Export thread

I've been feeling very conflicted as of late about religion.

What do you believe, and why? What "proof" do you have?

Let's be respectful on such a touchy subject

Proof and religion are a touchy subject. I'm personally agnostic, but was raised Christian.

I personally believe that religion is all a lie to placate the masses but i begrudge no one in their personal beliefs.

The reason I put "proof" in quotations is because I realize that having faith means believing in something, even if it hasn't been proven or disproved. I just want to know why YOU believe in what you do.

There's a reason for everything. Maybe you witnessed a miracle, maybe you got rubbed the wrong way... I just am curious, and I trust everyone to stay classy (which Dave gave a good example of)

Vytamindi said:

Let's be respectful on such a touchy subject

Click to expand...

I can respect YOUR MOM.

Religion to me isn't about "proof". You can't prove most things in religion. You also can't disprove them either.

It's called 'faith' for a reason. You have to take some things on faith, in order to 'believe'. I went through a very angry, very anti-religion phase during high school. But since that time, I have had way too many coincidences, random chances, and seemingly non-connected events that become interconnected for me to not believe. The alternative is to believe in nothing, that when we die there's nothing, and to me that's just bleak and useless. I also happen to agree that adherence to faith leads toward people bettering themselves and others.

For the record, I'm Catholic.

Atheist, because somebody has to be the designated driver.

This should be good.

I cannot look at the world, as it is, and not believe that there isn't some higher purpose at work, though I haven't the faintest clue what it is.

While I haven't found much satisfaction at any religious organizations local to me, my personal belief is that if you look to religion to help you overcome your own shortcomings and be a truly better person, then I will support you.

I believe in the possibility of God, but I believe that religion really cocks up a lot of people. There are people that take religion and use it for good; but all too much people take religion and use it as a facility to hate and discriminate. Not to mention torture, rape and kill.

I believe that, if there is a God, it may not be God, but may just be the next step up in the Universe or past the Universe. I believe that all too often mankind sees itself as the penultimate in Creation, and I think that doesn't mean they deserve to control and break the world at their will.

I do believe that, in the absence of God or any guiding moral value, the only reason to continue existing is to keep good company and to be good company as humanly possible.

Also, on the subject of "proof", this is why I don't see why there has to be this titantic struggle between science and religion. Science is the 'how', religion is the 'why'.

It's like with a car, science explains how it is put together. Why the rivets hold things together, that turning the steering wheel will turn the tires, etc. Religion would explain why the car was created in the first place and what it was created to do.

Qonas said:

Also, on the subject of "proof", this is why I don't see why there has to be this titantic struggle between science and religion. Science is the 'how', religion is the 'why'.

It's like with a car, science explains how it is put together. Why the rivets hold things together, that turning the steering wheel will turn the tires, etc. Religion would explain why the car was created in the first place and what it was created to do.

Click to expand...

iirc anthropology deals with that...

I was brought up Christian, Baptist in particular as a kid. My grandfather was our preacher. Then grandpa decided to feel up my girl cousins and got arrested. Then it came out that he had been doing the same to my mother and aunts when they were kids. Then our church decided that everyone in our family was evil and kicked us all out. This caused me to be very wary of anything religious for a long time.

But I came to realize that like anything else, it wasn't God's fault for how people act, it's their own choices. Because of my illnesses that I've had over the years, I've seen both tragedy and miracles, one of them being myself included. There's no way I should be alive right now, but I am, and I have to believe it's for a purpose. There is a God, of that I'm sure of, and I can't explain why, I just "know."

So in summary, or tl;dr: I believe in God, but I don't believe in organized religion.

I don't subscribe to any one organized religion. I feel that too much importance is placed on "I'm right and you're wrong" when it comes to religion. Many of the stories in various world religions are the same or similar. I can't say "Christianity is the one true religion" when there are people of other beliefs who are celebrating a holiday with basically the same story behind it.

I have faith in a higher power. It may be a God/Goddess. It may be science. Maybe it's some how a combination of both. I don't believe in the benevolent old man in the sky who chooses our path for us and will punish us for being bad. I don't believe there is a red-skinned demon with a pitchfork waiting for bad people in an eternal pit of fire (actually, if there is a hell I think it's more like Dante's vision) I think we have free will to do as we wish and consequences, good or bad, will follow. But I do feel there is something bigger out there and I can't quite explain it.

I think Nick really hit the nail on the head for me. To most religions, God is this omnipotent being who sees all, knows all and has everything planned out ahead of time, yet we have the ability for free will. Basically, we invent (for lack of a better word) this awesome supreme being and then force him to be like us and give him strict limitations and rules that are so human-centric that it makes no sense.

Really the only reason that I think there could be something out there is the fact that everything had to begin somewhere and the big bang is difficult to wrap my head around. Like God coming out of nothingness is any better, but hey. Even if the space/time continuum is nothing more than an infinite loop it still had to begin somehow, right?

I was raised Episcopalian, and one day I just kind of thought "wouldn't it be funny if everyone was sitting here talking and bowing and lighting candles for no reason at all?"

And I didn't want to waste my time being part of the joke.

escushion;273388][quote=Vytamindi said:

Let's be respectful on such a touchy subject

Click to expand...

I can respect YOUR MOM.[/quote]

You should! She's a nice woman! :laugh:

Qonas said:

Religion to me isn't about "proof". You can't prove most things in religion. You also can't disprove them either.

It's called 'faith' for a reason.

Click to expand...

Vytamindi said:

The reason I put "proof" in quotations is because I realize that having faith means believing in something, even if it hasn't been proven or disproved. I just want to know why YOU believe in what you do.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your replies so far. I've been thinking about this for a while, and I feel like I need to "come out" about my shaking faith in organized religion.

The thing about religion is what YOU believe. Don't let anyone else tell you. It is your personal faith and what you believe.

you can always look around and see what "establish" religion is all about, but in the end (at least in my book) what you believe is what you believe. It is not my place to say, your belief is bad vs mine cause we all believe in something ourselves. That is why it is call faith.

There is no proof unless you deem it so. Like a miracles, some people might say it is divine intervention, some say it is pure luck, some say it just happen, who knows, each person interpret it differently.

Raised Catholic, I alternate between going and not going to church. On at least one occasion I gave a confession that started "I have not done this in 7 years." I lasted in the church for a couple of years and now I could give the same confession again.

When the scandals broke out several years back, it really affected my belief in the church.

It also matters who is running the church, charisma and leadership matters. Once I did find the church I felt at home with, I went quite a bit. But I've moved around a lot. And never found that sense of home again.

Charlie Dont Surf said:

I was raised Episcopalian, and one day I just kind of thought "wouldn't it be funny if everyone was sitting here talking and bowing and lighting candles for no reason at all?"

And I didn't want to waste my time being part of the joke.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what happened to me with Catholocism, except I was 5 I had just realized that Santa Claus wasn't real, and I figured that God was just something the adults invented to make sure I was good.

I still believe the exact same thing.

Atheist. Why atheist? Simplicity. I believe in a universe that is lawful (not like D&D but like physics) and that those laws work autonomously, or else they would not be laws. In order to believe in a god, I would first have to make many assumptions about that being and the universe that destroy the simplicity with which the universe seems to function. If we can explain the way that planets and weather and species and atoms and culture all work without needing to define god, then I am content in letting god go. Like any good atheist, I have to accept the possibility that I'm wrong, though. Is it possible there is a god? Of course. I won't begrudge anyone believing in him or her either.

Well, I had a long post explaining why I believe and what I've seen, but the board deleted it.

Proof that God doesn't want you to know what I do?
You decide.

PS: I will reiterate anyway, from my original post that good churches do not give irons to live your life inside of, but more often than not, ask questions instead of giving answers, making you think. I believe man has warped the will and word of God, and used it in an attempt to control man.

Raised Catholic, but disagreed with a lot of it and couldn't be bothered to be one of these progressive Catholics who want to change the face of the church. . . plus I've moved completely away from Christianity.

I don't have any proof of God, and I don't look for any, really. It's just a feeling that's never left me, no matter how much I've distance myself from it. I don't try to prove it to other people, either. My spirituality is just that--mine; it's personal, and other people have to find their own way--inside or outside of the idea of a God somewhere.

I just try to treat others and myself well and be honest.

HowDroll;273418][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:

I was raised Episcopalian, and one day I just kind of thought "wouldn't it be funny if everyone was sitting here talking and bowing and lighting candles for no reason at all?"

And I didn't want to waste my time being part of the joke.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what happened to me with Catholocism, except I was 5 I had just realized that Santa Claus wasn't real, and I figured that God was just something the adults invented to make sure I was good.

I still believe the exact same thing.[/QUOTE]

Same. I still went to church though and was even an acolyte for that for a little while. I'm still in the closet to half my family on not still being a good Christian.

Charlie Dont Surf;273430][quote=HowDroll;273418][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:

I was raised Episcopalian, and one day I just kind of thought "wouldn't it be funny if everyone was sitting here talking and bowing and lighting candles for no reason at all?"

And I didn't want to waste my time being part of the joke.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what happened to me with Catholocism, except I was 5 I had just realized that Santa Claus wasn't real, and I figured that God was just something the adults invented to make sure I was good.

I still believe the exact same thing.[/quote]

Same. I still went to church though and was even an acolyte for that for a little while. I'm still in the closet to half my family on not still being a good Christian.[/QUOTE]

This is why I'm glad my family was never overly religious to start with. I never had to go through the motions and pretend that I believe in something I don't.

phil said:

This is why I'm glad my family was never overly religious to start with.

Click to expand...

Half my family is, but they don't care as long as I'm happy.

I don't thin what I belive is important except to me.

I feel if you believe in God you have to believe in the Devil. But no one seems to talk about him (or her).

I watched my mother succumb to a disease for 20 years. 20 years of suffering in daily pain. My mother was an avid church goer until she couldn't get there anymore. My father worked long days and came home to take care of her.

People will say "well God works in mysterious ways". No, no he does not. If you can interpret that book so precisely then god knows exactly what the fuck he's doing. "Well God listens but doesn't always answer." Stop making excuses for your faith. If you believe in God you have to believe in suffering.
Some might take this situation as a sign to pray more, believe more. Others might take it as a chance to defy,deny in any religion.

I used to question everyday
If no one believed in God(s) would nations be aruguing to the point of genocide?
If no one believed in God(s) where would all the church donations go?
If no one believed in God(s) who would we blame?
then I wondered how much time I was wasting trying to believe and let it go.

Not sure how well this will go over, but...

Raised Christian, drifted a bit during/after college, rededicated as a Christian after my life at the time was shattered.

Why a Christian? Well, I could go with the long or the short version, but I'll stick with the short for now: I believe there has to be a point to life and existence beyond just existing. It's not based in any sort of scientific proof, it's just a belief I have. That doesn't mean I have good or even any answers to difficult questions in life, I just believe what I believe.

Also, that doesn't mean that I agree with the exact perspective every other Christian has, and that to me is the most frustrating part of being religious. I tend to get lumped in with every half-wit yokel who believes in God and uses religion as some sort of almighty justification for prejudice or elitism. I believe that being a Christian, at its base, is simply a belief in the existence of a God that loves people enough to give them a free will, that at some point we as a people blew it due to our selfish nature, that the person of Jesus Christ paid for it through his death (and subsequent resurrection, which I know is illogical in every sense of the definition, but it's part of the Christian faith), and that we need only accept that sacrifice as a means of being saved for eternity.

I understand that many struggle with what is or isn't real, and that many may look at my statement as a way to designate me as naive or ignorant of reality, but really to me my religious view is a philosophical assertion, rather than a scientific proof. It's just the way I try to live my life, as imperfect as I am, and as many mistakes as I make routinely, it's a decent thing to life for.

My mother was raised catholic and my father mormon. As a result I don't believe in anything.

I don't begrudge people who do though. It's an intensly personal thing and you aren't wrong for believing in it. Trained to be an Anthropologist I firmly believe that religion is a perfectly natural thing to participate in. It's something that's a part of us...a sense of community.

tl;dr
Christian - for numerous personal reasons.

I too have doubts, but I think that's healthy and normal.

In my experience, humans are the only animal (that we know of) to ask "why" and religion is a way to get them to stop.

I don't think we should ever stop.

I'm ignoring the second half of the thread so far because it looks like it's turning into a different discussion that V wanted (not that thread drift is wrong)

Me? I'm atheist.

I sometimes think my "proof" came when reading Dante's Inferno. No, it's not a religious work; no, it's not even about Hell, but as I was reading through it all the other depictions of Hell, Heaven and the afterlife whether fictional (including D&D's fantasy afterlife) or those of believers'. I don't just mean the depictions, either, but the idea behind it - that idea of the eternal life of the soul - and I decided that it was just wrong. Not just inconceivable or impossible. Simply wrong. And I just extend that to God, too (whichever God you want that to be). Now, I sometimes think that's my proof. Other times, I assume that's just my justification, and a justification I don't need.

I simply don't believe. Not in God, not in the soul. This extends to all things supernatural, too. Not ghosts, not monsters, not even fate. I am an unbeliever.

Gruebeard said:

I sometimes think my "proof" came when reading Dante's Inferno. No, it's not a religious work; no, it's not even about Hell, but as I was reading through it all the other depictions of Hell, Heaven and the afterlife whether fictional (including D&D's fantasy afterlife) or those of believers'.

Click to expand...

On that note, have you read about the afterlife that awaits atheists/agnostics in classic D&D lore? Shit be messed up.

I must've blocked that from my mind. And I ain't looking that up now. Just in case.

My reasons for believing in God are fairly numerous, but I think that the core of it can be summed up by this C.S. Lewis quote:

C.S. Lewis]“If the whole universe has no meaning said:

I'm ignoring the second half of the thread so far because it looks like it's turning into a different discussion that V wanted (not that thread drift is wrong)

Me? I'm atheist.

I sometimes think my "proof" came when reading Dante's Inferno. No, it's not a religious work; no, it's not even about Hell, but as I was reading through it all the other depictions of Hell, Heaven and the afterlife whether fictional (including D&D's fantasy afterlife) or those of believers'. I don't just mean the depictions, either, but the idea behind it - that idea of the eternal life of the soul - and I decided that it was just wrong. Not just inconceivable or impossible. Simply wrong. And I just extend that to God, too (whichever God you want that to be). Now, I sometimes think that's my proof. Other times, I assume that's just my justification, and a justification I don't need.

I simply don't believe. Not in God, not in the soul. This extends to all things supernatural, too. Not ghosts, not monsters, not even fate. I am an unbeliever.

Click to expand...

Have you read The Great Divorce? That's my favorite description of heaven and hell, and probably the most satisfying.

Soliloquy said:

My reasons for believing in God are fairly numerous, but I think that the core of it can be summed up by this C.S. Lewis quote:

[quote="C.S. Lewis]“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don't have time to get into the details of my faith, but I don't see religions as being so illogical as many people (even many religious people) would have you believe.[/quote]

To me, I think the general population needs to believe in something in order to "function" or at least "accepts the situation they are in"

Most people seek some sort of "reward" when they do things. Some seek out physically, some seek out spiritually, and some just seek out any other means possible. Think about it, if the world is truly "meaningless" in a sense that there is no God or higher power, who are the general public will follow? A higher thinking people would accepts it and be the masters of their own faith, but many people are blind followers (that is what I call them) that they need guidance to accept and do what they do.

A lot of people accepts and do things because they want that big reward at the end (going to heaven) instead of doing good, cause it is a good thing to do.

No I haven't. Is it a good read (other than the part you've already said you like, obviously)?

I believe in a god that, to practical effects, could perfectly not exist. A programmer, but not an user.

And I believe in Jesus, wich sounds stupid even to me. I don't necessarily believe in "magic Jesus" but in the message behind it.

We are free beings, in a world programmed to work. And Jesus' message of understanding and "treat others like you would like to be treated" helps us make something good of this monstrous world. Being "a saint" It's difficult to do, impossible even, but if we try, everything will be better and we can stop being monkeys with pants to finally become humans. WIch are like monkeys with pants but much much better!

Yeah, my beliefs have some plotholes, but whatever. I'm simply an atheist that believes in god. And in GOOD.

Chibibar;273505][quote=Soliloquy said:

My reasons for believing in God are fairly numerous, but I think that the core of it can be summed up by this C.S. Lewis quote:

[quote="C.S. Lewis]“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don't have time to get into the details of my faith, but I don't see religions as being so illogical as many people (even many religious people) would have you believe.[/quote]

To me, I think the general population needs to believe in something in order to "function" or at least "accepts the situation they are in"

Most people seek some sort of "reward" when they do things. Some seek out physically, some seek out spiritually, and some just seek out any other means possible. Think about it, if the world is truly "meaningless" in a sense that there is no God or higher power, who are the general public will follow? A higher thinking people would accepts it and be the masters of their own faith, but many people are blind followers (that is what I call them) that they need guidance to accept and do what they do.

A lot of people accepts and do things because they want that big reward at the end (going to heaven) instead of doing good, cause it is a good thing to do.[/QUOTE]

The question then arises, though: why would the general population need to believe in something in the first place? Why would they need to seek out meaning in order to function, instead of simply functioning in the meaningless toil of life, oblivious to the fact that there's no purpose to it?

I also think it's important to say that, though I admit that many people follow religion in hopes of getting a reward in the afterlife, receiving an eternal reward is not the actual purpose of religion--or at least not of Christianity, so far as I understand it.

I am a conservative evangelical protestant Christian. I believe that the Bible is the true and reliable word of God, and thus I believe in the truths summarized in the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed because they are succinct and reasonably accurate expressions of what is found in scripture. Yes, unlike many Christians I have actually studied the creeds rather than simply parroting them.

I believe this because of the wealth of historical evidence that shows that the accounts written in the Gospels are the true account of the life of Jesus Christ, who was God become man. Not only that but the whole of Old and New Testaments are God's message to humanity, focusing on the message of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Beyond this I find the teachings of Jesus Christ to be logically consistent, both internally and when compared to the observable world. I have witnessed multiple miracles, and have heard testimony to many more.

Gruebeard said:

No I haven't. Is it a good read (other than the part you've already said you like, obviously)?

Click to expand...

Actually, the whole book is about heaven and hell. It's sort of in the vein of Dante's Inferno, in that it chronicles a man's journey through the afterlife. It just takes an entirely different approach to the matter. It's full of great quotes, too.

Look at yon butterfly. If it swallowed all Hell, Hell would not be big enough to do it any harm or to have any taste.

Click to expand...

As to whether it's a good read, that depends on whether you like allegorical musings about the nature of heaven and hell. I enjoyed it, myself--C.S. Lewis is a good writer.

I have observed no miracles, nor heard any that couldn't be attributed to coincidence or other explanations. I think people have a habit of tracing threads in events that don't really deserve to be isolated. I find it to be the equivalent of finding a Shakesperian sonnet in the words of a pop fiction novel simply because one is attuned to sonnets by desire. Because you didn't die/get hurt/lose when you should've simply means you beat the odds. That's why they're odds. If it was definitive, there wouldn't be probability in the first place.

There are two points I commonly make: If your God will burn me simply for not believing in him (solo gratia) regardless of any good, then what makes you think that's a God I want to be in the presence of? And (2) I don't think if there is a Christian-style God that a single person on this planet understands a thing about it. If it's all true, they're just puff-chested children going on about what they think the adults are doing in the other room.

None of this doesn't mean that I don't have any beliefs. I like to pretend I'm atheist, but it's hard to convince myself of that. I guess I'm agnostic about atheism.

Ah . . . it's Lewis. I didn't quite realize that, though I could've guessed from the context of the post where you mentioned it. I'll probably just pass completely. Not for any other reason than I've got plenty else to read and there's nothing about Lewis that encourages me to let him jump the queue.

Raised Evangelic Lutheran (the denomination of about 80% of Finns), still a member of the church... but I consider myself an agnostic.

Hypocritical? Well, perhaps... But there are some things in life (and death) where I want to be a traditionalist: I want to get married in a church, have my children baptised, and when I croak I prefer to be buried on a church burial ground (if being compressed into a diamond isn't available, but I digress). Call me weird in that way, but those rites of passage are quite important in our society, and I know there's no harm in doing them.

As a kid, I was quite into religion, really. I read the Bible, and thoroughly enjoyed a set of big graphic novel versions by Italian artists of Bible stories in our library. I remember my mom even thinking I might want to become a minister. I believe being exposed to religion like this - at a young age and on my own terms - helped me make sense of my own moral compass. Like drawn_inward, I try to follow the basic tenets of the Nazarene's teachings, because honestly they are good guidelines on how not to be a dirtbag to people around you.

As for God... well, there's the agnosticism. If there is one, He/She/It/They are not knowable. His/Her/etc. existence cannot be verified with reason, but neither can it be proven He does not exist. Hence, I leave it for others to bicker over what to call Him. I'd like to call Him "Maurice", but I think He wouldn't like that. (okay, that last bit was a joke. I sincerely do hope God has a sense of humour)

In other words: I benefited as a person from being made to question and discuss my moral beliefs in a religious context, and while I choose not to make guesses about the divine or wonder if Jesus really was the Son of God or just some carpenter with some radical ideas, I still consider his ideas worthwhile. And I wish that my children feel that too.

As for people who believe... hey, as long as you don't crap in my cereal, I won't crap in yours.

Vytamindi said:

I've been feeling very conflicted as of late about religion.

Click to expand...

Conflict is good. It doesn't feel good, but those who don't question themselves and their own beliefs are, at best, plateauing, and more likely than not declining spiritually.

Vytamindi said:

What do you believe

Click to expand...

I believe in God. I believe He created us, and as such we are His children - and He is our Heavenly Father. I believe he wants us to return to Him, and has prepared a way for us to do so.

His Son, Jesus Christ, as part of that plan, died for our sins so that we may return to live with him. Throughout history God has sent special messengers - prophets - to deliver His plan to us. They are the men and women that have been written about or contributed to the Bible and other scripture. God continues to send prophets in our day to help us understand Him and His plan better.

However, every person must learn and choose for themselves whether they will follow His plan or not. For this reason we have the Holy Ghost which testifies to us - through our heart and mind - the truthfulness of the message. In this way we can know personally if there is a God, and what his plan is for us.

Vytamindi said:

why?

Click to expand...

I have pondered and prayed, and received direct, unambiguous answers regarding God's plan for me. When I follow His teachings I always receive the promised blessings.

Vytamindi said:

What "proof" do you have?

Click to expand...

If you have a desire to know the truth, ask with a sincere heart, and are willing to act on that answer, God has promised that he will answer your prayer. "Ask and ye shall receive, Knock and it shall be opened unto you." Feelings of conflict and confusion will be replaced with feelings of peace, joy and love.

-Adam
-Adam

Most already know, I'm a Christian. I'm finishing up my Masters in Theological Study (from there I will go on to my PhD, probably in textual and literary criticism in ancient biblical texts) and I'm an adjunct professor of Old Testament Biblical Studies at a local Christian University.

The "proof" I need is found in my personal experience. I can tell you about some of the... amazing stuff I have seen and personally experienced (I won't here, if you really want to know I can pm you, I'm not interested in a general discussion on my personal experiences) and while those are "faith building" experiences, they are not why the only reason I have faith.

I continue to have faith due to a combination of my personal experiences with Christ and due to my studies of theology and the Bible, where I see a God that loves me enough to die for me and all of humanity, in order that we might find new life in relationship with Him. I see history as a tool for God to bring about the restoration of humankind broken relationship with Him and as a means for His self-revelation.

Some of the are "proof" I find is in the eyewitness accounts of Christ's resurrection found in the Bible (which despite what people who don't know much about the textual traditions might say, is extremely reliable), but in the end it's the message, not the "proof" that drives me.

In the end, it's the love and the desire for relationship that pushes me to Christ.

As I have always said, I have no issue with others disagree with me, I completely respect their beliefs and I would never try to force my belief on them. God doesn't force Himself on anyone and I would never dare to go further than He does. I would much rather someone got the opportunity to experience God's love than me trying to convince them that I'm rightblahblahblah. Because in the end, I'm just a frail, small, sinful person, and my value come from Him.

That's what I believe.


Also: I'm impressed at the civility in here. Let's keep it that way so I don't have to break out my mod pants. They are way to tight right now due to excess Birthday cake.

stienman said:

*stuff*

-Adam
-Adam

Click to expand...

A thread so precise you signed it twice?

The subject of God, Faith and the universe has always been a tricky thing to me.

I was a hard core atheiest until had my own experience...but its most likely not what you think.

Years ago I took a hit of acid and a pill of X(Called candy flipping). I can still remember it to this day and it really dived into my soul when the chemicals started to mingle. I saw, felt, something beyond. I know it is easy to say that the drugs just caused you to feel this but I have done drugs before with different effects. I have only candy flipped that one time and promised never to do it again. I did feel down to my bones I touched something beyond. A friend who was with me was scared. She was messed up and remebered me saying over and over again.."I see God. I see God.".

Maybe faith is chemical just like everything else. I dont know. But personally I did feel like I touched something beyond and it changed how I veiw the world.

I am more agnostic now if anything but the experience is still true to me to this day.

I think the closest thing I can say about God or the beyond...I am not trying be vulgar but this is what I felt.......God was the biggest orgasm...I believe...ever.

God is nothing more then an overriding force beyond what anyone can come close to mapping out.

I know Im setting myself up with this post..but felt I had to put it down. It has been something that is always there in my being, even though it was due to drugs.

Forgive the mis spellings....Im tired and heading home.

~LR

My belief system got considerably simpler when I finally realized I was an atheist. I still consider myself culturally Jewish though.

If you really want to read about my thoughts on this in detail, I GOT A BLOG.

http://newly-nerfed.net/2009/08/17/oy-vey-this-is-a-long-post/

Just one more thing I wanna say: I was lucky enough to meet a deeply religious teacher who had a logical reason for every one of his beliefs. He'd spent years in a seminary studying different types of philosophy and science. He's one of the people who made me realize that my belief doesn't have to make me an illogical person. Although part of the reason I abandoned religion is that I believe in a God who wants us to question. I believe in a God who doesn't want us to hide from everything that's been given to us here.

I would best classify myself as Agnostic I believe.

Growing up (until the age of 11 or so) I attended a pentecostal church. Yes, pentecostal, no we didnt have people playing with rattlesnakes. The types who take the bible as 100% literal truths and events.

It was a very "oppressive" religion to be a part of though, to the point of believing in the evils of:

owning a TV, though a radio was somehow ok, yeah

men having facial hair/long hair

women wearing makeup, jewelry, pants, or getting any type of haircut at all

Things such as going to a doctor when sick were also quite taboo, it happened in our family, but it wasn't something discussed with other church members considering the general belief that it should just be left in the hands of god, rather than a doctor.

Hell, on the subject of taboo, I can remember my mom feeling sorry enough for me in the summer to actually cut a pair of blue jeans down into shorts. Shorts were, while not quite declared "evil", also a very taboo thing, yes even for boys/men.


So yeah, needless to say when I outgrew so much of what I'd been taught in childhood, the disillusionment with organized religion was huge. I've plainly experienced how it can make so many people skip right over the "positive" parts of having faith, and embrace the side that becomes harmful and extremely negative.


As far as the Agnostic classification of myself, from about the age of 17 onward I began to really grasp the view of honestly having no definitive way to know what the truth of it all is.

I now believe the scientific ideals of how our world began, evolved, and exists today. But at the same time I can't get past the thought that at some point at the start of it all (pre-big bang, before that?) something had to come from somewhere. It's simply too illogical, to me, to believe that existence could have began without being created.

I believe in God, but due to humanity screwing it up, organized religion is FUBAR.



Personally, I'm still betting on the Force. Which may or may not revolve around the fact that I want to have telekinetic abilities.

meyoumeyou said:

I now believe the scientific ideals of how our world began, evolved, and exists today. But at the same time I can't get past the thought that at some point at the start of it all (pre-big bang, before that?) something had to come from somewhere. It's simply too illogical, to me, to believe that existence could have began without being created.

Click to expand...

You know, one of the funnest things about going further into my study has been the merging of science and my faith. I know many Christians would not agree with me, but I find them to work beautifully together. To be honest, I find much of science to be a wonderful exploration of the "why and how" God has done things.

Espy;273622][quote=meyoumeyou said:

I now believe the scientific ideals of how our world began, evolved, and exists today. But at the same time I can't get past the thought that at some point at the start of it all (pre-big bang, before that?) something had to come from somewhere. It's simply too illogical, to me, to believe that existence could have began without being created.

Click to expand...

You know, one of the funnest things about going further into my study has been the merging of science and my faith. I know many Christians would not agree with me, but I find them to work beautifully together. To be honest, I find much of science to be a wonderful exploration of the "why and how" God has done things.[/QUOTE]
Agreed.

Espy said:

You know, one of the funnest things about going further into my study has been the merging of science and my faith. I know many Christians would not agree with me, but I find them to work beautifully together. To be honest, I find much of science to be a wonderful exploration of the "why and how" God has done things.

Click to expand...

I can agree with that, and feel like someone on either side of that debate is being purposely close-minded if they aren't willing to at least give consideration to the idea that it all may be very much intertwined.

meyoumeyou said:

I can agree with that, and feel like someone on either side of that debate is being purposely close-minded if they aren't willing to at least give consideration to the idea that it all may be very much intertwined.

Click to expand...

*is happily closed-minded*

Soliloquy said:

The question then arises, though: why would the general population need to believe in something in the first place? Why would they need to seek out meaning in order to function, instead of simply functioning in the meaningless toil of life, oblivious to the fact that there's no purpose to it?

I also think it's important to say that, though I admit that many people follow religion in hopes of getting a reward in the afterlife, receiving an eternal reward is not the actual purpose of religion--or at least not of Christianity, so far as I understand it.

Click to expand...

You assume the general populous would think for themselves..... I wish that was the case and advertising business would be out of business.

Gruebeard;273579][quote=stienman said:

*stuff*

-Adam
-Adam

Click to expand...

A thread so precise you signed it twice?[/QUOTE]

Why pay the price
of posting twice
when one can simply
sign one twice?

-Adam

Gruebeard said:

*is happily closed-minded*

Click to expand...

YOU CANNOT BE HAPPY BECAUSE YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH MY OPINIONS THIS IS FACT AND STUFF. SORRY TO HAVE TO INFORM YOU OF THIS BUT YES, EVEN YOUR SMILEY IS ON MY SIDE NOW

Cruel Why hast thou betrayed me? My heartache hath driven me into the arms of another, colder bitch: :blabla:

Dave said:

Really the only reason that I think there could be something out there is the fact that everything had to begin somewhere and the big bang is difficult to wrap my head around. Like God coming out of nothingness is any better, but hey. Even if the space/time continuum is nothing more than an infinite loop it still had to begin somehow, right?

Click to expand...

Eh, dude, God didn't come out of nothingness, he was always there... at least that how the Abrahamic religions have it...

And even the big bang thing is just copied after older ideas (greek myths have the whole chaos then something stuff too), and it's also not something out of nothing, basically "something was always there, but not like what we know now" is pretty wide spread in modern times.

The realisation that originality isn't something they apply to the beginning of the universe made me just take Pascal's Wager, even if at the time i had no idea it was called that...


Also, talking about religion on a forum is so last week... all of the arguments you're gonna find where already covered like a thousand+ years ago... you know, before the Church went crazy...

@Li3n said:

And even the big bang thing is just copied after older ideas (greek myths have the whole chaos then something stuff too)

Click to expand...

No. The Big Bang Theory is not just a myth copied from older texts, though I was waiting for someone to use this argument in a religion discussion... just wasn't expecting it to be about a scientific theory.

It is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, peer reviewed, and supported by an abundance of evidence which I'll assume you can google yourself.


Sorry: I'm not here to rave 'SCIENCE' in a religion discussion, that just irked me.

To bring this post a little more on-topic, I'm agnostic myself, but when asked I tell people I'm athiest. This is because I don't personally think there is any sort of diety out there running the universe, but since the idea itself is impossible to prove or disprove, I'm open to saying "Well, I guess it -could-... but probably isn't."

@Li3n said:

Also, talking about religion on a forum is so last week... all of the arguments you're gonna find where already covered like a thousand+ years ago... you know, before the Church went crazy...

Click to expand...

I believe the idea was that we all share our beliefs, not argue about them. Which has been going well so far, so the condescension is unnecessary.

EDIT: And I spoke about one second too soon.

Espy said:

You know, one of the funnest things about going further into my study has been the merging of science and my faith. I know many Christians would not agree with me, but I find them to work beautifully together. To be honest, I find much of science to be a wonderful exploration of the "why and how" God has done things.

Click to expand...

I admit to having trouble with that recently, especially with the whole concept of evolution. But after some thought, prayer and some reading on the subject, (I don't claim to understand everything about it.) I can accept it as the most plausible theory for how we got here.

Even if I didn't believe in Jesus (I do.), I would probably still believe in God or at least some kind of creator being. I don't think I could ever believe that the Universe just explode out of nothingness without SOMETHING being involved. It's just impossible to my mind.

Thank you guys for this civil discussion of the subject of religion. Other forums are just Eeeurgh. Also, Espy, I am always encouraged when you speak about your faith. It makes me feel extremely confident when I see that others share the same firm, real basis for their belief that I have. I really couldn't imagine life without God. He has always been a very real presence in my life.

Man, edzepp, I struggled with that as well, particularly being raised in a home that didn't "believe" in evolution and honestly, I think, like WAY to many Christians thanks to a seriously mis-informed church, that I developed a "if THIS ONE LITTLE THING isn't literal/true" then it's ALL false. So since I had been taught that the creation accounts were literal and historical then I HAD to be able to argue that, etc, etc and if I couldn't then NONE of it was real, etc. In other words, my faith wasn't based on Christ.

The older I grew the more I realized that a)looking at those "myth" genre sections of the scripture are there to "do" theology, not "do" science or history. Not that there isn't great historical value in the Bible, there is, anyone who has done even rudimentry study will tell you that, but there are parts, namely Genesis 1-11, that are there to explain HOW God interacts with humankind. They may be literal for all I know. I wasn't there and in the end, evolution, big bang, 7 days, etc, has ZERO impact on my daily life and my personal relationship with God. So it's not that I agree or disagree with evolution, honestly, I just don't know how it all worked, but I do know however it all went down that God was behind it.

That's where I ended up and my faith has been even stronger once I realized that my view of scripture was too narrow and that God had more to reveal than just a way to argue against the theory of evolution.
Thanks for the kind words edzepp. And like I said again, way to go to everyone here for being respectful of each other.

Ravenpoe;273887][quote=@Li3n said:

And even the big bang thing is just copied after older ideas (greek myths have the whole chaos then something stuff too)

Click to expand...

No. The Big Bang Theory is not just a myth copied from older texts, though I was waiting for someone to use this argument in a religion discussion... just wasn't expecting it to be about a scientific theory.

It is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, peer reviewed, and supported by an abundance of evidence which I'll assume you can google yourself.
[/QUOTE]

That's what the Technocracy wants you to believe... (seriously, not what i was arguing, and you can't deny the similarities)


Also, don;t dismiss the greeks, it's very likely that at the time the myth was written that was the most advanced scientific theory wrapped up in religious talk.

edzepp;273916][quote=Espy said:

You know, one of the funnest things about going further into my study has been the merging of science and my faith. I know many Christians would not agree with me, but I find them to work beautifully together. To be honest, I find much of science to be a wonderful exploration of the "why and how" God has done things.

Click to expand...

I admit to having trouble with that recently, especially with the whole concept of evolution. But after some thought, prayer and some reading on the subject, (I don't claim to understand everything about it.) I can accept it as the most plausible theory for how we got here.

Even if I didn't believe in Jesus (I do.), I would probably still believe in God or at least some kind of creator being. I don't think I could ever believe that the Universe just explode out of nothingness without SOMETHING being involved. It's just impossible to my mind.

Thank you guys for this civil discussion of the subject of religion. Other forums are just Eeeurgh. Also, Espy, I am always encouraged when you speak about your faith. It makes me feel extremely confident when I see that others share the same firm, real basis for their belief that I have. I really couldn't imagine life without God. He has always been a very real presence in my life.[/QUOTE]You know, a good book to see how one can accept both religion and science is Angels and Demons (the book, not the film).

There´s no difference between clergy explaining things and scientists explaining things, but for scientists are basing it off facts, and are giving you ways you can repeat the experiment and see for themselves what they have said.

Why cant gravity be accepted as a law of God´s creation?


Big Bang? The Big bang theory itself was put forth first by a priest, Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, as proof that God set things in motion.

Evolution? The Islamic thinker Al-Jahiz was the first to link humans to apes, and yet he stressed on how such a design and planning must be the result of Allah.

Science has yet to exclude god, and if even the Catholic church has said that the Bicle is fallible, and shouldnt be taken literally, there isnt any reason for one to fight against science.

Nor the current stupidity of asking that creatonism be taught in science class, under the "teach the controversy" excuse.

Are those actual T-shirt designs? I MUST HAVE the Discworld one. WANT.

That aside, I'm deliberately trying to stay out of this debate, but I'll throw in that I'm a theistic agnostic; which very shortly and clumsily, over-simplified, boils down to "I don't think it's humanly possible to understand whether or not there is something, or if there is, what or how it is; however, I do have a feeling that there's probably something we can't understand".

JCM said:

Science has yet to exclude god, and if even the Catholic church has said that the Bicle is fallible, and shouldnt be taken literally, there isnt any reason for one to fight against science.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that the Catholics don't take the Bible literally as a general rule... and as they don't have sola scritura either some stuff might get explained differently then if one just took the text as it is in the book.

Also, if the Goa'uld didn't build the pyramids then who did?!

Ravenpoe;273887][quote=@Li3n said:

And even the big bang thing is just copied after older ideas (greek myths have the whole chaos then something stuff too)

Click to expand...

No. The Big Bang Theory is not just a myth copied from older texts, though I was waiting for someone to use this argument in a religion discussion... just wasn't expecting it to be about a scientific theory.

It is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, peer reviewed, and supported by an abundance of evidence which I'll assume you can google yourself.


Sorry: I'm not here to rave 'SCIENCE' in a religion discussion, that just irked me.

To bring this post a little more on-topic, I'm agnostic myself, but when asked I tell people I'm athiest. This is because I don't personally think there is any sort of diety out there running the universe, but since the idea itself is impossible to prove or disprove, I'm open to saying "Well, I guess it -could-... but probably isn't."[/QUOTE]

It should be fair to talk about the Big Bang in a Religious discussion. It was postulated by a priest.

Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (July 17, 1894 – June 20, 1966) was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, honorary prelate, professor of physics and astronomer at the Catholic University of Leuven. He sometimes used the title Abbé or Monseigneur.

Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'.

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

sixpackshaker said:

It should be fair to talk about the Big Bang in a Religious discussion. It was postulated by a priest.

Click to expand...

Ha, i knew it... something had to be going on to be so close... (still, no one came up with any alternatives either, so it's still lack of imagination).

And i wanted to put this thing by Asimov in somewhere, but i don't feel like actually writing a long-winded explication why it's relevant, so i'll just link it: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

I'd say I'm an atheist-leaning agnostic. I don't discount the possibility of a god(s), but I believe our universe is totally explainable through natural phenomena (some of which, I have to say, are just as amazing as the fantastic tales from any mythos), and--as the supernatural isn't detectable in the realm of the natural--it's not something I concern myself with.

If anything, I'd say empathy and reason are my religions. Reason is for understanding others and solving problems, empathy is loving one another in spite of them.

JCM said:

There´s no difference between clergy explaining things and scientists explaining things, but for scientists are basing it off facts, and are giving you ways you can repeat the experiment and see for themselves what they have said.

Why cant gravity be accepted as a law of God´s creation?


Big Bang? The Big bang theory itself was put forth first by a priest, Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, as proof that God set things in motion.

Evolution? The Islamic thinker Al-Jahiz was the first to link humans to apes, and yet he stressed on how such a design and planning must be the result of Allah.

Science has yet to exclude god, and if even the Catholic church has said that the Bicle is fallible, and shouldnt be taken literally, there isnt any reason for one to fight against science.

Click to expand...

I know that. What I was describing was a personal conflict that I had for a few years which is mostly resolved in my mind now (human evolution). I'm certainly not disputing that science can help affirm faith. I think that most 'God vs. Science' fights are kind of stupid anyway.

I seriously doubt that Al-Jahiz was the first person to link humans to apes. That credit probably goes to the first person to see an ape, and pretty much every person after that to see an ape. To wit, the translation of orang-utan is roughly old man of the forest. Gorillas look for all the world like a man in makeup, especially in the face.

Soooo.....Dave in drag = urang-utan?

One thing about the Big Bang to clarify: the postulation is not that everything came from nothing. It's more that the pre-bang state is unknown (and possibly unknowable in our current frame of thinking--see earlier Fleeberzoid discussion with Chazwozel for reference). What we know may be traced back to some sort of timeless hypercompressed bit, but that doesn't mean it's not some offshoot from some adjacent "universe" with different manners of nature or a violent leakage or conversion of what we call energy from some other state.

Enresshou said:

but I believe our universe is totally explainable through natural phenomena

Click to expand...

That's kind of the way science works. If something can be observed, it can be explained. The explanation doesn't have to be simple or obvious, it doesn't even have to be right, it just has to be an explanation that can be somehow modeled either through some sort of empirical testing or though pure mathematics. There is no such thing as "can't be explained" in science. The only time that happens is when the scientists aren't being creative enough, but that's just a temporary setback. The question is not "Can a naturalistic explanation be devised for what has been observed?" (for the answer is always "yes"), but "Is a naturalistic explanation the most reasonable?"

figmentPez;274449][quote=Enresshou said:

but I believe our universe is totally explainable through natural phenomena

Click to expand...

That's kind of the way science works. If something can be observed, it can be explained. The explanation doesn't have to be simple or obvious, it doesn't even have to be right, it just has to be an explanation that can be somehow modeled either through some sort of empirical testing or though pure mathematics. There is no such thing as "can't be explained" in science. The only time that happens is when the scientists aren't being creative enough, but that's just a temporary setback. The question is not "Can a naturalistic explanation be devised for what has been observed?" (for the answer is always "yes"), but "Is a naturalistic explanation the most reasonable?"[/QUOTE]
So what is your criteria for using "let's stop searching for a rational answer, let's say an invisible genie in the sky did it", unless I missed your point?

Denbrought said:

So what is your criteria for using "let's stop searching for a rational answer, let's say an invisible genie in the sky did it", unless I missed your point?

Click to expand...

Strawman. I'm not saying that "an invisible genie in the sky", and no you can't convince me that Jesus Christ is the exact same thing. An undefined "genie" is completely different than a God who is described in detail.

A good example of when a metaphysical explanation is the most rational conclusion would be Jesus Christ being the eternal Son of God become flesh, as recorded by the Gospels. It is possible to explain the Gospel accounts (and the prophecy of the Old Testament) by naturalistic means, but those explanations require far more conjecture and speculation than simply accepting that they are true and reliable accounts of historical events.

figmentPez;274458][quote=Denbrought said:

So what is your criteria for using "let's stop searching for a rational answer, let's say an invisible genie in the sky did it", unless I missed your point?

Click to expand...

Strawman. I'm not saying that "an invisible genie in the sky", and no you can't convince me that Jesus Christ is the exact same thing. An undefined "genie" is completely different than a God who is described in detail.

A good example of when a metaphysical explanation is the most rational conclusion would be Jesus Christ being the eternal Son of God become flesh, as recorded by the Gospels. It is possible to explain the Gospel accounts (and the prophecy of the Old Testament) by naturalistic means, but those explanations require far more conjecture and speculation than simply accepting that they are true and reliable accounts of historical events.[/QUOTE]
Okay, then "let's stop searching for a rational answer, let's say Jesus Christ/God/Trinity did it."

I don't think I can quite grasp your argument... Aren't you just using circular logic by taking the Gospels as a reliable account just because it's the word-of-God?

Also, if a circus magician were to make a dove appear out of his hat, how would it be rational to say that because explaining the trick requires far more conjecture and speculation it is better to simply accept his word that it is magic.

Denbrought said:

Okay, then "let's stop searching for a rational answer, let's say Jesus Christ/God/Trinity did it."

Click to expand...

Well, in the case of miracles, that's a very good reason. When we know that what was observed is contrary to what is known to medicine/sciene, and that what happened is consistent with what is know of God's character, it becomes reasonable to believe that it was a miracle. It is not reason to stop all medical inquiry, or to stop studying the human body, but it can certainly be reason to rejoice when the bone heals during chemotherapy, while cancer cells die and all other new cell growth should have as well.

I don't think I can quite grasp your argument... Aren't you just using circular logic by taking the Gospels as a reliable account just because it's the word-of-God?

Click to expand...

Certainly not. We know the Gospels are a reliable account for many other reasons. We know that we have reasonably accurate copies because of the sheer number of copies that exist and how little deviation there is between them. We know from other historical accounts that Jesus Christ really did exist and was crucified. We know that the apostles really did exist, and were those who knew Jesus Christ personally, and that their accounts were written during their lifetime by the apostles themselves or by those who directly interviewed them. We know... etc. etc. There is a great wealth of reasons to believe that scripture is exactly what it says it is, beyond just saying "God said it, thus it is so..."

Also, if a circus magician were to make a dove appear out of his hat, how would it be rational to say that because explaining the trick requires far more conjecture and speculation it is better to simply accept his word that it is magic.

Click to expand...

Well, if we didn't care about this "magic" and what it means for the rest of the world, and all the implications of it, then it might be simpler just to take the magician's word. But that's certainly not the case with Jesus Christ, is it? If Jesus Christ is God, then that demands even more questions and issues than are even suggested by a dove trick. Saying that the Gospels are true, and all that implies, is not a simple matter, and it is not to be weighed lightly against the alternative.

EDIT: I should also add that I'm talking about unfounded speculation and conjecture, not anything akin to forming a hypothesis. It's one thing to say "it's just a trick, I don't know how it was done but it's not magic" and something else all together to say "Well, it's possible it was done this way, and that fits wholly with what was observed during the performance, and with what is known to be physically possible."

figmentPez;274463][quote=Denbrought said:

Okay, then "let's stop searching for a rational answer, let's say Jesus Christ/God/Trinity did it."

Click to expand...

Well, in the case of miracles, that's a very good reason. When we know that what was observed is contrary to what is know by medical/scienfic knowledge, and that what happened is consistent with what is know of God's character, it becomes reasonable to believe that it was a miracle.[/quote]
So any anomaly in a system that fits the bill for God's character is a miracle? Can't say I agree with that, but okay.

I don't think I can quite grasp your argument... Aren't you just using circular logic by taking the Gospels as a reliable account just because it's the word-of-God?

Click to expand...

Certainly not. We know the Gospels are a reliable account for many other reasons. We know that we have reasonably accurate copies because of the sheer number of copies that exist and how little deviation there is between them. We know from other historical accounts that Jesus Christ really did exist and was crucified. We know that the apostles really did exist, and were those who knew Jesus Christ personally, and that their accounts were written during their lifetime by the apostles themselves or by those who directly interviewed them. We know... etc. etc. There is a great wealth of reasons to believe that scripture is exactly what it says it is, beyond just saying "God said it, thus it is so..."

Click to expand...

We, however, don't know what was exaggerated, omitted or dimmed in favour of a better spreading of the tales of the Son of God. In a similar light, many miracles (and lets not forget the resurrection) could have not been so, if at all. But I can't really argue miracles because of the whole "let's not look at it rationally" part >_>

Also, if a circus magician were to make a dove appear out of his hat, how would it be rational to say that because explaining the trick requires far more conjecture and speculation it is better to simply accept his word that it is magic.

Click to expand...

Well, if we didn't care about this "magic" and what it means for the rest of the world, and all the implications of it, then it might be simpler just to take the magician's word. But that's certainly not the case with Jesus Christ, is it? If Jesus Christ is God, then that demands even more questions and issues than are even suggested by a dove trick. Saying that the Gospels are true, and all that implies, is not a simple matter, and it is not to be weighed lightly against the alternative.

Click to expand...

So you're saying that we should put the affirmation that Jesus Christ is God under a closer scrutiny because it's consequences are much more relevant? Pointing at things and saying 'miracle' is not a good start, because you're hand-waving something much more relevant than a circus performer's ace trick.

fade said:

One thing about the Big Bang to clarify: the postulation is not that everything came from nothing. It's more that the pre-bang state is unknown (and possibly unknowable in our current frame of thinking--see earlier Fleeberzoid discussion with Chazwozel for reference). What we know may be traced back to some sort of timeless hypercompressed bit, but that doesn't mean it's not some offshoot from some adjacent "universe" with different manners of nature or a violent leakage or conversion of what we call energy from some other state.

Click to expand...

Ah. Thank you. I'm not the best person to talk to about science.

Denbrought said:

So any anomaly in a system that fits the bill for God's character is a miracle? Can't say I agree with that, but okay.

Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't consider that to be the whole of what should be considered, but it's a fairly good starting place for talking about generalities.

We, however, don't know what was exaggerated, omitted or dimmed in favour of a better spreading of the tales of the Son of God. In a similar light, many miracles (and lets not forget the resurrection) could have not been so, if at all. But I can't really argue miracles because of the whole "let's not look at it rationally" part >_>

Click to expand...

Actually, we do have a pretty good idea of what could have been exaggerated, omitted, or dimmed. The prophecies that Jesus Christ fulfilled, which are quite specific, were written hundreds of years before His birth, and we have many copies of those scriptures. We know about human nature, and have accounts from historians who didn't believe the stories told by the Apostles. We know how fast Christianity spread as a religion, and we know how quickly things were written down, and we can compare that to what it would take for exaggeration to be added when there are thousands of witnesses to events. We can look at the dedication, to the point of death, to see if the Apostles believed their own stories. We can look at the Roman reaction to see if the tomb really was empty.

Which brings me to the point of asking, why can't we talk about miracles like the resurrection? We have an empty tomb and no body. We have definite accounts that Jesus Christ was killed and buried, and yet neither the unbelieving Jews nor the Romans stepped forward to say that Jesus was in the tomb, or to say where His body was. There isn't even an allegation that the Apostle's stole it, except by modern theorists.

So you're saying that we should put the affirmation that Jesus Christ is God under a closer scrutiny because it's consequences are much more relevant? Pointing at things and saying 'miracle' is not a good start, because you're hand-waving something much more relevant than a circus performer's ace trick.

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that we should take assertion of the truth of the Gospels very seriously because if they are true it has profound implications on the nature of the world. It is most certainly not an easy or simple thing to say "the Gospels are true". It does not take less thought or reasoning, it takes more. It does not simplify matters, it makes them terrifically more complex. Thus accepting them as truth is done so not as a way to avoid study, but because the evidence is so overwhelming in favor of their accuracy that any other position is incredulous.

I was consciously raised by my parents to be free to make my own choices regarding religions and philosophy, for which I shall be eternally grateful. I was and am predominantly an atheist, although I'm happy to entertain the notion of a cosmic universe-creating force of nature that some might call 'god', but others might call the natural laws of reality.

I think that in the absence of focused religious indoctrination at a young age, and if information about how the world works were made available to them, nearly all children would end up atheist, or at least agnostic. As I see it, religious thinking originated from the drive to explain the unexplainable, and therefore from ignorance. However, it continues to spread itself through the generations in spite of all the new information we have as a species, because it usually has as a central tenet the drive to pass it on to others - leaving children a prime target, because they have not yet formed their own understanding of the world.

To me, the idea of faith, as belief in the absence of evidence, is inherently ludicrous. The beliefs and writings extolled by the various religions seem to me to be quite transparently a collection of ancient superstitions, folk tales, morality fables, propaganda and retconning. I've never really been able to fully get my head around how anyone could take it all seriously.

Now, there's plenty of good stuff in the teachings of most religions, I'm not denying that. To take the most obvious example, Jesus, as he is written in the Bible, seems like a class act. I have no problem with looking on the Bible and other religious texts as historical manuscripts of cultural importance, but I think that more and more the good stuff/core teachings of religions are ignored, and the pointless and obviously archaic stuff is made a big deal of.

I worry about the effect religion continues to have on the world, because I think that it does more harm than good. It may make many people happier in their lives, but is that worth all the religious extremists, the interference in education (the evolution/creationist 'debate' - hah!), and the hampering of scientific progress such as stem-cell based medical research, based upon religious belief alone? Faith is a terrifying force because it cannot be touched by reason; if somebody truly believes that another group of people are evil and godless, it makes it much more likely that they commit downright stupid acts that defy common sense.

Another thing I dislike about most religions is the emphasis on the afterlife over this life. They restrict people's behaviour in this life, but promise 'paradise' after they die. The fact is, nobody can possiblity know what happens after death, but I see no reason to believe that anything happens at all, except oblivion. That religious people purposefully narrow their experiences in this life, which is quite probably the only life we are given, because they're holding out for heaven, seems like a huge waste to me. On top of that, religions are bullies, because they also threaten their followers with Hell - the perfect way to control people by fear.

figmentPez said:

We, however, don't know what was exaggerated, omitted or dimmed in favour of a better spreading of the tales of the Son of God. In a similar light, many miracles (and lets not forget the resurrection) could have not been so, if at all. But I can't really argue miracles because of the whole "let's not look at it rationally" part >_>

Click to expand...

Actually, we do have a pretty good idea of what could have been exaggerated, omitted, or dimmed. The prophecies that Jesus Christ fulfilled, which are quite specific, were written hundreds of years before His birth, and we have many copies of those scriptures. We know about human nature, and have accounts from historians who didn't believe the stories told by the Apostles. We know how fast Christianity spread as a religion, and we know how quickly things were written down, and we can compare that to what it would take for exaggeration to be added when there are thousands of witnesses to events. We can look at the dedication, to the point of death, to see if the Apostles believed their own stories. We can look at the Roman reaction to see if the tomb really was empty.

Which brings me to the point of asking, why can't we talk about miracles like the resurrection? We have an empty tomb and no body. We have definite accounts that Jesus Christ was killed and buried, and yet neither the unbelieving Jews nor the Romans stepped forward to say that Jesus was in the tomb, or to say where His body was. There isn't even an allegation that the Apostle's stole it, except by modern theorists.

Click to expand...

So there is an allegation, and it doesn't sound out of the realm of possibility. I don't think we can talk about miracles because they can be rationalized, to a greater or smaller extent. The problem is that neither you nor me were there, and only one of us believes in the inerrant Book. Also, the number of copies mean nothing, making a thousand copies of a lie doesn't make it true.
I don't think we'll reach any good point by discussing the finer parts of this--it'll always come down to blind miracle vs conjectural rationale.

So you're saying that we should put the affirmation that Jesus Christ is God under a closer scrutiny because it's consequences are much more relevant? Pointing at things and saying 'miracle' is not a good start, because you're hand-waving something much more relevant than a circus performer's ace trick.

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that we should take assertion of the truth of the Gospels very seriously because if they are true it has profound implications on the nature of the world. It is most certainly not an easy or simple thing to say "the Gospels are true". It does not take less thought or reasoning, it takes more. It does not simplify matters, it makes them terrifically more complex. Thus accepting them as truth is done so not as a way to avoid study, but because the evidence is so overwhelming in favor of their accuracy that any other position is incredulous.

Click to expand...

If it comes down to faith vs incredulity, then yep, a big hurdle appears. The implications of something like the existence of God (and the divinity of Christ) are not minor enough for me to take the word of a book, no matter how widespread or old. I'd rather have a lab report with some proof on it, but belief precedes proof so eh.

figmentPez said:

Well, in the case of miracles, that's a very good reason. When we know that what was observed is contrary to what is known to medicine/sciene, and that what happened is consistent with what is know of God's character, it becomes reasonable to believe that it was a miracle.

Click to expand...

fade said:

One thing about the Big Bang to clarify: the postulation is not that everything came from nothing. It's more that the pre-bang state is unknown (and possibly unknowable in our current frame of thinking--see earlier Fleeberzoid discussion with Chazwozel for reference). What we know may be traced back to some sort of timeless hypercompressed bit, but that doesn't mean it's not some offshoot from some adjacent "universe" with different manners of nature or a violent leakage or conversion of what we call energy from some other state.

Click to expand...

Vacuum energy sure sounds like from nothing (close enough to the concept anyway, though the question of where the energy came from still remains).

And i did add CHAOS there too, to cover everything...

Still, i don't see how an infinity loop or ex nihilo are any more common sense then a deity doing it. (of course there where religions where the world came into being on its own too, and deities with it).

I think that in the absence of focused religious indoctrination at a young age, and if information about how the world works were made available to them, nearly all children would end up atheist, or at least agnostic.

Click to expand...

And you'd be wrong... from what i can tell focused religious indoctrination most often then not results in either a crazy religious person or an atheist that hates religion...

As for causing more harm then good, Marx was wrong, getting rid of it didn't improve things one bit, people are very good at ignoring reason with no help from the magic guy in the sky...

I'm agnostic. When i die, I'll be all dressed up and probably have no place to go.

Maybe.

It's fun to read this thread without getting involved. Nice to know we can be civil when least expected, even if we don't agree on something as dividing as religion.

Krisken said:

on something as dividing as religion.

Click to expand...

This is the internet... everything is as dividing as religion...

Denbrought said:

So there is an allegation, and it doesn't sound out of the realm of possibility.

Click to expand...

And you just declared that it's more reasonable than the alternative without any rational consideration given. That's not logical. The tomb was under armed Roman guard. The greatest military force in the area was guarding the tomb because they were afraid of a Jewish uprising if any of the religious sects claiming to have found the messiah managed to gain a strong enough following. The Jews and the Romans of the day didn't even consider such accusations reasonable because of the absurd notion of the Apostles (who were busy hiding and denying they even knew Jesus) stealing the body away from trained Roman soldiers, leaving no evidence, and not a word of contradiction. Yet you proclaim it to be feasible without any consideration of the situation or historical evidence.

I don't think we can talk about miracles because they can be rationalized, to a greater or smaller extent. The problem is that neither you nor me were there, and only one of us believes in the inerrant Book. Also, the number of copies mean nothing, making a thousand copies of a lie doesn't make it true.
I don't think we'll reach any good point by discussing the finer parts of this--it'll always come down to blind miracle vs conjectural rationale.

Click to expand...

Ah, two more strawmen. First, just because a thousand copies of a lie is still a lie, that does not mean that the copies have no meaning. I never claimed they were true because there were copies, I said that we know that the Gospels we have today are the Gospels that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John originally wrote because of the numerous copies of the work. That doesn't make them true, that simply means they're accurate to what was originally written. That is significant when considering the evidence as a whole, even if it does not prove truth in and of itself.

Secondly, I don't see my position as "blind miracle". I've been arguing all along for conjectural rationale. Rational conjecture based on available evidence. You're the one who is following blind skepticism, rejecting any and all information out of hand, with strawmen arguments, not even bothering to consider logic or reason when rejecting what I have put forth. You have rejected concepts put forth as summations as if your twisted rewrites were the whole of the arugment.

If it comes down to faith vs incredulity, then yep, a big hurdle appears. The implications of something like the existence of God (and the divinity of Christ) are not minor enough for me to take the word of a book, no matter how widespread or old. I'd rather have a lab report with some proof on it, but belief precedes proof so eh.

Click to expand...

I must apologize, my vocabulary failed me. I'm not sure if it was my aphasia, or I just should have used the dictionary more. I meant incredible, as without credit, not incredulous. I find no credit to be found in alternate explanations to explain the history of the Gospels, both the history presented therein, and the Historical accounts surrounding their writing and subsequent impact on the world.

Here you present a third strawman. The evidence in favor of the Bible being true is not simply in it being widespread or old. That's an unwarranted and frankly ridiculous assertion and frankly is contrary to what I've been saying.

As for your preference for lab reports, fine. That's a very very narrow requirement for evidence, far too narrow for my tastes. There is a lot that happens in this world without a lab test to accompany it.

figmentPez;274524][quote=Denbrought said:

So there is an allegation, and it doesn't sound out of the realm of possibility.

Click to expand...

And you just declared that it's more reasonable than the alternative without any rational consideration given. That's not logical. The tomb was under armed Roman guard. The greatest military force in the area was guarding the tomb because they were afraid of a Jewish uprising if any of the religious sects claiming to have found the messiah managed to gain a strong enough following. The Jews and the Romans of the day didn't even consider such accusations reasonable because of the absurd notion of the Apostles (who were busy hiding and denying they even knew Jesus) stealing the body away from trained Roman soldiers, leaving no evidence, and not a word of contradiction. Yet you proclaim it to be feasible without any consideration of the situation or historical evidence. [/quote]
More reasonable than resurrection? Yes. But then again, from my point of view there's a myriad of near-improbable things that are also more reasonable. What I did say is that it an alternative, so it should be considered. Same as an alternative to a godless universe is your view of it, no matter how illogical it may seem to me.

I don't think we can talk about miracles because they can be rationalized, to a greater or smaller extent. The problem is that neither you nor me were there, and only one of us believes in the inerrant Book. Also, the number of copies mean nothing, making a thousand copies of a lie doesn't make it true.
I don't think we'll reach any good point by discussing the finer parts of this--it'll always come down to blind miracle vs conjectural rationale.

Click to expand...

Ah, two more strawmen. First, just because a thousand copies of a lie is still a lie, that does not mean that the copies have no meaning. I never claimed they were true because there were copies, I said that we know that the Gospels we have today are the Gospels that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John originally wrote because of the numerous copies of the work. That doesn't make them true, that simply means they're accurate to what was originally written. That is significant when considering the evidence as a whole, even if it does not prove truth in and of itself.

Secondly, I don't see my position as "blind miracle". I've been arguing all along for conjectural rationale. Rational conjecture based on available evidence. You're the one who is following blind skepticism, rejecting any and all information out of hand, with strawmen arguments, not even bothering to consider logic or reason when rejecting what I have put forth. You have rejected concepts put forth as summations as if your twisted rewrites were the whole of the arugment.

Click to expand...

Yes, my default position on any issue is to be skeptic about it and then actually analyse the facts. I however find it hard to discuss "logic and reason" while miracles, and testimonies from nearly two millennia ago, are what you put forth.

If it comes down to faith vs incredulity, then yep, a big hurdle appears. The implications of something like the existence of God (and the divinity of Christ) are not minor enough for me to take the word of a book, no matter how widespread or old. I'd rather have a lab report with some proof on it, but belief precedes proof so eh.

Click to expand...

I must apologize, my vocabulary failed me. I'm not sure if it was my aphasia, or I just should have used the dictionary more. I meant incredible, as without credit, not incredulous. I find no credit to be found in alternate explanations to explain the history of the Gospels, both the history presented therein, and the Historical accounts surrounding their writing and subsequent impact on the world.

Here you present a third strawman. The evidence in favor of the Bible being true is not simply in it being widespread or old. That's an unwarranted and frankly ridiculous assertion and frankly is contrary to what I've been saying.

As for your preference for lab reports, fine. That's a very very narrow requirement for evidence, far too narrow for my tastes. There is a lot that happens in this world without a lab test to accompany it.

Click to expand...

My mastery of english is far from perfect, so the language barrier is understandable. You find no credit to be found in the alternative explanations, I find no credit in calmly accepting the writings of superstitious men from the past as accurate.

What other evidence of the Bible being true/inerrant/... is there?


I'll go catch some zzz's now, more tomorrow? ^_^

Denbrought said:

What other evidence of the Bible being true/inerrant/... is there?

Click to expand...

WEll first off there this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy#History_of_the_Doctrine_of_Inerrancy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility
Plus there's also the fact that we and i assume the catholics too don't rely only on the text of the Bible to interpret it, but on Church Tradition too...

And on the other hand some of the stuff in the book is backed up by other historical sources.

Actually, a good guide would be this-

edzepp;274395][quote=JCM said:

There´s no difference between clergy explaining things and scientists explaining things, but for scientists are basing it off facts, and are giving you ways you can repeat the experiment and see for themselves what they have said.

Why cant gravity be accepted as a law of God´s creation?


Big Bang? The Big bang theory itself was put forth first by a priest, Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, as proof that God set things in motion.

Evolution? The Islamic thinker Al-Jahiz was the first to link humans to apes, and yet he stressed on how such a design and planning must be the result of Allah.

Science has yet to exclude god, and if even the Catholic church has said that the Bicle is fallible, and shouldnt be taken literally, there isnt any reason for one to fight against science.

Click to expand...

I know that. What I was describing was a personal conflict that I had for a few years which is mostly resolved in my mind now (human evolution). I'm certainly not disputing that science can help affirm faith. I think that most 'God vs. Science' fights are kind of stupid anyway.[/quote]Actually I think most fights come from human stupidity, and the belief that its even possible that the Bible is 100% god's words.

First, its not even God's word, but a compilation of old texts which themselves have been found with many variations, plus a few gospels of a few guys telling the story of the same God.

The Bible itself has been heavily edited a few times by the church, and with minor edits every time its translated, and historically there are many differences between the different Bibles (compare a King James Version and a Authorized Standard Version to the Revised Standard Version and a Young's Literal Translation), and even contradictions in dates and numbers (which were written in script, as the 0, and numerals didnt come yet from the arabs yet, which rules out "hey he added an extra zero").

Using the Bible as evidence against anything that is proven true by scientific method, and can be replicated over and over is simply foolish, especially when the Vatican itself has stopped doing so a few centuries back.

I was reading today something by Lovecraft that was pretty interesting for this religion thing. The character had forgotten how to dream because of him becoming an adult, and he tries to find he richness and beauty he found in his dreams in religion, wich fails him because it's pompous and doesn't recognize how empty it is as a ritual, and philosophy, wich is even worse because it lacks all the beauty in religious rites. He then becomes some kin of empty person who looks and acts normal but feels empty in the puroseless and terrible real world.

In some ways, this makes me think of the message in Philp K. Dick's novel "The divine invasion", with the existance of the real world, wich is what it is, with all what's good and bad, the existance of Belial, wich is a way of looking at this world, a pessimistic, destructive, agressive, evil look. And then there's also the opposite vision of beauty and good, wich allows for a happier world and a purpose... even if the world is still the same world with all 3 visions.


Yes, I base most of my religious beliefs not only in reading the bible and listeing to my favourite priest (who is almost a communist and, therefore, a rebel) but also from science fiction and fantasy.

Let's all read together the ending to Hogfather now for another delicious point about religion and human nature.

Denbrought said:

What other evidence of the Bible being true/inerrant/... is there?

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know a way to snip off some of God's beard and put it in a test tube, if that's what you're looking for.

figmentPez;274882][quote=Denbrought said:

What other evidence of the Bible being true/inerrant/... is there?

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know a way to snip off some of God's beard and put it in a test tube, if that's what you're looking for.[/QUOTE]

Thus the followers found proof of God, then God ceased to exist.

BlackCrossCrusader;274895][quote=figmentPez;274882][quote=Denbrought said:

What other evidence of the Bible being true/inerrant/... is there?

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know a way to snip off some of God's beard and put it in a test tube, if that's what you're looking for.[/quote]

Thus the followers found proof of God, then God ceased to exist.[/QUOTE]You forget that like the date for Christmas and its rituals, Easter and etc, the "bearded god" is just another thing the Christians borrowed from the Pagans (in this case, they copied off Zeus, the gods of gods) and made it their own, so that the pagans would convert easier.

JCM;275110][quote=BlackCrossCrusader;274895][quote=figmentPez;274882][quote=Denbrought said:

What other evidence of the Bible being true/inerrant/... is there?

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know a way to snip off some of God's beard and put it in a test tube, if that's what you're looking for.[/quote]

Thus the followers found proof of God, then God ceased to exist.[/QUOTE]You forget that like the date for Christmas and its rituals, Easter and etc, the "bearded god" is just another thing the Christians borrowed from the Pagans (in this case, they copied off Zeus, the gods of gods) and made it their own, so that the pagans would convert easier.[/QUOTE]

Eh, makes it easier for us to do holidays with our Christian families without suspicion.

You know, I'm not much of a religious person, as I've pointed out, but I never understood why some people think that pointing out that the dates chosen for holidays come from pagan religions somehow invalidates them. I mean, they usually go on to cite the reason, but that kind of invalidates their argument, since that sounds like good conversion/marketing technique more than an invalidation.

Not saying that anyone here is doing that, but I've seen it happen.

fade said:

You know, I'm not much of a religious person, as I've pointed out, but I never understood why some people think that pointing out that the dates chosen for holidays come from pagan religions somehow invalidates them. I mean, they usually go on to cite the reason, but that kind of invalidates their argument, since that sounds like good conversion/marketing technique more than an invalidation.

Not saying that anyone here is doing that, but I've seen it happen.

Click to expand...

Well, what Ive heard is basically three reasons-

a) The church did persecute many religions over their rituals/holidays. Thats rather ironic, when it copies the date, AND customs, of other religions.

b) The church today seems inflexible on issues, causing much death in some countries simply because of idiotic things like allowing people to use condoms. Believe me, its not the church's fault, after all, an African/Brazilian who gets AIDS because the church said he shouldn't use it, is most probably having sex outside marriage, which is a no-no as well. But the question stands is why can the church accept Zeus' as their model of "how people should paint god in Vatican churches" and pagan customs and rituals, and not allow something like a condom.

c) The fact that its lying? If I tell you my birthday is in December 25th, that I look like a white-bearded omnipotent roman god and had nails driven through my hands which had skin miraculously strong to hold my weight, I'd be called I liar. Call it in any name, there are hundreds of books, religious people and sermons lying to people, so if one can lie in something as big as the birth of God, what is stopping the church from having created other lies?


Anyway, having converted to many religions and dedicated/wasted a good ten years in catholic school/madrasahs/brahma kumaris centers, it all comes down to marketing.

Even religion lies, if it sells the product, after all, God is omnipotent, but religion is carried by us humans, who sadly, are not perfect.

fade said:

You know, I'm not much of a religious person, as I've pointed out, but I never understood why some people think that pointing out that the dates chosen for holidays come from pagan religions somehow invalidates them. I mean, they usually go on to cite the reason, but that kind of invalidates their argument, since that sounds like good conversion/marketing technique more than an invalidation.

Not saying that anyone here is doing that, but I've seen it happen.

Click to expand...

On one part, it is purely a marketing technique, and an effective one.

But there's a couple problems. One is that when that line between religion blurs, and then the customs of the one fade into the other, and then people forget where those customs came from, they begin to base their faith on those aesthetics rather than on substance. That's largely ignorance though, which in today's world of fast information, people don't really have an excuse for trying to tie painted eggs and bunnies in with Jesus on a religious level.

The other is that once enough people are taken in by the marketing, you don't need the marketing anymore. The others can be subjugated by force, and then that culture from which the traditions came is lost.

JCM;275110][quote=BlackCrossCrusader;274895][quote=figmentPez;274882][quote=Denbrought said:

What other evidence of the Bible being true/inerrant/... is there?

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know a way to snip off some of God's beard and put it in a test tube, if that's what you're looking for.[/quote]

Thus the followers found proof of God, then God ceased to exist.[/QUOTE]You forget that like the date for Christmas and its rituals, Easter and etc, the "bearded god" is just another thing the Christians borrowed from the Pagans (in this case, they copied off Zeus, the gods of gods) and made it their own, so that the pagans would convert easier.[/QUOTE]

Common theory would place the actual timing of Jesus' birth (based on biblical texts) in the late summer/early fall, since shepherds were out in the fields, and the positions of constellations coupled with the mention of a census taken places it around September 11.

Easter the term (and many of the traditions) were likely borrowed from pagan rituals, but the timing of the date itself is consistent with biblical text in that it coincided with the week of Jewish Passover, with the death and resurrection taking place at the end of Passover week.

Dude, the first ecumenical council was created because, among other things, Easter was celebrated on different dates depending on regions... and today we don't celebrate it on the same date as the catholics (of course it doesn't have a fixed date for us, that's why the old and new caledarists don't have it at different dates like it happens with christmas).

had nails driven through my hands which had skin miraculously strong to hold my weight, I'd be called I liar.

Click to expand...

Weirdly i distinctly remember when i was little seeing somewhere that the nails weren't holding the weight but he was actually tied to the cross with rope around his wrists... so when i saw that argument for the 1st time i was rather unimpressed.

The Bible itself has been heavily edited a few times by the church, and with minor edits every time its translated, and historically there are many differences between the different Bibles (compare a King James Version and a Authorized Standard Version to the Revised Standard Version and a Young's Literal Translation)

Click to expand...

Ok, are you talking about differences in the actuall meaning or just them using different words that are near synonims?

@Li3n said:

Dude, the first ecumenical council was created because, among other things, Easter was celebrated on different dates depending on regions... and today we don't celebrate it on the same date as the catholics (of course it doesn't have a fixed date for us, that's why the old and new caledarists don't have it at different dates like it happens with christmas).

had nails driven through my hands which had skin miraculously strong to hold my weight, I'd be called I liar.

Click to expand...

Weirdly i distinctly remember when i was little seeing somewhere that the nails weren't holding the weight but he was actually tied to the cross with rope around his wrists... so when i saw that argument for the 1st time i was rather unimpressed.

The Bible itself has been heavily edited a few times by the church, and with minor edits every time its translated, and historically there are many differences between the different Bibles (compare a King James Version and a Authorized Standard Version to the Revised Standard Version and a Young's Literal Translation)

Click to expand...

Ok, are you talking about differences in the actuall meaning or just them using different words that are near synonims?

Click to expand...

When you change words, the meaning changes. It's unavoidable. We argue about what our Constitution means and that is only 232 years old.

I have no idea how to respond to what you remember as a little kid, no matter how distinct it was. I distinctly remember seeing myself as I almost drown in a pool when I was 2 years old. Not sure anyone would believe I actually saw myself.

Krisken said:

When you change words, the meaning changes. It's unavoidable. We argue about what our Constitution means and that is only 232 years old.

Click to expand...

Dude, they've been arguing about the meaning of the Bible forever, even when it's the same version and the words are the same... that wasn't the point, the point was that the words used don't actually prevent the interpretation from being the same (unless they replace pharisees with liberals, like conservipedia)

Krisken said:

I have no idea how to respond to what you remember as a little kid, no matter how distinct it was. I distinctly remember seeing myself as I almost drown in a pool when I was 2 years old. Not sure anyone would believe I actually saw myself.

Click to expand...

but unlike your personal experience what i saw could be seen by others, and confirmed or denied...

@Li3n;275240][quote=Krisken said:

When you change words, the meaning changes. It's unavoidable. We argue about what our Constitution means and that is only 232 years old.

Click to expand...

Dude, they've been arguing about the meaning of the Bible forever, even when it's the same version and the words are the same... that wasn't the point, the point was that the words used don't actually prevent the interpretation from being the same (unless they replace pharisees with liberals, like conservipedia)

Krisken said:

I have no idea how to respond to what you remember as a little kid, no matter how distinct it was. I distinctly remember seeing myself as I almost drown in a pool when I was 2 years old. Not sure anyone would believe I actually saw myself.

Click to expand...

but unlike your personal experience what i saw could be seen by others, and confirmed or denied...[/QUOTE]
Again, I have no idea how to respond to this. Since I can't do it and remain civil, I'll bow out of the thread.

@Krisken

Respond to the 1st or 2nd quote?

If it's the 2nd, how exactly is me seeing a physical object once the same as you having an out of body experience or whatever?

mr_thehun;275244][quote=@Li3n said:

Dude, they've been arguing about the meaning of the Bible forever, even when it's the same version and the words are the same... that wasn't the point, the point was that the words used don't actually prevent the interpretation from being the same (unless they replace pharisees with liberals, like conservipedia)

Click to expand...

your first sentence contradicts the second and makes me want to impale things.[/quote]

You're looking at it wrong!

Let me try to explain:
- the 1st idea was that even with the same words, interpretations can differ, so it's not just the translating.
- the 2nd idea was that even if the words are different one can use the same interpretation for the same verse.

Think of it as 2 different arguments against the same thing.

Yes, different words might add or subtract possible interpretations (theology is fun like that), but as long as they have some interpretations in common it doesn't make such a difference as claimed.

Kinda all of it. The logical fallacies presented have overwhelmed me. I am at a loss, sir.

Well it would be helpful if you'd point them out...

@Li3n said:

Dude, the first ecumenical council was created because, among other things, Easter was celebrated on different dates depending on regions... and today we don't celebrate it on the same date as the catholics (of course it doesn't have a fixed date for us, that's why the old and new caledarists don't have it at different dates like it happens with christmas).

Click to expand...

But tying it to a date, and telling people that this day something happened (but it didnt happen), is lying.

Adding to the top of lying to the masses, theres misleading the masses as Christian customs were eliminated in exchange of a Pagan one. But then, almost every religion has done this, so its unfair to single out the Catholic church, or blame them.

@Li3n said:

Weirdly i distinctly remember when i was little seeing somewhere that the nails weren't holding the weight but he was actually tied to the cross with rope around his wrists... so when i saw that argument for the 1st time i was rather unimpressed.

Click to expand...

Look at every church, again marketing white lies showing a man's weight being help by two nails on his hands.

Technically, the romans TIED you to the cross, and a nail through the hands would just have torn your hands up, but it hold you long.
Basically, millions are praying to not only a god that had Zeus' appearance slapped on him, but also to statues showing incorrectly the suffering of his son.

Again, little lies in the sake of selling a religion.

Ok, are you talking about differences in the actuall meaning or just them using different words that are near synonims?

Click to expand...

The two, and more.

There is editing of a word for another that doesn't correspond to the original text - like for example- in earlier trasnlations, 1 Timothy 3:16 says "God was manifest in the flesh," the strongest sentence in the Bible outside John's Gospel saying that Jesus was God, yet in modern translations it says "He was manifest in the flesh".

There is deletion of parts of sentences - For example, compare the Lord's prayer, from the King James version, which was an almost word-by-word, and a new version-

Exactly one third of the Lord's Prayer is taken out of Luke 11:2-4:

"And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil" (Luke 11:2-32) (KJV)

"He said to them, "When you pray, say: "'Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation" (Luke 11:2-4) (NIV).

One third of it is gone... another note on differences, there are 17 verses that are in the KJV, but are completely omitted from new Bible versions and the words "God", "Lord", "Jesus", "Christ", "blood", "repent", "hell" are omitted many times from the newer translations.

There is deletion entire sentences that were in the earlier manuscripts (or adding footnotes casting doubt) - Like the deletion of "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost" (Matthew 18:11). This verse shows a rather clear Christian doctrine that Jesus Christ came to save the lost, yet has been ommited from a few Bible versions. Then we look at "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (Acts 8:37). By removing the previous verse, the eunuch's confession of faith in the Son of God is gone, and one can be misled into thinking he ass saved by baptism instead of faith in Jesus.

More deleted, or highlighted sentences relegated to footnotes -"But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses" (Mark 11:26)
-"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (I John 5:7) (Ironically, this is the clearest verse on the Trinity)
-"Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting". (Matthew 17:21) Like this sentence, any sentence showing obligatory prayer/fasting prayer was deleted. Prayer is also omitted in Mark 12:33, and fasting in Mark 9:29, Acts 10:30, and 1 Corinthians 7:5.
-"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:44,46), one of the three sentences describing punishment in Hell deemed too graphic, and deleted.

Check and see if your Bible has the following, without footnotes casting doubt on their validity - Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, and Romans 16:24). If you have a Bible with footnotes at these verses, they make the verses debatable.

Mind you, Im not singling out Christianity, heck there are countless differences between English translations of the Q'ran, but in Arabic it has remained unchanged from 200 years after the Muhammed's death, however, there is so much contradiction among the commentarists that its pretty much useless for it to have remained unchanged. As for the Jewsih texts, they dont even follow the Old Testament, so its not a problem of Christianity, but of religion.

---------- Post added at 10:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 AM ----------

Jesus, Luiza is wondering why I just spend 1 hour looking through three Bibles.
I love this forum

My belief system in a single sentence: I don't know.

A little more detailed: I believe that there is a force incomprehensible to us that drives our conscious... The best analogy I've come up with is the steam in a train. It does not dictate what we do or why we do it, but it allows us to do it. I don't have a name for it as 'God' suggests a being separate from us and I don't feel that's the case.

Religion, as it is, is simply humankind's means of rationally explaining the irrational in a way that we can feel comfortable with.

JCM said:

But tying it to a date, and telling people that this day something happened (but it didnt happen), is lying.

Click to expand...

Dude, the changing (and imprecise over long stretches of time) calendars alone make setting a fixed day celebration ridiculous, so i always took it to be more symbolic then anything (the old calendarists who know that their calendar is not objectivly correct anymore, but they thing celebrating on the same calendar day of the same calendar as the original church is more important).

But i keep forgetting that you guys are more legalistic about it.

JCM said:

Adding to the top of lying to the masses, theres misleading the masses as Christian customs were eliminated in exchange of a Pagan one. But then, almost every religion has done this, so its unfair to single out the Catholic church, or blame them.

Click to expand...

Some of that stuff isn't so much lying as allowing the converted to keep some some of their old customs, and those customs catching on with society at large. So IMO only the customs that happen in some sort of official church ceremony should count for criticism (i'm sure you'll find some even then - google/wiki old believers, though that might not qualify as they might not have been pagan customs).

Look at every church, again marketing white lies showing a man's weight being help by two nails on his hands.

Click to expand...

Actually over here he's standing with his feet on something:



Plus, does anyone argue that those painting are supposed to be a perfectly accurate depiction of what happened? Coz over here there is a big difference between what the masses think and the official church stance because unless it's different enough to be heresy the church doesn't see it as an impediment to salvation.

But apparently the pictures i remember with the hands tied are more recent (but older then me i guess).

There is editing of a word for another that doesn't correspond to the original text - like for example- in earlier translations, 1 Timothy 3:16 says "God was manifest in the flesh," the strongest sentence in the Bible outside John's Gospel saying that Jesus was God, yet in modern translations it says "He was manifest in the flesh".

Click to expand...

Well He with a capital H always refers to God here, and that could easily be what i mentioned about synonyms with variant meaning. Of course it could also be an attempt as changing the meaning depending on who made the change/translation. Schism have happened for a lot less (there's a church that separated around 500AD because they felt the wording condemning one heresy wasn't strong enough)

There is deletion of parts of sentences - For example, compare the Lord's prayer, from the King James version, which was an almost word-by-word, and a new version-

Exactly one third of the Lord's Prayer is taken out of Luke 11:2-4:

"And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil" (Luke 11:2-32) (KJV)

"He said to them, "When you pray, say: "'Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation" (Luke 11:2-4) (NIV).


There is deletion entire sentences that were in the earlier manuscripts (or adding footnotes casting doubt) - Like the deletion of "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost" (Matthew 18:11). This verse shows a rather clear Christian doctrine that Jesus Christ came to save the lost, yet has been omitted from a few Bible versions. Then we look at "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayst. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (Acts 8:37). By removing the previous verse, the eunuch's confession of faith in the Son of God is gone, and one can be misled into thinking he ass saved by baptism instead of faith in Jesus.

More deleted, or highlighted sentences relegated to footnotes -"But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses" (Mark 11:26)
-"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (I John 5:7) (Ironically, this is the clearest verse on the Trinity)
-"Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting". (Matthew 17:21) Like this sentence, any sentence showing obligatory prayer/fasting prayer was deleted. Prayer is also omitted in Mark 12:33, and fasting in Mark 9:29, Acts 10:30, and 1 Corinthians 7:5.
-"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:44,46), one of the three sentences describing punishment in Hell deemed too graphic, and deleted.

Check and see if your Bible has the following, without footnotes casting doubt on their validity - Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, and Romans 16:24). If you have a Bible with footnotes at these verses, they make the verses debatable.

Mind you, Im not singling out Christianity, heck there are countless differences between English translations of the Q'ran, but in Arabic it has remained unchanged from 200 years after the Muhammed's death, however, there is so much contradiction among the commentarists that its pretty much useless for it to have remained unchanged. As for the Jewsih texts, they dont even follow the Old Testament, so its not a problem of Christianity, but of religion.

Click to expand...

Sound more like a problem of different denominations trynng to modify the Bible for their own ends (see conservipedia's nice little Bible translation project)... which has happened a lot from the get go (and is one of the reasons for the ecumenical councils plus it's called heresy).

And the Jewish text don't follow the Old Testament because [STRIKE]what went into it from the jewish books was decided after christianity and jewdaism where different things for over 300 years[/STRIKE] the Septuagint that the christians where using was a greek translation of an older jewish text, and then i understand that you westerners changed it to be closer to more contemporary jewish text some time before we split, while the [STRIKE]Torah[/STRIKE] Tanakh was officialised around 450 wiki tells me.

But apparently the Dead Sea Scrolls are closer to the Septuagint, but the differences are great enough to change the meaning of the sentences, which was my argument.



ANYHOW, there are plenty of good criticism to be made, but for some reason everyone seems to add to that with rather tortured arguments or taking stuff out of context, which is one of the reasons why i couldn't go atheist... people are crazy either way, so Pascal's Wager has little downside.

Jesus, Luiza is wondering why I just spend 1 hour looking through three Bibles.
I love this forum

Click to expand...

And the forums are always impressed on how much effort you put into this stuff...

Athiest. My dad was raised Lutheran (as far as I can tell) but he follows some native american belief now (can't really name it since I haven't had any contact with him in over 10 years) and my mom, well, I'm not sure what she was raised <insert some Christ based faith here> I'm sure, but she's wiccan now.

My dad was a theologian though (not by profession - he just had a lot of books on different religions, even those deemed occult / satanic).

I see religions as a crutch really (not really a bad thing, it is what it is). Something to explain away the complexities that the human mind just cannot understand or put into words. Which is odd, because most people can't pin down the exact reason they follow religion A over religion B when, for the most part, the messages are the same.

I used to claim agnostic because, in my logical mind, there must be something out there 'higher' on the spiritual food chain then us. Then I look at all the technology we create, and the imagination we have and figure we can reach 'those' heights too someday.

Another item that 'switched' my thought on the agnostic / atheist level was this below. Personally, I just don't believe anyone (anything) is sending me messages (in any form) on how to live my life.

If my works of fiction were published, you would know my stance on the whole "kill your children" thing.

You DON'T do it. If what god asks you to do doesn't sound sensible, then screw him. After all, he created a universe that can work on it's own. Too bad (for this stupid god that asks you to kill your children, or whatever other thing you don't find to be sensible) we don't need him to do anything after that.

I always looked at the 'kill your children' example in the video as an example out of extremism. However, there are some extreme things in many religions that are just as crazy. Limiting eating habits and giving spiritual importance to things for oddball reasons.

@Li3n;275292][quote=JCM said:

But tying it to a date, and telling people that this day something happened (but it didnt happen), is lying.

Click to expand...

Dude, the changing (and imprecise over long stretches of time) calendars alone make setting a fixed day celebration ridiculous, so i always took it to be more symbolic then anything (the old calendarists who know that their calendar is not objectivly correct anymore, but they thing celebrating on the same calendar day of the same calendar as the original church is more important). [/quote]So the birth of Jesus, ressurection and celebrating it the way it was originally celebrated means shit, as long as we can get some people to enter our religion by making our religion be like theirs?

But i keep forgetting that you guys are more legalistic about it.

Click to expand...

We are just not stupid to call a lie by another name, because its a priest saying it. Another side effect of religion.

Now tell me, when a book/priest says "Jesus was born today", isnt it a lie? No justifications, mumbo jumbo I heard from Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhsists, etc, just a simple yes or no.

Is it a lie?

Click to expand...

One image, out of Against how many billion crosses with just the nails in churches, homes and illustrated Bibles, showing only nails?



Again, use religious excuses all you want, if I tell billions of christian children that that´s how Jesus suffered, and thats what he looked like, is it a lie?

Yes or no, no text that I just skip over, as Ive heard the same tired stuff over and over.

Ok, are you talking about differences in the actuall meaning or just them using different words that are near synonims?

Click to expand...

The two, and more.

There is editing of a word for another that doesn't correspond to the original text - like for example- in earlier trasnlations, 1 Timothy 3:16 says "God was manifest in the flesh," the strongest sentence in the Bible outside John's Gospel saying that Jesus was God, yet in modern translations it says "He was manifest in the flesh".

There is deletion of parts of sentences - For example, compare the Lord's prayer, from the King James version, which was an almost word-by-word, and a new version-

Exactly one third of the Lord's Prayer is taken out of Luke 11:2-4:

"And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil" (Luke 11:2-32) (KJV)

"He said to them, "When you pray, say: "'Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation" (Luke 11:2-4) (NIV).

One third of it is gone... another note on differences, there are 17 verses that are in the KJV, but are completely omitted from new Bible versions and the words "God", "Lord", "Jesus", "Christ", "blood", "repent", "hell" are omitted many times from the newer translations.

There is deletion entire sentences that were in the earlier manuscripts (or adding footnotes casting doubt) - Like the deletion of "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost" (Matthew 18:11). This verse shows a rather clear Christian doctrine that Jesus Christ came to save the lost, yet has been ommited from a few Bible versions. Then we look at "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (Acts 8:37). By removing the previous verse, the eunuch's confession of faith in the Son of God is gone, and one can be misled into thinking he ass saved by baptism instead of faith in Jesus.

More deleted, or highlighted sentences relegated to footnotes -"But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses" (Mark 11:26)
-"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (I John 5:7) (Ironically, this is the clearest verse on the Trinity)
-"Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting". (Matthew 17:21) Like this sentence, any sentence showing obligatory prayer/fasting prayer was deleted. Prayer is also omitted in Mark 12:33, and fasting in Mark 9:29, Acts 10:30, and 1 Corinthians 7:5.
-"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:44,46), one of the three sentences describing punishment in Hell deemed too graphic, and deleted.

Check and see if your Bible has the following, without footnotes casting doubt on their validity - Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, and Romans 16:24). If you have a Bible with footnotes at these verses, they make the verses debatable.

Sound more like a problem of different denominations trynng to modify the Bible for their own ends (see conservipedia's nice little Bible translation project)... which has happened a lot from the get go (and is one of the reasons for the ecumenical councils plus it's called heresy).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

So, the word of God is something one can easily edit, and change? Anyway, on your theory, nope

All the examples came from Bibles used by the same (aka catholic) church, all of them being sold, and used, by it.

And the forums are always impressed on how much effort you put into this stuff...[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]ItWell, I´d hate to put forth just personal opinion, an image and excuses, and not facts.

Vytamindi said:

Let's be respectful on such a touchy subject

Click to expand...

QFT.

-Adam

QFT? I´d say, Amen

BTW, I´ll be off to the cold plains of Campos de Jordão for a three-day seminar, so you guys please behave

@Li3n, should you want to continue the subject, feel free to pm me and when I return, I´ll answer you promptly.

figment and JCM should discuss about the changes in bibles, and translations, and whatever. Seriously, I think I could get a lot of interesting info compressed, if they were both serious about fonts and such.

The best way to do so is have three copies of different Bible translations, it can be even different editions of the same Bibles, google up the diffreneces, and check for yourself (sadly, most people miss this step and end up saying BS, like Major Khaos in the old image forums who insisted that a sentence was added to the Qran because a website said so, when all he needed to do was check that edition freely online and see nothing was added.

I do find interesting that over the years, the Bible has been edited to downplay the prohibition of eating pork, the obligation of prayer and fasting, but then again, every religion does that, for example, Koran is edited to make sure that the bunch of conditions after "you can marry four wives" is on a separate page in Arabic, and translated into lesser conditions in English translations.

For those who are curious, one can only marry 4 in a)times of war, to b)marry a widow/orphan because c)you want to care for her, but you dont want people to slander her and accuse her of being unvirtuous, but even then d)you have to be 100% equal and fair between wives, otherwise e)you will go to the worst of hells, thus f)God advises you NOT to marry four.

Guess how many marriages in the Islamic world fit the conditions, a)to C)? I could pull out a number of my arse, like, 90%, and I´d be too kind.

Anyway, thats it, gotta travel soon, but the damn $%#@ taxi hasnt arrived. Should anyone want a complete list of changes in the most popular eidtions, or withing different revisions of the same Bible, I´d be glad to send it.

I believe in God, lately I have been thinking about what to define myself as. I have always said I was Catholic because thats what I was raised but now I think I am agnostic with strong catholic undertones.

I have my doubts every once in awhile but I overcome them and my faith is stronger, doubt is not a bad thing. Doubt can build faith or change it into something different. They aren't doubts in the existence of a higher power, just doubts about some of the bullshit dogma of the Catholic church.

I can't really explain to someone else how I know there is a God, I just know, I can feel his presence in the world and in myself. I also believe in Jesus, I believe he sent his son to die for us, I just feel his presence too. The problem I have with Catholic dogma is that it's basically FOLLOW US OR BURN! I think my God, the God that created us is a loving God and would not condemn a good person to hell, even if they don't believe in him.

Also yeah evolution, it's real folks duh! I see it as the tool God used to shape us. I also love Physics, I love seeing how things work, I don't see science and religion as two clashing titans. Like what was said on the first page, science is the how, religion is the why. I believe God set these rules for the universe and used them to create us.

I don't think the world was created in 7 days, we have proof that it has been around for about 4-5 billion years. I think maybe the 7 days was either a different measurement of time for him or possibly he created humans in 7 days, maybe it took him 7 days to put in motion the the mutations in our DNA to create us.

The true Catholic Catechism never states that anyone goes to hell. They state what is and is not a sin, and then it states that it is the duty of Catholics to pray for people.

Sorry, not tryin to pick on you, that just still bothers me. It's mostly Protestants who say, "_________ are going to hell," and even then, mostly just the nutty types.

(I know that something being in the formal teachings doesn't stop people from doing it... but it IS discouraged by any Catholic worth his/her salt.)

I get ya, though. The good old Catholic guilt is deeply rooted in me and will probably never leave.

HoboNinja said:

I don't think the world was created in 7 days, we have proof that it has been around for about 4-5 billion years. I think maybe the 7 days was either a different measurement of time for him or possibly he created humans in 7 days, maybe it took him 7 days to put in motion the the mutations in our DNA to create us.

Click to expand...

Maybe it took him 7 days to work out the bugs in the OS.

HoboNinja said:

I believe in God,...I am agnostic

Click to expand...

You directly contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. Do you know what "agnostic" means at all?

I guess I'm agnostic because when it comes down to it I have no idea and don't think there is any way for us to know or understand the big questions like "Why is there something instead of nothing" but to me, the existence of a God or Gods is so unlikely that you might as well call me an atheist.

Charlie Dont Surf;275466][quote=HoboNinja said:

I believe in God,...I am agnostic

Click to expand...

You directly contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. Do you know what "agnostic" means at all?[/quote]

I couldn't think of the proper phrase, agnostic is when you don't think there can be proof of God and therefore don't rule it out but don't believe either.

I guess I could have said spiritual with Catholic undertones/ideas?

JCM said:

So the birth of Jesus, resurrection and celebrating it the way it was originally celebrated means shit, as long as we can get some people to enter our religion by making our religion be like theirs?

Click to expand...

There's a difference between how it's celebrated in most home and how it's celebrated if you go to the churches over here... and people in rural areas have different way to celebrate it at home too.

What i meant is that only the stuff that goes on in churches matters when it comes to this stuff, unless you think that one region having a tradition serving pork meat on Christmas while another region veal has some sort of theological implications.

But i keep forgetting that you guys are more legalistic about it.

Click to expand...

We are just not stupid to call a lie by another name, because its a priest saying it. Another side effect of religion.

Click to expand...

I meant western christians/theologists. You guys take some of the more esoteric stuff way too literally.

Now tell me, when a book/priest says "Jesus was born today", isn't it a lie? No justifications, mumbo jumbo I heard from Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhsists, etc, just a simple yes or no.

Click to expand...

If someone from 2000 years ago was born on the 1st of June as time was reckoned back then and you say on the 1st of June in today's calendar that this is the day he was born on you'd be wrong... and even if you used the same calendar you'd also be wrong because over time you lose days each year, which is why the russians celebrate Christmas on the 9th of January (which is 25th December in the Julian calendar).

If you're gonna take any approximation as a lie then all dates are lies, as all calendars are inexact.

Click to expand...

One image, out of Against how many billion crosses with just the nails in churches, homes and illustrated Bibles, showing only nails?

Click to expand...

Actually the majority, if not all of the images in our churches are like that...

Again, use religious excuses all you want, if I tell billions of christian children that that´s how Jesus suffered, and thats what he looked like, is it a lie?

Yes or no, no text that I just skip over, as Ive heard the same tired stuff over and over.

Click to expand...

Are you saying there where no nails or what? Because whether or not he was held up by ropes seems like a rather unimportant factor in the suffering.

So, the word of God is something one can easily edit, and change?

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the whole point of Heresy... the text can be edited and changed easily, that doesn't actually make it dogma.

Anyway, on your theory, nope

All the examples came from Bibles used by the same (aka catholic) church, all of them being sold, and used, by it.

Click to expand...

Well they are Catholics... still, i wonder how they justify that...

---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------

Charlie Dont Surf;275466][quote=HoboNinja said:

I believe in God,...I am agnostic

Click to expand...

You directly contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. Do you know what "agnostic" means at all?[/QUOTE]

Dude, agnostics can be both theists and atheists... all that's needed is saying that those stuff are unknown, and unknowable if you're really into it. Then you can choose to believe one side, even if it's not proven in your opinion.


@JCM

Dude, i can't PM you for some reason, says you have it turned off...

HoboNinja said:

I don't think the world was created in 7 days, we have proof that it has been around for about 4-5 billion years. I think maybe the 7 days was either a different measurement of time for him or possibly he created humans in 7 days, maybe it took him 7 days to put in motion the the mutations in our DNA to create us.

Click to expand...

Or maybe it' just a metaphor of some kind? Or a myth with no real implications?
My point is, it doesn't need to make any sense, does it? Because it's unimportant to the real message, to me at least!

Nah dude, ancient people and/or God always wrote stuff literally... and you're supposed to take everything at face value (btw, peas have feelings).

@Hobo

Dude, being omnipotent means He could have faked everything... i mean an omnipotent deity as a premise makes it immune to any counter arguments. If someone did invent it they where a genius.

@Li3n said:

Nah dude, ancient people and/or God always wrote stuff literally... and you're supposed to take everything at face value (btw, peas have feelings).

@Hobo

Dude, being omnipotent means He could have faked everything... i mean an omnipotent deity as a premise makes it immune to any counter arguments. If someone did invent it they where a genius.

Click to expand...

Wait, this isn't a dinosaur bones thing, right? Cause I'll have to go with Bill Hicks' opinion on that one.

@Li3n said:

Dude, being omnipotent means He could have faked everything... i mean an omnipotent deity as a premise makes it immune to any counter arguments. If someone did invent it they where a genius.

Click to expand...

The problem with using the omnipotent argument is that you can get trapped into discussing the problem of evil, a pretty effective counter to that stuff. ~_~

Denbrought;275568][quote=@Li3n said:

Dude, being omnipotent means He could have faked everything... i mean an omnipotent deity as a premise makes it immune to any counter arguments. If someone did invent it they where a genius.

Click to expand...

The problem with using the omnipotent argument is that you can get trapped into discussing the problem of evil, a pretty effective counter to that stuff. ~_~[/QUOTE]

Huh, I don't see any "counterargument" to free will in that wiki as an effective one. They all just seem to be casting free will on the wrong entity. Or the misdefine evil. Since when is a tsunami evil?

fade;275600][quote=Denbrought;275568][quote=@Li3n said:

Dude, being omnipotent means He could have faked everything... i mean an omnipotent deity as a premise makes it immune to any counter arguments. If someone did invent it they where a genius.

Click to expand...

The problem with using the omnipotent argument is that you can get trapped into discussing the problem of evil, a pretty effective counter to that stuff. ~_~[/QUOTE]

Huh, I don't see any "counterargument" to free will in that wiki as an effective one. They all just seem to be casting free will on the wrong entity. Or the misdefine evil. Since when is a tsunami evil?[/QUOTE]

Since it started EATING BABIES FOR BREAKFAST

Regarding out-of-body experiences, a very recent article I found fascinating:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427291.100-out-of-your-head-leaving-the-body-behind.html

Also, "agnostic" is not just a middle ground between theism and atheism.



http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427291.100-out-of-your-head-leaving-the-body-behind.html

ZenMonkey said:

Click to expand...

Hhhm... this makes me think I'm an Agnostic Theist? I believe because I want to, because it seems more sensible to me, but... Do I KNOW god exists? I know it exists like I "know" much stuff I don't know KNOW...

Interesting... I'll have to think about this.

Heh, I was trying to place myself and thought 'True Neutral/Neutral Agnostic', a la D&D.

Seriously though, I think I'm an agnostic on that axis and I lean to the side of atheism on the other. But more of the kind of not believing in god than the one of believing he doesn't exist. Or is that included in the agnostic part?

Anyway, thanks for the useful chart, Zen. Saved for future reference.

Denbrought;275568][quote=@Li3n said:

Dude, being omnipotent means He could have faked everything... i mean an omnipotent deity as a premise makes it immune to any counter arguments. If someone did invent it they where a genius.

Click to expand...

The problem with using the omnipotent argument is that you can get trapped into discussing the problem of evil, a pretty effective counter to that stuff. ~_~[/quote]

Or one could just read Genesis... life is punishment.


And on a more serious side, that has little to do with omnipotence as it simply disproves the existence of a good omnipotent God (if you assume it to be right, there are counterarguments like evil = absence of good, or reading Genesis, or that story where Satan gets free reign on that guy who's name i always forget)

Wait, this isn't a dinosaur bones thing, right? Cause I'll have to go with Bill Hicks' opinion on that one.

Click to expand...

Nah, those are put there by time travellers from the future to get us ready for the shock when the reptilian aliens invade...

Regarding out-of-body experiences, a very recent article I found fascinating:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...dy-behind.html

Click to expand...

And while we're at it, here's some interesting stuff that relates to the Big Bang thing discussed earlier: 13 things that do make sense - Short Sharp Science - New Scientist

@Li3n said:

Or one could just read Genesis... life is punishment.

Click to expand...

You know, I've tried to stay out of this, but... what? Do you really think that is the message of Genesis?

That sure ain't the standard definition of gnosticism. Gnosticism has historically referred to a group of religious beliefs that centered around the belief that salvation came through secret knowledge, and that by knowing certain things you gained power. It holds that the physical world was inherently evil, and that only by gaining spiritual knowledge could one overcome the world. Or, at least, that's my rough understanding of the concept. It's been around in many forms for quite a long time, and has been mixed with Christianity more than once, and to varying degrees.

figmentPez said:

Gnosticism has historically referred to...

Click to expand...

Exactly.

ZenMonkey;275662][quote=figmentPez said:

Gnosticism has historically referred to...

Click to expand...

Exactly.[/QUOTE]

I was just pointing out an area of possible confusion. I'm not saying "gnosticism" can't be used that way, I'm just saying it hasn't been used that way enough to even make it into the dictionary as an alternate definition. People who may not know about it's existing usage could be misunderstood if they, for instance, describe themselves as a "gnostic whatever" to someone who has never seen that chart.

This discussion is too complex for my primitive monkey brain to comprehend. Therefore I'm now converting to the Norse mythos.








ALL HAIL ODIN!

BlackCrossCrusader said:

This discussion is too complex for my primitive monkey brain to comprehend. Therefore I'm now converting to the Norse mythos.








ALL HAIL ODIN!

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but as the descendant of Finnish pagan god worshippers I must now kill your heathen ass.

Nothing personal.

BlackCrossCrusader said:

This discussion is too complex for my primitive monkey brain to comprehend. Therefore I'm now converting to the Norse mythos.


ALL HAIL ODIN!

Click to expand...

Welcome to the faith, brother. Though we have one hundred and sixty three commandments to follow instead of just ten, so I don't know why you think it would be easier.

figmentPez said:

People who may not know about it's existing usage could be misunderstood if they, for instance, describe themselves as a "gnostic whatever" to someone who has never seen that chart.

Click to expand...

I never like this line of reasoning. You shouldn't have to misrepresent or dumb down your position in case your audience is ignorant. If you fear being misunderstood, then you can either include an explanation or be nice and helpful about it if people say "Huh?" But "well, other people might not get it" is not a good reason not to use applicable terminology or ideas.

I don't only mean this in terms of religion, by the way. I had a similar situation where a fellow CFS expressed dismay about some very interesting recent medical news because "my family is going to interpret it wrong." I wanted to smack him because first he bitched and moaned that his family didn't think he was sick and now they were going to think that this news meant he would get better. Fuck, how about explaining to them instead of categorizing the news as bad because your relatives are morons? (As you can see I was a lot more annoyed about this incidence than about FP's comment.)

HCGLNS;275694][quote=BlackCrossCrusader said:

This discussion is too complex for my primitive monkey brain to comprehend. Therefore I'm now converting to the Norse mythos.


ALL HAIL ODIN!

Click to expand...

Welcome to the faith, brother. Though we have one hundred and sixty three commandments to follow instead of just ten, so I don't know why you think it would be easier.[/QUOTE]

Oh, HCGLNS, why did it have to be you as well...?

*sets up another altar to sacrifice unbelievers on*

Charlie Dont Surf;275466][quote=HoboNinja said:

I believe in God,...I am agnostic

Click to expand...

You directly contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. Do you know what "agnostic" means at all?[/QUOTE]

I'm sure someone's already mentioned this, but it's perfectly possible to be an agnostic theist. Knowing and believing are entirely different things.

The only thing it isn't really logical to be is a gnostic atheist, since one can never truly know of the nonexistance of something.

And yet gnostic atheist is where I fall on the chart. But I agree it looks like that corner on the chart exists only to make a nice looking 8-pointed star.

Gill Kaiser said:

The only thing it isn't really logical to be is a gnostic atheist, since one can never truly know of the nonexistance of something.

Click to expand...

Your syntax is needlessly complicated. Gnostic atheists know that there are no gods. You may not think that's possible, but it's not an illogical position to take. Just one a lot of people disagree with, or feel more comfortable with agnostic atheism.

A gnostic atheist would say that the burden of proof is on the believer, and there is simply no reason to believe in something for which there is no evidence. (See Russell's teapot.) That is not illogical at all from a point of view where gods do not exist.

I'm watching Zen edit her most recent post several times. It's weird.

Also, I just don't think gnosticism can include "knowing god doesn't exist" or it feels weird to me that it should, and I think this is Gill's contention too. Not that my position is illogical, just that the semantic description of it feels off.

ZenMonkey said:

I never like this line of reasoning. You shouldn't have to misrepresent or dumb down your position in case your audience is ignorant. If you fear being misunderstood, then you can either include an explanation or be nice and helpful about it if people say "Huh?" But "well, other people might not get it" is not a good reason not to use applicable terminology or ideas.

Click to expand...

You're still not getting my point. I'm trying to alert people that it's possible to be misunderstood. I'm saying "don't say this because you'll be misundestood", I'm just pointing out it's an unusual way to use the word. By all means, use the word, just be aware that it has more than one meaning, and the dictionary definition of the word is not the one used by the chart. Yes, confusion happens and that shouldn't keep us from trying to communicate, but sometimes first impressions count, and it really helps to be clear with your original statment, rather than having to explain yourself to someone who just wants to rant on a pet peeve.

Gruebeard said:

I'm watching Zen edit her most recent post several times. It's weird.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I was lying on my side, literally falling asleep as I was typing it, so it took me a few tries to get it right.

Gruebeard said:

Also, I just don't think gnosticism can include "knowing god doesn't exist" or it feels weird to me that it should, and I think this is Gill's contention too. Not that my position is illogical, just that the semantic description of it feels off.

Click to expand...

I see some atheists say "I know god doesn't exist" and it doesn't seem odd to me. I'd say your discomfort comes from a theocentric viewpoint. And I would wink but that smiley creeps me right the fuck out, so please accept "winky smiley" to show that I'm not trying to be a bitch. (I may be succeeding though...)

If it makes you feel better, that chart does say "Thinks he knows" for both gnostic views, the theist and the atheist. So you can hedge it that way if it's more palatable. I myself don't see why it seems normal for people to say "I know god exists" but not to say "I know god doesn't exist."

ZenMonkey;275755][quote=Gill Kaiser said:

The only thing it isn't really logical to be is a gnostic atheist, since one can never truly know of the nonexistance of something.

Click to expand...

Your syntax is needlessly complicated. Gnostic atheists know that there are no gods. You may not think that's possible, but it's not an illogical position to take. Just one a lot of people disagree with, or feel more comfortable with agnostic atheism.

A gnostic atheist would say that the burden of proof is on the believer, and there is simply no reason to believe in something for which there is no evidence. (See Russell's teapot.) That is not illogical at all from a point of view where gods do not exist.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. Yes, the burden of proof is on the believer of a theory, but even if the believer can't prove its correctness, it doesn't PROVE the theory wrong, it just makes it more likely that it is wrong. We're talking about knowledge here, not belief. Knowledge is binary, it can only exist or not exist, and for it to exist, the information supporting it must also exist. To truly know something, it must be proven. It is impossible to prove the nonexistance of something. Therefore, it is impossible to 100% know that something doesn't exist, QED.

If the so-called gnostic atheist said that there is no reason to believe in something for which there is no evidence, I would agree, then remind him or her that the dispute is over knowledge, not belief. As an atheist myself, I firmly believe that there is no god, and nothing I've seen of the world has made me seriously question that belief... but to claim knowledge of the nonexistance of god? That's just illogical arrogance.

Maybe in the future, when/if we have discovered how the universe came into being, and proven beyond doubt that no gods were involved, and if the accepted concept of "god" is defined enough for it to be disproven, we could finally become gnostic atheists. Until then, we just don't have enough information.

EDIT: It's impossible for a gnostic theist to exist either, by empirical/scientific/logical standards, but of course theists' standards are different from my own, and most claim to "know" of their god's existance. The reason why I usually let the idea of gnostic theism stand and take issue with the idea of gnostic atheism more is that one expects atheists to be more empirical and scientific, and, according to my own beliefs, the theists are wrong anyway, so the fact that some of them think they know that they're correct in their theism doesn't really make much difference to me.

God is my Axiom. It is pretty much literally the only thing in the world that I take for granted, and from which my worldview grows.

That doesn't mean I haven't examined the idea of God, or the universe, or anything like that. Just that every time, I come back to the same point: there must be something beyond all of this.

My natural inclination is to see it as some function of Deism, mostly inspired by philosophical Daoism, specifically. I conceive of God as the Dao, absolute and unrelenting. The very principle on which the foundations of reality have been lain. The collected forces of the universe and world. Essentially, very much like Einstein and Spinoza's God.

But there is more than just a hint of Theism in there, which is why I can't just call myself a Daoist. I take a very skeptical stance on things like miracles and direct intervention by God, and I find it difficult to imagine so great a thing as God taking an interest in the humdrum of our everyday lives. I mean, who cares how many sparrows draw breath at any given moment? But if God is the creative, and guiding force ... if he is the genesis of the universe, the mathematical truths, and the evolutionary principle that shapes the entirety of existence ... if he is those things and a million possibilities beyond ... I cannot convince myself that he has no good reason to be interested in our lives. I mean, If he is unlimited, then he has no attention span to worry about. He does take an interest. He does care. Or ... at least, that's what it translates to when you ratchet the concept down to a size that human beings can even conceive.

As for the functions of the church, and organized religion they are necessary evils. I draw the analog to politics: If human beings were capable of perfection, we would need no governments, no laws, and no borders. But we can't do without those things, so we deal with the problems that they cause, rather than the bigger problems we'd have without them. Very similar to organized religion. In the most absolute sense, organized religion is a compromise, and a downright abomination compared to what could be.

The contents of the scriptures are difficult for me. I can approach the Old Testament easily enough, and call it a deeply significant historical text. It's certainly written in that style, and depicts events that seem to have happened. I mean, the details might be questionable, but the wider contents are reasonable. The New Testament isn't so easy. Or rather, the gospels aren't. It's clear something happened in Israel at the beginning of the first milenium. It's clearly significant. Whether it was God himself who stepped into the scene is difficult. I want to say no. It seems so unbelievable. Which is where you make your leap of faith, I guess.

But even if Jesus wasn't the son of God. If he was a con, or a madman, or anything else, he struck some sort of chord which has been ringing down through the centuries until today. It is significant, and for all the evils the church has committed through the years, I believe there is still good in that wave, and I've committed to riding it until it becomes clear that there is no more good possible in it's message.

That's where I am when it comes to religion. I've stated it, but I won't argue it, so don't worry. But as long as anyone's wondering, that's the picture of the universe from where I stand.

Gill Kaiser said:

Until then, we just don't have enough information.

Click to expand...

And so a critical thinker might say "and since we don't, there is no reason to believe, until we do."

You're completely conflating your personal belief as to whether this type of viewpoint is possible or logical, with whether or not it is possible or logical to the person who holds the viewpoint. Which obviously it is and that's the relevant part. You can't argue "That person doesn't know there isn't any god" because that person DOES know there isn't any god. Disagree with them all you like, but they do.

I say "There is no god." I don't say "Espy's beliefs are too illogical to possibly exist." I might personally find them illogical and not in keeping with my own belief system, but I don't go around negating his experience just because I can't conceive of it.

ZenMonkey;275842][quote=Gill Kaiser said:

Until then, we just don't have enough information.

Click to expand...

And so a critical thinker might say "and since we don't, there is no reason to believe, until we do."

You're completely conflating your personal belief as to whether this type of viewpoint is possible or logical, with whether or not it is possible or logical to the person who holds the viewpoint. Which obviously it is and that's the relevant part. You can't argue "That person doesn't know there isn't any god" because that person DOES know there isn't any god. Disagree with them all you like, but they do.

I say "There is no god." I don't say "Espy's beliefs are too illogical to possibly exist." I might personally find them illogical and not in keeping with my own belief system, but I don't go around negating his experience just because I can't conceive of it.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for putting into words what I could not.

ZenMonkey said:

Gill Kaiser said:

Until then, we just don't have enough information.

Click to expand...

And so a critical thinker might say "and since we don't, there is no reason to believe, until we do."

Click to expand...

Again, that's belief, not gnosticism. I'm not contending that there's no reason to believe, as I myself do not.

ZenMonkey said:

You're completely conflating your personal belief as to whether this type of viewpoint is possible or logical, with whether or not it is possible or logical to the person who holds the viewpoint. Which obviously it is and that's the relevant part. You can't argue "That person doesn't know there isn't any god" because that person DOES know there isn't any god. Disagree with them all you like, but they do.

Click to expand...

I do see your point, but unless you believe that knowledge is relative, and that existance is not fixed but is given form by the individual's interpretation of it, I still must disagree. The person may think themselves a gnostic atheist. They may be so sure of their belief that they say they know it is correct. They may truly believe that they do know. Logically, however, they cannot know, so they're deluding themselves, or, as is more likely, hyperbolising. I sometimes say that I know that god doesn't exist, but I don't literally mean it, and I wouldn't say it in the presence of a philosopher.

ZenMonkey said:

I say "There is no god." I don't say "Espy's beliefs are too illogical to possibly exist." I might personally find them illogical and not in keeping with my own belief system, but I don't go around negating his experience just because I can't conceive of it.

Click to expand...

Again, this would only make sense if you think that people can "just know" things "in their hearts", as it were. The definition of knowledge shouldn't change from person to person - knowedge isn't an experience that a person can have. That kind of "knowledge" is the staple of theists, but I expect more objectivity from non-believers. Knowledge isn't a feeling you have within yourself, it's a response to an external, universal and cosmic truth that is unchangeable and eternal. Not a religious truth, but one of reason, and that which science was designed to seek.

I understand your point, Gill, I just don't agree.

EDIT: *sigh* and I certainly didn't mean to ERASE it but my mouse is fucking malfunctioning and I clicked wrong. Sorry about that.

Ah well, fair enough. We'll have to agree to disagree. It's a fairly minor point in the grand scheme, anyway... whether a person believes or not is far more important.

Gruebeard said:

And yet gnostic atheist is where I fall on the chart. But I agree it looks like that corner on the chart exists only to make a nice looking 8-pointed star...

Click to expand...

... OF CHAOS... BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!

I understand your point, Gill, I just don't agree.

Click to expand...

And if you're talking about the agnostic atheist bit you'd be wrong from a logical PoV... if you can't prove something you simply can't objectively know it.

Of course the same thing applies to the religious people that say they know God exists... unless a burning bush actually talked to them or something they can't objectively know that (and even then one could debate it, even using stuff from the Bible).

---------- Post added at 06:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 AM ----------

Espy;275646][quote=@Li3n said:

Or one could just read Genesis... life is punishment.

Click to expand...

You know, I've tried to stay out of this, but... what? Do you really think that is the message of Genesis?[/QUOTE]

As a whole, of course not... and as i said before, you guys take stuff way to literally. I meant punishment as consequence.

Eat the fruit, know good and evil, get kicked out of Eden, life becomes hard etc...

That's why u use super glue on them...


But sure, lets have a philosophical discussion without any subtlety and theology without any spirituality.

Also, the argument was "read Genesis" with the second part being a a short description of what one should look for...

On the subject of the gnostic and agnostic, you are discussing a matter of definitions. One side takes 'knowing' as having knowledge of an undisputable truth and the other as THINKING you know something. Which, actually, could be discussed about any and every kind of knowledge, I think.

Also, an atheist can say they know god doesn't exist because it's illogical, unnecessary or whatever, even if they acknowledge the tiiiiniest bit of possibility that there may be a god. You know, I say I know that the Sun will raise tomorrow but eh, something may happen. Or that my name is David, even though, I don't know, someone may have put that thought in may head and I may actually be named Daniel. Those things don't make sense? Yeah, maybe like God to some people.

(I'm not saying that's a position atheists hold, only that it's a reasonable justification for 'knowing')

---------- Post added at 09:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 AM ----------

You could also use examples like saying you 'know' ghost don't exist, or that conspiranoics are wrong, or whatever you haven't checked personally!

tegid said:

Or that my name is David, even though, I don't know, someone may have put that thought in may head and I may actually be named Daniel.

Click to expand...

Isn't your name "Mother Shabubu"?

See? That's what I meant! I don't even know my name

Here, I'll just muddy the waters for you with a couple of diagrams illustrating the same ideas, only worded differently. And I'll point out again that the first one I posted did use the words "Thinks they know." And then I'll leave and you can say nasty things about me.

ZenMonkey said:

Here, I'll just muddy the waters for you with a couple of diagrams illustrating the same ideas, only worded differently. And I'll point out again that the first one I posted did use the words "Thinks they know." And then I'll leave and you can say nasty things about me.

Click to expand...

Yes, agnostic theist all the way...

mr_thehun said:

"Or one could just read Genesis... life is punishment.

I meant punishment as consequence."

Click to expand...

You flip flop worse then a politician caught doing... something... he shouldn't be doing that involves flip floping.

"
Dude, they've been arguing about the meaning of the Bible
forever, even when it's the same version and the words are the same...

that wasn't the point, the point was that the words used don't
actually prevent the interpretation from being the same "

Click to expand...

words same = disagreement about interpretation

words different = same interpretation

Click to expand...

Yes, why the fact that you can't wrap your head around those concepts is exactly what i was talking about...

maybe your world is more exact, but in the one i've been living one can interpret the same word in different ways (i believe there are books called dictionaries that even have more then 1 definition for a word) and two different words in the same way (there's even a word for them, synonyms i believe).

And as all the interpretations exist i would expect someone to take them all into account, or at least the ones that can easily be accessed, when use a shorthand argument like the Genesis one... maybe i just expect too much of people.

/rant

ZenMonkey said:

I see some atheists say "I know god doesn't exist" and it doesn't seem odd to me.

Click to expand...

I am one of those atheists.

All that's odd to me is using the word "gnosticism" to describe that corner of the chart. But as I said, the only reason they seem to use it is because it makes the chart a nice little 8 pointed star. This is stuff that just doesn't seem like it belongs on a pair of perpendicular axes, but they've squished it on to that setup anyway.

---------- Post added at 03:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:37 PM ----------

Oh but let me add - the chart works decently enough anyway since I'm able to place myself on it easily. I'm just gonna keep calling myself an "Atheist" though. I don't feel any need to go into any great or small detail about my lack of beliefs.

@Li3n said:

[/COLOR]

Espy;275646][quote=@Li3n said:

Or one could just read Genesis... life is punishment.

Click to expand...

You know, I've tried to stay out of this, but... what? Do you really think that is the message of Genesis?

Click to expand...

As a whole, of course not... and as i said before, you guys take stuff way to literally. I meant punishment as consequence.

Eat the fruit, know good and evil, get kicked out of Eden, life becomes hard etc...[/QUOTE]
Ok, so you are just saying that *a point* made in the creation story is that if you sin there are consequences? That is true. It's only a very minor point in Genesis but it is one yes.

Espy;275970][quote=@Li3n said:

[/COLOR]

Espy;275646][quote=@Li3n said:

Or one could just read Genesis... life is punishment.

Click to expand...

You know, I've tried to stay out of this, but... what? Do you really think that is the message of Genesis?

Click to expand...

As a whole, of course not... and as i said before, you guys take stuff way to literally. I meant punishment as consequence.

Eat the fruit, know good and evil, get kicked out of Eden, life becomes hard etc...[/QUOTE]
Ok, so you are just saying that *a point* made in the creation story is that if you sin there are consequences? That is true. It's only a very minor point in Genesis but it is one yes.[/QUOTE]

Punishment for what exactly?

Make sure to be dumb? Obey for no reason?

Or God was afraid people would become as him by eating from the tree of life? It's like fucking Xenogears!

escushion;276402][quote=Espy;275970][quote=@Li3n said:

[/COLOR]

Espy;275646][quote=@Li3n said:

Or one could just read Genesis... life is punishment.

Click to expand...

You know, I've tried to stay out of this, but... what? Do you really think that is the message of Genesis?

Click to expand...

As a whole, of course not... and as i said before, you guys take stuff way to literally. I meant punishment as consequence.

Eat the fruit, know good and evil, get kicked out of Eden, life becomes hard etc...[/QUOTE]
Ok, so you are just saying that *a point* made in the creation story is that if you sin there are consequences? That is true. It's only a very minor point in Genesis but it is one yes.[/QUOTE]

It's like fucking Xenogears![/QUOTE]

I'm wishing it was right now, so very, very hard.

escushion;276402][quote=Espy;275970][quote=@Li3n said:

[/COLOR]

Espy;275646][quote=@Li3n said:

Or one could just read Genesis... life is punishment.

Click to expand...

You know, I've tried to stay out of this, but... what? Do you really think that is the message of Genesis?

Click to expand...

As a whole, of course not... and as i said before, you guys take stuff way to literally. I meant punishment as consequence.

Eat the fruit, know good and evil, get kicked out of Eden, life becomes hard etc...[/QUOTE]
Ok, so you are just saying that *a point* made in the creation story is that if you sin there are consequences? That is true. It's only a very minor point in Genesis but it is one yes.[/QUOTE]

Punishment for what exactly?[/QUOTE]

It says, extremely in the text, for disobeying God. Now, that might not sit well with you, which is fine, but look at it from this perspective (let us also remember it's not meant to be taken literally, it's a theological myth meant to explain how and why our relationship with God is the way it is): Perfect God (now if you refuse to accept that as the starting point then we can't really have a discussion) creates the universe for humankind. He hangs with humankind. They have a wonderful relationship. Humans, unlike in other creation myths in the Ancient Near East, are not created to serve the gods, but in this case they are created to be in a loving relationship with a perfect God.
They rebel. In the text it's the tree, the serpent, yada, yada. Let's just focus on the fact that they did rebel. They did what was forbidden. Now God doesn't punish them so much as a Father who looks at his kid who touched a burning hot stove and he knows, this kid is in for a world of pain now that his hand is burned.
The "kids" in this scenario have done the thing that changes the rules. They have, and this is important here, spiritually damaged their relationship with God. They essentially broke the bridge that linked them relationally with God.
God had nothing to do with it. In fact, he warned them not to.
Now, they bring a "punishment" down on their heads. Let's not say punishment though, I don't think that's right or in the text. Instead they have to deal with the natural consequences of their actions, namely a damaged relationship with God and dealing with sin from now on, which causes pain. Sin causes pain, not God.
Does that make sense?

Espy;276464][quote=escushion;276402][quote=Espy;275970][quote=@Li3n said:

[/COLOR]

Espy;275646][quote=@Li3n said:

Or one could just read Genesis... life is punishment.

Click to expand...

You know, I've tried to stay out of this, but... what? Do you really think that is the message of Genesis?

Click to expand...

As a whole, of course not... and as i said before, you guys take stuff way to literally. I meant punishment as consequence.

Eat the fruit, know good and evil, get kicked out of Eden, life becomes hard etc...[/QUOTE]
Ok, so you are just saying that *a point* made in the creation story is that if you sin there are consequences? That is true. It's only a very minor point in Genesis but it is one yes.[/QUOTE]

Punishment for what exactly?[/QUOTE]

It says, extremely in the text, for disobeying God. Now, that might not sit well with you, which is fine, but look at it from this perspective (let us also remember it's not meant to be taken literally, it's a theological myth meant to explain how and why our relationship with God is the way it is): Perfect God (now if you refuse to accept that as the starting point then we can't really have a discussion) creates the universe for humankind. He hangs with humankind. They have a wonderful relationship. Humans, unlike in other creation myths in the Ancient Near East, are not created to serve the gods, but in this case they are created to be in a loving relationship with a perfect God.
They rebel. In the text it's the tree, the serpent, yada, yada. Let's just focus on the fact that they did rebel. They did what was forbidden. Now God doesn't punish them so much as a Father who looks at his kid who touched a burning hot stove and he knows, this kid is in for a world of pain now that his hand is burned.
The "kids" in this scenario have done the thing that changes the rules. They have, and this is important here, spiritually damaged their relationship with God. They essentially broke the bridge that linked them relationally with God.
God had nothing to do with it. In fact, he warned them not to.
Now, they bring a "punishment" down on their heads. Let's not say punishment though, I don't think that's right or in the text. Instead they have to deal with the natural consequences of their actions, namely a damaged relationship with God and dealing with sin from now on, which causes pain. Sin causes pain, not God.
Does that make sense?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, you didn't need to explain that far; I knew the arguments behind each option I listed (the third is most fun though). I appreciate the run-down though.

That said, the perspective perpetuates my view of most Christianity as being restrained from spiritual adulthood because "daddy" is always watching, and will punish you. But I also understand that many people need that, and threats from God are the only thing stopping them from going apeshit.

I know you're saying not to use the word punishment for it, but moreof natural consequence, but actually you can do quite a lot of "sinning" without a natural consequence, and it factors in only if you believe in Christianity and black/white afterlife--which then becomes God punishing, because unless I have my Christian doctrine wrong, he set all that up and is in control of it. So long as God is an entity, rather than a force, he is making a choice for that to be the situation.

Well, we should probably define "natural" consequence and I would say consequences come in a variety of ways, often in ways that aren't totally obvious to us, and that spiritual consequences are natural to us, since we are spiritual and physical beings. So I would disagree that you can "sin" a lot and not have any consequences, especially when you factor in that each sin isn't a sin against yourself but against the Perfect and Loving God who created you with the intent of you NOT having to deal with the pain (both spiritual and physical) that comes from sin intruding on our lives. And example of that would be, I can do things that to me, might not hurt me or cause me pain, but they very well might hurt and pain my wife should I do them. I can have sex with some random girl, and it wouldn't hurt me (although if she had the HIV then it might have it's own nasty consequences for me), but my wife would be deeply hurt. Should I not have sex with Ms. March so that I don't run the risk of STD's? Or should I not do it so my wife isn't hurt deeply and our relationship destroyed? I wouldn't avoid it out of fear, although fear wouldn't be a bad motive, but because I LOVE my wife and don't to cause her pain. It's very similar to our relationship with God. Or course, if you don't believe in the same God I do you wouldn't understand why you would worry about hurting Him or your relationship with Him. (The "you" I use is generic, just an FYI)

So I completely disagree with the assertion that it's about people obeying so that God doesn't punish them. Oh sure, there are religious groups that assert that, I would argue that is amazingly wrong and in NO way scriptural. It is not what I believe, nor what most of Christians I know believe.

As far as "God setting it all up", that's a big one. The idea there is that He simply set up a universe where there is law. You let go of an apple and it falls. You sin and you have to deal with consequences. A+B=C. A scientists dream if you will. WE choose to sin. Those around us CHOOSE to sin. In both cases we all have to deal with each other's choices. The good and the bad. We can choose, that even in the bad or the good to continue to have a relationship with Him, knowing that this life is only a small part of eternity and that His love will sustain us as He promises it will, or we can reject that. There are, and this is important, consequences to all of the above choices. Good and bad depending on your point of view.

In the end we have to remember it wasn't supposed to be this way. The "myth" of the Garden of Eden was, in a sense, supposed to be our lives (not living in a garden, society and history would have progressed similarly). We were supposed to live lives untouched by sin or pain or death or suffering and instead live lives in loving relationship with each other and with our Creator. But choices were made and now He has spent all of history working to redeem us so we can have a restored relationship.

One of the cool things about the Bible is that we tend to look at it as how things work for OUR lives. Like it's OUR story. It's not. It's God's story. He's the main character and his desperate attempts to recapture our hearts with His love.
Good discussion, not that I'm surprised, I feel like you and I have always had good discussion without lowering ourselves to petty comments or anything. I like that we can respect each other's beliefs.
Thanks man.

Espy said:

Well, we should probably define "natural" consequence and I would say consequences come in a variety of ways, often in ways that aren't totally obvious to us, and that spiritual consequences are natural to us, since we are spiritual and physical beings. So I would disagree that you can "sin" a lot and not have any consequences, especially when you factor in that each sin isn't a sin against yourself but against the Perfect and Loving God who created you with the intent of you NOT having to deal with the pain (both spiritual and physical) that comes from sin intruding on our lives. And example of that would be, I can do things that to me, might not hurt me or cause me pain, but they very well might hurt and pain my wife should I do them. I can have sex with some random girl, and it wouldn't hurt me (although if she had the HIV then it might have it's own nasty consequences for me), but my wife would be deeply hurt. Should I not have sex with Ms. March so that I don't run the risk of STD's? Or should I not do it so my wife isn't hurt deeply and our relationship destroyed? I wouldn't avoid it out of fear, although fear wouldn't be a bad motive, but because I LOVE my wife and don't to cause her pain. It's very similar to our relationship with God. Or course, if you don't believe in the same God I do you wouldn't understand why you would worry about hurting Him or your relationship with Him. (The "you" I use is generic, just an FYI)

So I completely disagree with the assertion that it's about people obeying so that God doesn't punish them. Oh sure, there are religious groups that assert that, I would argue that is amazingly wrong and in NO way scriptural. It is not what I believe, nor what most of Christians I know believe.

As far as "God setting it all up", that's a big one. The idea there is that He simply set up a universe where there is law. You let go of an apple and it falls. You sin and you have to deal with consequences. A+B=C. A scientists dream if you will. WE choose to sin. Those around us CHOOSE to sin. In both cases we all have to deal with each other's choices. The good and the bad. We can choose, that even in the bad or the good to continue to have a relationship with Him, knowing that this life is only a small part of eternity and that His love will sustain us as He promises it will, or we can reject that. There are, and this is important, consequences to all of the above choices. Good and bad depending on your point of view.

In the end we have to remember it wasn't supposed to be this way. The "myth" of the Garden of Eden was, in a sense, supposed to be our lives (not living in a garden, society and history would have progressed similarly). We were supposed to live lives untouched by sin or pain or death or suffering and instead live lives in loving relationship with each other and with our Creator. But choices were made and now He has spent all of history working to redeem us so we can have a restored relationship.

One of the cool things about the Bible is that we tend to look at it as how things work for OUR lives. Like it's OUR story. It's not. It's God's story. He's the main character and his desperate attempts to recapture our hearts with His love.
Good discussion, not that I'm surprised, I feel like you and I have always had good discussion without lowering ourselves to petty comments or anything. I like that we can respect each other's beliefs.
Thanks man.

Click to expand...

I guess a big one I'd center to that argument, separating natural as physical or worldly, and then purely spiritual as something else. Using your example, I would call having sex with whoever to have natural consequences--possibility of disease, and hurting loved ones. But there's others that I'd see as purely spiritual, such as taking God's name in vain, or idolatry. Those don't seem to have what I'd see as a natural consequences, but more spiritual ones. God sets up the spiritual repercussions, which would be in his power to change if he chose to do so. Lots of people doing the "in vain" one, and I can idolize the fuck out of shit.

Probably I see it that way because I see the physical universe as one, and then spiritual as the next, when I view the Christian theological system. The whole "heaven is the real home" model that a lot of evangelicals have taken up in which Earth is some failed experiment, and people are just supposed to get through it.

Even ignoring that, I still have to look at it from an outside POV and see that some things (like my examples) have no consequence outside of reward/punishment chosen by God. I don't see them as set like gravity.

That said, that may be because I'm not part of it. In my faith, things are more immediate, less permanent. You do wrong, it WILL come back, not by any deity's decision, but because that's the way the universe works. Same for good. And a physical bad can reflux in an emotional bad.

That may seem hypocritical, that I view it as natural in mine but not in yours, but it's not because I'm not in yours. It's because in Christianity, God has a bigger role. He's the creator, he shapes it all--like you said, he's the main character of the Bible, so I see it as more his decision to have a heaven/hell dynamic.

And I like our discussions too. I know what you're saying with the "some Christians" and I know they're a vocal minority. It's hard not to see them, which is why I phrase some aspects of my arguments the way I do.

escushion;276725][quote=Espy said:

Well, we should probably define "natural" consequence and I would say consequences come in a variety of ways, often in ways that aren't totally obvious to us, and that spiritual consequences are natural to us, since we are spiritual and physical beings. So I would disagree that you can "sin" a lot and not have any consequences, especially when you factor in that each sin isn't a sin against yourself but against the Perfect and Loving God who created you with the intent of you NOT having to deal with the pain (both spiritual and physical) that comes from sin intruding on our lives. And example of that would be, I can do things that to me, might not hurt me or cause me pain, but they very well might hurt and pain my wife should I do them. I can have sex with some random girl, and it wouldn't hurt me (although if she had the HIV then it might have it's own nasty consequences for me), but my wife would be deeply hurt. Should I not have sex with Ms. March so that I don't run the risk of STD's? Or should I not do it so my wife isn't hurt deeply and our relationship destroyed? I wouldn't avoid it out of fear, although fear wouldn't be a bad motive, but because I LOVE my wife and don't to cause her pain. It's very similar to our relationship with God. Or course, if you don't believe in the same God I do you wouldn't understand why you would worry about hurting Him or your relationship with Him. (The "you" I use is generic, just an FYI)

So I completely disagree with the assertion that it's about people obeying so that God doesn't punish them. Oh sure, there are religious groups that assert that, I would argue that is amazingly wrong and in NO way scriptural. It is not what I believe, nor what most of Christians I know believe.

As far as "God setting it all up", that's a big one. The idea there is that He simply set up a universe where there is law. You let go of an apple and it falls. You sin and you have to deal with consequences. A+B=C. A scientists dream if you will. WE choose to sin. Those around us CHOOSE to sin. In both cases we all have to deal with each other's choices. The good and the bad. We can choose, that even in the bad or the good to continue to have a relationship with Him, knowing that this life is only a small part of eternity and that His love will sustain us as He promises it will, or we can reject that. There are, and this is important, consequences to all of the above choices. Good and bad depending on your point of view.

In the end we have to remember it wasn't supposed to be this way. The "myth" of the Garden of Eden was, in a sense, supposed to be our lives (not living in a garden, society and history would have progressed similarly). We were supposed to live lives untouched by sin or pain or death or suffering and instead live lives in loving relationship with each other and with our Creator. But choices were made and now He has spent all of history working to redeem us so we can have a restored relationship.

One of the cool things about the Bible is that we tend to look at it as how things work for OUR lives. Like it's OUR story. It's not. It's God's story. He's the main character and his desperate attempts to recapture our hearts with His love.
Good discussion, not that I'm surprised, I feel like you and I have always had good discussion without lowering ourselves to petty comments or anything. I like that we can respect each other's beliefs.
Thanks man.

Click to expand...

I guess a big one I'd center to that argument, separating natural as physical or worldly, and then purely spiritual as something else. Using your example, I would call having sex with whoever to have natural consequences--possibility of disease, and hurting loved ones. But there's others that I'd see as purely spiritual, such as taking God's name in vain, or idolatry. Those don't seem to have what I'd see as a natural consequences, but more spiritual ones. God sets up the spiritual repercussions, which would be in his power to change if he chose to do so. Lots of people doing the "in vain" one, and I can idolize the fuck out of shit.

Probably I see it that way because I see the physical universe as one, and then spiritual as the next, when I view the Christian theological system. The whole "heaven is the real home" model that a lot of evangelicals have taken up in which Earth is some failed experiment, and people are just supposed to get through it.

Even ignoring that, I still have to look at it from an outside POV and see that some things (like my examples) have no consequence outside of reward/punishment chosen by God. I don't see them as set like gravity.

That said, that may be because I'm not part of it. In my faith, things are more immediate, less permanent. You do wrong, it WILL come back, not by any deity's decision, but because that's the way the universe works. Same for good. And a physical bad can reflux in an emotional bad.

That may seem hypocritical, that I view it as natural in mine but not in yours, but it's not because I'm not in yours. It's because in Christianity, God has a bigger role. He's the creator, he shapes it all--like you said, he's the main character of the Bible, so I see it as more his decision to have a heaven/hell dynamic.

And I like our discussions too. I know what you're saying with the "some Christians" and I know they're a vocal minority. It's hard not to see them, which is why I phrase some aspects of my arguments the way I do.[/QUOTE]

Totally! You have to phrase them that way since it is, in the end, the way most people experience Christianity. We all have generalizations about people/things and they aren't bad to address.

You know, regarding the spiritual/natural worlds, yes they are separate in Christian theology/worldview but they are also interconnected. It's frustrating when Christians put so much emphasis on heaven/end rewards since Christ told us to look towards it but run the race here on earth. The worlds are, then, in my opinion, all part of the same universe. The spiritual and the natural are, according to scripture, literally affecting each other. It's hard for me then, as a Christian to not have that shape my views on consequences (all kinds of them, good and bad, spiritual and natural).
So yes, the sex issue we are discussing has, most obviously, physical/natural consequences, but according to Scripture it is also the only physical act between two people that joins them spiritually, or another way to put it is, your souls literally touch when you have sex, making it an even more amazingly intimate act than if it was purely physical.
Regarding things like "take God's name in vain" I think we can look at that as a simple rebelling against the authority above you. When a cop pulls you over you don't say, "What can I do for you you mothersmurfing pig?". You give him the respect his badge demands. God's place, as the perfect, creator of the universe deserves this modicum of respect, just like any king/president/etc but in way that makes them look like ants. So yes, there are some things that probably mainly have spiritual consequences. However, we each one has unique things about it that may change that.
In the OT we saw people stray from God to other idols. This caused the destruction of nations due to their weakening spiritually. So there were some very serious consequences to what seemed to be a spiritual thing.
Either way, Christians who look at earth as a failed experiment like you said (and many do), are clearly missing the point of the Bible and God's message to us. Like I said above, there are clear purposes to why we are here, and sin is merely a kink in the wheels, not a destruction of the purposes.

I can see what you're saying, though so many examples from the Bible involve God taking direct action. I suppose that's the symbolism taking action, that "this happened, now you learn from it". I have a hard time seeing it that way, since some of it is symbolic, some of it is meant to be taken as direct, and I guess I have an all or nothing view of it.

Again, that's not from being in a different faith. I think that's just how I've always looked at some aspects of spirituality. The reason I left Christianity as a teen was because of the whole "you can only get to heaven through me" thing (paraphrased) and I saw that as really exclusionairy, didn't make sense that you could be a good person and not be okay by God because of differing religion, and ended up viewing Christianity as group hate. Years later, a friend pointed that to me as being symbolism of God as good, and that by "through him", it meant being good. Or like a CS Lewis thing, of "by being good, you were always serving me".

By then I was too far removed to go back, but it made sense. I know that's also why there is so much squabbling and people like we've mentioned who view Earth as a failed experiment; there's so much text and substance, people are going to have different views and interpretations. It's simply too much content to be simple.

escushion said:

Punishment for what exactly?

Make sure to be dumb? Obey for no reason?

Or God was afraid people would become as him by eating from the tree of life? It's like fucking Xenogears!

Click to expand...

Knowledge of Good and Evil... Good and Evil... that has nothing at all to do with being dumb...

And He gave them a reason, if they eat it they will die... they did and they became mortal.

Probably I see it that way because I see the physical universe as one, and then spiritual as the next, when I view the Christian theological system. The whole "heaven is the real home" model that a lot of evangelicals have taken up in which Earth is some failed experiment, and people are just supposed to get through it.

Click to expand...

Your seeing it wrong... even in the craziest evangelical belief system i'm aware of Earth is more of a testing ground...

@Li3n said:

Probably I see it that way because I see the physical universe as one, and then spiritual as the next, when I view the Christian theological system. The whole "heaven is the real home" model that a lot of evangelicals have taken up in which Earth is some failed experiment, and people are just supposed to get through it.

Click to expand...

Your seeing it wrong... even in the craziest evangelical belief system i'm aware of Earth is more of a testing ground...

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that's what I said.

Well, I'll relay the words of one evangelical I've argued with before. Earth is a bad place, God has given up on it, the only reason souls are sent here first is to test their worthiness in the worst of conditions for it... basically a thought system that diminishes any value in life on Earth, the people you meet, ideas, actions... Basically, hole up, wait it out, God's bringing you home soon.

One problem I have with the Eden story is that there is no way man would not have fallen out of some perfect existence. We're inquisitive by nature (or by creation, if that's your belief). We would have been predestined by our very natures to fall from grace. Many better authors than me have explored the ennui of bliss. It seems rather strange to wind up a toy car designed to roll in a straight line and expect it to stay in a small circle.

As for the Earth v. Heaven argument, I wrote this a while back: http://personal.fadecomic.com/?p=13

Pretty much agree with that on the concept of heaven.

And also on your other paragraph. It's interesting in some authors' work on Christianity how the "fall" was part of God's plan, God being in control, and Adam and Eve were supposed to fuck it all up.

Kinda puts the whole heaven idea into question too. If that's also supposed to be happy perfect land because it's God's country, why wouldn't humans fuck that up as well? Really, in either beginning or end, there's not much to a story where nothing happens.

escushion;277401][quote=@Li3n said:

Probably I see it that way because I see the physical universe as one, and then spiritual as the next, when I view the Christian theological system. The whole "heaven is the real home" model that a lot of evangelicals have taken up in which Earth is some failed experiment, and people are just supposed to get through it.

Click to expand...

Your seeing it wrong... even in the craziest evangelical belief system i'm aware of Earth is more of a testing ground...

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that's what I said.

Well, I'll relay the words of one evangelical I've argued with before. Earth is a bad place, God has given up on it, the only reason souls are sent here first is to test their worthiness in the worst of conditions for it... basically a thought system that diminishes any value in life on Earth, the people you meet, ideas, actions... Basically, hole up, wait it out, God's bringing you home soon.[/QUOTE]

Dude, the testing is probably the most important part... might as well say that the effort being put in the race is diminished in importance because of the medal.

Yeah, crazies interpret it wrong and might "hole up", but imo that's failing.

fade said:

One problem I have with the Eden story is that there is no way man would not have fallen out of some perfect existence. We're inquisitive by nature (or by creation, if that's your belief). We would have been predestined by our very natures to fall from grace. Many better authors than me have explored the ennui of bliss. It seems rather strange to wind up a toy car designed to roll in a straight line and expect it to stay in a small circle.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. When you take it literally as far to many Christians due, it's hard not to see that.
When you take it in it's appropriate literary genre (Ancient Myth) it suddenly changes things. It is simply meant to explain the relationship between God (or gods depending on which Ancient Near Eastern creation account you are reading) and humanity. In this case the explanation is basically this: God creates universe for humankind to enjoy. Humans and God share a relationship. Things are not perfect (again, a serious misnomer about the Garden of Edan, the Bible makes it clear it's not "perfect" since we see part of Eve's curse be "MORE" pain in childbirth, implying that pain was already a part of their life) but they are wonderful. Humanity is tempted by semi-false promises by the serpent. Humanity rebels against God, seeking to "be like Him", which clearly their pride and arrogance backfires and the relationship between God and humanity is damaged. Now God is seeking to re-establish that relationship.
No pre-destination, no created to sin, utter and complete free-will, tempered by actual relationship with a Perfect God but tempted by the serpent and a decision to give in.
That's a more accurate understanding of the creation/Garden of Eden account. It's not mine mind you, that's a terribly rough summary of some of my favorite scholars works. I mean, in the end you can still say, "Oh well I think humanity was created with a pre-destined fall, etc, etc. Which is fine, I can't stop you but I don't see it anywhere in the text and would argue it's reading far to much into what is there.

I understand you're viewing the story as myth. That's why I tried to avoid directly referencing events in the story. My point is that I don't think that man, unless he was originally somehow different than he is now, would've always sought to know and be like a God. Especially one they seemed to know more directly. If we're interpreting, in fact, we could interpret the Serpent as our own predisposition to reason and opine about the nature of the universe and God, and our natural ambition to be more than what we are. It actually meshes really well with the concept of the Tree, which is directly referred to as knowledge. Curiosity -> Knowledge -> Fall. It may be utter and complete free will, but we're all by our primate nature almost predestined to follow the path (to mix science and religion) of curiosity, and are therefore likely to "fall". The same idea appears again in the Babel story.

Interesting ideas. I would argue slightly different understanding based upon my studies and work in the field, and I would say that before performing a critique or interpretation it's better to start at the place other Ancient Near Eastern literature scholars come from: The authors intent and the cultural context of the literature rather than our own current cultural context.

Either way it's still fascinating to talk about

I jump here, in the middle of the talk, having just quickly read the answers and without no specific knowledge nor work in the field to say that I always have seen the story of Adam and Eve as a symboic explanation of the moment humans stopped being like all animals and became rational ("Like god"). Suddenly, there was nakedness*, good and evil, the world was percieved as harder and the relationships between events were understood...

I don't know, this has always been my personal interpretation of this myth, wich made it one of my favourite ones from the Bible.

EDIT:

*As a concept. Of course, what really "began" was CLOTHING.

He'd kick your ass!