is challenging to be the only (as far as I can tell) fundamentalist Christian in a virtual sea of agnostics, atheists, and other believers. If I don't answer a particular post, please don't be offended. There's only so much typing that my ten fingers can do....

Thanks also to the assorted agnostics, atheists, and other believers who are participating. We have (mostly) managed to keep an even keel and a respectful tone, and those qualities are truly rare in online debates. Especially online debates about religion.

On to the responses:
Firstly, I object to the notion that you can reject the Bible as evidence. Even if you disregard the divine inspiration of the Bible, it's still an astounding collection of primary source material. We know more about Jesus than we know about Socrates (for example), and historical documents are our primary sources of knowledge.

By the way, the Jewish historian Josephus mentioned Jesus in his writings. Josephus never mentioned Christ's divinity, but his writing should be enough to prove (at the very least) that there was a guy named Jesus in first-century Judea who seems to correlate with the Jesus of the Gospels.

Nevertheless, I can meet your challenge in the same way that the earliest apostles did. I have met Jesus. Not physically, of course, but in ways that were utterly real nonetheless. I have seen His power at work in my life and in the lives of others around me. I cannot doubt the power of God through Christ any more than I could doubt the existence of the sun, the wind, or the force of gravity.

Logic also insists that there's something real to the Gospel. Christianity exploded across the Roman Empire in spite of several emperors who tried to stop it. (Nero is the obvious example, but Diocletian wasn't any better.) Now look at the original apostles. A bunch of fishermen, a tax collector, and a former persecutor of the faith. They weren't the most-likely candidates to lead a spiritual revival, but they did it anyway. That's either a lot of coincidence, or the power of God.

The fate of the original apostles also reinforces their claims. Every one of the eleven (not counting Judas Iscariot) suffered for the faith. Ten of them died for it, and John was exiled to the island of Patmos. These guys all knew Jesus personally. If He had been a fake, wouldn't they have known about it? If so, why would they have been willing to die for a lie?

That's a fair question, but you have to really think about it. What do you suppose would happen if God performed a big, showy miracle today? Before you answer, remember that there are people who still believe that 9/11 was faked and that the Twin Towers were destroyed by a controlled demolition....

It wouldn't work. Skeptics would raise questions. So-called experts would prove how the miracle could have been done through science, special effects, or mass hypnosis. You can't force people to believe, even if you raise someone from the dead.

That's the very point that Jesus addressed in the parable about Lazarus the beggar & the rich man (as recorded in Luke 16):


Shortly thereafter, Jesus rose from the dead ... and people still didn't believe Him.

Doubt is not your problem. Many believers have doubted. Mother Theresa doubted. The apostle Thomas doubted.

Excuse me for saying so, but your problem is a failure to grasp your condition. You seem to believe that you deserve Heaven on your own merits. You don't. None of us deserve Heaven on our own merits. Heaven is perfect, and we aren't.

By the way, how "good" do you have to be in order to be GOOD? Where's the line between good and not-good?

Let's take the average guy. He doesn't hurt anyone, not usually. Maybe he drives a little too fast, but he hasn't actually killed anyone yet. He gets a little short-tempered, and he occasionally has a harsh word for his wife or his kids. But we all do that, right? In spite of that, he deeply loves his family. He would give his life for them, but he hasn't been required to do that yet. He's a good worker, even though he spends a little too much time on the Web when he should be working. He's nice to people most of the time. Some people would miss him if he died.

Is this guy good enough for Heaven? Is he worthy of perfection? What if he worked a little bit harder?

Alone among all of the religions, Christianity recognizes the true problem. None of us is truly righteous [Romans 3:10]. Even when we think we're being good, most of us are usually seeking some sort of reward or praise. Genuine self-sacrificing love (with nothing to be gained by it) is darned rare in our broken world, whereas evil seems commonplace. How would humans rise above these problems to become worthy of God?

We can't do it. So God came to us. He gives us the worthiness and righteousness that we cannot attain on our own. And He gives it to us for free, because He already paid the price.

One of my favorite quotes on this subject goes something like:
"Christianity is not a religion. Religion is all about people working toward God. God is smart enough to know that we can't possibly reach Him, so He came to us. Christianity is simply living with Christ in your life."

I was referring to a popular misconception that life would be great if only God would leave us alone to enjoy it. Perhaps my language was too strong, and I apologize for any offense.

I am well aware that life is not a neverending party.

You're confusing God's omniscience with His perfect will. Yes, God knew we were going to fall from grace. He knew we were going to sin. That's why He planned for our redemption from the very beginning of time.

But knowing something bad is going to happen does not mean the same thing as actually planning for it to happen. For example, I know that my kids are probably making trouble for my wife during homeschooling today. (Yup, we homeschool.) Do I want that to happen? No. Would I be delighted if it didn't happen? Sure! But I know it's probably going to happen anyway, so I make my plans for how to respond to it.

In the same way, although God knew we were going to fall from grace, He didn't want it to happen. He even made plans to redeem us after our Fall. But He couldn't have prevented our Fall without taking away our free will, so He allowed it to happen.

Actually, you're quite correct. If the Bible isn't reliable, then God is not God. Fortunately, the Bible is reliable and clear.

Actually, the clarity of the Bible is another point toward why it should be trusted. Think about it. The books of the Bible were written over thousands of years by many different human beings. Their cultural backgrounds, languages, and environments all changed many times, but the message stayed the same. God loves His people and wants to save them. Sadly, we keep screwing up the plan because we want to be in control. Only by accepting the grace of God and asking Him into our lives can we ever find happiness and holiness.

What translation are you using? The NIV renders Isaiah 45:7 a bit differently:
The NASB has:
The point in this verse is God's sovereignty. In context, the verse is part of God's explicit endorsement of Cyrus (a pagan king!) as the agent of God's will and deliverer of God's people. God is not the author of Evil. However, He is lord of all, and He can use destruction to fulfill His purposes.

Your citation of Amos 3:6 suffers from a similar problem. NIV:
NASB:
God is not claiming authorship of Evil. Rather, He is forcefully stating His sovereignty, even going so far as to declare that He can use disaster & destruction as part of His plans.

Hmmm ... so I did a little comparison, and it appears that you're using the good ol' King James Version for your quotations. I love the KJV because of its poetic language and beautiful cadences. In fact, I still recite the Lord's Prayer in KJV English.

The problem is that the KJV English is distinctive because it is old. The English language has changed a bit since King James's day, and those changes can make the KJV a little tricky to understand. If you like the KJV, may I recommend the New King James Version (NKJV) for you? It uses much of the same poetic, beautiful language, but it also uses modern words to avoid confusing modern readers.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

God did "just" forgive them. He's capable of doing it, and He did it. He paid the price for it.

No, all forgiveness has a price. When the sin is not very great, the price is not very high. If I step on your toe, you can forgive me easily. On the other hand, if I massacre your family with a chainsaw, you might find forgiveness a little more difficult. The worse the sin, the harder it is to forgive.

It's only reasonable that the sins of the entire human race -- past, present, and future -- would require a whole lot of forgiveness. That much forgiveness can't come cheap.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

I cannot see why we should expect an infinite God to do better in another world than he does in this.

-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "Reply To The Indianapolis Clergy" The Iconoclast, Indianapolis, Indiana (1882)

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

You have to understand that the God of Isreal is a very pure being, and won't abide with evil. What He defines as evil. It is part of his nature that can't be changed. He has given us the choice to accept the blood sacrifice of his only begotton son or not. It is the blood of the Lamb that allows us into his presence without being destroyed. This world was created to be the source of beings that would destroy the rebelling angels. All of the rebels are bound on this planet. Thats why this world is so messed up. We are in a war that is spirtital in nature, that it bleeds into our physical realm is unfortunate but seems to be part of the plan. I ask everyone to just try an experiment. Ask the being known as Jesus to cover your sins and enter your heart. Then ask to receive the power of the Holy Spirit. The tingling sensation that you will feel is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Then give praise and thanks. Go and share what you have found. Its that simple. Because this is the sole path to ever-lasting life, we are commanded to share the truth with others. If you choose this path, you will be included in something that is wonderous. But there is a cost. You will be hated by all man unreasonably, it is part of the deal. Also your eyes will be opened to a realm that is simply too hard to comprehend without the guidence of the Holy Spirit. Sorry if I've offended anyone but this is the truth. Try the experiment, you will discover more than you could possibly imagine.:D

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

If there is a God who will damn his children forever, I would rather go to hell than to go to heaven and keep the society of such an infamous tyrant. I make my choice now. I despise that doctrine. It has covered the cheeks of this world with tears. It has polluted the hearts of children, and poisoned the imaginations of men.... What right have you, sir, Mr. clergyman, you, minister of the gospel to stand at the portals of the tomb, at the vestibule of eternity, and fill the future with horror and with fear? I do not believe this doctrine, neither do you. If you did, you could not sleep one moment. Any man who believes it, and has within his breast a decent, throbbing heart, will go insane. A man who believes that doctrine and does not go insane has the heart of a snake and the conscience of a hyena.


-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "The Liberty Of All" (1877)

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Let me just disagree with you here as a good christian: I believe that Jesus was God's prophet and the messias. I do not believe that Jesus was God, became God at any time or is God. I do not believe in Hell and eternal damnation. Being christian is multi-faceted and I don't think that catholics are better christians just because they have the cooler hats and rituals.

No he isn't. There is no holy trinity in my book.
Yes, he did pick a random Jewish carpenter for it. That was EXACTLY THE POINT.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

No, I am not self-reliant. I'll freely admit that. I am totally reliant on God for everything that I have, everything that I am, and even the very breath in my lungs.

I could pretend otherwise. I could claim that I'm a self-made man. I could even produce evidence to support my claim. But would that really make me self-reliant? If I drop dead of a brain aneurysm in the next five minutes, whose fault would it be? Can I control the blood vessels in my brain?

I'm proud of my education, but should I be? Would I be as well-educated if I had not been born into a middle-class family in the richest country on Earth? For that matter, don't I owe my intelligence to genetics, upbringing, and other circumstances outside of my control? What if I had been born with a mental disability of some kind?

Isaac Newton wrote:
"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

We all stand on the shoulders of other people. Those people stood on the shoulders of still more people, etcetera. And we all "stand on" nature to a great extent, not to mention seemingly-random chances. None of us are self-reliant. Not me. Not you.

Odd. I found some evidence for the Gospels with a quick Google search:
Manuscript Evidence for the Bible (Faithfacts.org)

I'm sure that you can find more evidence if you look. Naturally, skeptics will claim that this evidence is false, biased, or whatever. That claim can be tested by looking at the evidence itself. Still, it seems like an exaggeration to claim that there is no evidence whatsoever.

Wikipedia actually has a decent summary of the different opinions about the authorship of the Gospels. For example, some people claim that Luke could have been written as early as 37 AD, which would have been less than ten years after the Crucifixion. Fascinating.

I think I've mostly addressed these points in my reply to Tifone, but I'll add one more thing: You are totally free to reject the claims of Christ. You are also free to reject God.

Although you may not care, no matter how much you reject Him, He still wants you. He's funny that way. I know that I won't ever convince you via online debate, but I pray that you will be open to Him one day.

Shalom!

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Christians have many doctrinal disputes among us -- baptism, Holy Communion, church authority, etcetera -- but there are also central truths that must be held in common. The divinity of Christ is one such truth. If Jesus is not God, then why be Christian?

Jesus Himself claimed to be God. He claimed His divinity repeatedly and forcefully. In the end, that's why the Sanhedrin had Him killed. If He wasn't God, then Jesus was either a liar or a lunatic. If He was a liar, then He was a particularly vile liar, because those lies have deceived countless people over the centuries. If He was a lunatic, then He was like one of those seriously-deranged people who needs heavy meds to keep out of trouble. Either way, Jesus would not be God's prophet, because God wouldn't speak His words through lies or insane ramblings.

Jesus claimed the prerogatives of God. He claimed to forgive sins, even when He was not the injured party. How can a mere man, even a prophet, claim to forgive sins against others? If I sin against you, you can forgive me. But if I sin against a complete stranger, and you still forgive me, by what right would you offer that forgiveness? (And wouldn't it seem arrogant?) Forgiving sins only makes sense if Jesus Himself was injured by our sins -- all of our sins -- and that only makes sense if He is God.

Let me be quick to clarify: You are free to believe whatever you believe, and you don't owe me any answers. If you would entertain my questions, I would appreciate your attention. I have been a non-Christian. Now I am a Christian. (Not Catholic, by the way, although I have a great respect for the Catholic Church.) In all of that, I simply don't see a way to be a Christian who rejects the divinity of Jesus.

---

PS: Plain honesty requires me to identify CS Lewis as the inspiration for much of my argument in this post. His book Mere Christianity explains much of these points, and I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in an intellectual approach to the Christian faith.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

Thanks for your openness. May I ask: Why would you feel better if you found God? Is something missing that you believe that God could provide, if you could only find Him?

I can't speak for other gods, but I can tell you that God works through His people. If you want to find God, go spend some time with a Christian whom you know and respect.

Of course, it's tricky to pick the right one. As a very wise man once said:
"The best thing about Christianity is Christians. The worst thing about Christianity is Christians."

We can be a very motley crew. Still, there are some good-hearted Christians in the world, and I'm willing to bet that there's (at least) one good-hearted Christian who will be happy to help you in your search for God.

While that message is certainly one of Christ's teachings, it isn't the core message of Christianity. Many other great teachers and wise men have told us to be nice to one another, and it hasn't stuck all that well.

The core message of Christianity is that you can't do it. Thankfully, you don't have to do it. Christ offers to do it through you. Christians don't love other people in order to please Jesus. (When we're loving, that is....) Christians love other people because Jesus lives inside us, and His love shines through us.

Good points.

You're a post-modernist, and yet you strongly dislike post-modernists? Wow, that must be interesting.

Post-modernism is a self-defeating philosophy. The moment that you claim that there is no such thing as absolute truth, you have made a claim that you believe to be absolutely true. It's serious doublethink. It's like saying, "Everything I say is a lie." But if everything is a lie, then that statement must be a lie, which would mean that not every statement I say is a lie.....

No, that's ethics. Ethics without religion is perfectly plausible. You don't need God to do all of those good things you mentioned.

Religion is about humanity trying to meet God.
Christianity is about God coming to be with His people.

I'm not sure that I'm understanding you here. What is the difference between your own devotion and what you want religion to be?

Does that mean that you have a beard? You can't be Jesus without a beard, you know. :rolleyes:

Gandalf's avatar makes me think that he looks a little like the stereotypical Jesus.... ;)

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

With all due respect to CS Lewis, the "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" argument falls apart if you do not accept the Bible as, at least, a fairly accurate description of Jesus's ministry.
If you do accept the Bible's claims then there is little point in making the argument. If not, then the argument falls apart: perhaps he never claimed divinity.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

You posted a lot of quotations, but I wanted to respond to this one. It reminded me of a passage from Acts 5:33-39:
You go, Rabbi! ;)

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

That's true as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough.

If you reject the Bible, why would you believe that Jesus was a prophet of God? For that matter, why would you believe that Jesus was anyone special at all?

Perhaps one would choose to accept parts of the Bible, but not others. For obvious reasons, I think that approach is fatally flawed. Still, let's accept it for now. If you want to accept parts of the Bible, but not other parts, then how do you choose which parts? The divinity of Jesus is a central theme of Scripture, from Genesis right through Revelation. Christ's place as the second Person of the Trinity is not merely a side-issue; it's the core issue.

As I wrote, I understand other doctrinal disputes. I started my Christian walk in a Lutheran church. Lutherans are a sacramental denomination who practice infant baptism. Now I'm a Southern Baptist, and we don't baptize babies. I can see arguments in Scripture for both positions, and I truly wish that Christians would not divide ourselves over it. (For the most part, we don't, but there are always exceptions.) We can disagree over these points of doctrine, and the core truths of Christianity are not threatened.

If Jesus was merely a prophet, there's no point in Christianity. A prophet can't save you from your sins. He can't heal your broken spirit. He can't walk with you throughout your life. And he can't bring you into Heaven when you die. Only God can do that.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

And it is for this reason that if he is the all loving, and all forgiving source of goodness that is claimed - that he will not cast me into some lake of fire to be tortured for all of eternity.

For the record, I am not wealthy, and I am not highly educated. I was born into poverty, and to this day, it is in poverty that I dwell. I have little to be thankful for in this life - in this nation - which is ruled by and large by those claiming the Christian faith, who work tirelessly to accumulate wealth and power at the expense of the citizens. I have been harmed more by Christians, and helped more by atheists in my lifetime, and that is my evidence - my testament to the effectiveness of the gospel.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Why does he need to be God? Everything works out perfectly fine without that. I do believe that Jesus has ascended and that there is a trinity in spirit, if that's the right word, but I don't agree that God and Jesus are the same entity. And I don't believe in the virgin birth either. I think that's not that uncommon, and that's what I meant when I referring to catholics where they have a big cult around the holy Madonna, but this would then be a problem for me if I wanted to believe that Jesus is/was God. How and when did he become God? I'd consider it blasphemy that a man can become God, and that God becomes a man as well. I have to say that I connect a lot more with the Old Testament than with the New Testament, by the way.

As I said before, I don't take the bible literally. Partly because what I read in the bible has gone through at least two translations of different languages and has been written down years after it happened, a generation later, but that's not my point. And I don't want to set at defiance the rigorous work of the people who did the transcriptions and translations. Jesus has often been speaking in similes. Jesus Christ is holy, that is without question, but I do not believe that he is God. Just out of curiosity, if you believe that Jesus and God is the same, or at least that he forcefully claimed that, then why would he despair on the cross and call to God, asking why he had forsaken him?

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

To clarify, the existence of bad behavior among Christians -- or even bad Christians -- does not disprove the Gospel. After all, there is plenty of greed, hatred, jealousy, and strife among non-believers. Sanctification is a long, slow process for most of us. Jesus is making us perfect (as He wants to make you perfect), but He surely takes His time in doing it.

That said, Jesus told His followers that other people should know us by the love that we show. To whatever extent you have suffered at the hands of Christians, Jesus would not approve of your ill treatment. As a member of the Body of Christ, I am connected to those who have hurt you, and I am sorry for it. :(

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

Agreed in general. I'm not a Christian, as you may have gathered. I do not accept the Bible as any form of revealed truth or however you wish to phrase it.

I don't believe Jesus was a prophet of God. I don't really believe much of anything about Jesus. And as I understand the Liar, Lunatic or Lord argument, it's not aimed at Christians (or those claiming to be Christian if you wish) who don't believe Jesus was divine. It's aimed at unbelievers. It's a good argument if you accept the premises, but those who accept the premise are likely to already believe the conclusion.

Jesus's divinity is a core issue of your interpretation of Scripture, not of every ones. Most Jews, at least, would deny that the divinity of Jesus is a central theme of the Old Testament. That belief wasn't settled, although widespread, even among Christians until several hundred years after his death. Nor was any such theme evident beforehand - Jewish Messiah expectations, which certainly existed, were much more secular and nationalistic than the later Christian interpretations of the same passages.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

God alone has the power to forgive sins. Without that power, Jesus wouldn't be much good as a Savior.

Jesus (God the Son) is not the same entity as God the Father. They are both members of the Godhead, but they are different from each other. Three persons, one God.

That's why the Holy Trinity is such an essential piece of Christian doctrine. Without a clear understanding of the Trinity (as much as humans can ever understand it), we would be forever confused about God.

To be fair, the Catholic Church doesn't encourage or require any Cult of the Madonna. But yeah, plenty of actual Catholics seem to go overboard in their devotion for Mary. All I can do is to point to the official Catholic teaching, which does not encourage such behavior. Mary was a special person, and God chose her for a unique role to bear His Son ... but Mary was still a human being.

Jesus was always God. He didn't "become" God. All the way back in Genesis, when God spoke the world into being, His Word was Jesus. That's the point that John makes in the first chapter of his Gospel:
It goes back to the doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus has always been God the Son, along with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

I won't address the reliability of Scripture, but only because I've already spent so much time writing about it on this thread. ;)

If you don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, what do you believe about it? Are some parts true and other parts false? How do you know which are which?

Also, as I mentioned before, the divinity of Jesus is one of the major themes of Scripture. You'd have to do away with an awful lot of the Bible to get around it....

Back to the doctrine of the Trinity. God the Son (Jesus) became sin on our behalf. As He hung on the Cross, He became the sins of the entire human race. As God is holy, He cannot be in communion with sin. For those agonizing moments, the eternal unity between the Father and the Son was interrupted, and the Father turned His back on the Son. When it was finished, Jesus said so [John 19:30], and then He surrendered His spirit to the Father's care [Luke 23:46]. The Father and the Son were in unity once more, never to be separated again.

By the way, that was perhaps the ultimate punishment of the Cross: Jesus endured separation from God, which is the fitting punishment for all of us. Because He took it for us, we don't ever have to suffer that horrible separation. We can be united with God -- all three Persons -- forever.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Exactly, only God can forgive the sins. Jesus is the proxy.

I don't like the word "Godhead", but I don't like "Trinity", either. Yes, there exist all three, and they share something, but they are not one.

Only with that all-are-one-are-not-the-same definition, it seems. I am not confused with my model. :)

Well, I'm sorry if my belief system doesn't match yours and we disagree about things. But I don't have to accept yours, in the same way as you don't have to accept mine. My belief in God and Jesus Christ works for me, and I don't regard yours as any "truer than mine" just because you managed to fit more of the bible into it. I am not one for dogmas. I can't believe in the inerrancy of scripture as, first, words are hardly capable to contain what happened concerning what you refer to as "divine", and second, if the scripture was without error, then we wouldn't need four gospels which disagree in parts with each other, then we'd only need one. The bible is a book written by human hands and you have to interpret it, which automatically happens and starts already when you read the words in it that are written down. One may hope to understand some things in it, I chose to decide what I can say I have understood and accept it and I decide to discard what doesn't fit in for me. Those parts are not canonic for me in order to save the whole. It may either be that the source got it wrong, or the written word is presenting it in a bad way, or my interpretation and decision is false. I do understand that a lot of things got into the mix from other religions, like Hell and the Devil. And I decide that parts in the bible, which is a work of many authors, are not valid, in the same vain like I decide that the Quran is not valid for me. And if I'm the only one with my belief system that matters little for me, as I do believe in "my" God. :)

It's strange for me because I'm jumping between "in principle we agree" and "no, that's not it" every odd second. It probably has to do with language as well, but I guess that my simple and working model disagrees with yours after all. I'd probably have to start going cross-eyed before I attempt to understand this in the way that it is meant to be understood. As I already said, I do not agree with dogmas like those that you state.

I don't want to convert anybody to my belief system, though, so let's just give it a rest. If I wanted to battle the dark ages, I'd be playing Dom3 some more. :p

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

This is the kind of thing that always bothers me about religious debates-everybody's always trying to convince everybody else that they're wrong. Here's a thought: You're right. They're *also* right. Nobody's wrong. You're both right *at the same time*

That's why it's called a "belief system" instead of a "fact system".

Just shut the **** up and deal with it.

If you must insist your ways are *more* right than everyone else's, if yours is truly the One True Path, then simply trust that by the time this Universe ends, everything will have worked itself out to your satisfaction. It's called *FAITH* for a reason! And the reason religions have caused so many problems over the years isn't because of flaws within the religions themselves-it's because of peoples' insecurities and doubts about their beliefs.

I'm not a Christian, but I was raised Christian, and I've taken certain values from that upbringing. I admire some of the things Jesus said and did and represents (whether or not those things are factual doesn't really matter. They are good messages, and that's the important thing). I also admire many Christians. They can be good, kind, generous, intelligent folk--worldly and earthy.

I still look upon Christianity fondly. I have read the Bible, some parts more than once, and continue to study the lives of various saints, as well as Christian history, mysticism/occultism, and apocrypha.

At one time, I considered becoming a Christian preacher of whatever denomination. I think there's a lot of beauty and truth to the religion, and that it often speaks with a powerful message of love. Being Christian, to me, means finding compassion for those who are different than you are, and helping them, if they need it, to improve their lives, and to be better people--But only if they actually *need* that help.

The whole Christian Missionary thing really ticks me off, though. If you really want to convince people that your beliefs and your way of living is better than theirs, then be their friend. Help them improve their lives. Show them compassion and strength of character.

Don't destroy their culture and way of life that they've spent hundreds and thousands of years to develope, just because you can. That's not being a Christian, that's being an arrogant, unfeeling, uncaring bastard, and spreading the very Word of God like it was an infectious disease. I don't care if their kids are starving and they can't grow food and don't wear a lot of clothing. Don't rely on God to feed them someday in Heaven, after they've already starved to death, God's name on their dying lips. Just feed the kids, teach the parents how to farm, deal with the fact that cultural differences aren't the same as moral deficiencies, and shut up about it.

If you want to introduce them to Christianity, wait until they come to you, personally, and ask you about it. If you do enough to show them you care, and represent yourself and your religion well, chances are they'll want to know more about you and what you stand for. If they don't, then consider it a test of your faith. Do more, give more, and shut up about it.

And don't make the Bible the first book they ever read in English. That's just pathetic propagandaism--and it colors their view of our *entire* culture, not just your precious religion. I'm an American, and I don't want to be identified with certain aspects of the Bible, or Christian fundamentalism. I'm not comfortable with that, or with the integration of religion and government which often acts as a motivation for missionary work (if you deny this, go ask an Aztec). So please respect the wishes of a fellow tax-payer. I may not attend your churches, but I helped build them.

And please, please, respect other cultures. If nothing else, they keep our restaurants interesting.

If you want a good book to introduce people to the English language, teach them to read the Complete Works of Shakespeare. From Inuit to Bushmen to Japanese to Peruvians to New Yorkers, I guarantee that everyone can identify with Shakespeare *atleast* as much as they can identify with the Bible. Feel free to make the Bible the *second* book they read, if you so choose. I have no issues with that, as long as you get through all of Shakespeare *first*--and Shakespeare will make a fine introduction to the Bible for them, thus allowing them to better appreciate your wonderful religious scripture.

And I have a real problem with Christians going around saying "God is in control. God is in complete charge of my life". Step in front of a speeding bus sometime, and then you can tell me all about how God has got a really dark sense of irony. God is in charge of angels. Your god gave you free will. That makes you *better* than angels, and closer to God. To believe that God is in control of you is to be in agreement with Satan, not God. It's your belief system, not mine.

As a human, you've been entrusted with the ability to make decisions for yourself, and to affect and attempt to control your life. If you have a problem with living your life responsibly and assertively, then take it up with your faith. Maybe you can convince God to make you an angel, and then you can go around burning cities and murdering babies without a second thought.

And going around and actually *telling* people that God is in complete charge of your life and everything that happens to you, is both moronic and sad. I'm sorry, but that's *my* belief, and I don't mean it personally. I've heard that message over and over from many Christians, and it never fails to irritate.

People who say that God is in complete control of their lives never seem to realize that it makes God sound like an insecure prick, since he's making you go around telling everyone what a badass bigshot god he is. People that go around telling other people how big and strong and great and in control they are (even by proxy), I just don't associate myself with, because they're intensely annoying, and often belligerant, erratic, and dangerous. Your self-conscious control freak god does not impress or awe me, as he speaks-like some divine ventriloquist-through your fleshdummy lips. You represent your god and your faith in such a way that I wouldn't want to be anywhere nearer your horrifying Cthulhu-god, for fear *It* would suck out my soul, scramble my brains, and work me like a zombie puppet on it's invisible tentacles, like you're telling me that *It* did to you.

I am, to some degree, in charge of my life-imperfect though I am. I accept that some things are out of my control, and that their are greater powers in this world than myself. But I take responsibility for my own actions, and I affect my surroundings and circumstances with determination, and without reliance on anyone but family and friends-and only total reliance on myself, and my ability to survive and prosper.

That said, I understand that it may be difficult to act as a true representative of such a potent entity, that it may be impossible for you to discribe the true beauty of your faith in terms which don't make my guts turn to jelly, and I've led a hard enough life, so if the higher power you've put in charge of your life can make my life better and easier, I'm willing to accept all the help I can get, but I'm going to need proof--in the form of cash. After all, Christianity already had 1 shot at my soul, and it blew it.

So if you're willing to take a *real* leap of faith in God and Humanity, and send me $50,000 in U.S. currency to prove to me God's generosity to His faithful(what's money, compared to the strength of your religion? Small bills, please-and no consecutive serial numbers.), then I'm prepaired to consider your arguments, and to accept your money, and to spend it, verily.

Understand that I must take payment because, while I refuse to be a slave to your god, I *am* willing to consider an exciting employment opportunity.

Once I have the cash safely deposited in the bank, and have retreated to a secure, undisclosed location, I'm willing to give you 1 hour of my time (in IMs) to convince me that I can be led back into the fold. I promise it'll be me on the other side of the IMs, that I'll be as open to it as I can be, and that I'll give you the full 60 minutes, but I make no promises of reconversion. Convincing me is up to you and God. God being infinite and omnipotent, I consider an hour to be a generous amount of time, and the $50,000 a mere-but very necessary-formality.

I'll be splitting the money with JimMorrison, by the way, so maybe you'll make 2 converts for the price of 1?

Obviously, not all Christians are missionaries, not all missionaries are poisonous, and the Christian message isn't always "You Will Be Assimilated".

The thing that bothers me about Atheists, is when you do your best to attack, dismantle, and destroy anyone who *has* found religion. Stop acting like you're on some sort of Atheist Jihad. If someone has a relationship with God (in whatever form), and that relationship has improved their lives and made them better people, that's a good thing for them, and it's probably a good thing for you. Now if someone gets in your face about religion, and you react to that, I completely understand. But just because you don't believe in a spiritual and eternal element to your life, doesn't give you the right to seek out and assault the faith (and personality, and culture, and background) of someone who does, just because they do.

And just because you do it intellectually, with the weapons of science and reason, doesn't erase your blame for furthering hatred and fear and misery. Stop acting like you're no longer a citizen of this planet, or that you're better and smarter than everyone else who does believe in something.

And stop making Atheism *your* religion. You're missing the whole point of being an Atheist.
"I'm not going anywhere when I die. Nobody does. There's no God and nothing more to life than this one. You're all just deluding yourselves-hahaha!" Sound familiar? Well **** you. You don't know what happens when we die, any more than anybody else does.

Again, this only applies to some Atheists-and you know who you are.

Rejecting spirituality is in itself a belief and a choice, whether you like it or not. Many people who have religion weren't given that choice, and with that choice comes the responsibility to act with compassion and understanding (if also with skepticism), and to create a moral code that you, yourself, live by.

I could find some fault with the nature and/or practices of any other belief-system on the planet,
I promise you, but there's a 25000 character limit that I'm fast approaching, and my rant is not yet complete. None of them embody or achieve perfection more than any of the others, though, not even yours (Yes you! I've studied and sought out more of them than the average bunny, and if I'd hit upon a perfect system, I'd be here spouting off cheerfully about how we can all someday find ourselves in the midst of a big sloppy orgy in my version of Eternal Paradise.).

The point to all this is that *all* of our belief systems, or just our experiences of life, have given us all values that can compliment one another. There's no reason for us to argue about who's god or gods or lack therof, has the bigger dick.

We're all adults here, and it's behaviour that we should have left behind with the 3rd grade--and good riddance! We're just putting a new spin on "My dad can beat up your dad", using bigger words and concepts, and pretending that it somehow makes it all so luminous and deep. It's a bull**** argument that we continue to beat like the well and truly dead horse that it is, because it's easier to sit here and argue about than it is to identify real problems that face all of us, work together openly and respectfully to find a solution, and to then take that solution and act on it. It's fear and distrust, and lack of real hope and faith in ourselves and our abilities, and we let those things separate us.

Whether you're Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Atheist, Wiccan, Gnostic, Agnostic, Hindu, Buddhist, Jainist, Hari-Krishna, Norse, Animist, Satanist, Rastafarian, Pastafarian, whatever the hell I am-because I really don't know-or none of the above-we *ALL* have something to bring to the table, and we all can sit and eat together and be satisfied.

I recognise most of you on this thread, atleast as well as one can recognise another human being, when glimpsed through a computer screen. I consider many of you friends, and I'm writing this out of friendship to all of you, in the hope that maybe, in this one tiny little corner of the world, we can actually come together as different people-recognising and accepting that it's those differences that can make us stronger!-and talk together and work together to make our lives and the lives of those close to us-and maybe even the world itself, just a tiny bit better, by setting aside as irrelevant to the conversation, those fears and hatreds that were handed down to us from long-dead history, and that we hold so dear to our hearts. If we just try to understand each other simply as peers.

We have enough reasons to argue and fight and hate and resent one another, as human beings.
We don't need our spiritual sides and nobler natures-and arguably those things which are the *best* parts of us-to give us yet another reason for antagonism.

It's a very lonely world out there, no matter who you are or what you believe in. It's lonely, but it's also full of endless variety and freshness, richness and wonder, and we can do better for ourselves and each other than trying to make everybody into the same person. We're all humans, we're all the same species, and that applies to gender and nationalism and sexual orientation, and even religion.

We're all on this world together, at the same time, and we'd be smarter and stronger and better, if we just helped one another out, without also asking that they become more like us.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

Oh boy, now look, you've made the Badger 'splode.


Oh and FYI - my god's dick es mue gigante! :happy:

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

Well,

I 'splode,

but I 'splode with love.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

I might make a minor correction to HoneyBadger.

When atheists and Christians argue, actually one side is right. It's a belief system because none of them have the facts to adequately prove they're right on several important issues. :)

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

I might make a minor correction to Agema.

When atheists and Christians argue, at least one side is wrong. It's a belief system because none of them have the facts to adequately prove they're right on several important issues.

It's quite possible both are wrong. It's possible Mongo Bongo, God of the Congo is the only real divinity. More likely, the actual truth is something none of us have even thought of.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

Hey, I did say "at least" one side was wrong. ;)

* * *

I thought I might also share a humorous modern parable about putting your trust in God. (It's an old one so apologies if you have heard it.)

A man decides to be a missionary in Africa. He prays to God for guidance as he is worried, and God answers his prayer saying to the man "As you spread my word in my name, I will look after you."

So he becomes a missionary, and sets out preaching. Whilst walking along a road on a mountain, the path crumbles underneath his feet and he slips down a steep cliff. He grabs an outcrop to prevent his fall, and thinks about how to get to safety. He realises the cliff is too hard to climb up and he won't make it. He looks down and there's a river beneath him, but it's full of crocodiles. Then he remembers his prayer, and with his faith rejoices in the knowledge that God will save him.

A few minutes later, a 4x4 drives above him on the road. A man gets out having seen him, and shouts "I've got a winch, I can pull you up." The missionary shouts back "No, I have put my faith in God, he will save me". The driver replies "Well, okay then, your choice." He gets back in his car and drives on.

Five minutes later a another man in a boat comes down the river. He shouts to the missionary "Hey, if you drop into the river, I'll quickly pull you in before the crocodiles get you." The missonary replies "No, I have put my faith in God, he will save me". The man in the boat shrugs and continues downstream.

Five minutes later a helicopter passes. It pulls close to the man, and the passenger holds out a rope ladder and shouts (very loudly) "I'll throw you this!". The missionary shouts back "No, I have put my faith in God, he will save me." She looks incredulous, but tells the pilot, and the helicopter flies on.

Eventually, with no-one else coming, the missionary becomes too tired to hold on. He drops into the river, and the crocodiles move in and eat him. The missionary goes to heaven, and enters. There, he finds God, and says "I thought you said you would save me if I got in trouble. Where were you?" God looks at the man and frowns, then replies, "I sent you a car, a boat and a helicopter. What more do you expect me to do?"

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

None of you have the facts to adequately prove anything, except that *I'm* right, and that arguing about religion is meaningless.

And you're wrong in thinking that neither side can be correct, because you're limiting your thinking to a single dimension, which proves again the meaninglessness of arguing about religion.

None of us are capable, as human beings, of precieving or understanding anything as complex as God must be, if God exists. I seem to be the only one who gets that. Reality and existence are just too big of concepts for us to make any statements about it's nature, beyond what iota of information our tiny brains and meager sciences can process.

If I told you about the popular artwork of an alien species who's technology is three billion years beyond ours, you'd think I was either lying, or crazy, or just making it up-and I would be. And yet, you want to argue about the nature and existence of a being well beyond that. A being that would be beyond Time itself, as we can understand the concept.

And it's entirely possible, and imminently debatable, that we all exist in separated realities. We only suppose that we all exist in the same one, but if we don't, then what is right from one perspective may be wrong from another. From my perspective, the Universe began when I began. As I learned and grew older, the Universe expanded around me. God came into being the moment I heard about Him, and became a woman, when I made that choice, and ceased to be-or atleast retired-when I stopped being a Christian.

As far as I'm concerned, the rest of you only exist as words on a screen, and in my imagination-that's the entirety of your existence. That's all you are, unless I give you more. And there's very little you can do to prove to me that you're more than a complex hallucination. When I dream, I've dreamt people realer to me than you are. I could see them, touch them, taste them. I could percieve their emotions, and they could surprise me. They had their own motivations, and they affected my emotions. I could care about them-I yearned to know them better, and felt certain that they must somewhere exist. You fail to compete with a vision from a dream that I failed to remember particularly well, and yet you want to argue about God's existence, and demand that one viewpoint must be right, and one must be wrong?

Even insane, I can't concieve that I've conjured such arrogance.

Nobody knows anything. That's the only truth and the only beauty, and the only wisdom to be had.

Goodnight and good morning. I'm going to go dream a world, with such people in it.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

Solipsism is in my view the greatest intellectual dead-end in philosophy. Why say anything? Think anything? Do anything at all? It undermines everything as utterly pointless.


I also strongly disagree with the pessimistic view of humanity you've expounded. We might not be able to fully understand the universe (or God if he exists). But we know a more than we did 50 years ago, a lot more than we did 500 years ago, and a vast whopping great deal more than we did 5000 years ago. Humanity is not a series of weak, ignorant, isolated units. We have a population knowledge. I might not understand Kantian metaphysics, motorcycle maintenance or the literature of Kobo Abe, but other people do, and if I need I can access their knowledge.

I'd also suggest that even if by looking at a tree we only see an iota, the basics of what it does, not knowing the chemistry and biochemistry and physics within, we have actually seen a very significant part of what a tree is. We should enjoy, appreciate and use that, not quail at the thought of how much we don't know about it.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

I don't reject the idea that I'm just a delirious whelk who imagines everything around it. But I won't start to go around and state it as a fact. It's nothing more than a funny alternative and a thought experiment.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

I never said that you have to change your belief system. I simply asked you to explain it. I'm sorry if the question gave offense, but it was only a question.

Minor point of clarification: I am not so arrogant as to believe that I know all about God. I simply know where to find all that I ever need to know about God. The Bible is perfect. My own understanding of God is very imperfect, and I learn more every day.

Actually, this conversation has helped me by forcing me to take another good look at my beliefs. What do I believe to be true? How do I support that belief? Christians are not expected to take our faith blindly, but rather to test it and examine it. Blind faith may work out well in the short-term, but it cannot survive the first challenge. Only a well-grounded, often-examined faith will enable you to face what life has to offer.

Another minor point of clarification: The canonical Gospels don't actually differ on any substantive issues. Each Gospel writer picked up a few events that the others missed, which is what you might expect from four different eyewitness accounts. Even so, the Gospels are all in agreement on the "big" things.

I agree. Scriptural interpretation is very important. Of course, the next obvious question is how do you interpret Scripture? Theologians refer to this concept as Biblical hermeneutics.

Again, you are free to believe whatever you believe, and you certainly don't need my approval. :)

My question is about how you believe what you believe. And my question may be particularly focused because you have professed a Christian faith. Therefore, I'm trying to understand how your belief fits into Christianity.

So here's my other point: Names have meaning. If I wanted to call myself a Pastafarian, that would bring certain meanings along with it. My identification with the Flying Spaghetti Monster would imply certain things about my beliefs. I am not especially familiar with Pastafarianism, but I think it would require me to accept (at least) the following beliefs:

1. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of the universe.
2. He is omnipotent, invisible, and very powerful. (Surely this last point is redundant, if he's also omnipotent.)

Source: http://www.venganza.org/worship/guid...astafarianism/

However, I don't believe that the FSM exists, that he created the world, or anything else about him. Therefore, if I called myself a Pastafarian, I would be incorrect in doing so. Furthermore, I might expect that Pastafarians would ask me some questions about my beliefs.

(Before anyone gets huffy, I should add that I know that the FSM is satire. I used it in my example so that I could avoid needlessly offending believers of other faiths.)

Understood. As I told KO, I don't seriously expect to convert anyone via the Shrapnel forums. I'm looking to increase our mutual understanding.

Thanks, you just remembered me why it's so great (once again) to be agnostic :D

Sorry if I'm not gonna be a very active part of the discussion anymore, but university will take me a lot of time these days. I will continue reading this 3ad anyway.

Thanks again to SlipperyJim. I would have liked to argue you with more time, so my arguments this time will be quite faster and shorter.

I would argue you that the apostoles might have died for the "ideals" of Jesus, like people died for defending ideals through all history. I have no problems too with many of his ideals - he was preaching peace and the irrelevance of richness in times where war and conquer were everything, so I would have died (and maybe said he was God) too to spread those ideals. If the Christian religion spreaded so fast, remember it was appealing to the poors and it went to substitute the great popular cult of Hercules - that's history.

Your analysis about the "average good guys will not go to heaven" was enjoying to read but quite pointless to me as when I die, the last thing I expect to find is the Christian Heaven and expecially God, as I see Him too contradictive, too antropomorphic and convenient (in a "you are with me or you are against me and you suffer forever" way) to be real. So being an "average good guy" (actually I hope, better than the one you described :D ) isn't for me something to reach an (unproven :) ) Heaven. I just say "A" God (not necessarily yours) which saves just a relatively small elite isn't very appealing.

And about miracles, I still think if the Christian God was
actually like you perceive it, our world would be much different. Matthew 17:21, "For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you." Reiterated through all the New Testament in several passages (you certainly know that). Ask with faith, and you will be given? We would not have famine and illness, amputees with regenerated arts (!) would be in TV everyday thanking God for the miracle, and lots of other beautiful things. It's not this way and I live with it. I once found a (excuse me, it's quite ironic but it was the best I could remember in this little time) prayer on a website:

Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.

You could do it tonight and you already know nothing would happen. But as you said many times you have no problems saying that God parts seas, casts flamestorms and resurrects people at will so this would not take great efforts to him - as he loves people (and you too, as you say you see him in your life, doing good things I suppose) he could actually do it, no?

;) Sorry, my English is bad and I have no time to refine my words this time. Maybe they look to you more offhanded and unpolite than the situation would require... it is just a language barrier, forgive me. ( I think I also invented some words while writing, I just hope everything is comprehensible)

Oh, thanks to you too HoneyBadger. Actually, as I was friendly "debating" with SlipperyJim, it was maybe not so clear, but I think too that the reciprocal differences enrich us all. I think I stated it some times ;)

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

>lch> Let me just disagree with you here as a good christian: I believe that Jesus was God's prophet and the messias. I do not believe that Jesus was God, became God at any time or is God. I do not believe in Hell and eternal damnation. Being christian is multi-faceted and I don't think that catholics are better christians just because they have the cooler hats and rituals.

Thats a rather unchristian perspective on Jesus I would say. I would almost say you are closer to a muslim than a christian :)

I actually go to some lengths to teach my students that the belief that Jesus is God is a requisite for the salvation act to be possible and thus a requisite for being a christian :)

You put the finger on my problem with truth etc. The christian article of faith includes the belief in God becoming flesh in Jesus and sacrificing his son for the salvation of mankind. Of course there have been other articles of faith that claim to be christian. Once they were considered heretic. Today they are just considered other faiths. Jehovah's Witnesses are not christian according to the earlier christian articles of faith, but they consider themselves christian.

If there is a God there is a truth and only one of the articles of faith is true. I can't get rid of my logically based worldview - thus do not think there can be multiple truths regarding the truth.

New articles of faith where an individual or a religious movement states his/its beliefs might be true, but they cannot be true at the same time as every other article of faith. If we accept multiple truths there will be some faiths and ideologies that readily accepts practices others would abhor. So if there is no truth other than what everyone accepts for his own truth a believer of a truth could legitimize atrocities. I do not like atrocities. This is why I hate postmodernism. On the other hand I dislike people who would force their will and their beliefs upon others. Since there is no way of knowing which belief system is the TRUTH I dislike people who believe they know the truth and what they might do. Everyone who believes in a truth has a moral duty to his own belief system. Thus a believer in a truth is potentially a dangerous man in the view of someone not sharing the same belief system. My problem with postmodernism might be that it defends fundamentalist beliefs. Somewhat ironic.

I end up thinking that society as a whole makes up for what faith and truth and stuff cannot work out. A set of values shared and maintained by a society usually works fine. Society shapes values and ethics, and if religion is used to legitimize the ethics of a society, fine. When religion is shaped and legitimized by society, nice.

---

Hmm. I intended to answer SlipperyJim in another post, but I might have covered some ofg it here.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

The problem, mister Kristoffer, is that "values" aren't "mantained". They are supposed to enrich, grow and evolve in time, as you know.
My problem with religion in society is that often it wants to "anchor" ethics and morals to the period their Holy Books were written - at the times they were given as godly commandments to make them more easily acceptable, but now, 2/3 thousand years later, they are still perceived as godly commandment, even after we've gone through Renaissance, Illuminism, Sexual Revolution and our values should have changed and have become more opened.

In Italy, the most of the ppl still has many problems to accept homosexuals as NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS (I mean, it doesn't sound a so terrible thing to do :smirk:) because we've, everyday, this or that man high in the ecclesiastical hierarchy reading a passage of the Bible in national television and saying they're an abomination and their love is "twisted" and "innatural". I can hardly imagine something more narrow-minded and terrible (not to say less god-inspired) that considering someone's way to LOVE "twisted" and "innatural" - not even knowing it and with science (and bare nature, look at animals, even them have heterosexuality and homosexuality as well, it's far more natural than chastity) stating the exact opposite.

Ok, I've gone for the lenghts and I'm off topic - I just wanted to say that I disagree that religion "legitimizes" many of the ethics of current society - in fact it tends to immobilize them, stops their natural evolution through people's experiences, and I can't really get how it could be a good thing.

Btw if anyone is curious I'm not homosexual ^_^ I live my heterosexual life happily and with satisfaction - but I have some homosexual friends, males and females, and I just hate to see how my society looks at them many times. :mad:

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

I assume that I am materialistic enough not to become a believer with less than a direct intervention from God. If God intervened and gave me a revelation he would exist and I would feel good and happy as I had found him. If I had a deep religious experience based on psychological processes I would likely be as happy.

Unfortunately I do not know any christian that well. And I don't think he or she could give me a deep religious experience. I might just as well become a buddhist or a muslim. I have more contact with muslims than christians these days, and the leap of faith is probably slightly easier. Islam is not as demanding with regards to theology I'd say. On the other hand the leap of faith in regards to islam would be greater since I'm not socialized into it. Not that I have a christian upbringing, but I have more preconceptions regarding christianity than islamic traditions.

Likely there are good hearted Jews and muslims that would gladly aid me as well. A couple of years ago I had regular visits from mormons for a while. Mostly to get to know their beliefs and traditions. They were aware that I didn't intend to convert, but were glad to visit and inform me. I suppose they hoped for me to convert eventually.

I did not say core message. I said core functional message. What I consider the societal function of christianity to be. What's it's use to society.

Regarding postmodernism se my earlier post.

If I did believe I would have a belief system and a faith etc. Something personal. I called theis devotion.
With religion I mean the institutionalized faith, with traditions, beliefs etc. Faith as expressed in society.

I do have a beard, as well as long hair. I look far more 'Jesus' than Gandalf do :)

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

Whoops, we seem to have cast Growing Fury on the Badger.... ;)

I can't possibly respond to everything in this entire post. Actually, I've suddenly become very busy, so this may be my last post for a while. :mad:

I'll try to pick out a few main points to address. Starting with the first point:
Postmodernism is unsustainable, as I mentioned to KO. Everyone can't be right, because many of our beliefs are mutually exclusive.

For example, I believe in the God of the Bible: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Atheists believe there is no god at all. We can't both be correct. One does not equal Zero.

There's either something (or Someone) greater than us, or there isn't. If there is something (or Someone) greater than us, then that something (or Someone) must have some sort of identity. There must be facts we can learn and truths we can explore.

But we won't get anywhere if we continue to indulge the postmodern fallacy that everyone is right. Everyone cannot be right. It is entirely possible that everyone is wrong, but that's a different question. :)

Read the Book of Revelation some time. The world will end, and God will work everything according to His plan (not mine).

The problem is not my doubts in God's plan. On the contrary, God has made His plan perfectly clear (at least in some respects), and that plan requires me to take action. If I don't want my family, friends, and loved ones to spend eternity apart from God, I have an obligation to be a witness to them. More about that later....

Missionaries don't usually do what you're claiming they do. Missionaries do help the poor, feed the hungry, and tend to the sick. They do all of the good things that you're saying they should do, so I'm not sure what the problem is supposed to be.

The North American Mission Board is the missionary arm of my denomination. Go explore the website and see the sorts of things that Southern Baptists do. For example, we're very involved in helping people who were affected by Hurricane Ike. In addition to the NAMB, my church also sponsors missionaries that build houses for poor people in Central America, install clean water filters in Africa, and provide free medical care to poor tribal folks in various undeveloped countries.

If you don't like Southern Baptists, check out Habitat for Humanity, which is an ecumenical Christian mission to build houses for poor people.

That's a great philosophy if the Christian worldview is utterly false. On the other hand, if Jesus was right, then we have an obligation to help people spiritually in addition to helping them in material ways.

(I promised I'd get back to our obligation to witness.)

To put it another way: If all you do is feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and tend to the sick without ever telling them about Jesus, then all you've accomplished is to send well-fed, well-dressed, healthy people to Hell.

We do have free will. As Christians, we must surrender our will to God. That's what Jesus did in the Garden of Gethsemane, and that's what He wants us to do.

However, our free will is limited. Essentially, we have to pick to whom we shall be enslaved. That's the point that Paul made in Romans 6. We are all born slaves to sin. By the grace of God, we can choose to surrender our wills to Him. When we do so, we are set free from sin and we become slaves to righteousness.

Before someone flips out, the neat "trick" to becoming a slave to righteousness is that it's our only way to become free. (That's almost Zen, really.) Surrendering to God opens all sorts of new possibilities in one's life. God has shown me things that I could have never imagined before I knew Him. A life of faith is a life of adventure.

I don't have $50,000, so I'll skip over the rest of your offer. :(

The Church is not the Borg. Christianity does not require you to become a certain race, abandon your language, or turn your back on your culture. There are Christians in every culture on Earth.

If your point is that we should all work together to face common problems, then I agree with you completely. We should never let our religious differences get in the way of being good people.

However, if your point is that we should just table all of our differences and pretend that we agree ... then I can't agree with you. But there should be no need to do so!

If you want to feed a hungry person, and I want to feed a hungry person, then there's no reason that we should fight about who gets to feed hungry people. Let's both feed the hungry. As we feed the hungry, I'll be telling them about Jesus. You may choose to tell them about something else, or not to tell them anything. That's your choice. But here's my point: Both of us can still feed hungry people! "My" hungry person will simply get an introduction to the Gospel to go with his meal. Why should that bother anyone?

Agreed. I think we've done an excellent job of being good neighbors right here on this very discussion thread. Nobody has shouted at anyone else. Nobody hates anyone else. (At least, I hope not!) We're discussing one of the most contentious topics of all time, and we're managing to be polite & respectful while we do it.

Tolerance doesn't require us to all agree with each other. Instead, tolerance allows us to disagree with each other as long as we are respectful while we do it.

Agreed. Shalom! :)

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

I agree. I think Sweden is a bit more accepting than Italy, but my homosexual friends do suffer some by general conceptions, generalizations and beliefs.

Religion is the single most effective preserver of society. Be it social structures, world view or traditions. It is conservative by nature.


Since most sacred scriptures are old and shaped by a society far from today I would probably become either desperate to find a coherence between my ethics and my newfound belief in a revealed truth, or become a full-fledged fanatic, should I get a revelation from God.

Neither prospect seems to attractive :) Hmm, thats a new though, I might not be happy as a christian :)

If I turned christian by slow socialization I would proably not turn into a fanatic, and be rather friendly and happy and inclusive of all kids of postmodern beliefs in personal truths and Gods.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

To anyone who tried the experiment of finding Jesus,(see my previous post) If you got the tingle,(indwelling of the Holy Ghost) and have any questions please pm me. These guys who want to argue are missing the simplicity of the whole message. Read first John, all of it. Its small. Enjoy.:D

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

Hey there Bwaha ;)

I am a guy "wanting to argue" - I'd call debating more appropriate. :smirk: As you may have read, I already have some knowledge of the Bible too.
And I just can't agree that the "whole message" of the book and religion is simple. That's why we're discussing it in a ton of posts from different points of views here, and we're just scratching the surface. And that's why Bible has been discussed for centuries at this moment and still people have plenty of doubts.
The message is big and difficult and has many faces which go to involve all the aspects of a person's life - a message which for this reason may be shared or not, accepted or not :) I don't, JimMorrison doesn't, you and SlipperyJim do, Ich does (with some reserves AFAIK :) ), and we're all analyzing it. But its' not simple ^_^

Best wishes ;)

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

I agree with you on the depth of the subject. That being said, I know some people were touched thru this discussion. Those people need the message kept simple because they are babies. I won't go into the higher mysteries because it will confuse them.:D

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

:confused:

I think we're all deeply thinking adults here, maybe even with a quite high QI, but thanks for your interest :D
If you want to go deep into some religious mistery, please feel free to do it and maybe we can "solve" even them through discussion and multiple points of view from the most believers to the most skeptics ;)

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

Didn't Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all technically start with Moses? So they all believe in the same god, but in very different ways.

They are all believers in the same entity, and they all think the others are heading to hell. Now you have dozens of individual Christian denominations, and many of them think that many of the others are going to hell.

I'd bet that in just about any given church around the world, you can find people who will tell you that other members of that same church, are heading straight to hell.

Obviously no one sane is advocating a clear distinction of "violence is okay if directed at someone who does not believe correctly", but what if they try to preach their version of the truth to your friends, your loved ones, your children? Is no sacrifice too great to save them from being corrupted by heretical thoughts? Would you sacrifice a simple non-believer, because they were an adequate threat to your loved ones' ability to enter into heaven?

(That's not really directed at you Kristoffer, just what you wrote inspired it, so I quoted you. ;))

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

I really like you Bwaha, but I'm sure you could have put that a bit more politely. I've seen and experienced things that would blow your mind and test your faith - but I've not come here to condescend to anyone, just to discuss.

<3

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

"Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion"? "C-Beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate"? :D

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

Actually, though I won't go into profound personal details, the term "Near Death Experience" isn't nearly enough. "Temporary Death Experience" might describe things more clearly. The universe looks a little bit different when your heart stops beating, and you stop breathing. And the world looks a bit different when you start doing those things again, perhaps a bit unexpectedly.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

Seems like a "forming experience" nobody would really like to experience Jim...


Returning into the "Bible" subject, I was wondering if anybody knows this site other than me: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com.
It discusses many matters of faith from the atheist and strongly reason-guided point of view. Who, like me, doesn't believe (while I'm agnostic and not atheist) will find an interesting reading there.
A believer instead, may wish to give a read and give a little "test" to his/her faith against the arguments of the author (I'm not in any way connected to the website). I thing it has some strong points - of course it is to be read without prejudices, and just letting your own brain and reason work :).
If anyone reads the site and wants to discuss something he's welcome.

Best wishes ;)

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

It's not meant to be insulting, and I'm not trying to be offensive. I'm just trying to put things in perspective. I believe Humanity to have a vast potential, and you're absolutely right-it has already achieved spectacular results.

I'm not committed to solopsism, I'm just intrigued by it-and for the record, I do believe you exist apart from me. But it's still just a belief. And I don't find solopsism pessimistic. It's all in how you take it, and what you do with it. For me, the consideration of it quiets some of the fears and uncertainties that *I* have about the Universe, and myself, and my place in it. Doesn't silence them, but helps me, as-as you say-a though experiment, deal with my life without going completely insane.

But none of that denies the uselessness, and even harmfulness, of trying to weigh belief-systems against one another. If anything, you should be trying to integrate the best parts of each into a greater whole.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

"To put it another way: If all you do is feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and tend to the sick without ever telling them about Jesus, then all you've accomplished is to send well-fed, well-dressed, healthy people to Hell."

SlipperyJim: It's this line right here, this perfect moment of crystal clarity, in which you render your entire faith, religion, and hope of salvation, utterly and completely empty, meaningless, forever a non-relevant, non-entity--atleast for me and for everything I hold to be good.

You seem like a true believer, a representative of the faith, a man of God, and a man who atleast *wants* to do good, so I thank you for giving me an insight into what lies at the heart of one Christian's relationship with God-you've put to bed any lingering doubts I might ever have had about not being a Christian anymore. Free from angst that my life might have been better and richer, had I chosen another path, I continue on, stronger and freer than ever before.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

My dear Badger please take a breath and re-read Slippery's post in its integrity ;)

I think you are quite taking the quote out of its context. SlipperyJim stated clearly that he believes in building something great together despite of the differences of believing. Feeding the poor etc.

But you must accept that he (as his religion commands) believes in a somewhat invisible force that continues to live after s.o.'s death (belief that was born far before Christians and Jews, so not so strange... it was actually existing beyond Neanderthals, far before new earth creationists think the world was even born :D but that's another story) and that this force must be preserved from evil after death - even the one of other ppl - as a moral duty. This leads him to believe that some teachings are as important, or even more important (counting for a literal "eternity"), than feeding those poor people - just live with it. But he never said feeding and helping poors is useless. The contrary.

Plz, don't ruin your nice words of mutual acceptance because of that. Slippery may have used words me and you don't like too much but I'm sure his intentions are good - and his efforts directed even in more "physical life" (we would call it "real life" maybe :) ) ways ;)

Best wishes ;)

PS also remind that Slippery doesn't represent an entire faith of religion - our friend is a self-proclaimed (as far as I understood) fundamentalist evangelical Christian, so extending his ideas (good or bad) to an entire community of believers should be done with great caution.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

I'm not saying anything against SlipperyJim, or against his religion. I have absolutely nothing against him, and I've stated the few things I have against his religion-neither of which are primary to it, and one of which is entirely in disagreement with what his religion stands for-and yet, has been circling closer and closer to the core of it's message-as it is spread.

I'm just saying that I'm not compatible with it, and I gave the quote as a prime example why that's the case. And as I mentioned, he's just serving as a representative of that religion-and as far as I can tell, has the best of intentions.

Maybe you should re-read what I wrote?

I'm not attempting to be anything less than accepting and welcoming of other points of view-sadly, some of those views are not my own, which is why I can make statements about the strength of variety and differences.

Please try not to find antagonism within simple disagreement. My desire is that we all get along, but that desire doesn't subjugate my own point of view.