OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

There's another point to consider. The crowning miracle of Christianity is the Resurrection. Without the Resurrection, the entire faith falls apart. It seems to me that raising a dead man back to life is at least as big a "trick" as parting the sea. So why would I believe in the Resurrection, yet reject the rest of the miracles? If the parting of the Red Sea is too improbable for me to believe, then the Resurrection is also going to be a problem....

Finally, there's the credibility of God's Word, which comes back to the credibility of God Himself. Not all of Scripture is meant to be taken literally, but there is no sign that Exodus is meant to be understood in any other way. It's not poetry. It's not prophecy. Clearly, it's meant to be a literal history. If we don't believe it as such, then we're challenging God's honesty.

Bingo.

Get back to me when you make it that far. It will be like a breath of fresh air. A somewhat scary breath of fresh air, on the verge of what we secularists like to refer to as "self reliance".

Oh and to help you along - there is no evidence whatsoever that a single person who ever met or "witnessed" Jesus ever wrote a single passage in the bible. Every account of him that you read was written by someone decades or centuries after the fact, who likely did not have the benefit of another written copy to work from - hence they had two choices, 1) obtain inspiration from word of mouth, 2) make stuff up. Given the overall quality and consistency of what is written in the bible, it would seem there was a little of both going on.


And for the record, I 100% refuse (as in it will never ever ever happen, NOT in all of eternity to "worship" an entity that would enact such a cruel and infinite torture on my everliving soul, for spending this tiny wisp of a lifetime NOT believing in something (someone) that there is absolutely no evidence for other than anecdotal centuries old writings. Since he either 1) refuses to create any new prophets of the credible caliber, or 2) has created a faith that refuses to recognize those prophets when they rise - then HE fails. It is not me who has failed or fallen, it is my father who IS fallible, and who is capable of punishing me for his own failure. That is a fragile and human entity - not the all powerful, all loving god whom I would be willing to worship if the situation actually warranted it, and he actually deserved it.

[JimMorrison]

Tifone, did you just reference the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[thejeff]

Ramen!

[Tifone]

RAmen to you, my pastafarian brothers touched by His Noodly Appendage. You caught me

At the risk of seeming offensive (and not wanting actually to be so), I sometimes used our great FSM in real religious debates.
The fact that the words "God", "Jesus", "Bible" (among others) have become so strong in the centuries in my society, bring sometimes my debating counterparts to believe that everything said in those names must be auto-legitimating to me, FAR ABOVE my own intellect and reason (the best thing all of us have IMHO)

Me:"Why should I oppose (i.e.) gay marriage? It doesn't damage me and I want those people to be happy like everybody else!"
Other:"Because GOD (<-loud and deep voice) said it is an abomination!"
Me:"If I tell you everybody must do everything I want because the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER (<-louder and deeper voice) told so, would you just accept it?!"

It can be very confusing for the adverse party and remind him/her that "God" is just a name, and saying this word loudly doesn't make his/her arguments truer than mine, if mine are just more reasonable (as I believe they are of course, or I wouldn't defend them - may I be right or wrong, the time the better judge )


PS on a totally unrelated topic... FSM for Dom3 Pretender God!!

[JimMorrison]

But but..... Didn't you know? Everything other than the one true god (how do we know which is which though?) is simply one of the infinite faces of the devil, trying to lure you away from the faith?

Of course, if you interpret the bible differently than I do, that means you are going to hell, and therefore you are also led astray by satan. By proxy, all Christians+Catholics are devil worshippers, because their particular belief system differs from another who claims the one true god.


I also worship the one true god. But what he told ME was that I didn't need to smite the differently-believing, I only needed to tell them to calm down and be quiet while we endeavor to resolve things on a human level. He was mum on the issue of heaven, but implied that more of us will be happy in the end, if we strive only to get along - as our top priority. He didn't say anything about the "costs" of getting along, but it seems like our current paradigm of NOT getting along, is costing us billions of lives and souls, and that's a bit steep.

[Kristoffer O]

This is a rather long tread by now. I believe there was something I wanted to add to the discussion but somehow it drowned in fifty other posts or so

I want to thank SlipperyJim for his patience and dedication. This interesting thread would probably have have died without your continous efforts.

Personally I'm an atheist, unfortunately. I believe I would feel better if I found God. Unfortunately I find it unlikely that I will find any god, unless I'm directly approached by God.

Once I considered Islam to be the religion I found most attractive. If God has a plan it, why not tell people how society is supposed to be organized. Islam is quite integrated in society and the Quran says something about how society should be.

Later on I have tended to appreciate christianity more. Mostly since I view the core functional message of christianity as being: Just be gentle and love everyone.

I have been less fond of buddhism (theravada more than mahayana) and new age since I consider their salvation to be individualistic. But this was when I was young and less ... meek. Now I consider myself quite at a loss regarding the views of practicing buddhists. My only personal experience with buddhism is with members of Sokka Gakkai, and they are not that representative.

In a way I am partial to institutionalized religion, where there is a TRUTH. If there is a God , there is a truth, and thus there should be a great plan for life, society and the world. Thus I consider fundamentalists right on Gods track.

On the other hand I'm quite opposed to fundamentalist teachings, since I find them opposed to some of the values I adhere to. Mainly because of the interpretation of what the TRUTH is. Anyone who claims to know a truth is a potentially dangerous man. I dislike truth. That makes me a postmodernist. I strongly dislike postmodernists.

I view religion a as a tool that should guide and aid people respect and love others, aid people in trouble, inspire people to aid and help and build and compose and do good stuff to others and society.

My problem is that I want religion to be something else than I want my own devotion to be, should I become religious.

I should go for messiah-hood. That would solve my problems.
I'm actually halfway there. I already have students calling me Jesus, even yelling 'hello Jesus' from the other side of the street the other day. I had to smile


Hmm, not sure if I said what I intended when I started, but I sad something


Edit: I seem to have left junk and misspellings and stuff in my text, but I'm not in the mood of fixing it. You get my meaning anyway I hope.

[Edi]

Hmm, would it be appropriate to say that you are a spiritual person, but not truly a religious one, Kristoffer?

[Ballbarian]

My view is that you don't need to belong to an organization or align yourself with a particular set of teachings.

Words to live by:
"To thine own self be true"

[Kristoffer O]

I'm truly not religious. I'm quite materialistic, but I don't care about material things.

I'm mostly a feel good kind of person. I feel good regardless of circumstances. I rarely become angry or stressed and am more or less content with everything that happens. I'm not sure if that qualifies as spiritual.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Kristoffer O

I'm truly not religious. I'm quite materialistic, but I don't care about material things.

I'm mostly a feel good kind of person. I feel good regardless of circumstances. I rarely become angry or stressed and am more or less content with everything that happens. I'm not sure if that qualifies as spiritual.

I believe what Edi was getting at, was that it seems that you feel "it", though you don't understand the need to ritualize "it".

What is "it"? I don't think anyone really knows. According to some eastern teachings (they all kind of bleed together for me), when you discover what "it" truly is, it is beyond human language and expression, and thus everyone trying so fervently to tell you what "it" really is, are either liars, or just misguided.

In any case, I would agree, you (do you prefer Kristoffer, or is Kris okay?) do seem to feel "it". It's always nice to see that in people, I think your students would agree.

And don't feel too bad about your inability to define "it", like most of us who "feel it", you haven't yet "reached it", so "it"s a little bit foggy. Just give it some time.


And SlipperyJim, I also wanted to thank you. We're disagreeing quite handily here, and it is all managing to not turn ugly, that's pretty exceptional. Just remember that I am all for your ability to do, think, and feel what you please - I just draw the line on all the judgement and damnation junk. I am in no hurry to find anyone's god for one simple reason - I am entirely, 100% confident that I am a good and kind person - and therefore no all-loving god could ever commit me to any hell. The human mind loves the arbitrary, but this god person wouldn't let a guy like me be tortured for eternity over an issue of semantics.

<3