When it comes to God
- Thread starter GottaBigOne
- Start date
Javierdude22: Ah..I might still not get it but I'll work with it for now.
Christianity, nor any other religion for that matter, is black and white and cannot fit an equation. We know shite, and then some. Believing is all we ever did or could with our puny little brains, since we knew, know, and will know only so little of whats really going on there. Our ancestors have proven that. Stephen Hawking only recently retracted his black hole theory claiming it was true for 20 years. Anyone wanna take his seat and claim the absolute truth? Modesty should prevent you from doing so.
As to the followers of one God faiths, or Christianity as to which I am sure your referring Jon, they are bounded by simple mischievous human traits like egoism,stemptation, and a general tendency to make others see it 'your way'. We cannot even keep our dicks in our pants given the right incentives let alone soberly managing the traits described above. What I am saying with this, as I believe I've said before, is that you cannot judge an entire religion preaching love and forgiveness by the people that claim to follown that religion but act inaccordingly.
Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Native American tribes, the Inca, etc etc all have done the same throughout their histiory: Good and Evil.
Christianity, nor any other religion for that matter, is black and white and cannot fit an equation. We know shite, and then some. Believing is all we ever did or could with our puny little brains, since we knew, know, and will know only so little of whats really going on there. Our ancestors have proven that. Stephen Hawking only recently retracted his black hole theory claiming it was true for 20 years. Anyone wanna take his seat and claim the absolute truth? Modesty should prevent you from doing so.
As to the followers of one God faiths, or Christianity as to which I am sure your referring Jon, they are bounded by simple mischievous human traits like egoism,stemptation, and a general tendency to make others see it 'your way'. We cannot even keep our dicks in our pants given the right incentives let alone soberly managing the traits described above. What I am saying with this, as I believe I've said before, is that you cannot judge an entire religion preaching love and forgiveness by the people that claim to follown that religion but act inaccordingly.
Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Native American tribes, the Inca, etc etc all have done the same throughout their histiory: Good and Evil.
- jonb,
Javier, I've known you for years now, and I don't remember you being such a fucktard. To explain it to you slowly, no one can convert to Lakota traditions. As such, we don't have this missionary zeal to convert the entire planet.
You see, I don't think that Christians are necessarily bad, but as Blackhawk put it, "How smooth is the tongue of the whites, that they can turn right into wrong and wrong into right." You see, true evil doesn't just say "Let's go out and commit evil." No, true evil is far more insidious, able to disguise itself as compassion. It's like Bush on Iraq; did anyone, save for Ann Coulter, actually say "Let's go out and kill some Iraqis and take their oil"? No, Bush disguised it as liberation. And now he doesn't want them to have free elections.
You see, I don't think that Christians are necessarily bad, but as Blackhawk put it, "How smooth is the tongue of the whites, that they can turn right into wrong and wrong into right." You see, true evil doesn't just say "Let's go out and commit evil." No, true evil is far more insidious, able to disguise itself as compassion. It's like Bush on Iraq; did anyone, save for Ann Coulter, actually say "Let's go out and kill some Iraqis and take their oil"? No, Bush disguised it as liberation. And now he doesn't want them to have free elections.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,035
- Media
- 13
- Likes
- 255
- Points
- 303
- Age
- 42
- Location
- Dallas (Texas, United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Actually if you expect your religion to have ANY supposed credibility whatsoever you have to believe that the origin of your religious doctrines are divinely inspired and/or backed up by truth. Meaning you must believe that what you believe is true, and not false. And for most religion its followers believe that they can't be wrong because they get their "facts" from God himself. This is especially true for most christians who regard whatever Jesus said as being absolutely true simply because he was the one who said them. They also believe that the Bible is either the direct word of God, or was divineley inspired and should be taken as authoritative(sp?). This is where it must be "black and white". Either the bible is true, or it is not. There is no margin for error because God is said to be infallible, he does not have the right to change his mind, because change would make him imperfect. He must be right about everything he says or does, absolutely, there are no excuses. You may say that the Bible then is not really the word of god it is the word of humans, and humans are subject to mistakes. I then say to you that if that is the case then the Bible loses all its credibility and should get no more consideration than the epic stories of Greek Mythology. We take the Bible seriously becasue we are told it is from God, who is perfect.
The contradiction comes from the doctrines that states that god is omniscient(all-knowing) omnibenevolent(all-good) and omnipotent(all-powerful). I contend that if this god is indeed the creator of the universe than he can not be all three at the same time, because the world is a place of utter despair and suffering for many people. There are earthquakes, and floods, and diseases, and many other things that inflict constant pain on humans and other living things on this planet. If god created the world he is responsible for its present state. If he did not know that it would turn out this way than he is not omniscient. If he did know it would, but chose to make it this way anyway, than he is not omnibenevolent. And if he knew what would happen but could do nothing to make it otherwise he is not omnipotent. Mnay poeple would say that the things I cited as imperfection in creation are not actually imperfect or "evil" but are actually good when you look at the whole of existence. Not everything is bad after-all. The good makes up for the bad. But this does not excuse God. You can not make up for murdering 40 people by stating that you haven't murdered 1,000 or that you help old ladies cross the street; you're still a mass murderer! Some might try to dismiss the "evils" I cited based on what they would call our human inability to see the true essence of existence. They would say that only God knows what is truly good and what is truly bad, and we are not able to judge correctly for ourselves. But if we do this than to say that "God is good" ceases to say anythig meaningful. If we can not agree on what good means then we can not even attribute this to God, and our whole vocabulary becomes subject to the same scrutiny. To say that God is good we must hold him to the same criterion we judge others things by.
Furthermore the doctrine of hell posits another contradiction at the feet of this deity. If God knows all and can do all, even if we have "free will", he will know before he evn creates you that you will sin, or that you wont believe in him, or that you will murder, and ultimately that you will go to hell. But he creates you anyway, knowing full well that you will only live to be about 120 years the most, and that being obscenely generous, then you will die and spend eternity burning and suffering in a hell he created for you. BAsically you will be created merely to suffer in hell for all eternity. Does this seem like a being that can "do no wrong"? Think about it as well. Why would something you did in a span of 74 years average be so influential and important that it dictates how an eternity of your existence will be spent. Why would 74 years overshadow 9,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years?????? Does this seem just? "Infinite punishment for finite crimes is not just." -Austin Cline-
The Christian might then say that since these doctrines can't be all accepted then one or more are mistaken and that we do not know the true nature of our God. But this brings me to my first point, that if you start to ignore parts of the religion that you dont like or dont hold up to scrutiny then you lose the right to accept the doctrines that you do deem to be "ok". The Holy Bible has to be all true if you believe it to be the word of god. If it isnt all true than the more fantastical beliefs that you hold have to substantiated with reason and logic, and most of them can not be. To me the fact that some of the things in the bible aren't true makes it more evident that it was made up by humans, and certain things like people raising the dead and walking on water i take to be lies. Any rational person would. any person who believes in things that have no evidence for them in light of evidence that actually points to the contrary is not rational, and should not be taken seriously.
sorry so long, but this is something I;m rather passionate about.
Javierdude22:
Referring to the second paragraph: You have to admit you are grossly generalizing. I am a Christian as well, am I included in the pool of Christians of your analogy?
On what basis am I or am I not?
Jon, then you have known me well, because in my particular referral to Native Americans in the north I tapped into my newly acquired knowledge on how the Navajo Indians viewed the puebloans, or like they called them 'Anasazi' which some ranger at Mesa Verde NP told me a week ago meant something as 'evil' or enemy. It meant to clarify my point that all peoples have viewed others in a negative way one time or another, be it on the basis of religion, race etc. Indeed, that is as far as my knowledge on Native Americans to the north goes.
Referring to the second paragraph: You have to admit you are grossly generalizing. I am a Christian as well, am I included in the pool of Christians of your analogy?
On what basis am I or am I not?
Javierdude22:
Yes, maybe you are right, or maybe you are not (Referring to every point made in above paragraphs)
Good...me too
Yes, maybe you are right, or maybe you are not (Referring to every point made in above paragraphs)
Good...me too
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,035
- Media
- 13
- Likes
- 255
- Points
- 303
- Age
- 42
- Location
- Dallas (Texas, United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
That is a cop out if I have ever seen one. Javier, is that what your version of an argument is????? That I may be right... or not??? What the fuck is that?! I expected a little more from you seriously. Actually on many of the above points I AM right, you can not refute my logic or arguments and I see that you haven't even tried, you merely want to dismiss them and not take them seriously because for you, you have way too much invested in the idea of God to take any criticism seriously, you have blinded yourself with "faith" and I feel sorry for you. You are not concerned with the truth, you're only concern is that you are right. A contradiction CAN NOT exist. I have showed you how the Christian God is a contradiction. If by any chance I haven't done that at least I have demonstrated that he is not worthy of worship and praise if he does exist (which he doesnt) If you look at the Bible closely you will see that it resembles the writing of a demon more than a benevolent deity. But that is besides the point. The real point is of his existence not his characteristics. I have shown that he CAN NOT exist, at least how he is described in the Bible. In order for you to allow him a chance at existence you must drop one of four things; his omnipotence, his omnibenevolence, his omniscience or that he created the world and/or hell. Actually if you dismiss him creating the world, you take away his ominpotence as well. You're job is to refute my arguments, which you can not do. You probably wouldn't even know where to start.
Javierdude22:
I have seen few arrogant, pretentious, self glorified posters on LPSG in the past year or so, but you seem to be the gold club member. Your above post is filled with insults, a high level of intolerance, and you seem to be very edgy, not passionate about the subject, bordering on frustrated.
Your level of intolerance, and your rather frustrated above post would have served well in any Communist propaganda during the Cold War...you would have made quite a career. My Chinese friend told me the level of intolerance you exhume is still being made policy in the People's Republic of China though, I am sure yoyu would do good.
That being said...my previous post was serious. You could very well be right in your prelast post, and maybe you could not. ME personally, I will be modest for you by saying that you make excellent points, but that they are not true or false simply cause you say so. I could get into very very long posts with you refuting your statements, but that would be the same as teaching a blind man in New Jersey to do the hokey-pokey. We are on very, very different levels, almost by definition.
O...and another thing, you lost all credibility for anything with me by referring to the Bible as demon writings. I could care less about your version of the truth, but I refuse to hear you insult and rant about my personal convictions in súch a terribly unrespectfull manner. You have done that before, and frankly, Im fed up with it. Say something sane for a change or don't say anything.
I wíll reply to this one.
I have seen few arrogant, pretentious, self glorified posters on LPSG in the past year or so, but you seem to be the gold club member. Your above post is filled with insults, a high level of intolerance, and you seem to be very edgy, not passionate about the subject, bordering on frustrated.
Your level of intolerance, and your rather frustrated above post would have served well in any Communist propaganda during the Cold War...you would have made quite a career. My Chinese friend told me the level of intolerance you exhume is still being made policy in the People's Republic of China though, I am sure yoyu would do good.
That being said...my previous post was serious. You could very well be right in your prelast post, and maybe you could not. ME personally, I will be modest for you by saying that you make excellent points, but that they are not true or false simply cause you say so. I could get into very very long posts with you refuting your statements, but that would be the same as teaching a blind man in New Jersey to do the hokey-pokey. We are on very, very different levels, almost by definition.
O...and another thing, you lost all credibility for anything with me by referring to the Bible as demon writings. I could care less about your version of the truth, but I refuse to hear you insult and rant about my personal convictions in súch a terribly unrespectfull manner. You have done that before, and frankly, Im fed up with it. Say something sane for a change or don't say anything.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,035
- Media
- 13
- Likes
- 255
- Points
- 303
- Age
- 42
- Location
- Dallas (Texas, United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
There is nothing in the above post that even comes close to trying to argue against what I have said. ALl it is a ad hominem fallacy directed at me, and its only point is to persoanlly attack me, which ironically is what I am accused of doing.
You say that maybe I could not be right but you made no effort to support this claim. I have put forth evidence to suggest that I am right, you have to try to refute that avidence. Merely stating that it is false does not make it so.
I admit that I was a little "rude" in the previous post, but I was seriously utterly flabbergasted by the way you chose to answer me. I had no idea what kind of reasoning you employed to come to your beliefs, and I was surprised to find them so utterly irrational. This is not an attack. Me stating that your reasoning is poor is not an attack but true statement. You have no interest in arriving at truth or posing arguments, you simply wish to ignore what I have said and go on believeing that which can not be believed in rationally. You even admitted that I made sense!!!!! So you saw the logic I was putting forth and yet you still chose to ignore it. That is irrational.
As for me referring to the Bible as "demon writings" if you have such a problem with it then show where I am wrong instead of just attacking me and saying that I lack "respect" for you and you're beliefs. Tolerance should not be expected in a DEBATE!!!
Javierdude22:
You say that maybe I could not be right but you made no effort to support this claim. I have put forth evidence to suggest that I am right, you have to try to refute that avidence. Merely stating that it is false does not make it so.
I admit that I was a little "rude" in the previous post, but I was seriously utterly flabbergasted by the way you chose to answer me. I had no idea what kind of reasoning you employed to come to your beliefs, and I was surprised to find them so utterly irrational. This is not an attack. Me stating that your reasoning is poor is not an attack but true statement. You have no interest in arriving at truth or posing arguments, you simply wish to ignore what I have said and go on believeing that which can not be believed in rationally. You even admitted that I made sense!!!!! So you saw the logic I was putting forth and yet you still chose to ignore it. That is irrational.
As for me referring to the Bible as "demon writings" if you have such a problem with it then show where I am wrong instead of just attacking me and saying that I lack "respect" for you and you're beliefs. Tolerance should not be expected in a DEBATE!!! [/b][/quote]
Tolerance is respect, respect is sure as hell expected in a debate.
I answered you already...by saying you may very well be right, and that you have good points, but that at the same time you may very well be wrong given the limited knowledge of humankind over the physical, metaphysical, chemical, natural, astronomical, and psychological world. I stick by that point. I understand however, that you do have a 100% knowledge over these areas, that you are probably a prodigy with two Masters from Harvard U, several publications on filosofy, physics, metaphysics, and psychology and that you are widely respected in the scientific world.
It seems to me you are frustrated by my strong beliefs so much you are getting rather upset about it. Psychology tells me your widespread use of exclamation marks are a good indication. That is, however, an issue you will have to deal with yourself, I choose not to participate.
For the record...no...I do not HAVE to refute you...I HAVE to pee 5 times a day, take a shite once a day, eat and drink occassionally, and sleep an average of 7 hours a night but that is the extent of the things I HAVE to do.
*plonk*
There is nothing in the above post that even comes close to trying to argue against what I have said. ALl it is a ad hominem fallacy directed at me, and its only point is to persoanlly attack me, which ironically is what I am accused of doing.
You say that maybe I could not be right but you made no effort to support this claim. I have put forth evidence to suggest that I am right, you have to try to refute that avidence. Merely stating that it is false does not make it so.
I admit that I was a little "rude" in the previous post, but I was seriously utterly flabbergasted by the way you chose to answer me. I had no idea what kind of reasoning you employed to come to your beliefs, and I was surprised to find them so utterly irrational. This is not an attack. Me stating that your reasoning is poor is not an attack but true statement. You have no interest in arriving at truth or posing arguments, you simply wish to ignore what I have said and go on believeing that which can not be believed in rationally. You even admitted that I made sense!!!!! So you saw the logic I was putting forth and yet you still chose to ignore it. That is irrational.
As for me referring to the Bible as "demon writings" if you have such a problem with it then show where I am wrong instead of just attacking me and saying that I lack "respect" for you and you're beliefs. Tolerance should not be expected in a DEBATE!!! [/b][/quote]
Tolerance is respect, respect is sure as hell expected in a debate.
I answered you already...by saying you may very well be right, and that you have good points, but that at the same time you may very well be wrong given the limited knowledge of humankind over the physical, metaphysical, chemical, natural, astronomical, and psychological world. I stick by that point. I understand however, that you do have a 100% knowledge over these areas, that you are probably a prodigy with two Masters from Harvard U, several publications on filosofy, physics, metaphysics, and psychology and that you are widely respected in the scientific world.
It seems to me you are frustrated by my strong beliefs so much you are getting rather upset about it. Psychology tells me your widespread use of exclamation marks are a good indication. That is, however, an issue you will have to deal with yourself, I choose not to participate.
For the record...no...I do not HAVE to refute you...I HAVE to pee 5 times a day, take a shite once a day, eat and drink occassionally, and sleep an average of 7 hours a night but that is the extent of the things I HAVE to do.
*plonk*
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,035
- Media
- 13
- Likes
- 255
- Points
- 303
- Age
- 42
- Location
- Dallas (Texas, United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Tolerance is not respect. Tolerance 1-To not interfere with; allow; permit 2- to recognize and respect other's beliefs, practices.
So there is some respect involved but thats not all that tolerance is. Tolerance involves a certain shutting of one's mouth so to speak which I am sure you want me to do, but only because you don't want to deal with what i have to say. I do respect your right to believe what you want, but I DO NOT respect the irrationality and ridiculousness of those beliefs and I feel I shouldn't have to. If someone believed that the center of the earth was made of chocalate would you respect his beliefs?? His beliefs are not worthy of respect.
Although the above ends in an ad hominem attack which has no relevance at all in our debate, you do make a point in the beginning, FINALLY.
You say that we have "limited knowledge" because we are human. I agree with you, we do not know everything. But that does not mean we do not know some things already. Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we can't know that the sun shines on the earth; this we know won't you agree? What I have put forth as an argument is that the Christian God is a contradiction and that a contradiction can not exist. You tried dissproving me by saying that we don't have all knowledge, but you never even approached the point's I had made. You simply engaged in a fallacy, directing your attack on human knowledge rather than on the argument at hand. You have not said how my points are wrong, only that they could be wrong, which is untrue anyway.
THE THREE LAWS OF LOGIC:
1- The law of Identity: For things, the law asserts that "A is A," or "anything is itself." For propositions; "If a proposition is true, then it is true."
2- The law of Excluded Middle: For things: "Anything is either A or not-A." For propositions: "A proposition, such as P, is either ture or false."
3- The Law of Contradiction: For things: "Nothing can be both A and not-A." For propositions: "A proposition, P, cannot be both true and false."
These are what we know. Try and dispute them, I dare you. We may have limited knowledge, but these things are certainties, to oppose them would be a paradox because you use them in the very act of trying to disprove them and you presuppose them. They are fundamental.
The other "Knowledge" I used was from the Bible and/or popular Christian belief. True, Christian dogma has changed much over the past millenia but usually that change has been at the hand of scrutiny from secular forces and not by new "revelation." If you wish to argue that the views of the Bible and/or Jesus Christ constitute human knowledge, and concede that this human knowledge may be flawed then you are arguing my point for me. You can not change your beliefs to suit yourself if those beliefs have a divine origin. God can not change his mind, he must be infallible for him to be the Christian God, so if you say that he has changed his mind than you are saying he is not the Christian God, which is my point exactly.
I did not say I would prove that there can be NO GOD. Only that the Christian God as he is described most often can not exist. And for me personally any God that comes out of a reform of this God would seem to me to be a fairy-tale concoction by simple minded people to rationalize their childhood beliefs.
p.s. I did not mean to equate you with this latter group. That wasn't an attack.
So there is some respect involved but thats not all that tolerance is. Tolerance involves a certain shutting of one's mouth so to speak which I am sure you want me to do, but only because you don't want to deal with what i have to say. I do respect your right to believe what you want, but I DO NOT respect the irrationality and ridiculousness of those beliefs and I feel I shouldn't have to. If someone believed that the center of the earth was made of chocalate would you respect his beliefs?? His beliefs are not worthy of respect.
Although the above ends in an ad hominem attack which has no relevance at all in our debate, you do make a point in the beginning, FINALLY.
You say that we have "limited knowledge" because we are human. I agree with you, we do not know everything. But that does not mean we do not know some things already. Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we can't know that the sun shines on the earth; this we know won't you agree? What I have put forth as an argument is that the Christian God is a contradiction and that a contradiction can not exist. You tried dissproving me by saying that we don't have all knowledge, but you never even approached the point's I had made. You simply engaged in a fallacy, directing your attack on human knowledge rather than on the argument at hand. You have not said how my points are wrong, only that they could be wrong, which is untrue anyway.
THE THREE LAWS OF LOGIC:
1- The law of Identity: For things, the law asserts that "A is A," or "anything is itself." For propositions; "If a proposition is true, then it is true."
2- The law of Excluded Middle: For things: "Anything is either A or not-A." For propositions: "A proposition, such as P, is either ture or false."
3- The Law of Contradiction: For things: "Nothing can be both A and not-A." For propositions: "A proposition, P, cannot be both true and false."
These are what we know. Try and dispute them, I dare you. We may have limited knowledge, but these things are certainties, to oppose them would be a paradox because you use them in the very act of trying to disprove them and you presuppose them. They are fundamental.
The other "Knowledge" I used was from the Bible and/or popular Christian belief. True, Christian dogma has changed much over the past millenia but usually that change has been at the hand of scrutiny from secular forces and not by new "revelation." If you wish to argue that the views of the Bible and/or Jesus Christ constitute human knowledge, and concede that this human knowledge may be flawed then you are arguing my point for me. You can not change your beliefs to suit yourself if those beliefs have a divine origin. God can not change his mind, he must be infallible for him to be the Christian God, so if you say that he has changed his mind than you are saying he is not the Christian God, which is my point exactly.
I did not say I would prove that there can be NO GOD. Only that the Christian God as he is described most often can not exist. And for me personally any God that comes out of a reform of this God would seem to me to be a fairy-tale concoction by simple minded people to rationalize their childhood beliefs.
p.s. I did not mean to equate you with this latter group. That wasn't an attack.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
I'm not sure I'm up to the challenge here, but I'd like to add some thoughts. My ability to argue points of logic is very rusty, but I have some things to offer.
The Bible is not a cohesive work written by one person, so it is very possible to believe parts and not the whole. It was also written years after the events took place, and compiled years after that, so I do believe some authors and not others- and I believe in the general tone of these authors, realizing their exact verbage may have been misquoted. When I say "I believe", it means I believe they said it, not that I necessarily agree with it.
That something cannot be "A and not A" is a point no one can refute, this has always been a theological difficulty for me. I too share these feelings, as we have been sharing as of late, but I do look to the Bible for some good information on how Jesus wanted us to treat each other. I think there is some wholesome and pure philosophy there. Unfortunately, much of the Bible, New Testament and Old, are compilations of the writings of men who had their own agendas. I have no desire to incorporate the personal opinions of Paul into my daily life, my own personal opinions are equally as valid as his! Just because I am not a published author doesn't mean I can't think.
There are things we know: The world exists, people exist, we are capable of thinking and reasoning, we have the ability to love, judge, fuck, eat, give, hope dream, feel, care, not care, etc. We have freedom of choice in many areas. We have needs that must be adressed. In addition to all of this, we are curious about the world around us and a good deal of attention has been spent throughout history on explaining the hows and whys of our existance. If God created man in his own image, it would not surprise me that god would have inconsistancies and contradictions- this is why we do too! If man created God in our own image, it is even likelier. I have come to accept the fact that inconsistancies exist without having to explain them, mostly because I know I cannot do so with any amount of accuracy. Better to shut my mouth and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt! I am okay with not being able to definitively solve the problem of God or exactly who the various messengers of god have been. Each have contributed to the shapping of our cultures in their own ways, as have Ghandi, Mother Teresa, Neitche, Plato, Einstien, and all the celebrated minds of history. So too have individuals who are far less consequential. Each of us affects the whole with each of our decisions, in a lesser but still meaningful way.
As for me right now, I am more into philosophy than religion for just these reasons. Although I have studied the Bible, I cannot make sense of it. I have read but not studied the Gitas and Vedas, I have read very little of the Koran. It is impossible for me to discern which beliefs are true and which are not true, I am doing well to accept that these beliefs exist outside my opinion of their foundation. Even "absolute realites" change, so I am very reluctant to assign the word "truth" to very much.
I appreciate this topic, anything that gives me cause to research my own feelings is of great benefit.
The Bible is not a cohesive work written by one person, so it is very possible to believe parts and not the whole. It was also written years after the events took place, and compiled years after that, so I do believe some authors and not others- and I believe in the general tone of these authors, realizing their exact verbage may have been misquoted. When I say "I believe", it means I believe they said it, not that I necessarily agree with it.
That something cannot be "A and not A" is a point no one can refute, this has always been a theological difficulty for me. I too share these feelings, as we have been sharing as of late, but I do look to the Bible for some good information on how Jesus wanted us to treat each other. I think there is some wholesome and pure philosophy there. Unfortunately, much of the Bible, New Testament and Old, are compilations of the writings of men who had their own agendas. I have no desire to incorporate the personal opinions of Paul into my daily life, my own personal opinions are equally as valid as his! Just because I am not a published author doesn't mean I can't think.
There are things we know: The world exists, people exist, we are capable of thinking and reasoning, we have the ability to love, judge, fuck, eat, give, hope dream, feel, care, not care, etc. We have freedom of choice in many areas. We have needs that must be adressed. In addition to all of this, we are curious about the world around us and a good deal of attention has been spent throughout history on explaining the hows and whys of our existance. If God created man in his own image, it would not surprise me that god would have inconsistancies and contradictions- this is why we do too! If man created God in our own image, it is even likelier. I have come to accept the fact that inconsistancies exist without having to explain them, mostly because I know I cannot do so with any amount of accuracy. Better to shut my mouth and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt! I am okay with not being able to definitively solve the problem of God or exactly who the various messengers of god have been. Each have contributed to the shapping of our cultures in their own ways, as have Ghandi, Mother Teresa, Neitche, Plato, Einstien, and all the celebrated minds of history. So too have individuals who are far less consequential. Each of us affects the whole with each of our decisions, in a lesser but still meaningful way.
As for me right now, I am more into philosophy than religion for just these reasons. Although I have studied the Bible, I cannot make sense of it. I have read but not studied the Gitas and Vedas, I have read very little of the Koran. It is impossible for me to discern which beliefs are true and which are not true, I am doing well to accept that these beliefs exist outside my opinion of their foundation. Even "absolute realites" change, so I am very reluctant to assign the word "truth" to very much.
I appreciate this topic, anything that gives me cause to research my own feelings is of great benefit.
LoveGirl: I don't have time too read all this sorry. I will say that the 'conservative' picking and choosing of christian beliefs is the most seductive and disguised form of evil around (In my opinion). Just because someone calls themselves christian doesn't mean all other christians have to like them or believe them. Christianity is great but people who disguise themselves as christian just to attain a following need to be overthrown by the true christians (however few). The teachings of 'The Bible' are relative to a person's language and perceptions of the world. I believe that Allah and God are the same being, only perceived different. The teachings in The Book (The Bible) and The Writing (The Koran) are mostly the same, just perceived differently, sometimes perverted into declaring holy war. Many religous zealots believe that the Koran tells them to become martyrs and kill people of other religions and non-believers, but they are picking and choosing (just like the supposed 'conservatives'
. In fact The Writing speaks out against the act of martyrs. I wish everyone would just shut the hell up about 'My religion is right because people who say they are part of your religion kill people'. Everyone just step back as far as your little human minds can go and stop declaring holy war in the name of your belief. You are simply perverting what it means to be spiritual.
. In fact The Writing speaks out against the act of martyrs. I wish everyone would just shut the hell up about 'My religion is right because people who say they are part of your religion kill people'. Everyone just step back as far as your little human minds can go and stop declaring holy war in the name of your belief. You are simply perverting what it means to be spiritual.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,035
- Media
- 13
- Likes
- 255
- Points
- 303
- Age
- 42
- Location
- Dallas (Texas, United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Madam, thank you for contributing. I was growing weary, and annoyed.
I definetly understand what you mean about picking and choosing parts of the bible you believe to be true, that is your prerogitive. But there is no adequate way to actually decipher what parts of the Bible are true and waht parts arent, and u can not be taken too seriously as to the factuallity of what you choose to believe and what yo choose not to. I do not think that everything in the Bible is untrue, just the more fantastical things like the raising of lazarus, a flood that covered all the land of the world, the ressurection of jesus, etc. All evidence of human experience tells us that these things don't happen and some of them can't happen. These are things I have issue with.
About the teachings of Jesus I think people have to be a bit more careful in automatically attributing righteousness to him. You have to realize the context, the culture, and the circumstances in which he spoke and how those things may not apply to today's world. For example the things Jesus said had a lot to do with his outlook on the future. "Truly I say to you there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power." (Mark 9:1) He obviously believed that the kingdom of God would come within a lifetime so his teaching were not meant for a period of time longer than that. That is why he urged people to give up their earthly goods because they would not be important if the world was about to end anyway.
The historian Frederick Conybeare wrote in the "Origins of Christianity":
... much of the teaching of the gospel was uttered in view of an impending catastrophe and liquidation of this world's affairs, out of which, at a wave of the divine wand, a new and blessed condition was to emerge, just as the pheonix arises, renewed and immortal, out of its own ashes. Jesus felt himself to be the hrabinger of a new and divine constitution... to be suddenly imposed by divine power and inference. Hence the precepts to follow him; to forsake parents, wife, children, and home; even to neglect the most sacred of all ancient duties- that of burying one's own father.
I definetly understand what you mean about picking and choosing parts of the bible you believe to be true, that is your prerogitive. But there is no adequate way to actually decipher what parts of the Bible are true and waht parts arent, and u can not be taken too seriously as to the factuallity of what you choose to believe and what yo choose not to. I do not think that everything in the Bible is untrue, just the more fantastical things like the raising of lazarus, a flood that covered all the land of the world, the ressurection of jesus, etc. All evidence of human experience tells us that these things don't happen and some of them can't happen. These are things I have issue with.
About the teachings of Jesus I think people have to be a bit more careful in automatically attributing righteousness to him. You have to realize the context, the culture, and the circumstances in which he spoke and how those things may not apply to today's world. For example the things Jesus said had a lot to do with his outlook on the future. "Truly I say to you there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power." (Mark 9:1) He obviously believed that the kingdom of God would come within a lifetime so his teaching were not meant for a period of time longer than that. That is why he urged people to give up their earthly goods because they would not be important if the world was about to end anyway.
The historian Frederick Conybeare wrote in the "Origins of Christianity":
... much of the teaching of the gospel was uttered in view of an impending catastrophe and liquidation of this world's affairs, out of which, at a wave of the divine wand, a new and blessed condition was to emerge, just as the pheonix arises, renewed and immortal, out of its own ashes. Jesus felt himself to be the hrabinger of a new and divine constitution... to be suddenly imposed by divine power and inference. Hence the precepts to follow him; to forsake parents, wife, children, and home; even to neglect the most sacred of all ancient duties- that of burying one's own father.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Gottabigone, I especially wanted to point out the different authors of the Bible as my means of selection. The whole Old Tesatment, I regard as a mix of history and mythology. I doubt very much of it is literal. As for the New Testament, the Gospels are each separate accounts of what the writer experienced from being with Jesus. The fact that these contain inconsistancies is no more confusing than why people come up with different answers when playing "telephone". Human beings can only see things through their own eyes, which is a skewed and blurry vision at best. After the Gospels come the Acts of the apostles, which is an account of what transpired after the death of Jesus, then come a series of letters that were written to the heads of various churches by different apostles, many by Paul. To lump everything that is "the Bible" into a heap and say you must believe all of it or none of it is arbitrary and uninformed. There are credible reasons to believe that a man named Jesus lived, and said many of the things he is reported to have said. That doesn't make the letters of Paul credible though, does it? I'm not saying I follow everything Jesus said just because he said it, nor would I do that with any advisor, but I do listen and consider it well.
Now the second paragraph you posted from the author Conybeare, I must admit to being surprised by the sense that made. It was surely a thought I had not previously entertained and the very kind of thing I'm interested in hearing at this juncture of learning. I have always had problems with the ideas of abandoning families too. I know there were issues with poverty then as now, and I have often wondered about the impact the men leaving their homes to follow Jesus had on their wives and children. If we are not to care for our families, why have them at all? As for "Let the dead bury the dead"- nice sentiment, but they just don't do that! I've never seen a dead person bury anybody and I worked in cemeteries for five years! (small attempt at humor, but you get the point) It seems reasonable that Jesus was speaking with the belief that the end was coming much sooner. Maybe he was ill-informed, maybe he just wasn't privy to the exact time and place, or maybe he was just a crackpot- I don't know. The one commandment he gave was "Love thy neighbor as thyself". Regardless of anything, that seems like a good idea.
Once again, I appreciate the topic and the time you've invested in sharing.
Jonb, Christianity is not a live-and-live religion. It necessarily does require that recruitment is a part of the process.
Now the second paragraph you posted from the author Conybeare, I must admit to being surprised by the sense that made. It was surely a thought I had not previously entertained and the very kind of thing I'm interested in hearing at this juncture of learning. I have always had problems with the ideas of abandoning families too. I know there were issues with poverty then as now, and I have often wondered about the impact the men leaving their homes to follow Jesus had on their wives and children. If we are not to care for our families, why have them at all? As for "Let the dead bury the dead"- nice sentiment, but they just don't do that! I've never seen a dead person bury anybody and I worked in cemeteries for five years! (small attempt at humor, but you get the point) It seems reasonable that Jesus was speaking with the belief that the end was coming much sooner. Maybe he was ill-informed, maybe he just wasn't privy to the exact time and place, or maybe he was just a crackpot- I don't know. The one commandment he gave was "Love thy neighbor as thyself". Regardless of anything, that seems like a good idea.
Once again, I appreciate the topic and the time you've invested in sharing.
Jonb, Christianity is not a live-and-live religion. It necessarily does require that recruitment is a part of the process.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,035
- Media
- 13
- Likes
- 255
- Points
- 303
- Age
- 42
- Location
- Dallas (Texas, United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Madam, thats exacrtly my point. I wish more people would read the Bible the way you do, with an open mind. Instead most people blindly follow it to be true in all cases, whch is dangerous and incorrect.
The Golden Rule that you mentioned and attributed to Jesus actually predates him. It was promoted by Confucious 500 years before Jesus, and was also a basic teaching of the Jewish Talmud:
"And Hillel said: What thou dost not like, do thou not to thy neighbor. That is the whole law; all the rest is explanation" (sabbath, 31.1)
Jesus himself admits this when he says... "So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12) he is not making up anything new, just restating what has been said by others.
The Golden Rule that you mentioned and attributed to Jesus actually predates him. It was promoted by Confucious 500 years before Jesus, and was also a basic teaching of the Jewish Talmud:
"And Hillel said: What thou dost not like, do thou not to thy neighbor. That is the whole law; all the rest is explanation" (sabbath, 31.1)
Jesus himself admits this when he says... "So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12) he is not making up anything new, just restating what has been said by others.
Javierdude22:
You are right partyly though, Jon and Madame Z...in the Bible it is said to go out there and talk of God, Jesus and the prophets. One very crucial mistake is 'by any means necessary'. That is certainly not true. We shouldnt hide our religion it is said, and discuss it with our peers and people with 'an open ear'. If they do not want to hear it, then move on.
Medieval Christians took it very litterally and did so indeed by any means necessary....Colonial Christians used it to get Church approval for what really was a chance to hunt for some cash.
You hadnt really answered my question..
You are right partyly though, Jon and Madame Z...in the Bible it is said to go out there and talk of God, Jesus and the prophets. One very crucial mistake is 'by any means necessary'. That is certainly not true. We shouldnt hide our religion it is said, and discuss it with our peers and people with 'an open ear'. If they do not want to hear it, then move on.
Medieval Christians took it very litterally and did so indeed by any means necessary....Colonial Christians used it to get Church approval for what really was a chance to hunt for some cash.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
GBO, dammit, I was almost ready to go back to work when I read your post! Okay, I wasn't quoting the Golden Rule, I know that's much older and did not come from Jesus originally. I can't quote chapter and verse, as you did, but I am referring to the only commandment Jesus gave us while on Earth, and that was "Love thy neighbor as thyself", NOT "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". The differentiation is "loving" versus "doing"- emotion precedes action. I actually DON'T believe in the golden rule, because not everyone appreciates the same treatment. Just because YOU like to be treated a certain way doesn't mean others do! I find no way to find fault with loving other people as much as yourself, so this I deem worthy, lol!
Javier, the Bible suggests evangelizing, feeding the hungry, caring for the poor- all these are worthy missions of well meaning church members. Unfortunately, throughout time and even now, some people interpret these things in negative ways which produces negative behaviors. I am surely not saying there are not those who live as directed by the Bible! But I am commenting on the fact that so many are judgemental to others, condescending, and evangelize where it is not really appropriate or wanted. This is just recognition of facts, not an opinion on whether or not it should be done. I personally resent evangelists knocking on my door, I should be free to be in peace in my own home, not bombarded by whatever faith the person doing the knocking subscribes to!
Javier, the Bible suggests evangelizing, feeding the hungry, caring for the poor- all these are worthy missions of well meaning church members. Unfortunately, throughout time and even now, some people interpret these things in negative ways which produces negative behaviors. I am surely not saying there are not those who live as directed by the Bible! But I am commenting on the fact that so many are judgemental to others, condescending, and evangelize where it is not really appropriate or wanted. This is just recognition of facts, not an opinion on whether or not it should be done. I personally resent evangelists knocking on my door, I should be free to be in peace in my own home, not bombarded by whatever faith the person doing the knocking subscribes to!
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Lovegirl, you spoke as if you were right inside my head- get out, there's little enough room there already! :lol:
You are of the same mind as me that the different religions speak many of the same truths, I wish people would stop taking out of context reasons to hate, kill and destroy each other. I don't think any sane being could find that in their religous texts if their hearts were true.
You are of the same mind as me that the different religions speak many of the same truths, I wish people would stop taking out of context reasons to hate, kill and destroy each other. I don't think any sane being could find that in their religous texts if their hearts were true.
Similar threads
