By the way, do you also believe thay humanity was the product of a lot of inbreeding?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I love religion debates, they are always fun to observe.. and even more fun to participate in them :D Maybe I should start teh debating too, when I have time (and if this topic is not locked before that! Mods, please don't lock this topic, this is fun one )

In before lock!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ban plz

Well, being that God is omniscient and omnipresent, time is irrelevant. The Bible was written by many men. There is not even a claim that it is the direct word of God, as the Qu'ran claims. It is a book of faith, it is a book on living well. Reading the Bible and following the rules explicitely will not get you into heaven. The only thing that remains consistent in all forms of Christianity, and many other religions, is the need for faith. If you have it, you don't have to answer to anyone else.

@Blank: By the way, what's the point of believing that the world was created 6000 years ago? I mean if you believe that the Sun doesn't go around the Earth, why not give up such an unimportant detail as the beginning of the World? After all, Christianity is all about ethics, not science.

 

 

Also, I forgot to say earlier, the bit about the Sun is in the Book of Joshua, I think.

 

 

@Hurlshot: I feel like faith is just a huge cop out. Basically, with it one doesn't have to think for himself. Life of Brian comes to mind.

Edited August 22, 200619 yr by Pidesco

Are you saying that we should take the all or nothing approach, Pidesco?

 

You must take every single word of the bible as literally true or you must deny it completely? That's a ridiculous thought if I've ever seen one. Blank cites context, and yet you continue in essentially the same vein throughout the entire thread. I get that you like to bait Christians. It's probably a lot of fun, just don't consider yourself enlightened over it.

 

The bible is a written work.

 

To some people, it is a historical document. In asmuchas it provides accounts of past events, and where those accounts are reinforced by other evidence, it clearly has something of a historical nature.

 

To other people, the bible is a literary work. It is beautiful in and of itself in much the same way as the Iliad or Aeneid.

 

Still others see the bible as the foundation of their world view and religious conviction. Within that group, there are disparate views. Some say that each word must be taken literally. This group relies on literal interpretations of words in idiomatic phrases. The emphasis is placed on taking each individual word as it stands in the passage and then deriving the most literal translation possible under such circumstances. That's not how language is spoken or written today. Language was no different in this regard two thousand years ago.

 

Some folks say that the bible serves as a foundation for spiritual beliefs but not as a scientific document. To such people, the bible must be taken as a compiliation of spiritual tenets culminating in Jesus' own words. The commentary on earthly matters is either less important or superfluous.

 

Other folks see the bible as a strict guideline for earthly activity, but don't rely on it for scientific discovery. These folks adhere to the earthly dictates in asmuchas these dictates reflect spiritual mandates.

 

See, there are a variety of ways of seeing the bible. Saying that we must take the all or nothing approach amounts either to the stingy tyranny of a closed mind (in the case of fundamentalists) or a small minded and petty attack (in the case of hostile atheists).

 

...And the bible is a beautiful work. It is a hugely important book for a number of reasons, but because of its religious nature, it receives no end of mistreatment at the hands of folks who want to attack it on one extremely narrow line of reasoning.

As you pointed out, it's not 'all or nothing' when it comes to taking the Bible literally. Some parts are meant to be taken literally, others symbolically. For example, the Bible is quite literal when it says that Jesus was crucified. Howevever, anyone with half a brain can tell there won't literally be a beast with 'seven heads and ten horns' coming out of the sea at the end times.

 

How many religions?  Give an example.  The Christian religion comes from the Bible, which is the highest authority.  The way it's practiced is up to those who intepret it.  Most denominations of Christianity do not say that sex or enjoying sex is a sin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, and the Calvinists are a few huge examples.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BTW, you're wrong about that too. The RCC, Lutherans, and Calvinists do not teach that sex in general is a sin. Calvinists I'm not so sure about, but the priests and people in the mainstream RCC's clerical heirarchy might have to take a vow of celibacy, but that does not mean sex itself is sinful, especially for the average Joe in the congregation. Lutherans do not even require such practices, and they certainly don't say sex is a sin. I should know, I am one. Honestly, make sure you have your facts straight before making statements.

Edited August 22, 200619 yr by Dark Moth

The Christian axis of evil strikes again!

Someone put Christ in Christian and they're all over the place!

I don't see faith as a cop out at all. I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. My faith derives from what I see around me and the emotions I feel. I am appreciative of this beautiful planet. I'm thankful for my loving family and friends. This is what gives me faith in a higher power. I show my respect for that higher power by trying to live a positive life and by helping others. It isn't always easy, being selfish and irresponsible is easier, but at the end of the day I'm glad when I make the positive choices, and I imagine at the end of my life, I will still feel that way.

One of the things I'm actually looking forward to is dying and seeing what happens. Of course I want a long and fruitful life, but I'm curious. I want see the reactions on people's faces when they die and find out they their entire belief system does not exist. Or what they do when they find out they were right. Will the act smug and gloat? Will they try to save the non-believers?

 

Personally, I think when you die, you get a one-on-one meeting with whatever supreme, omniscient and all powerful being thats up there. You'll also have access to your memories and experiences from past lives and based on that, you'll have to think about what you've learned. You'll have to answer this Supreme Being, which I think will be a collective mind of the souls that have reached enlightenment, and tell It what you've learned.

 

Based upon your answer, the Supreme being will send you back as something else, so you can experience something new and become a little more enlightened, or you request being sent back as something to see what you can learn. Or you can just hang around in Limbo contemplating and eating pizza. There's no hurry.

 

My answer will probably involve something about video games being cool and work being bad. No doubt I'll be reborn as some homeless guy so I'll be deprived of both and see what it feels like.

 

Yep, I'm a far way from nirvana.

 

And Yep I'm pretty sure this is how it is up there. Its a matter of faith and therefore you cannot argue with me and prove me wrong.

As you pointed out, it's not 'all or nothing' when it comes to taking the Bible literally.  Some parts are meant to be taken literally, others symbolically.  For example, the Bible is quite literal when it says that Jesus was crucified.  Howevever, anyone with half a brain can tell there won't literally be a beast with 'seven heads and ten horns' coming out of the sea at the end times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't agree with that. If I was to believe that there is an "omniscient and omnipresent" God that created everything, and watches all we do, I most certainly could believe that a beast with "seven heads and ten horns" could come out of the sea at end times. Personally, it would be easier for me to believe.

Anyone? Isn't there a considerably large part of the US who actually believe the crap about Moses parting the seas and the earth being only a few thousand years old? Seven headed beats with ten horns you say, I'll take one please!

This thread needs some Gray Jedi Knight.

Alas, it seems we've gone from the discussion to taunting and one of our number :Cant's glowering at Kirottu icon: dared invoke the name of Gray Jedi Knight. For that reason, we've got a short period of cooling. If someone would like to restart the thread, reviving respectfull debate, please feel free. Otherwise, this thread goes down into the screaming abyss from which it was spawned.

Are you saying that we should take the all or nothing approach, Pidesco?

 

You must take every single word of the bible as literally true or you must deny it completely?  That's a ridiculous thought if I've ever seen one.  Blank cites context, and yet you continue in essentially the same vein throughout the entire thread.  I get that you like to bait Christians. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With respect, Cantousent, Pidesco might be a little truculent, but it is the fundamental interpreters who insist that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and nothing else, that insist on the all-or-nothing approach.

The bible is a written work.

 

To some people, it is a historical document.  In asmuchas it provides accounts of past events, and where those accounts are reinforced by other evidence, it clearly has something of a historical nature.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is more mythic than historical; by that I mean pre-historic, a collection of folk oral traditions, finally collected and written down (like the myths of Ancient Egypt and Scandinavia, for example).

To other people, the bible is a literary work.  It is beautiful in and of itself in much the same way as the Iliad or Aeneid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep, it has some excellent literary merit.

Still others see the bible as the foundation of their world view and religious conviction.  Within that group, there are disparate views.  Some say that each word must be taken literally.  This group relies on literal interpretations of words in idiomatic phrases.  The emphasis is placed on taking each individual word as it stands in the passage and then deriving the most literal translation possible under such circumstances.  That's not how language is spoken or written today.  Language was no different in this regard two thousand years ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And these are the crazies. These are the ones who see an angle in which they can interpret the arcane text "for and on behalf of" the laity.

 

Don't forget William Tyndale was executed for translating the Bible from latin into English, in retalialion for providing the common folk with the ability to read and interpret the holy text themselves. (Aside: this is what really sticks in my craw about the organised Christian religions, especially: the belief that the end justifies the means and that the hoi polloi can be told anything and treated any way to achieve "God's kingdom on earth".)

Some folks say that the bible serves as a foundation for spiritual beliefs but not as a scientific document.  To such people, the bible must be taken as a compiliation of spiritual tenets culminating in Jesus' own words.  The commentary on earthly matters is either less important or superfluous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, that is a more defensible position, but still any ethical lessons must not be taken from the Old Testament, with the God Of Wrath, lest the kingdom of God be full of eyeless and toothless inhabitants. The story of God's punishment of Egypt is appalling. To excuse it as part of some higher plan for greater good is a supreme act of denial, and even dangerous. (If it is possible once, then it may be necessary to happen again ...)

... And the bible is a beautiful work.  It is a hugely important book for a number of reasons, but because of its religious nature, it receives no end of mistreatment at the hands of folks who want to attack it on one extremely narrow line of reasoning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No question it is a significant piece of literature. The problem comes not from those who criticize, but from those criticized for insisting that the Bible is a factual representation that is beyond man's comprehension and right to investigate.

Okay, cool down period is over. I'm reopenning the topic because it has been a reasonable discussion. Also, I know for a fact someone has something to say and he should have the right to say it. :Cant's grin and wink icon:

 

That and meta is posting in it anyhow. :D Actually, I'm quite glad to let meta have the last word. ...But I figure it's a fun topic and generally we're all respectful to one another. Please feel free to contribute.

 

Well, that and I'd like to agree with Steve that there are yet great, lively historians in our midst. I don't like the focus of the discipline, but you can't stop a great historian.

As for the world being created 6000 years ago, I believe that is true, yes. I explain all aging of the world we find as being made by God. If I was going to make a world, and I was God, it would make sense to not make it a planet that is just coming into existence. I would create the world "aged" a bit, like good wine, in order to house people. As for carbon dating and stuff like that, I believe the atmosphere was different in the beginning of time, and that a flood occured.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It saddens me that you have such a poor grasp the cross-discipline scientific evidence to seriously entertain this particular belief.

 

Really, of all the hare-brained concepts, this must be the silliest. And totally pointless, too: it doesn't actually say anywhere in the Bible that the Earth was created nearly 6000 years ago, it was some anal Bishop who sat down and "calculated" this figure based on what he thought the length of the serial timeline.

 

Seriously, there are so many different areas of knowledge that repudiate this that I am actually surprised you said it. From things as unrealted as the evolution of Indo-European languages over the last tens of millennia, to genetic mutations and adaptations (like the galactophagous gene), to migrations, localizations and extinctions of animals (not many marsupials outside Australia, for example), to the fossil evidence of proto-humans, and magnetic polar drifts and swaps, and tectonic activity. I could go on. But you probably believe that the fossil sea shells that make up the white cliffs of Dover are a nice decorative touch by the Alpha God.

 

Really, I find the fundamental interpretation of a book that is obviously a collected work of many hands (the two markedly different creation myths in Genesis, for example) silly and dangerous. Sure, believe in the two commandments of the Gospels: Love God above all else and Love your neighbour as you love yourself (enter much interesting and worthy musings by Kierkegaard on what it means to "love thyself"), but don't take the Old Testament as a literary ethical instruction manual.

Are you saying that we should take the all or nothing approach, Pidesco?

 

You must take every single word of the bible as literally true or you must deny it completely?  That's a ridiculous thought if I've ever seen one.  Blank cites context, and yet you continue in essentially the same vein throughout the entire thread.  I get that you like to bait Christians.  It's probably a lot of fun, just don't consider yourself enlightened over it.

 

The bible is a written work.

 

To some people, it is a historical document.  In asmuchas it provides accounts of past events, and where those accounts are reinforced by other evidence, it clearly has something of a historical nature.

 

To other people, the bible is a literary work.  It is beautiful in and of itself in much the same way as the Iliad or Aeneid.

 

Still others see the bible as the foundation of their world view and religious conviction.  Within that group, there are disparate views.  Some say that each word must be taken literally.  This group relies on literal interpretations of words in idiomatic phrases.  The emphasis is placed on taking each individual word as it stands in the passage and then deriving the most literal translation possible under such circumstances.  That's not how language is spoken or written today.  Language was no different in this regard two thousand years ago.

 

Some folks say that the bible serves as a foundation for spiritual beliefs but not as a scientific document.  To such people, the bible must be taken as a compiliation of spiritual tenets culminating in Jesus' own words.  The commentary on earthly matters is either less important or superfluous.

 

Other folks see the bible as a strict guideline for earthly activity, but don't rely on it for scientific discovery.  These folks adhere to the earthly dictates in asmuchas these dictates reflect spiritual mandates.

 

See, there are a variety of ways of seeing the bible.  Saying that we must take the all or nothing approach amounts either to the stingy tyranny of a closed mind (in the case of fundamentalists) or a small minded and petty attack (in the case of hostile atheists).

 

...And the bible is a beautiful work.  It is a hugely important book for a number of reasons, but because of its religious nature, it receives no end of mistreatment at the hands of folks who want to attack it on one extremely narrow line of reasoning.

 

I'm not saying that. The point I was trying to make in a roundabout sort of way, is that once someone states that he believes the Bible is literally true, he is effectively getting into that dead end sort of thinking, and there really is no way to avoid it other than by losing consistency. This kind of closemindedness really gets to me.

 

Of course, Blank shouldn't really be the object of my rudeness, as he doesn't believe in the whole of Bible as literally true so, sorry about that. It's just that someone reading the Genesis as an historical account really gets to me.

 

Also, as I've said before, I don't put all Christians in the same group, and realise there are many different ways of looking at the Bible.

 

 

By the way, on the subject of faith as a cop out, I meant it only in certain cases, specifically where people use faith as an answer to everything and as an escape from any sort of critical thought. I believe that faith is essential in our lives and that everyone has a certain measure of it in the way they approach their own belief systems. In fact I don't think any beliefs can be held without faith.

Edited August 22, 200619 yr by Pidesco

Seriously, there are so many different areas of knowledge that repudiate this that I am actually surprised you said it. From things as unrealted as the evolution of Indo-European languages over the last tens of millennia, to genetic mutations and adaptations (like the galactophagous gene), to migrations, localizations and extinctions of animals (not many marsupials outside Australia, for example), to the fossil evidence of proto-humans, and magnetic polar drifts and swaps, and tectonic activity. I could go on. But you probably believe that the fossil sea shells that make up the white cliffs of Dover are a nice decorative touch by the Alpha God.

 

I think the explanation is that god created stuff like the light from stars millions of light years away, already en route. I remember reading a debate transcript between two scholars on the topic, and that's pretty much what the creationist said.

 

The (dis)advantage of having an all powerful god is that you can explain any contradictions or inconsistencies simply on acts of this god (I'm pretty sure this is what Pidesco talked about).

 

 

Though I tend to abstain from conversations such as this because I have my beliefs and other people have theirs, and when it comes to stuff such as this no one is going to give up any ground (which is why I avoided the topic when you wanted to bring it up in a different thread Blank).

 

In any case, I'll return to the shadows.

It saddens me that you have such a poor grasp the cross-discipline scientific evidence to seriously entertain this particular belief.

 

But you probably believe that the fossil sea shells that make up the white cliffs of Dover are a nice decorative touch by the Alpha God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure, why not. I believe he is all-powerful. Why can't he do something like that?

 

It doesn't matter about how I believe the world was created. As you said, my driving belief in life is to love God and love others, so trying to convince people that the world was made 6000 years ago is stupid. In fact, I'll recant that earlier comment, simply because it has no bearing on my beliefs as a whole. I believe God created everything, that is all that's needed.

 

Though I tend to abstain from conversations such as this because I have my beliefs and other people have theirs, and when it comes to stuff such as this no one is going to give up any ground (which is why I avoided the topic when you wanted to bring it up in a different thread Blank).

I do give ground though. Like now when I realize that believing the world was made 6000 years ago is rather stupid to push as a point that matters.

Edited August 22, 200619 yr by Blank

Love? God has nothing to do with love. How can he be a loving diety when he is perfectly willing to torture a person for all of eternity for not following and worshipping him? That is not a loving God. That is a tyrant. There is no crime or sin in this world that warrants eternal torture.

In the case you presented, he is still capable of loving the people who follow him.

The measure of a god or person is how he or she treats those who disagree with him or her.

But you asked how he could be loving. So, just in case you need me to point it out, he can be loving by loving those who follow him. It's still being loving, just selectively.

That isn't really love. That is just God's selfish desire to raise himself above his creations.