Post by: Strings on September 17, 2005, 12:14:42 PM
Now... quick ground rules: we are NOT here to try and convert each other. Personally, anybody that PMs me and says "your logic has converted me to" will be shot in the butt repeatedly with a hopped-up paintball gun at close range...
So... any takers?
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 17, 2005, 12:40:45 PM
Post by: Guest on September 17, 2005, 12:42:06 PM
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on September 17, 2005, 01:23:57 PM
In the buckle of the Bible Belt, aka Baptist central, I am a bit of an anomaly.
I like the feelgood fellowship of the Baptists, the contemplative depth of monastic Catholicism a la St. Thomas Aquinas and Thomas Merton; the zenlike qualities of Quaker thought along the lines of Richard C. Foster, and even the "big picture" grandeur of the American Transcendentalists, of whom Emerson was intellectually the Mac Daddy of them all.
Rather than cowering before a stern and vengeful deity, I prefer to think He actually LIKES the "crown of His creation" (humanity), and kind of likes to help us work out the meaning behind the temporal experiences of life, and sort of have His kids hang out with Him and enjoy the ride.
I'm also frequently accused of being more than a little insane, too, so take what *I* tell you with a grain of salt.
Felonious Monk/Fignozzle
Post by: jefnvk on September 17, 2005, 01:26:19 PM
Quote
God and I have reached a sort of mutual understanding: I'll do my best to live by his commandments, and he won't take me so seriously as to require me to go to church. I don't think he takes me seriously anyway since, after all, it was He who created me.
Couldn't ahve said it any better myself. Do you mind if I borrow that (properly attributed, of course)?
Post by: Moondoggie on September 17, 2005, 01:59:20 PM
I think that we are created spiritual beings and that our existence here is less than the blink of an eye compared to our eternal existence. "Forever" includes the far distant past as well as the future.
I think that we are "reincarnated", but I don't get wrapped around the axel trying to figure what I was in past lives. I have no idea if we have any choice in the matter or if it's totally random, or if there's some sort of grand design at work.
I think that any animal that nurtures their offspring has a soul.
I describe my philosophy as "Zen Existentialism".
I do know that countless thousands of people have been slaughtered for no other reason than one group having a defferent belief system than another...very notably among Christians. One group of folks imposing their beliefs upon another is one of the things that brings my blood to a boil the fastest.
"I dont know where we come from,
Dont' know where we're going to,
But if all this should have a reason,
Then we would be the last to know,
So let's just hope there is a promised land,
Hang on til then,
Best as you can." Steppenwolf..."Rock Me"
I really, really, REALLY tried Christianity but it just never made sense to me.
I do believe very strongly in principles of "Good" and "Right" in my personal conduct, but it has nothing to do with religion.
Post by: Standing Wolf on September 17, 2005, 06:18:53 PM
My kitty keeps trying to persuade me to worship the Great Cat.
Post by: Jamisjockey on September 17, 2005, 06:42:45 PM
Saw the light, became an Atheist.
Post by: Stand_watie on September 17, 2005, 06:52:03 PM
Quote
thread got me to thinking that a nice, calm discussion among us about the philosophy behind our respective faiths might be entertaining...
Fat chance.I will attempt (poorly I'm sure) to encapsulate my philosophy (orthodox Christianity) by quoting King David and King Solomon and the apostle Paul (who quoted them in the same passage).
Psalm 14
For the director of music. Of David.
1 The fool [a] says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
2 The LORD looks down from heaven
on the sons of men
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
3 All have turned aside,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.
Ecclesiastes 7
20 There is not a righteous man on earth
who does what is right and never sins.
Romans 3
Righteousness Through Faith
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
And for our irreligious friends
Romans 2
14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 17, 2005, 07:20:27 PM
Post by: Ron on September 17, 2005, 09:09:26 PM
I am not perfect
He grants me access to Him now and when I die through His Son The Christ who will make me perfect.
In the meanwhile He wants me to muddle through and love you guys and gals (even you athiests and pagans).
Basic Christianity,
Quote
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me
Post by: Strings on September 17, 2005, 09:40:48 PM
I think Divinity is something WAY beyond the understanding of Man. Just no way we can understand all of it. Which is, I think, the reason for so many different religions. Christians understand one segment, Jews an area close (even overlapping a bit), the Hindus another, Pagans yet another. None of us get it "completely correct": we only get the pieces that we are able to understand...
Post by: Subby on September 17, 2005, 10:23:29 PM
Or as old Clint said "Buzzards gotta eat, same as the worms"
Sub
Post by: TarpleyG on September 18, 2005, 04:02:45 AM
That's what I believe and I am most likely wrong but think about this--what is we are all right in our own beliefs? Talk about mind blowing.
Greg
Post by: grampster on September 18, 2005, 06:27:52 AM
I'm a Christian by choice and I muddle through that reality as best I can, trusting what I know. I gain more knowledge of the reality of my faith almost on a daily basis, especially when I betray my own principals. I am surprised when I find a particular passage of scripture suddenly becoming either clear or have meaning.
An observation or a thought might be the engine of that revelation.
I don't claim to have a total understanding of the ramifications of my faith; and I might never. I try and live my life in a fashion that perhaps others might wonder about me in that regard. As a result, I am more disapointed in my own shortcomings than I am of what I believe are the shortcomings of others. If people ask about my faith I respond. For me, I believe it is better to proselytise by deed rather than by voice.
I believe every person has a yearning for God and that a person's circumstances dictates the manner of the revelation of the reality of that yearning.
I also believe that every "faith" (I include atheism as a faith) in existance on earth at any given time, somehow leads to Jesus in some fashion. (Again, this thread is about individual opinion, remember!)
I believe every person is an island when it comes to making decisions of faith. As such I find a great deal of comfort and understanding in the Bible; especially the counsel of Jeremiah in the 17th chapter of his book, the 5th through the 8th verses. Those verses are especially vivid at the times when I grasp my failings in my dealings with others and particularly with myself.
Post by: Iain on September 18, 2005, 06:59:31 AM
Since then the reasons have changed, and maybe even become a little more mature, but the decision remains.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 18, 2005, 01:16:01 PM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
cool... I get to disagree with almost everybody (btw fistful... what's your shoe size?)...
I think Divinity is something WAY beyond the understanding of Man. Just no way we can understand all of it. Which is, I think, the reason for so many different religions. Christians understand one segment, Jews an area close (even overlapping a bit), the Hindus another, Pagans yet another. None of us get it "completely correct": we only get the pieces that we are able to understand...
I think Divinity is something WAY beyond the understanding of Man. Just no way we can understand all of it. Which is, I think, the reason for so many different religions. Christians understand one segment, Jews an area close (even overlapping a bit), the Hindus another, Pagans yet another. None of us get it "completely correct": we only get the pieces that we are able to understand...
Quote from: TarpleyG
what if we are all right in our own beliefs? Talk about mind blowing.
Talk about completely stinkin' impossible.HR, the religions you're describing believe in gods that differ significantly from one another. How can they all describe the same "Divine;" and if they do, why pay any attention to any of them? If all of these religions are valid, then why not add another? Do whatever you want.
Someone is gonna have to explain the pink shoe thing to me. And they're a 13, thank you very much.
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 18, 2005, 01:43:38 PM
Going to church on Sunday was a big part of my upbringing. My social life revolved around the kids I knew from church, and from church-related activities. Even our Boy Scout troop met at the church, so almost no activity I was involved in (including shooting on the rifle league) didn't have some association with the church.
Like Iain, all that changed when I reached age 17 and gained infinite wisdom.
I never returned to the church in an organized way, but I've never lost the teachings, either. And I still pray, for family members, friends, those in need, and ocassionally for guidance in my own troubled times.
While I don't believe in a Satan as depicted in, say, "The Exorcist," I do believe that Evil exists. I think we've all seen it plainly in the events of the past four years, and we know about it from history. It's difficult to explain people like Hitler or Stalin without embracing the existence of Evil.
I also don't believe in a white-bearded God looking down upon us, but I believe in some sort of God. What he/she/it consists of is another question.
As for an afterlife, it's hard for me to fathom what that might be, but I hope it exists. I'll still be needing to make mortgage payments.
Post by: grampster on September 18, 2005, 04:24:51 PM
Post by: Stand_watie on September 18, 2005, 07:52:36 PM
Quote
Christians understand one segment, Jews an area close (even overlapping a bit), .
Jews (Orthodox Jews, which seem to me to be a minority) and orthodox (again minority) Christians have a larger overlap than I think they are even commonly understood to have, the chief disagreement seeming to be the identity of the Messiah. Some historians consider Christianity to be a wierd off-shoot cult of Judaism.Quote
the Hindus another, Pagans yet another
I for one would consider myself arrogant to not consider that other religions don't have a better grasp of certain facets of religious philosophy than my own (not the biggest picture, or I'd convert 
)
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 18, 2005, 08:14:45 PM
Yeah, well, you've never seen Hunter Rose in tights or a kilt. In fact, neither have I, although he's threatened to show me.
Post by: 280plus on September 19, 2005, 01:01:23 AM
Quote
1 The fool [a] says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
Well, there you go again. Unless we "believe" we are "fools", "corrupt", "vile" and can do no good."There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
Nope, no pressure there.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 19, 2005, 03:34:14 AM
Quote from: Stand_watie
Jews (Orthodox Jews, which seem to me to be a minority) and orthodox (again minority) Christians have a larger overlap than I think they are even commonly understood to have, the chief disagreement seeming to be the identity of the Messiah. Some historians consider Christianity to be a wierd off-shoot cult of Judaism.
Consider the origins of Christianity. A group of Jews believed that a certain man was the promised Messiah and thier religious practices changed. Isn't it the case, really, that Christianity and modern Judaism are both off-shoots of historical Judaism?
Post by: 280plus on September 19, 2005, 06:12:20 AM
Quote
280, quit your belly-achin'!
Is that all I'm doing? Oops, my mistake... 
Post by: Strings on September 19, 2005, 07:16:43 AM
Post by: Paddy on September 19, 2005, 07:42:15 AM
Post by: BrokenPaw on September 19, 2005, 07:54:34 AM
Quote
HR, the religions you're describing believe in gods that differ significantly from one another. How can they all describe the same "Divine;" and if they do, why pay any attention to any of them?
Fistful,Consider the shadow of a short section of pipe, cast on the ground in the sunlight. The pipe is a three-dimensional object, but its shadow is two-dimensional. Now suppose that four people are shown the shadow, but not the pipe. But each of those four are shown the shadow when the pipe was facing a different direction.
One was shown the shadow when the pipe was axially aligned with the sun. He sees a ring.
One was shown the shadow when the pipe was angled slightly, so that only a bit of light got through. He sees something rather like an eye.
One was shown the shadow when the sun no longer passed through the pipe. He sees something shaped rather like a Tylenol caplet.
One was shown the shadow when the pipe was perpendicular to the sun's rays. He sees a rectangle.
If you ask all of these people to describe the object that caused the shadow, you will likely get four different descriptions.
The way humans view the Divine is like this; we see the shadow, but the shadow itself is not the Divine. The shadow is the part of the Divine that we can perceive with our limited understanding and perspective, and it is arrogant of us to assume that because we perceive it thus, everyone else will (or should) as well.
I wonder at the thinking that causes someone to say that the deity they follow is omnipotent and capable of all things, but then turn around and say that the deity cannot or will not appear in some other aspect to people of a different perspective.
This is not a judgement; merely an observation.
For myself, I am an eclectic pagan with Druidic leanings. I reached this place by following a path that led from apathy, through Atheism, into Christianity and out the other side, into Wicca, and eventually to where I am. That journey took twenty years. I wonder where I'll be in another decade.
Namaste,
-BP
(edited because apparently I cannot proofread very well)
Post by: Stand_watie on September 19, 2005, 08:51:20 AM
Quote
Unless we "believe" we are "fools", "corrupt", "vile" and can do no good.
Not exactly - all human beings, minus one, are fools, vile, corrupt and can do no good. Disbelief in God is but a single manifestation of the human condition.2 The LORD looks down from heaven
on the sons of men
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
3 All have turned aside,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.
Ecclesiastes 7
20 There is not a righteous man on earth
who does what is right and never sins
Ain't righteous
by Bob Dylan
When a man he serves the Lord, it makes his life worthwhile.
It don't matter 'bout his position, it don't matter 'bout his lifestyle.
Talk about perfection, I ain't never seen none
And there ain't no man righteous, no not one.
Sometimes the devil likes to drive you from the neighborhood.
He'll even work his ways through those whose intentions are good.
Some like to worship on the moon, others are worshipping the sun
And there ain't no man righteous, no not one.
Look around, ya see so many social hypocrites
Like to make rules for others while they do just the opposite.
You can't get to glory by the raising and the lowering of no flag.
Put your goodness next to God's and it comes out like a filthy rag.
In a city of darkness there's no need of the sun
And there ain't no man righteous, no not one.
Done so many evil things in the name of love, it's a crying shame
I never did see no fire that could put out a flame.
Pull your hat down, baby, pull the wool down over your eyes,
Keep a-talking, baby, 'til you run right out of alibis.
Someday you'll account for all the deeds that you done.
Well, there ain't no man righteous, no not one.
God got the power, man has got his vanity,
Man gotta choose before God can set him free.
Don't you know there's nothing new that's under the sun?
Well, there ain't no man righteous, no not one.
When I'm gone don't wonder where I be.
Just say that I trusted in God and that Christ was in me.
Say He defeated the devil, He was God's chosen Son
And that there ain't no man righteous, no not one.
Post by: grampster on September 19, 2005, 08:53:13 AM
But what if the pipe itself showed up one day and many people had an opportunity to be in the presence of the pipe itself, to experience it fully with all their senses. The pipe said and did many disturbing things in the presence of many, including stating that he was indeed the pipe; causing the pipe to be totally rethreaded. Later some of the same people who saw the pipe rethreaded, and others as well, fully experienced the old familiar pipe with all their senses again. In other words, they did not see the pipe's shadow, but the pipe itself and were convinced of it.
These folks wrote down their experiences and other vignettes to be shared with their posterity. Oddly what they wrote down seemed to square up with some earlier predictions about the fact that the pipe would come around at some time. Now allowing the fact (through witnesses that all basically say the same thing--tough for a bunch of witnesses to do that, by the way.) that the pipe truly was the pipe and not his shadow, would the pipe not want an accurate record kept? (this goes to the meaning of the written record being altered by translation)
Now it is up to each individual to decide what to make of the actual presence and claims of the pipe. Surely, one can then keep on looking for shadows of the pipe and find them fairly easily and decide to keep looking. But, it seems to me, one would rather see the pipe itself than to keep on guessing about what the pipe truly is and be content with a shadow. But it also seems to me that all the evidence, when compared to basis of evidentiary record keeping and the validity of same, tends to bear out the claim of the pipe and the witnesses. ("Evidence that Demands a Verdict", can't remember the author, large book, 1/3 postulations and attempts to discredit the claims of the pipe and the witnesses and 2/3 bibliography, interesting book regarding the veracity of the tale of the pipe. The conclusion was that the pipe was among us. There was also another fellow that spent his entire life learning how to read and understand as many languages as he could. He found that no matter what language one dealt with, when discussing the pipe, all meanings squared up.)
I'll stop here before I get to rambling on.
Post by: BrokenPaw on September 19, 2005, 09:29:40 AM
I take your point. What I was attempting to say in my post is that the pipe[0] is, by its very nature, beyond the possibility of full comprehension by humans. Just as two-dimensional creatures would be unable to perceive our exemplary pipe, so I believe that we, as humans who exist and perceive in three dimensions, are incapable of fully comprehending the Divine, which exists outside the scope of three dimensions.
Just as the pipe I described can be rendered in two dimensions only by removing much detail, so the Divine which is beyond our understanding can be rendered in terms we can understand, only by limiting its scope. So in a place where people wore sandals and met in synagogues, it would make sense that if the Divine wished to make itself known to the people of that region, it might do so in the form of a human man who wore sandals and did things that made sense to the people of that region.
I believe that it's possible that the Divine could also appear in other ways to other people in different places. If a man in sandals and a robe had showed up in the frigid north, the locals there might not have been able to identify with him as one of them. So perhaps the Divine chose to reveal itself to the Norse people in a different way. As a one-eyed man with two ravens, possibly. Who knows?
I am not in any way attempting to say that Jesus was not who He said He was. But I am saying that there may be other aspects of Divinity that mankind has perceived, and those ways may simply be different perceptions (limited by our own capacities) of the same underlying Divine spirit.[1]
I am not saying that Christianity is wrong. I am saying that Christianity being right does not intrinsically mean that all other perceptions of Divinity are wrong.
Namaste,
-BP
- This analogy is going to make continued discourse along this line very odd [1] "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -Hamlet, Shakespeare
Post by: 280plus on September 19, 2005, 10:15:11 AM
Quote
I believe that we, as humans who exist and perceive in three dimensions, are incapable of fully comprehending the Divine, which exists outside the scope of three dimensions.
Exactly as I'd want to put itand then I would ask why has man taken this Divine and given it the characterisics of a man who would, by nature, deem me vile, corrupt and incapable of no good. There are many who seek God and seek to understand "Him" I'm just not accepting of the the many ways man tries to manifest what ever it is we call "God" or the "Divine". Maybe we are too imperfect to truly manifest the concept. I think that's what Broken paw is getting at. Thos last posts took a couple of rereads! WHEW!
Post by: grampster on September 19, 2005, 11:44:47 AM
Quite accurate, which may be why He decided to enter His creation so that the created might better get a handle on how to be more receptive to the notion of faith.
Jesus himself also spoke of His Father's house having many mansions and His need to see to His other flocks. I suppose we could argue about this for a good long time. But I have this feeling that the bottom line is that somehow all "religions" in some fashion point to Jesus, even those "religions" that may not appear as religions at all. Many of the worlds religions seem to be intellectual, a seeking of a higher plain or a holding of nature in wonder. The teaching there imho is that one has the ability to find what is findeable. Remember Christian teaching says that God's will is that ALL be saved. But at the same time He gave us free will; we can reject Him. What I don't think is that the mystery needs to remain a mystery. I believe we have been granted something embeded in us that allows us to understand all that we need to understand. We certainly cannot undestand the unknowable. "Now we see as through a glass darkly, then we shall see things as they really are." The implication is that there is vision, but not total clarity. But one does have all the tools to be able to see what is there to be seen. With respect to the argument about stone aged tribesmen and the like...my response is "To whom much is given, much is expected."
I don't claim to have any inside track on any of this. I only know what I know and how it pertains for me. As such I do not discount any other faith or religion except that I don't see the need for me to continue to look at shadows. Since I came to this place about 20 years ago, there is a part of me that is satified, totally. Does that mean I am not affected by life. No. It's just that my perspective is now more connected to the 7 beatitudes rather than being mystified.
I do think there is a pecking order though. Israel seems to be placed in the forefront. Israel seems to be connected in the doings of Man in many ways throughout history including the present. "God chides those He loves." Thus the validity of the Old Testament travails of Israel and their dealings with men under the auspices of God in the earth in those days when God did not hold men accountable. God is accountable to no one and Man is accountable to God. So it seems to me there must have been a reason for all the slaying and begetting; perhaps to show us what we're capable of from all points of the 3 dimensional human perspective. Perhaps that is why He did not hold Men accountable in those times. All that is just part of the lesson and teaches the value of history and how there is cause and effect in the dealings of Man when he conficts with the order of things. There is science, the arts and all else with respect to cause and effect when one looks at the OT and the happenings of those days. The Old Testament Book of Ecclesiastes deals with that notion very well, I think, from the aspect of having everything. Job pretty well sums up when one goes from having everything to having nothing except the ability to breathe, and painfully for all that.
Sometimes my ability to ramble amazes even me.
Post by: richyoung on September 19, 2005, 11:57:22 AM
Post by: Paddy on September 19, 2005, 12:44:29 PM
Quote
I am saying that Christianity being right does not intrinsically mean that all other perceptions of Divinity are wrong.
I couldn't agree more. Faith and the 'search' are dynamic processes that wax and wane with individual experiences. A nugget of truth today that is cherished and embraced can be cast away as worthless tomorrow. My own experience follows this path. As a child, I was taught Roman Catholicism, which I diligently practiced until my mid teens. I then embarked on a path that took me through alternative religions and tantra yoga. While I was exploring the universal subconcious mind, I met up with some Rosicrucians and learned astral projection (it's real, by the way). I later became involved in witchcraft and was learning how to make objects holy when a born again Christian gave me a copy of the bible. I decided to read it from cover to cover and that's when he (Satan) showed up. For real. In the flesh. I alternately played with, fought and unsuccessfully tried to ignore him for years. Ultimately, faced with the inescapable truth that Jesus Christ is who he said he is, I fell to my knees one sunny afternoon in a public park a little over 20 years ago and accepted Him as Lord and Savior. I've been on that path ever since. One cannot discount the power of the supernatural forces around us in their influence on us. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it ain't there. If we are seeking, we only have to open the door a little for what I now know is the Holy Spirit to push us in the right direction.
Post by: grampster on September 19, 2005, 01:30:55 PM
I once listened to a guy who was bringing bibles to India and other 3rd world places. (Main focus was India) He had been doing that for many years and as a result learned a lot about Hinduism and other types of religions of the East as well as modern secular humanism.
He said a powerful thing that day. It was this: "There is no question that any of these things (varying beliefs, sects, practices etc) are real. The question is...is it true! I was really shaken when I heard him say this. That for me, remains the intrinsic question; Is it true!
I was also raised Roman Catholic and then went about the business of Myself starting in my 30's, angry at organized religion. I just ignored it. Then I had an experience that led me to begin seeking the truth. I found the truth, of all places, in the The Book of Mormon. I can't remember the exact words in the last chapter, but the essence was that this book had revealed something different than what I had been accustomed too, but that I should ask the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth of the words I'd read. So I did so and wound up a few weeks later becaming a born again Christian while I was trying to sell a life insurance policy to Christian bible student studying to be a protestant preacher. I also feel drawn back to Roman Catholocism, why I don't know. I'm not angry at the organized Church anymore, either. Also not a Mormon, Which is why I think no matter what the sect, even though the practices may not be true, can point the way to Jesus.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 19, 2005, 01:40:46 PM
What I mean to say is that you are putting pressure on Stand_waite because if he does not agree with you and take back his words, he is a big meanie. Oh, wait, they're not his words, are they? What if he believes they're the words of God, and is citing them as such? If they are the words of God, then you are very foolish and vile to argue with them. If not, don't worry about it.
I think the posts by Hunter Rose and BrokenPaw illlustrate well that the "all-roads-lead-to-God" way of thinking (is there a word for that? ultraecumenical?) is one that fails to show any respect for the religions involved.
First, one has to throw out half of each religion so that the remaining halves fit together. What you are left with is a shifting, patchwork moral code.
Secondly, you remove the basis of many religions, which is revealed truth (the Bible, Koran, etc.) To HR and BP, religions are only men's perceptions. This is not what Christianity, Islam and other religions teach. In fact, this point of view doesn't leave religion with much credibility at all. So what is such religion worth? Why don't I follow the religion of the BTK killer, so I can have slaves in the afterlife, so long as I pick the ones I want and torture and kill them first?
Post by: griz on September 19, 2005, 02:18:42 PM
"I believe that religion is the best answer we have to the human condition."
That works for me. I happen to believe that what we see before us is too incredible to come about by chance. I don't care what you call the creator, I like the Nature is God idea myself. But I think it's arrogant to think you have it all figured out and can tell others that their beliefs are wrong. I see enough similarities in so many of the worlds religions that they seem to be more mirrors of their cultures rather than rules handed down by that particular creator.
So it's all good for this Frisbetarian.
Post by: 280plus on September 19, 2005, 03:53:48 PM
Quote
What I mean to say is that you are putting pressure on Stand_waite because if he does not agree with you and take back his words, he is a big meanie.
Not my intent at all and if I AM doing that I apologize profusely. I'm not questioning his beliefs, I'm trying to sort out MY beliefs. HE is entitled to his beliefs just as much as I am to mine. I think what griz just posted is about where I'm at. I see "God" or Divinity in the nature that is all around me. I remember an old "Davey and Goliath" episode. The gist was "God is everywhere." Is "God" a humanoid form that I should fear retribution from? I have my doubts.Quote
If they are the words of God, then you are very foolish and vile to argue with them. If not, don't worry about it.
One would have to make that determination before venturing much further.I look at it yet another way. If questioning the existence of a "God" will lead me down the path to a lake of fire or blackness after death I'm taking a pretty fair risk doing so wouldn't you say? Should I just cower at the notions and go along with the flow? Does this make me vile? Not in my opinion.
Why are we taught to fear both "God" and "Satan"? If I try my best every day to beat back the devil, isn't that enough for "God"?
Post by: grampster on September 19, 2005, 04:16:47 PM
Every adventure has to have a starting point. That means a decision has to be made. If you are looking for God, then you are standing in the midst of myriads of choices. I will offer you one.
If I could be so bold, I would suggest a book called "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowel. Why?? Well Mr. McDowell was an atheist who began putting this book together in order to refute Christianity and came to quite another conclusion. He backs up his research, which took many years, with much evidence that can be accessedn independently. Also "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. Why?? Because Mr. Lewis, a great British scholar, started out an agnostic who became a great apologist for Christianity and explains his position very simply and understandably. Another author, J.I. Packer, wrote another study called "God's Words". Why?? I don't know, I just read it 20 years ago when I was in the midst of reaching out for the meaning of my existance and I found it to be helpful.
Please don't get me wrong, I am not seeking to proseletyse you. I think from my earlier posts I have made clear that any decision a person makes in this regard is totally personal and singular. I found these three people fascinating and what they had to say equally so. My father, RIP, also found God in nature. He was a trout fisherman without equal. He fished the virgin streams of Michigan for weeks at a time when most of the roads were dusty 2 tracks and gravel roads in the early 20th century. I am as convinced as a man could be that his faith in the Creator of the woodlands, streams, and meadows he loved and, Who saw him through the horror of WWII, caused him to rest in the company of that Creator. Jesus was in the company of fishermen as well.
The fact that you seek, convinces me that you will find.
Best regards,
grampster
PS: I find the tone of this discussion to be very polite and respectful as it should be. I salute my fellow/maidenly Society members.
Post by: Strings on September 19, 2005, 04:21:13 PM
Let's take Jesus (as a concept, not a person), and see if it DOES fit into the concept of "all religions have validity".
We have divinity seeing things at @ year 0 as being somewhat stagnant: mankind seems to be in something of a rut, and a new pardigm is needed. So: he embodies one mortal with his essence, and sets him on Earth. This being is the son of a carpenter in the Middle East...
He lives out his life, attempting to teach a new philosophical idea to mankind. As with most new ideas, he's vilified for the attempt, eventually being executed. But his ideas take hold, giving mankind a new concept to carry itself forward in life...
Thus, you have the birth of Christianity, yet still retain the concept of all religions having validity. Christianity is just a new way for mankind to connect to Divinity: mainly for those who feel the need to have "one set way"...
Fast forward to @ 1957, and Gerald Gardener comes up with another "new way". It's called "Wicca", and becomes a fairly fast-growing thing. It offers a way to connect directly with Divinity (something that seems to be lacking in many other faiths). It works for people. This doesn't invalidate anyone's faith in Christ: it's simply another way of connecting...
I can't think of any other way of explaining it. Unfortunately, I think WAY too many people are caught up in the conceit of "one true way", that they can't see the problem...
Post by: grampster on September 19, 2005, 04:35:14 PM
I don't think all religions have "validity" in and of themselves. The concept I have poorly described is that all religions "may" in some way, ultimately, point to Jesus. This does not make them valid. Rather it makes them usefull.
Jesus claimed to be "truth, light, way" and "No one comes to the Father except through me" and "I am in the Father, the Father is in Me. Whoever is in Me is in the Father". If this is so, it does not preclude the availability of other faiths which point to Him, even unwittingly. Wicca may just do that, but in a different way than, say, Suthrin Baptists. Christians, if they understand their own faith, have to admit they have been grafted into Israel. On the other hand, why do we continually need to find "another way" to connect with Divinity if the Truth is already there for all to see? To answer my own question, maybe, because each individual seems to seek the Divinity in differnt ways. I think that's why I postulate what I do. I believe Jesus is exactly who He says He is. It is entirely possible that there are myriads of ways to come to that conclusion.
Regarding Jesus: He made a specific claim to Divinity. So, that leaves us with only three possible conclusions. He is insane. He is a liar. He is who He says He is.
Post by: Stand_watie on September 19, 2005, 04:49:29 PM
Quote from: 280plus
Not my intent at all and if I AM doing that I apologize profusely. I'm not questioning his beliefs, I'm trying to sort out MY beliefs. HE is entitled to his beliefs just as much as I am to mine.
No offense taken on this end, I just wanted to clarify that the persons being critiqued by the various references were all humanity, not just atheists.Quote
I look at it yet another way. If questioning the existence of a "God" will lead me down the path to a lake of fire or blackness after death I'm taking a pretty fair risk doing so wouldn't you say? Should I just cower at the notions and go along with the flow? Does this make me vile? Not in my opinion.
Along the same vein (and I'll say that I'm attempting to explain the Christian philosophy here rather than argue it), it's not the questioning of God's existence that takes you down that path, it's a path that you were born into.Actually genuine questioning of God and a search for truth often leads people in the right direction, see grampster's references above, and here is another from the book of Acts
26Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Go south to the road--the desert road--that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." 27So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 28and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet. 29The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it."
30Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked.
31"How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:
"He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before the shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth."
34The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" 35Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
36As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" 38And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on September 19, 2005, 05:18:51 PM
(a lyric I recall from my days at the Sudden Baddest grad school)
Some Thoughts, FWIW: Hunter Rose said "Unfortunately, I think WAY too many people are caught up in the conceit of "one true way", that they can't see the problem..."
I know for me, it was the TOTAL opposite of conceit that I had to deal with, in order to come to peace with a Christian belief system. There are blustery pontifications and convincing apologetics and huge tomes written on "Why I am a Member of the First Church of the Frozen Chosen", by Hugh Betterbe. A smart person can read all of this and be reasonably sold on the systematic theology and logic behind a bunch of totally disparate beliefs; at the time you're reading them, there seems little or no wiggle room to come to any conclusion but the one the author is herding you towards.
But in the quiet of my own heart, I had to come as a child, letting go of my intellectualism, in order to embrace a faith built not on convincing evidence, or amazing stories, but this one, childishly simple belief...
"Jesus loves me, this I know
For the Bible tells me so.
Little ones to Him belong,
We are weak, but he is strong."
It makes LESS than zero sense, when approached with the battle implements of logic and debate.
However, for those who can come as a child, and who have eyes to see, ears to hear and a heart to understand, it opens the secrets of a relationship with the Most High.
Post by: Guest on September 19, 2005, 05:38:34 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 19, 2005, 05:41:47 PM
That ain't quite enough for me. If folks like Lewis and McDowell can't put a good case together that demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that Christ is God, and that the Bible is his inherent word, then I will go my own way. I am a Christian because I know Christ and I have seen His work in the life of others and in my own. But I'm not satisfied with my own experience and feelings. If I thought the Christian faith was just something that felt true, it would be something the principles of which I could pick and choose from. I must know it is true.
grampster,
Other religions DO NOT point to Christ. They point you to yourself, and tell you what YOU can do to go to heaven, to be at peace with the universe, to be resolved into the still waters of Nirvana, what-have-you. Christianity tells of One who has done for us.
Post by: 280plus on September 19, 2005, 06:03:28 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 19, 2005, 06:13:24 PM
I do not intend to insult you for the God or the Divine you believe in, but I must conclude from your last post that he is a sad failure. At 0 A.D. he feels the world is "somewhat stagnant" and that "mankind seems to be in something of a rut"? So his divine answer is a "new philosophical idea"? Of course many historians have opined that Christianity had a positive effect on the world, but surely this is a pretty weak solution for a divine being.
I suppose his next idea was to give a revelation to Muhammed, so that he could declare all Christians and Jews as enemies, or at least infidels, and then lead a bunch of Arab tribes on the warpath. Hadn't he tried that already with the twelve tribes of Israel? Similar outline: divine revelation, followed by military conquest of heathen territory (Christian and Pagan territory, with Jews intermixed) .
Later, he tells Joseph Smith to rewrite Christ's ontology and origin, and declare all Christian churchs apostate. What did this accomplish? Polygamy? Getting young men to dress neatly, with nice haircuts, and walk around my neighborhood telling folks they can have their own planets?
Quote
Gerald Gardener comes up with another "new way". It's called "Wicca"
If you believe, as you say, that Gardener came up with it, then I wonder how it can be on the same level as the religion taught by Christ, whom you spoke of as God's personal avatar. Or was Garderner also indwelt by the divine presence? Or does that matter?What I find interesting about all of the religions addressed above, is their lack of documentary, archeological and historical corroboration, compared to Biblical Christianity. In other words, I don't know what assurance anyone has that these other faiths are the real deal.
Quote
WAY too many people are caught up in the conceit of "one true way"
And WAY too many people are caught up in the conceit of pretended humility and false open-mindedness. I would like to know what is conceited about the belief that God revealed Himself and His way to salvation through one set of writings, one tradition, one religion. Does the gentleman wish to say that God is conceited?
Post by: grampster on September 19, 2005, 06:18:56 PM
If that is what you got from what I wrote, then forgive my inability to be clear. I am saying that Jesus is Lord, but he may reveal himself in diferent ways at different times ands in a different fashion. As was said by another more connected than I, (paraphrased) Can the clay ask the potter why he forms the clay as he does? At some point in the "Religion of What Can I Do" one may come to the conclusion that the answer is nothing.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 19, 2005, 06:24:06 PM
Quote from: fistful
What I mean to say is that you are putting pressure on Stand_waite because if he does not agree with you and take back his words, he is a big meanie.
280plus, let me try again. I'm telling you that anytime you disagree with someone on an issue like religion or politics, it has consequences. Just like with the other side of the gun rights debate. We believe they are increasing crime and forcing people to be victims. They may not like to hear that about themselves, but we can't escape that conclusion. Feelings will be hurt, I'm afraid.
Post by: Strings on September 19, 2005, 08:04:47 PM
*sigh*
Try reading the Koran before generalizing that way. Unfortunately, EVERY religion (with the possible exception of Budhism) has been twisted by man to serve his own ends at some point: right now, Islam is going through such a twist...
My point with my last post was to suggest a possibility that there is a way of reconciling my beliefs with yours. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be: which is fine, nobody gets hurt either way...
Post by: 280plus on September 20, 2005, 02:06:25 AM
Here's a book I would recommend to YOU, if you can find a copy:
"I, the Aboriginal" Douglas Lockwood C. 1962 Rigby Limited, James Place, Adelaide, Australia
Here is an excerpt from the cover:
Quote
My name is Waipuldanya, or Wadjiri-Wadjiri. (If they twist your tongue too much you may call me Phillip Roberts. That is my white-feller name.)
I am a full blooded aboriginal of the Alawa tribe at Roper River in the Northern Territory.
My body has been through the fires of tribal initiation. I have been subjected to many taboos. As a child I was "sung" to death by a malevolent Doctor Blackfellow, a Medicine Man who wished to destroy me in order to punish my clan. I was saved by another.
I have worshipped Kunapipi, the Earth Mother, in our pagan ceremonies. I believe in the Rainbow Serpent. I have also worshipped and believed in the Lord God, and been confused by this conflict in religions.
I'm not asking you to leave your beliefs or even questioning them. I'm asking you to accept that there are more than 2 or 3 ways to think or feel about all this.I am a full blooded aboriginal of the Alawa tribe at Roper River in the Northern Territory.
My body has been through the fires of tribal initiation. I have been subjected to many taboos. As a child I was "sung" to death by a malevolent Doctor Blackfellow, a Medicine Man who wished to destroy me in order to punish my clan. I was saved by another.
I have worshipped Kunapipi, the Earth Mother, in our pagan ceremonies. I believe in the Rainbow Serpent. I have also worshipped and believed in the Lord God, and been confused by this conflict in religions.
The book itself is a fascinating read. I have read 50+ books on the Australian aborigine himself or how he fit into the scheme of Australia throughout its recorded history. MY interest is in the psychology of the stone age mind and is what led me to read all this. I feel by understanding the mind of the last stone age people on earth it can lead to insights on the minds of those who passed on eons ago and hence the mind of today. The religious stuff I basically stumbled onto. Meaning, I'm not reading this material in an effort to understand God, but I DO believe the reading HAS led me to a better understanding of the concept.
So, is God leading me down the path to righteousness through mysterious ways, or is Satan leading me down the path to eternal destruction?
Post by: roo_ster on September 20, 2005, 03:18:06 AM
REAL vs TRUE
There is a goodly segment of Christianity that believes all those other pagan gods written about in the Bible and elsewhere were/are real. They are real in that they are manifestations of Satan, demons, sent to deceive men and divert them from what is true. They had/have power and influence and can provide real results, just like the Big Man upstairs.
They are not true in that they deal in lies & deceit. They lead those who truck with them away from the truth. That is their purpose. In many cases they try to convince their adherents to commit acts that will further separate them from the truth: ritual murder, prostitution, veneration ceremonies, other transgressive acts, etc. The more serious or heinous an act the demon/god can get an adherent to execute, the more comitted the adherent believes himself to be to that demon/god and the more separated from the truth.
Post by: 280plus on September 20, 2005, 04:05:15 AM
IIRC most of the names of places in the US that contain the word "Devil" or "Satan" were places that pagan ritual was taking place when European settlers arrived. Again IIRC this was done either to designate the place as "unclean" and / or used by them in efforts to convert the natives to Christianity. In other words in CT we have "Devil's Hopyard" and it is widely accepted that this area was a place that was somehow Holy in the eyes of the long lost pagan natives. I have no proof of this at hand, I'd have to look around. So we see an area that was once designated as a holy spot termed evil and unclean as time marched on. Don't get me started on time again.
To Phillip Roberts (easier to type) those Demons ARE real and SO IS JESUS! He accepts them all, but at the cost of great inner conflict. He asks the question in there somewhere, "How can some man come in here and tell me that MY beliefs are all wrong and evil and his are the right and good ones?" ( not quite in those words). His pagan beliefs were from infancy, his Christian IIRC not till mid to late teens. How does one propose to resolve this conflict? He is a Holy Man in his pagan world and a Deacon of the church in the Christian world.
Where will his spirit go when he passes on?
Yes, I'm proud to see not a wisp of smoke coming from this thread.
Very cool! (literally AND figuratively)
Post by: BrokenPaw on September 20, 2005, 04:13:43 AM
Quote
I think the posts by Hunter Rose and BrokenPaw illlustrate well that the "all-roads-lead-to-God" way of thinking (is there a word for that? ultraecumenical?) is one that fails to show any respect for the religions involved. First, one has to throw out half of each religion so that the remaining halves fit together. What you are left with is a shifting, patchwork moral code.
Either I have not spoken well, or you have mistaken my meaning, fistful. I am not saying that Divinity is a crippled mishmash that contains a few bits of Christianity and a few bits of Zen Buddhism and a few bits of Islam and a few bits of Santeria.
Instead what I am saying is that all of those systems are complete in and of themselves, and they may well be equally-valid ways for people to see the Divine. A circle may be a perfect circle, but it lacks nothing for that it is not a square. Likewise, a square may have perfectly straight edges and precise corners, and be perfect in its form, but it will never be a circle, and that's all right. That they are not the same does not mean that each of them, in their own way, cannot be an example of balance and mathematical perfection.
Likewise I believe that it's possible for all of Christanity to be true, for if it were not, what would be the point in following the Christ? But at the same time, I believe that it is possible for all of what I believe to be true, else why would I bother? The two faiths are not in conflict, unless we, the humans who fail to grasp the fullness of Divinity, choose to find them in conflict.
This is not to say that I find all faiths to be valid. There are some that I just can't wrap my mind around. For instance, Scientology. That doesn't mean that it's wrong, it means that, having examined it, I can't find anything in it that makes sense to me. I could be wrong. Certainly it's not my place to tell the people who follow it that they're fools or anything of the sort. As Grampster said, if all roads eventually lead to Jesus, then if a particular belief is a fool's faith, those who are not truly fools will eventually leave it and find one better.
Grampster has said that he believes all paths eventually lead to Jesus. He and I are not that far apart in that, except that I believe that all roads eventually lead to the Divine, and Jesus is one of those roads. I walked with Him for several years, and I did not find Him lacking, but rather I found that he was a perfect circle, and the hole in my spirit was not circular; it was shaped like a five-pointed star.
Namaste,
-BP
Post by: 280plus on September 20, 2005, 04:26:43 AM
Can anyone tell me today's total cost of reaching "Clear"? It's been a while since I've heard.
Post by: Paddy on September 20, 2005, 05:56:08 AM
ALL of the world's religions have at one time or another been hijacked and perverted. Man's nature is perverse and self-serving. Look for example at societies constructed around the non-existence of a supreme being. Have they all not descended into the worst totalitarian nightmares imagineable? Without a higher authority to which all are answerable, man hits a dead end every time.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 21, 2005, 02:41:18 PM
Quote from: griz
I think it's arrogant to think you have it all figured out and can tell others that their beliefs are wrong.
But in making that statement, are you not saying that certain other people's beliefs are wrong? Your statement contradicts itself.
Post by: grampster on September 21, 2005, 03:43:28 PM
I think we all do that, mostly unwittingly, I think. Swmbo always tells me when I object to someone elses conclusion, that all I'm doing is duplicating what i'm accusing the other guy of. I, of course, tell her there is a difference...I'm right and he's wrong. heh. Life is full of contradictions. That's why we have lawyers and insurance people.
What jabbering on the boards has shown me is that even though there is a lot of similarity in thought (as much as disparateness) none of us ever really totally agrees on anything. No wonder the world is chaotic. It's a wonder that we get along as well as we do. America is a never ending wonder to me in that regard.
I use Christmas eve at the mall as an example. Sit in the middle of the mall and watch the people go by. Virtually every critter known to man, as wide a gap as you can imagine, will walk by. Anyplace else on earth this might not happen as peacefully as it does in America. Even tho we come from all walks, if you were to smile and nod, you'll get back the same. We may all disagree, more or less, but we all still get along.
That says more about us than any gibberish a Left Wing Progressive can dream about.
Sorry for the thread drift, I'll shut up now.
Post by: griz on September 21, 2005, 06:42:02 PM
Quote
But in making that statement, are you not saying that certain other people's beliefs are wrong? Your statement contradicts itself.
Good point, and to some extent I think you caught me. The differnce as I see it (and please correct me if I am making mistakes here, especially in logic) is that I believe it is too complex for any man to understand fully. Kind of the same way a sceintist can state as fact "life began X-billion years ago from the impact of a meteor with this particular element into a soup with this exact composition". Another sceintist may believe that it started 2-X billion years ago with a lightning strike. He could not say the other was wrong, but he could say there is no way for the other to know that his therory was a fact. That's why I called it arrogant, but I will apologize if it was too strong a word.In the same, way saying another's religion is wrong without being able to prove it is wrong to a reasonable observer, also strikes me as presumptuous. Obviously there is some gray area here, and I would be interested in hearing other views.
Post by: Guest on September 21, 2005, 07:09:52 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 21, 2005, 08:03:28 PM
Post by: Guest on September 21, 2005, 08:56:38 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 21, 2005, 09:06:48 PM
I don't know why it is arrogant or presumptuous in religion, but not in other fields. When we don't agree with gun control, we say it's wrong. No one accuses us of arrogance or presumption (though they might accuse of a lot of other things). No one says, "That's intolerant. All public policy is valid." I understand that more mundane things like gun control give us more to test in the physical world, but religions still make truth claims that can be tested. In both fields, it comes down to who you believe, and who's reasoning you will accept. After that comes faith that sustains your beliefs, even when your position is challenged, whether by seemingly valid arguments or by difficult experience.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 21, 2005, 09:51:47 PM
Quote from: 280plus
I guess what I mean to say is that if I were to worship any "God" it would be a God that would not take any form of retribution on me for questioning His (Her) existence and role in things. Who would not deem me vile and corrupt by nature. I mean, if that's true, God created a vile corrupt being in his image? Why? What was the purpose? If we, as God's creations, are imperfect, doesn't that imply that God is imperfect? If He is perfect he would have created a "perfect" being, no?
Well, let me give you the Christian answer to that question, or at least my best interpretation of it. Retribution: God's retribution is the result of our own choice. That is, Hell is a seperation from God, which is precisely what sinful people choose and desire. God seeks to bring us to faith, and gives us much reason to believe. If, however, in the end we choose not to believe, it is because of a sinful refusal to submit to God, and to trust Him. If one does not wish to acknowledge God, or to love Him, that choice will be honored, and the sinner set apart from God's presence. Unfortunately, that is a horrible situation, but many people are determined to have it. If you do not believe this, consider the horrible things so many to do themselves and others, and the messes so many make of their lives. Hell will be simply a magnification of the evil wrought by sinful people on Earth. The point is, God honors human free will, and will force no one to love Him or stay with Him.
Vile and corrupt natures: As God is the author of good, and is perfectly holy, the only reason to reject Him is so that we might pursue our own vile and corrupt desires. But God will forgive these desires, and has paid the penalty these incur, through the death of His Son, Jesus Christ, God in flesh, crucified for us. We have only to accept this. If not, we go on in or own way, which only brings us to Hell.
Imperfect beings: When God created the first man and first woman, they knew no sin. The whole creation was perfectly healthy, clean and beautiful. A part of the perfection of man was his ability to think, to feel, to love, etc. But, again, God respects the choice of others whether to love Him or hate Him. The first people disobeyed God, just as you and I would have, and followed their own reasoning instead. This is the famous Apple Incident. So, they brought death and curses upon themselves and the whole world. See my comments on Hell, above. This explains the imperfection of man.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 21, 2005, 09:54:41 PM
Quote from: 280plus
The problem I have is having read countless descriptions of ancient religious beliefs (myths and legends) that there are too many parallels between all those things we call religion. To me it appears that religion itself has evolved over time into what we have today.
There are as many differences as parallels, at least. How do you think religion has evolved?Quote from: 280plus
In most instances it appears that religion was used or developed to keep man "in line".
Well, belief in God does tend to make you think twice about your actions. "Used or developed" by God, or by men?Quote from: 280plus
So, is God leading me down the path to righteousness through mysterious ways, or is Satan leading me down the path to eternal destruction?
The better question might be, where are you leading yourself? What do you believe, and is it right?
Post by: griz on September 22, 2005, 04:05:45 PM
Quote
When we don't agree with gun control, we say it's wrong. No one accuses us of arrogance or presumption
But the gun control proponent is advancing his opinion, and does not state it as a known fact. If he said for instance, "griz will unquestionably be killed by gunfire if he owns a gun", even other gun control fans would realize he can not know that the statement is valid. (unless of course he plans to kill me)So let me try a question for you.
Quote
As God is the author of good, and is perfectly holy, the only reason to reject Him is so that we might pursue our own vile and corrupt desires.
Does the fact that He is also the author of bad negate those desires?
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 22, 2005, 05:56:16 PM
Are you stating your opinions, or known facts? You are completely wrong with your comments on the gun control debate, but I am not sure where to start. (Am I being presumptuos again?) On both sides of the issue, we certainly believe that our opinion is the correct one. That is, we believe that our opinion is the truth. Therefore, we certainly do state as a fact that gun control will or will not reduce crime rates. We do it all the time. Why shouldn't we? Think you can prove that gun control is bad? Well, you can to some people, but some will never be convinced. This is very similar to saying "Islam is a false religion." I can't strictly prove it, but I can certainly give any number of reasons why I think it is so; reasons that might convince a "reasonable observer".
Let's back up a little bit, though.
Quote from: griz
In the same, way saying another's religion is wrong without being able to prove it is wrong to a reasonable observer, also strikes me as presumptuous.
As I said earlier, this is not the case. How many of us have counted the votes in Florida, from 2000? Very few. Yet if we really care about it, we have probably looked to one or more sources to tell us who won. Have we proven it? No, but we can't prove everything we believe in. We cannot even prove which pistol cartridge is the best for self-defense. Yet, if your neighbor were buying a gun, and asked both of us which was the best, we would certainly make some recommendation. If I say .357 Magnum, and you don't agree with me, can I blame you for saying I am wrong? There are lives at stake. At some point, you have to decide what you're going to believe. One cannot even act, as a conscious human being, without having some set of beliefs to act from. Further, I don't buy the idea that it is intrinsically mean or evil to say that a person's religious views are wrong. Again, I have to go back to gun control. Don't we rejoice when we convert one to our side? Don't we feel much better for them? It is the same with religion. In fact, what Christians believe is called the Gospel, the Good News. Which is this:
You don't have to earn God's forgiveness, He gives it freely. Christ payed for every bad thing you've done. You don't have to sin, you can be freed from it.
I guess some of us just treat religion like a game to play, and some find it very important.
Quote
Does the fact that He is also the author of bad negate those desires?
1. What do you mean about negating desires?2. Christians do not believe that God creates evil, even if He uses it for His purposes. He created beings capable of love, but that means we are also capable of hatred.
Post by: Strings on September 22, 2005, 07:40:37 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 22, 2005, 08:23:16 PM
Why would God create that which by its very nature hates and opposes Him?
One thing I have failed to bring up in this discussion is the bright side of Hell. Hell, the wrath of God; these are wonderful (if terrible) things. Praise God that every wrong done to us will be paid back in full; Hitler made to suffer all the tortures and horror he imposed. Child molesters will know dread fear and humiliation, and for all eternity. Yet this is sometimes called God's "alien work." God specializes in love and forgiveness. For He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should have eternal life. That's a Bible verse, or a rough paraphrase thereof. Which is why the Son of God took on all of that punishment, so that our sins could be paid for, but yet forgiven.
My, my, after all that preachin', I think it's time to pass around the collection plate.
Oh, yeah, I'm still wondering about that Koran stuff that I asked about earlier.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 22, 2005, 08:32:07 PM
Quote from: BrokenPaw
Likewise I believe that it's possible for all of Christianity to be true, for if it were not, what would be the point in following the Christ? But at the same time, I believe that it is possible for all of what I believe to be true, else why would I bother? The two faiths are not in conflict, unless we, the humans who fail to grasp the fullness of Divinity, choose to find them in conflict.
I am trying to understand how this can be. I don't think I am looking for ways to find how Christianity conflicts with other religions, when the New Testament explicitly curses any who preach a "different gospel." Nor when the Old Testament spends so much time telling us that God will not tolerate the worship of any other gods. There is no room in Christianity for other religions to be valid. In fact, there is no room for them to be useful. According to the Christian scriptures, all other faiths are opposed to the Divine, leading away from Him. I guess if you think of religion as a way of thinking and behaving that gives you peace, or makes you a better person, this is not really a conflict. But if you actually believe in the truth-claims of your religion (no matter what it is) then you can certainly not believe any other could be true. Nor could you believe that another religion is a valid way to think of the Divinity, when the two religions are fundamentally contradictory. Christians certainly cannot accept anything which contradicts Scripture, as we believe it was written by God.
If you would be so kind, please consider me a benighted fundamentalist in need of enlightenment and explain this to me.
Post by: Strings on September 22, 2005, 10:09:26 PM
Why would God create that which by its very nature hates and opposes Him?<
Umm... fistful? If He created EVERYTHING, then He created evil itself. I mean created the very concept. Ya can't have it both ways (although you're welcome to try explaining how he DIDN'T create it)...
Oh... on this one:
>Nor when the Old Testament spends so much time telling us that God will not tolerate the worship of any other gods.<
Let me see... "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", right?
A rule given to the Hebrews: it's an injunction against apostacy. Since I'm not Hebrew, it has no bearing in my mind. Now, if you want to find something similar handed to the English, Italian, or Apache, I'd be happy to listen...
Post by: 280plus on September 23, 2005, 12:00:44 AM
Quote
My, my, after all that preachin', I think it's time to pass around the collection plate.
DOH! Time to RUN!! J/K,,,JJJJJ/K... So That's Satan 2 - God 0
I believe I'm headed down the path that either God or Fate has chosen for me. I feel either of those two are responsible for every little thing that takes place in my life. I just haven't decided which one it is exactly. Obviously you have. I envy you.
I feel, even if you DO worship a big blue turtle, as long as you're working against evil you're OK with me.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 23, 2005, 03:47:17 AM
God being holy, it is no more possible for God to create evil than to make a boulder so heavy He cannot move it.
Quote from: Hunter Rose
Let me see... "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", right?
A rule given to the Hebrews: it's an injunction against apostacy. Since I'm not Hebrew, it has no bearing in my mind. Now, if you want to find something similar handed to the English, Italian, or Apache, I'd be happy to listen...
So, every ethnicity is supposed to have their own rules? Okay. Just so you understand, Christians consider this a rule that God intended for all mankind. If you say that all religions are valid, you're going to have to accept that as valid, also.
A rule given to the Hebrews: it's an injunction against apostacy. Since I'm not Hebrew, it has no bearing in my mind. Now, if you want to find something similar handed to the English, Italian, or Apache, I'd be happy to listen...
Post by: Strings on September 23, 2005, 04:41:19 AM
Nope. I'd have to double check, but do believe the book says he created EVERYTHING. If your claim is that he DIDN'T create the concept of evil, then you need to explain where it came from...
Post by: Stand_watie on September 23, 2005, 08:42:27 AM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
ummm... fistful? If we go with the assumption that God created everything, then he also created evil...
That is a wrong assumption. God did not create everything, he created everything that was created. God did not create himself, he has always existed, and evil has always existed. Evil is everything that does not conform to the attributes of God, and for God to have attributes, there have to be things outside of those attributes.
I don't think it's a concept the human mind can get around.
John 1
The Word Became Flesh
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it
John 8
54Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
57"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
Post by: Paddy on September 23, 2005, 10:51:34 AM
Upon entering the gates of heaven the man was really pissed. He demanded to talk to God. God asked him "May I help you?" The man angrily answered "All my life, I've been a devout believer. When that storm came, I wasn't afraid. I knew you would save me on account of my faith. Instead, you just let me die."
God answered "I sent you two boats and a helicopter."
Post by: griz on September 23, 2005, 12:36:25 PM
I guess what it comes down to is I believe that most of any religion is improvable, and therefore I believe arguments over which is right are fruitless. But I dont object to you believing your religion is the correct one. As you said, why wouldnt everybody believe they are right?
Quote
1. What do you mean about negating desires?
2. Christians do not believe that God creates evil, even if He uses it for His purposes. He created beings capable of love, but that means we are also capable of hatred.
You said As God is the author of good, and is perfectly holy, the only reason to reject Him is so that we might pursue our own vile and corrupt desires. The second part of that statement only follows if you assume that God did not create evil. So I was asking if God creating evil would negate the statement. I have read the rest of the posts about the origins of evil. But it still comes down to if not God then who created it? You can argue mans free will, but that doesnt account for things like hurricanes and the snake in the garden. If you want to take the approach Stand_watie is using, that I don't think it's a concept the human mind can get around , then why do people, or even any church, pretend to understand it.
2. Christians do not believe that God creates evil, even if He uses it for His purposes. He created beings capable of love, but that means we are also capable of hatred.
Post by: grampster on September 23, 2005, 01:17:14 PM
One can argue and reason all day long about things that are beyond the ken of man. The inspired words of the Christian bible even ask "who can know the mind of God?" That's somewhere in the New Testament, also loosely paraphrased. The book of Job also has some advice for those who ask unanswerable questions. God put his "hand" in front of Moses face while he passed in front of Moses, because Moses would not be able to handle seeing God, and his hair turned white and he was hard to look at when he came back down the mountain, according to the OT writer.
So, imho that is why when we get in discussions such as these, it should stay polite as no one really has any standing to project puffery and or contempt. One should politely put forth, perhaps, the reason for the faith that one has and let it go at that. If the party on the other side of the question gains anything from the discussion it hopefully is respect for the faith that is being projected.
As for my faith, I wonder about it all the time. But it is settled for me nonetheless.
I made mention of other sects being useful. My reasoning for saying that is that if Jesus IS Lord, then He will certainly leave a door open somewhere for everyone to enter. Free will implies we have choices. Perhaps those doors or choices are just not evident to everyone as they are not necessary for everyone. Most people experience life in different ways, even those closest to you.
Post by: griz on September 23, 2005, 02:49:14 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 23, 2005, 03:01:21 PM
Quote from: griz
But it still comes down to if not God then who created it? You can argue mans free will, but that doesnt account for things like hurricanes and the snake in the garden. If you want to take the approach Stand_watie is using, that I don't think it's a concept the human mind can get around , then why do people, or even any church, pretend to understand it.
Stand_watie addressed this already. Evil necessarily exists, as the opposite of God's attributes. The serpent in the garden. I have declined so far, in regard to simplicity, to discuss another class of beings created with intelligence, consciousness, and free will. I speak now of angels. The serpent in the garden is usually regarded as being Satan, an angel that rebelled against God. So, the snake is really part of the same free will problem.
Hurricanes are not really an evil, but more of a hardship. However, it is the result of man's sin. The Bible teaches that God cursed all of creation when man sinned. We could discuss at length why this is man's doing and not God's, but let us go on for now.
Edited to add: I have stated this more eloquently in post 64, which was an explanation of some Christian doctrine:
Quote
Retribution: God's retribution is the result of our own choice. That is, Hell is a seperation from God, which is precisely what sinful people choose and desire. God seeks to bring us to faith, and gives us much reason to believe. If, however, in the end we choose not to believe, it is because of a sinful refusal to submit to God, and to trust Him. If one does not wish to acknowledge God, or to love Him, that choice will be honored, and the sinner set apart from God's presence. Unfortunately, that is a horrible situation, but many people are determined to have it. If you do not believe this, consider the horrible things so many to do themselves and others, and the messes so many make of their lives. Hell will be simply a magnification of the evil wrought by sinful people on Earth. The point is, God honors human free will, and will force no one to love Him or stay with Him....
Imperfect beings: When God created the first man and first woman, they knew no sin. The whole creation was perfectly healthy, clean and beautiful. A part of the perfection of man was his ability to think, to feel, to love, etc. But, again, God respects the choice of others whether to love Him or hate Him. The first people disobeyed God, just as you and I would have, and followed their own reasoning instead. This is the famous Apple Incident. So, they brought death and curses upon themselves and the whole world. See my comments on Hell, above. This explains the imperfection of man.
Imperfect beings: When God created the first man and first woman, they knew no sin. The whole creation was perfectly healthy, clean and beautiful. A part of the perfection of man was his ability to think, to feel, to love, etc. But, again, God respects the choice of others whether to love Him or hate Him. The first people disobeyed God, just as you and I would have, and followed their own reasoning instead. This is the famous Apple Incident. So, they brought death and curses upon themselves and the whole world. See my comments on Hell, above. This explains the imperfection of man.
Post by: griz on September 23, 2005, 03:50:39 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 23, 2005, 04:04:32 PM
griz, I posted that stuff for a reason. Why not read it?
But I will answer anyway, as soon as I do the dishes. The wife beckons.
Post by: griz on September 23, 2005, 04:53:37 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 23, 2005, 05:53:19 PM
Quote from: griz
I assume that God was capable of creating perfect beings. So why did He decide to create imperfect ones?
He didn't. God's original creation was perfect. In the Genesis account of creation, God said that His creation was "good." But some of his creatures decided their idea of good was better than God's. As I said before:Quote
A part of the perfection of man was his ability to think, to feel, to love, etc. But, again, God respects the choice of others whether to love Him or hate Him. The first people disobeyed God, just as you and I would have, and followed their own reasoning instead. This is the famous Apple Incident. So, they brought death and curses upon themselves and the whole world.
The question is, could God have created beings capable of love, reason, intelligence, consciousness, etc., but with no chance of doing evil? I don't believe so. Many Christians have reasoned that God is capable of creating perfect beings, but that such would only be automatons, pre-programmed to "love" their creator. A Stepford humanity, if you will.I forgot to mention, though, that I don't agree with Stand_watie about humans not being able to understand the the question of theodicy. It is not easy to have faith that God really loves us, and is working for our good, but I think it is comprehensible.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 23, 2005, 06:22:37 PM
Quote from: griz
My problem is when the opinion itself is stated as conclusive proof that a differing opinion is wrong. The proof should be based on provable or agreed upon facts, not opinions.
Absolutely. Let us not beg the question. Has anyone done so in this thread?As for the Galileo controversy, the church had every right to its beliefs. It was their enforcing such at axe's edge I disagree with. But I would comment that there is nothing Christian about geocentrism. Actually, it reminds me of the Intelligent Design center being shut down at Baylor University.
Quote
I guess what it comes down to is I believe that most of any religion is improvable, and therefore I believe arguments over which is right are fruitless.
I agree in a way. However, I will try to explain why my beliefs are plausible, and might point out flaws I see in other belief systems. Respectfully, of course.
Post by: Strings on September 23, 2005, 06:25:53 PM
I'm not trying to be obtuse here: it's an actual question...
Post by: Strings on September 23, 2005, 06:39:33 PM
And there lies the REAL key to this debate (and the major difference between those who believe in personal liberty, and those who wish a nanny-state): while we may disagree, we're willing to defend each-others' right to our own beliefs...
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 23, 2005, 07:21:00 PM
Quote
Yeah, well, you've never seen Hunter Rose in tights or a kilt
That there is a stonable offence!Hunter Rose,
I don't think evil could be considered equal to God, at least not in a Christian perspective. We believe that God is always in control, and always causes evil to serve a good purpose. Believing in that really does take some faith! Also, evil is a concept, while God is a person; or, rather, three persons. That, and He can create and populate His very own universe. Neato!
As far as time frame goes, God is eternal. You can't look for when God and evil began to exist. God has always been. More precisely, God IS (His name is I Am).
I will stop giving the orthodox Christian view, here, and give my own personal musings. When contemplating theistic creation, it is normal to think of God as sitting around for countless eons, thinking about what He will create. But he didn't; there was no time before creation. There was no "before creation." Mind-blowing, don't you think? There is something the human mind can't get itself around.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 23, 2005, 07:31:18 PM
Quote from: BrokenPaw
I wonder at the thinking that causes someone to say that the deity they follow is omnipotent and capable of all things, but then turn around and say that the deity cannot or will not appear in some other aspect to people of a different perspective.
Wonder no more. God cannot perform that which is contrary to His nature.
God cannot lie. God cannot sin. (Holiness)
God cannot make things so heavy He cannot move them. God cannot create a being or force more powerful than Himself. (Omnipotence)
I'm sure we could think of some more.
Also, God cannot teach one group one set of beliefs and moral laws, and give a different set to others. He cannot present Himself as one thing, and as a contradictory thing. This is dishonest and unfair, and therefore ungodly.
Post by: Ron on September 23, 2005, 08:35:13 PM
In the Bible he so much as says he did. In Isaiah somewhere he says this.
If at one point "He" was all there was, then he creates what we know as creation (including free will), and "evil" is part of creation then He as the creator created evil. I believe evil is the result of free will exercised outside the will (or want) of God.
It is still under Gods control and responsibility as far as I see it. The eventual conquest of all evil is a done deal because the potter has complete dominion over the work of his hands.
Post by: Strings on September 23, 2005, 10:11:33 PM
Yeah, well, you've never seen Hunter Rose in tights or a kilt
That there is a stonable offence!<
Hey... I look damn good in either! And my wife will back me up on that
Post by: Sindawe on September 23, 2005, 10:15:52 PM
Bonus points if you can name the artists and song title.
Quote
Also, God cannot teach one group one set of beliefs and moral laws, and give a different set to others. He cannot present Himself as one thing, and as a contradictory thing. This is dishonest and unfair, and therefore ungodly.
Why not? If humans are capable of holding two contradictory points of view in the mind at once, why can not the Divine Being do so as well? As for it being "unfair", sounds to me like you are attempting to impose human standards of behavior apon that which is clearly above/supirior to humanity.My views. These are MINE, you have to get your own. Be warned, I failed "Sharing" in Kindergarten.
The true nature of what we call God/Gods/Divinity/Holy is currently beyond our abiltiy to comprehend. We can only think/rationalize a limited set of dimensions, for most it is height/length/depth/time, some can see a 5th of possibility that branches from each of the first four. The GGDH is outside our frame of reference, and I suspect takes no more interest in our affairs than a passing child does in an ant hill. Sometimes, for the ants that is The Apocalypse with foul airs and fire, somtimes it is sweet meats and mana.
The analogy of the pipe and shadows is a good one IMAO. For me, the shadows of a one-eyed man in blue with a floppy hat and two pet ravens speakes closest to my soul as the Truth, though I personally realize my calling is to another of that Pantheon.
Post by: griz on September 24, 2005, 10:23:42 AM
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on September 24, 2005, 12:18:14 PM
Quote from: sindawe
"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass."
Bonus points if you can name the artists and song title. big_smile
So, let's bungle in the jungle, with the amazing Ian Anderson and Jethro Tull from the album War Child.Bonus points if you can name the artists and song title. big_smile
A quick vignette, if you will: I saw Pink Floyd, Boston, Aerosmith, LedZep and all manner of groups in concert in the late '70's. Saw Jethro Tull 4 times over 12 years.
Bar NONE, every time, there was never a more heavily intoxicated audience than the JT audiences.
Not sure what to infer from that, but it seems Tull fans were the most prolific druggies of the time.
Still LOVE the music, though. Just not experienced through the haze anymore.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 24, 2005, 06:22:31 PM
Quote from: Sindawe
If humans are capable of holding two contradictory points of view in the mind at once, why can not the Divine Being do so as well? As for it being "unfair", sounds to me like you are attempting to impose human standards of behavior apon that which is clearly above/supirior to humanity.
I'm not sure what you mean by the first sentence here. As for the rest, I was describing the Christian God, whose characteristics are known, to a certain extent. When I said "unfair" I meant that God holds all people to the same standard, whether Jew, Gentile, European or African, etc.
Quote
The true nature of what we call God/Gods/Divinity/Holy is currently beyond our abiltiy to comprehend. We can only think/rationalize a limited set of dimensions, for most it is height/length/depth/time, some can see a 5th of possibility that branches from each of the first four.
I agree with the first sentence, but I don't know why you bring up physical and temporal dimensions. I believe it is the moral qualities of God that are being discussed.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 24, 2005, 06:24:54 PM
Post by: Ron on September 24, 2005, 06:27:52 PM
This thread and the ID thread have me thinking about things I haven't thought about in years.
Post by: Strings on September 24, 2005, 06:37:21 PM
My rackmate was also our religious PO (and a devout Lutheran). He and I got into a discussion with an atheist, trying to argue from our two vantage points that there HAD to be some form of higher being: the ahteist ended up becoming a Protestant a couple weeks later, and was still practicing when I saw him a year or so later. There's an equation in there somewhere (Pagan + Lutheran= Protestant)...
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 24, 2005, 08:25:42 PM
Post by: Strings on September 24, 2005, 09:38:18 PM
Post by: Stand_watie on September 25, 2005, 12:01:09 AM
Quote
My rackmate was also our religious PO (and a devout Lutheran). He and I got into a discussion with an atheist, trying to argue from our two vantage points that there HAD to be some form of higher being: the ahteist ended up becoming a Protestant a couple weeks later, and was still practicing when I saw him a year or so later. There's an equation in there somewhere (Pagan + Lutheran= Protestant)...
I believe in God, but ever since I've ever seriously considered it, I'd have thought genuinely unbiased agnosticism would be a vastly more logical viewpoint than atheism from the perspective of the world as we can prove it from scientific data.
Post by: tyme on September 25, 2005, 02:37:50 PM
Throughout recent history, religion has routinely been shown to have fabricated causes for and meanings of physical processes. Through science, we now know the causes of most sickness, we understand weather enough to know that the hand of God does not directly cause rain or lightning at a particular place and time. There may be the Hand of God at work in a more indirect manner, but that is not consistent with a lot of religious phenomenological explanations over the centuries. The integrity of religious doctrine is suspect, indicating all of religion may be a fraud. That integrity is not improved by the fact that religious doctrine is preeched in translation. Translation is a tricky business even when the text is a bedtime story; when the text deals with life and death, salvation and sin, the translator's burden ought to be unbearable. I don't understand how anyone short of a Saint can be qualified to translate religious material.
I have more respect for religions that follow certain criteria: they make no attempt to actively convert outsiders, they have little or no a history of glaring errors when viewed through the lens of modern science, and they can be viewed as a form of psychology and philosophy rather than an objective explanation of the world.
Why should I believe in God on faith? What is so compelling about an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent creature? Why is that less of a strain on the imagination than the concept that the big bang was a chance occurrence that created spacetime... and either this current universe is the first one ever, or the Kth one, or this expansion/contraction cycle has been going on forever? Either way, God or pure science, there are incomprehensible elements in the explanation. The difference is that while scientists may accept the big bang on faith, they will shake that faith if presented with enough evidence to the contrary.
If any religion is valid, how do I know which one(s) are and which aren't?
It hasn't come up for years, but if a religious person asks me my religion, my response may be that I'm an atheist. Most of the time I don't want to get into a discussion about it, and claiming atheism instead of agnosticism is more likely to shut down that line of inquiry -- precisely because atheism makes less sense, is more pig-headed, and is therefore harder to convince someone to give up because they have an emotional attachment to it. That doesn't mean it's always easier to convert agnostics, because some have thought a lot about religion. Many, however, are agnostic because they've never carefully considered theology... and an evangelist will pounce on that potential.
Post by: doczinn on September 25, 2005, 09:34:36 PM
The closest I get to religion, despite being raised in a very Christian household, is Objectivism.
Post by: griz on September 26, 2005, 02:20:18 AM
Quote
In that case, griz, I must resort to bribery or brute force. Which will it be?
That turn the other cheek thing is tempting, but I think I'll go with bribery. Lucky for you my price is low.
Post by: BrokenPaw on September 26, 2005, 04:03:05 AM
Quote
they make no attempt to actively convert outsiders, they have little or no a history of glaring errors when viewed through the lens of modern science, and they can be viewed as a form of psychology and philosophy rather than an objective explanation of the world.
This is how I view my beliefs. Since there's nothing in my system that requires anyone else to believe as I do, there's precious little need for me to go out and try to convince others that they must do so. I believe that there is a Divine that shaped the world, but the details of whether it took seven days or seven billion days are unimportant to my philosophy.
I try to live as well as I may, and my beliefs provide me with a moral framework in which to do that. So it is more of a philosophy and a way of life than it is a religion.
My apologies to anyone I left hanging unanswered in this thread; I had sudden family business to attend to (and recover from) over the past several days. It's not easy to help a family (my in-laws) through burying their son. It got me thinking, and later on I'll probably post a thread on the subject.
Namaste,
-BP
Post by: griz on September 26, 2005, 07:27:43 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 26, 2005, 02:38:58 PM
Quote from: GoRon
Actually I believe God did create evil. In the Bible he so much as says he did. In Isaiah somewhere he says this.
RE: Isaiah 45This may seem like a cheap out, but I believe it is significant that many versions of the Bible translate the word "evil" there as "calamity" or "disaster." You may recall that griz refferred to hurricanes earlier as an evil. The word evil is sometimes used in English to mean a misfortune that is not morally evil. Perhaps the same is the case with this passage of Hebrew.
Of course, all depends upon an accurate translation of the text, not what I want the passage to mean.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 26, 2005, 03:25:19 PM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: GoRon
Actually I believe God did create evil. In the Bible he so much as says he did. In Isaiah somewhere he says this.
RE: Isaiah 45This may seem like a cheap out, but I believe it is significant that many versions of the Bible translate the word "evil" there as "calamity" or "disaster." You may recall that griz refferred to hurricanes earlier as an evil. The word evil is used in English to mean a misfortune that is not morally evil. Perhaps the same is the case with this passage of Hebrew.
Of course, all depends upon an accurate translation of the text, not what I want the passage to mean.
"The fashioner of light and maker of darkness, the maker of peace and the creator of bad, I am G-d the doer of all these things." The Hebrew word "RA" means bad as well as evil.
The Ivry Teitch (which is a translation into Yiddish that interpolates from classic commentaries) translates it (my transltaiton): "I am the one who makes peace for the saintly and creates bad things for the wicked."
Other commentators (Ibn Ezra) mention the duality of peace vs war, light vs darkness, etc. It is a comment on the oneness of G-d, as opposed to, say, Zoroastriansim that posited that the world is divided between forces of Good and forces of Evil.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 26, 2005, 05:10:16 PM
Quote from: Tyme
Through science, we now know the causes of most sickness, we understand weather enough to know that the hand of God does not directly cause rain or lightning at a particular place and time.
Though sickness and weather phenomena may operate according to obvious natural laws, this in no way means that supernatural forces such as demons cannot cause sickness or madness, in some instances, or that a divine being cannot intervene in the weather. Nor does it invalidate miraculous healings or ressurections.Quote
The integrity of religious doctrine is suspect, indicating all of religion may be a fraud.
Suspect according to whom? And which religious doctrine? Quote
That integrity is not improved by the fact that religious doctrine is preeched in translation. Translation is a tricky business even when the text is a bedtime story; when the text deals with life and death, salvation and sin, the translator's burden ought to be unbearable. I don't understand how anyone short of a Saint can be qualified to translate religious material.
The many English-language versions of the Bible indicate that at least some religious people share your concern with accuracy, even if others may be concerned with making the Bible say what they wish it to say. But religious doctrine is not always preached via translation. Even if it is, this is a silly objection. Do you really think you could stand before God, and tell Him that you didn't even care enough to learn Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Hindi (whatever), so you decided not to follow Him? Quote
I have more respect for religions that follow certain criteria: they make no attempt to actively convert outsiders, they have little or no a history of glaring errors when viewed through the lens of modern science, and they can be viewed as a form of psychology and philosophy rather than an objective explanation of the world.
Which religions do you mean? Also, I wonder why you object to proselytizing, and whether you have considered that science might in some instances draw wrong conclusions. Quote
Why should I believe in God on faith?
You shouldn't. You should believe there is a God, because it requires far less faith than atheism. It is far more plausible.Quote
What is so compelling about an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent creature? Why is that less of a strain on the imagination than the concept that the big bang was a chance occurrence that created spacetime... and either this current universe is the first one ever, or the Kth one, or this expansion/contraction cycle has been going on forever?
Because such materialism is anti-scientific. It does not comport with what we see around us. It does not adequately explain the complex natural processes and forms of life around us (including us). We do not expect machines to just happen; nor should we expect living organisms to slowly develop over time. By the way, God is by definition not a creature. Quote
Either way, God or pure science, there are incomprehensible elements in the explanation. The difference is that while scientists may accept the big bang on faith, they will shake that faith if presented with enough evidence to the contrary.
Do you think so? Do you think that scientists are interested in the facts, while religious folk are interested in - what, exactly? Do you not recognize that some scientists might be as emotionally attached to, or as professionally invested in, scientific theories as a priest might be to religion? Do you not further recognize that of the great number of those trained in science, very few are really testing big bang/evolution theory, or are in a position to know its accuracy? You imply that religion is blind faith, but there are many who have rejected beliefs they once held. Jamis Jockey attested to that on the first page of this thread.
Quote
If any religion is valid, how do I know which one(s) are and which aren't?
As with scientific theories, the claims of religions can be tested against the world around us.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 26, 2005, 05:12:44 PM
Care to give us your thoughts on the subject of God creating evil?
Post by: The Rabbi on September 26, 2005, 05:26:23 PM
Quote from: fistful
Thanks, Rabbi. I heard you guys were good for always just quoting some other rabbi.
Care to give us your thoughts on the subject of God creating evil?
Well the first thing to say is the Ibn Ezra was not "some other rabbi" but a great scholar and saint.Care to give us your thoughts on the subject of God creating evil?
We have a belief in something called "mesora" which is a tradition handed down. Those who came before us were closer to the mesora than we are and therefore speak with more authority. This runs counter to Protestantism. So I dont think I could be much help to you.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 26, 2005, 07:57:16 PM
Just so you know, though, I don't consider myself a Protestant, as I do not hold my beliefs in protest of the Catholic Church. Also, this conversation is not limited to Christian ideas.
Post by: Stand_watie on September 27, 2005, 01:10:39 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
....What the text actually says is (my translation):
"The fashioner of light and maker of darkness, the maker of peace and the creator of bad, I am G-d the doer of all these things." The Hebrew word "RA" means bad as well as evil.
The Ivry Teitch (which is a translation into Yiddish that interpolates from classic commentaries) translates it (my transltaiton): "I am the one who makes peace for the saintly and creates bad things for the wicked."
Other commentators (Ibn Ezra) mention the duality of peace vs war, light vs darkness, etc. It is a comment on the oneness of G-d, as opposed to, say, Zoroastriansim that posited that the world is divided between forces of Good and forces of Evil.
If I can expand on this a little, my opinion is we're discussing two different concepts of 'evil' here. The text itself is contrasting opposites, first light vs darkness and then peace vs evil."The fashioner of light and maker of darkness, the maker of peace and the creator of bad, I am G-d the doer of all these things." The Hebrew word "RA" means bad as well as evil.
The Ivry Teitch (which is a translation into Yiddish that interpolates from classic commentaries) translates it (my transltaiton): "I am the one who makes peace for the saintly and creates bad things for the wicked."
Other commentators (Ibn Ezra) mention the duality of peace vs war, light vs darkness, etc. It is a comment on the oneness of G-d, as opposed to, say, Zoroastriansim that posited that the world is divided between forces of Good and forces of Evil.
Evil as wickedness or sin of course is not the opposite of peace.
Evil as war, famine or unrest is, and if that is one's definition of evil, than I'd have to agree that God certainly at times makes it.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 27, 2005, 04:46:04 AM
Quote from: fistful
Rabbi, my comment was not meant to insult anyone, and I think (hope) you realize that. I do appreciate your input.
Just so you know, though, I don't consider myself a Protestant, as I do not hold my beliefs in protest of the Catholic Church. Also, this conversation is not limited to Christian ideas.
I use Protestant in a broad sense here. It is certainly not limited to Christians of the Protestant movement. Reform Judaism is basically a Protestant religion in the sense I mean.Just so you know, though, I don't consider myself a Protestant, as I do not hold my beliefs in protest of the Catholic Church. Also, this conversation is not limited to Christian ideas.
One of the goals of the Protestant movement was to remove the layers of commentary and history between Man and God, between the reader and the text. All commentary was held to be merely distracting from the Biblical text.
That is not a Jewish approach, is my point.
On "evil" I'd like to see a working definition of Evil first.
Post by: Strings on September 27, 2005, 07:54:21 AM
>Though sickness and weather phenomena may operate according to obvious natural laws, this in no way means that supernatural forces such as demons cannot cause sickness or madness, in some instances, or that a divine being cannot intervene in the weather. Nor does it invalidate miraculous healings or ressurections.<
Yep... you're right. The weather being the best example: HOW often is the weatherman right?
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 27, 2005, 08:29:59 PM
Quote
EEP!!!! Y'aal need to quit setting me up to agree with Fistful here...
[Darth Vader voice]Ah, Hunter, you feel the pull. Soon, you will be singing from an old, weathered hymnal with me on Sunday mornings. Come to the old-time religion, Hunter Rose. It is your destiny.
Post by: Strings on September 27, 2005, 08:52:07 PM
Post by: mfree on September 28, 2005, 04:16:39 AM
Post by: HKUSP45 on September 28, 2005, 02:13:22 PM
I can't imagine how anyone could look at the complexities and coincidences in your daily life and nature and not believe it was created.
I also think religion in general is an insult to the artist.
Just enjoy the gift, don't thank a guy who didn't really want it in the first place. Think of it like this:
If I could create it and wanted worship .... why wouldn't I write my name in the stars?
If I could create it and didn't want worship .... why would I ask for it through the people I created centuries after doing so?
IMHO all religions are wrong; we were created to enjoy the party, not to thank the host.
That's not to say live your life as if there are no consequences.
Heres my take:
Life is a nifty toy ... but fragile.
Everyone I meet has one just like mine ... only a little different.
I want everyone to keep theirs in it's current state, unless they let me touch it.
When I do touch it, it changes a little ... for better or worse.
I'm not in the habit of breaking peoples toys and won't allow mine to be intentionally broken.
I love to play with others toys and just as I've occasionally chipped a few (and had mine chipped) I've always been genuinely sorry.
This is my take on life, its weird and it works for me.
There is IMHO no "one guy" that gave me this toy, only because, to me, he made all the current explanations so improbable as to be untrue.
That's my take.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 01, 2005, 06:53:59 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
I use Protestant in a broad sense here. It is certainly not limited to Christians of the Protestant movement.
Well, perhaps it should be. The term was appropriate in an era when Rome dominated Christendom, but this is no longer the case. My beliefs are based on the Bible and the teachings of the religious movements (such as the charismatic, Evangelical Free and conserative Wesleyan/Nazarene/Holiness) in which I have been involved. Catholicism, or opposition to its teachings, are peripheral at best. To say my beliefs are protestant or reformed implies that I reformed them from something, and this is not the case. If one is Lutheran, or of some other denomination which was involved in the controversy, those terms might be appropriate.Quote
One of the goals of the Protestant movement was to remove the layers of commentary and history between Man and God, between the reader and the text. All commentary was held to be merely distracting from the Biblical text.
I don't think so, but I have not studied the Reformation in depth. If I understand correctly, the goal was to discard commentary that did not conform to scripture - sola scriptura. In your terms, Rabbi, the current mesora was perceived to be corrupt, necessitating a return to the older mesora of Rabbi Paul, the patristics (some of them) and others. I believe both sides used the patristic writings and later theologians to buttress their positions.Quote
On "evil" I'd like to see a working definition of Evil first.
I dont know about a working definition, but I think what were debating is whether God causes murder, rape, dishonesty, ranch dressing or other evil acts. I'm not sure if we're including hurricanes and cancer. Christianity would class these as a result of evil.
Post by: Strings on October 01, 2005, 07:06:37 AM
Not so much the evil acts themselves, but the entire concept of evil itself. Maybe ala Time Bandits?
Post by: stevelyn on October 01, 2005, 08:41:20 PM
It's easier for me to believe we were created by a civilization little people zipping across the universe in flying saucers than to have been the brainchild of a single invisible entity.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 02, 2005, 09:13:37 AM
Quote from: stevelyn
It's easier for me to believe we were created by a civilization little people zipping across the universe in flying saucers than to have been the brainchild of a single invisible entity.
And those little people came from where?Quote from: Hunter Rose
>but I think what were debating is whether God causes murder, rape, dishonesty, ranch dressing or other evil acts<
Not so much the evil acts themselves, but the entire concept of evil itself.
Right, but I'm trying to draw a distinction between evil acts and evil thoughts; and things like disease and natural disasters.
Not so much the evil acts themselves, but the entire concept of evil itself.
Post by: Strings on October 02, 2005, 11:49:20 AM
Hmmm... that IS kinda tough, isn't it? Maybe base it on wether the initiator of the event has knowledge of morality or not?
Post by: The Rabbi on October 02, 2005, 11:53:45 AM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: Hunter Rose
>but I think what were debating is whether God causes murder, rape, dishonesty, ranch dressing or other evil acts<
Not so much the evil acts themselves, but the entire concept of evil itself.
Right, but I'm trying to draw a distinction between evil acts and evil thoughts; and things like disease and natural disasters.Not so much the evil acts themselves, but the entire concept of evil itself.
Post by: Strings on October 02, 2005, 12:16:44 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 02, 2005, 01:11:06 PM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
that's just it, Rabbi: we're not talking the acts themselves, but the very CONCEPT of "evil". Let's put it in medical terms: the acts would be symptoms, while "evil" would be the disease. Does that make it easier?
Are you asking why people do things that are bad and hurtful? Or are you asking where the category comes from of "bad and evil, i.e. evil" ?
Post by: Moondoggie on October 02, 2005, 01:58:10 PM
Wrong thread.
Post by: Strings on October 02, 2005, 02:58:34 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 02, 2005, 04:28:58 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 02, 2005, 06:37:55 PM
Quote
God did not create everything, he created everything that was created. God did not create himself, he has always existed, and evil has always existed. Evil is everything that does not conform to the attributes of God, and for God to have attributes, there have to be things outside of those attributes.
Does a concept really need to be created, or does it neccessarily exist? Because God created the potential for evil, does that mean that He created it?Along Rabbi's line of argument, one can make a weapon without creating the murder that might be committed with it. But God is an omniscient, omnipotent creator, so surely he could have created a perfect world - or could he?
To quote a wise man named fistful:
Quote
The question is, could God have created beings capable of love, reason, intelligence, consciousness, etc., but with no chance of doing evil? I don't believe so. Many Christians have reasoned that God is capable of creating perfect beings, but that such would only be automatons, pre-programmed to "love" their creator. A Stepford humanity, if you will.
Post by: Stand_watie on October 02, 2005, 06:50:27 PM
Post by: stevelyn on October 02, 2005, 07:42:07 PM
Quote
And those little people came from where?
A galaxy far, far away?My take on religion is that it's used to take the up slack on controlling people where brute force leaves off. To call it a fraud would be accurate. However, if you have to believe in an invisible man to get through life, I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise. Just don't try and use your beliefs as justification for what I should or shouldn't do.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 02, 2005, 08:07:06 PM
Quote from: stevelyn
Quote
And those little people came from where?
A galaxy far, far away?My take on religion is that it's used to take the up slack on controlling people where brute force leaves off. To call it a fraud would be accurate. However, if you have to believe in an invisible man to get through life, I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise. Just don't try and use your beliefs as justification for what I should or shouldn't do.
Your position is that ALL religions are false? Can you point out the fundamental flaws of some religions?
My point about the little green men was that they would need to be created also, meaning this argument regresses infinitely.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 02, 2005, 09:08:37 PM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
We have divinity seeing things at @ year 0 as being somewhat stagnant: mankind seems to be in something of a rut, and a new pardigm is needed. So: he embodies one mortal with his essence, and sets him on Earth. This being is the son of a carpenter in the Middle East...
He lives out his life, attempting to teach a new philosophical idea to mankind. As with most new ideas, he's vilified for the attempt, eventually being executed. But his ideas take hold, giving mankind a new concept to carry itself forward in life...
Thus, you have the birth of Christianity, yet still retain the concept of all religions having validity. Christianity is just a new way for mankind to connect to Divinity: mainly for those who feel the need to have "one set way"...
He lives out his life, attempting to teach a new philosophical idea to mankind. As with most new ideas, he's vilified for the attempt, eventually being executed. But his ideas take hold, giving mankind a new concept to carry itself forward in life...
Thus, you have the birth of Christianity, yet still retain the concept of all religions having validity. Christianity is just a new way for mankind to connect to Divinity: mainly for those who feel the need to have "one set way"...
Quote from: fistful
I suppose his next idea was to give a revelation to Muhammed, so that he could declare all Christians and Jews as enemies, or at least infidels, and then lead a bunch of Arab tribes on the warpath. Hadn't he tried that already with the twelve tribes of Israel? Similar outline: divine revelation, followed by military conquest of heathen territory (Christian and Pagan territory, with Jews intermixed).
Quote from: Hunter Rose
*sigh*
Try reading the Koran before generalizing that way.
HR, Try reading the Koran before generalizing that way.
I think I wrote a response to this, but just didn't post it. So, here I go again.
I'm not sure where I'm generalizing there. Was my analysis simplistic? Yes, but your analysis of Christianity was also simplistic. What we have both done is pull out the parts of these religions that seem relevant to us, and then ignore the rest of that religion. The difference is that you have said things about Christianity that simply don't square with the teachings or beliefs thereof. The things I said about Islam and its doctrines and history are true, so far as I know. I have not read the entire Koran, although I hope to get to that someday. As it is, I have only read through the whole Bible once, and am working on the second iteration. I have two English translations of the Koran, and it does indeed declare non-Muslims as non-believers (infidels) and command that Jews be treated as enemies. I am not sure how it serves God's purpose to bestow on us religions that directly, sometimes violently, oppose one another. You claim that Islam is being twisted by the Islamists, but I think this is debatable, and they may be more true to their religion than the moderates. Again, I am only going on my limited knowledge, and have not made up my mind on this. To the best of my knowledge, it is also a fact that Mohammed led a military conquest of Mecca and other infidel areas, and that his followers went on to conquer much of the territory, such as North Africa, that was overwhelmingly Christian. Why would God set up this conflict?
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 02, 2005, 09:10:34 PM
The Christian God is not like this. He tells us about Himself. He suffers for us, and had planned to from the very beginning. The Bible calls Christ "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" and "the lamb that was slain [for our salvation] from the foundations of the world" (brackets mine). And He provides justice; punishment for those who hurt us, but forgiveness for both parties if they seek it.
Quote from: fistful
What I find interesting about all of the religions addressed above, is their lack of documentary, archeological and historical corroboration, compared to Biblical Christianity. In other words, I don't know what assurance anyone has that these other faiths are the real deal.
There is a question in each of my paragraphs, and I am very interested in your answer, if you please. Quote from: Hunter Rose
WAY too many people are caught up in the conceit of "one true way"
And WAY too many people are caught up in the conceit of pretended humility and false open-mindedness. I would like to know what is conceited about the belief that God revealed Himself and His way to salvation through one set of writings, one tradition, one religion.OK, it's late, time for bed.
Post by: Strings on October 02, 2005, 10:44:43 PM
Start a thread asking people for philosophy behind their chosen faith, and end up with proslytization...
>What I find interesting about all of the religions addressed above, is their lack of documentary, archeological and historical corroboration, compared to Biblical Christianity. In other words, I don't know what assurance anyone has that these other faiths are the real deal.<
Heh... you have archeological finds that are suggestive of biblical history. Unfortunately, much of what is found is open to interpretation, and there is a bias on the part of many researchers. Kinda like using info from the NRA or HCI when arguing about gun control, any such info will be somewhat tainted. We need the archeological equivalent of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports...
>And WAY too many people are caught up in the conceit of pretended humility and false open-mindedness. I would like to know what is conceited about the belief that God revealed Himself and His way to salvation through one set of writings, one tradition, one religion.<
What's conceited is the insistance on the right to preach your gospel to people who disagree, and to use your gospel as proof of itself. Not saying you've been doing that yourself, but it IS a general trend among most Christians I have these discussions with (and worse among those I just meet on the street).
A very common exchange on "biblical truth" goes something like this:
Christian:"The Bible is absolute truth!"
Non Christian: "Where's the proof of that?"
Christian:"In the Bible, of course!"
Or how about the conceit that YOU understand the totality of the Divine, and those who follow a different path are wrong?
And what's with "pretend humility and false open-mindedness"? You REALLY need to back that one up, Fistful: comes across as an accusation...
Post by: Strings on October 02, 2005, 10:51:14 PM
If God created everything, then he also created free will. Meaning he defined it as a concept, meaning it was whatever he wanted. Therefor, if free will is what gives us the capability of evil, then God created evil...
>God did not create everything, he created everything that was created. God did not create himself, he has always existed, and evil has always existed. Evil is everything that does not conform to the attributes of God, and for God to have attributes, there have to be things outside of those attributes.<
If evil is just as old as God, then evil must be fairly close to God in terms of strength. ESPECIALLY if you take the stance that Evil is God's opposite (of course, that might work as more of a Wiccan view: balance, and everything)
Post by: The Rabbi on October 02, 2005, 11:26:55 PM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
>Evil is a result of human action, which stems from free will. I dont see it as all so complicated.<
If God created everything, then he also created free will. Meaning he defined it as a concept, meaning it was whatever he wanted. Therefor, if free will is what gives us the capability of evil, then God created evil...
Huh? If I create a firearm and then someone goes and uses that in a crime, have I created that crime? No, I dont think so. I might have created a means for the crime or the potential for it, but it was the means for a lot of other stuff as well.
If God created everything, then he also created free will. Meaning he defined it as a concept, meaning it was whatever he wanted. Therefor, if free will is what gives us the capability of evil, then God created evil...
Post by: telewinz on October 03, 2005, 12:44:15 AM
How is it "free will" if you will be tortured for eternity for making the wrong choice? Doesn't sound free to me. Does that mean my car is "free" as long as I make the $350 payment at the end of the month? We have been conditioned since Sunday School NOT to ask the "hardball" questions, it's not "polite".
Could it be that "Hell" and Heaven were invented by man to cope with the inadequacies of our justice and social systems through-out history? "I can't punish or reward you or know everything you do but GOD does".
When it come to right and wrong is it God you fear or the police and the video camera at the intersection and the 7-11 store? That "old time religion" is rapidly losing favor and becoming obsolete, check organized Christian church attendance trends. 200 years ago church attendance was pretty much mandatory (to keep your job), whats changed? A lack of churches? A declining population? Education levels? A redefining of the words "devout" Christian?
Does anyone really worship an intangible deity or do we just use his name like the "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval"? Maybe some use God's name (and the Bible) to justify what they wanted to do and were going to do anyway. How many marriages were blessed by God but 10 years later (or sooner) end in divorce? Go figure.
"could God have created beings capable of love, reason, intelligence, consciousness, etc., but with no chance of doing evil? I don't believe so. Many Christians have reasoned that God is capable of creating perfect beings, but that such would only be automatons, pre-programmed to "love" their creator. A Stepford humanity, if you will." Whats the purpose (goal?) of man's laws and society? Where God failed, man is succeeding (however slowly).
Post by: The Rabbi on October 03, 2005, 04:01:35 AM
Quote
The Bible was written my man, the books (hundreds were in fact written) of the modern day Bible were chosen by man, man was supposedly inspired by God to perform both these tasks, man is supposedly inspired by God to join the clergy, some members of this same "inspired" clergy molest children....enough said.
Stunning is all I can say.First, I dispute that man wrote all the books of the Bible.
Second, based on your analogy gun ownership is bad. Some gun owners misuse their firearms so....enough said.
Third, these are not "hardball" questions. These are illogical rants based on misunderstandings and misinformation.
Church membership declining? Not where I live. Check the fastest growing denominations and across the board they are the most "fundamentalist" or right leaning ones.
Post by: Strings on October 03, 2005, 06:45:21 AM
Ok... so free will is just a tool? What purpose does it serve? What was it designed to do?
Hammers were designed to hit things. Knives were designed to cut things. Guns were designed to throw small pieces of lead at high velocity in a relatively straight trajectory. And yes, we've turned every one of those into a way of hurting our fellow man. So... what purpose does free will serve?
Post by: Stand_watie on October 03, 2005, 06:46:25 AM
Quote
If evil is just as old as God, then evil must be fairly close to God in terms of strength. ESPECIALLY if you take the stance that Evil is God's opposite (of course, that might work as more of a Wiccan view: balance, and everything)
You're anthropomorphizing (Godopomorphizing if that is a word) evil. Evil is that which doesn't conform to the attributes of God. Not a villianous intelligent force (although there are plenty of those who happen to be evil), just not God. Not perfect, not holy, not just, not love. not omnicient nor omnipresent.
That which is not an elephant is neither more or less powerful than an elephant, it's just not an elephant.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 03, 2005, 06:54:46 AM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
>Huh? If I create a firearm and then someone goes and uses that in a crime, have I created that crime? No, I dont think so. I might have created a means for the crime or the potential for it, but it was the means for a lot of other stuff as well.<
Ok... so free will is just a tool? What purpose does it serve? What was it designed to do?
Hammers were designed to hit things. Knives were designed to cut things. Guns were designed to throw small pieces of lead at high velocity in a relatively straight trajectory. And yes, we've turned every one of those into a way of hurting our fellow man. So... what purpose does free will serve?
To give reward to those who make the right choices.
Ok... so free will is just a tool? What purpose does it serve? What was it designed to do?
Hammers were designed to hit things. Knives were designed to cut things. Guns were designed to throw small pieces of lead at high velocity in a relatively straight trajectory. And yes, we've turned every one of those into a way of hurting our fellow man. So... what purpose does free will serve?
Post by: Strings on October 03, 2005, 06:56:02 AM
Ummm... here, we might have a problem. Are we referin' to YOUR book, or the Christian version? I wouldn't bother arguing yours one way or t'other (and I can't remember the proper term for said book now). If you want to discuss the New Testament of the Christian Bible though...
Reminds me: anyone here ever see the "Politically Correct Bible"? Not a joke, one was published...
>Second, based on your analogy gun ownership is bad. Some gun owners misuse their firearms so....enough said.<
I gotta go with Rabbi here, but with one cavet: many people think of priests as having a vocation, being "called by God". Don't recall the last time such was mentioned about gun owners...
>Third, these are not "hardball" questions. These are illogical rants based on misunderstandings and misinformation.<
Why is it, Rabbi, anyone who disagrees with you about "the One True God" is illogical? Telewinz explains why he feels the way he does about religion, and you declare it illogical. Wow. So... 9 or 45...
Post by: Stand_watie on October 03, 2005, 06:56:39 AM
Quote
Hammers were designed to hit things. Knives were designed to cut things. Guns were designed to throw small pieces of lead at high velocity in a relatively straight trajectory. And yes, we've turned every one of those into a way of hurting our fellow man. So... what purpose does free will serve?
It separates the orders of beings. Mountains and oceans don't have free will, and neither do the animals (in the moral sense). Humans and Angels do. Apparently God wanted more than inanimate objects and animals.
Post by: Strings on October 03, 2005, 06:58:24 AM
Ok... and what form is that reward going to take? What are the "right choices"?
Post by: Strings on October 03, 2005, 07:00:21 AM
actually, you could argue that animals DO have free will. Ever watched a REALLY good animals trainer with their critters?
Post by: The Rabbi on October 03, 2005, 07:03:35 AM
You disagree with me and I havent called anything you've written illogical or a rant.
SW, what is your source for angels having free will? To us that is not so, free will is limited to human beings, for reasons mentioned above.
Post by: SalukiFan on October 03, 2005, 07:09:52 AM
I am Jewish and believe in G-d, the Torah and the dialogue between G-d and humans evidenced in the oral law and on-going interpretations of the Torah. I attend Reconstructionist services but I dont agree with all that Reconstructionism teaches. I believe G-d loves us and has given us the power to make choices. Humans are good by nature but are tempted by evil impulses. The existence of evil gives people something to fight against and makes the triumph over evil impulses more precious, bringing us closer to the Divine. I am not sure of the origin of evil whether G-d is omnipotent and created evil for some purpose that is beyond our understanding or if G-d does not sanction/create evil but is limited in His/Her power as some rabbis have suggested. For me, what is more important than the origin of evil is how we respond to it.
One of the things that struck me about last weeks Torah portion (we read totally through the Torah every year, reading fixed portions at the same time every year) was that Moses emphasizes that people do go astray, but they are all capable of turning themselves around and being forgiven by G-d, choosing life over death. He states that this is not some unattainable ideal or teaching but very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to observe it. (Devarim 30:14, JPS) I may not be able to control things that happen to me but I can control my actions and follow G-d as best as I can (choosing life). I personally find that very empowering.
As humans, we have a covenant with G-d and we are partners with G-d. Our part of the deal is that we must do our part to help our fellow humans and make this world a better place with the limited time we are given on earth (this is called tikkum olam, repairing the world). We are required to give tzedakah, which is usually translated as charity but it actually comes from the Hebrew word for justice . It is our obligation to make sure that others have the opportunity to have an education, medical care and food to sustain them. G-d expects us to take care of each other and work for justice in the world. We are also required to pray, study and contemplate the words of the Torah and figure out how they apply to our lives.
No one is really sure what happens after we die but the most important thing is what we do when we are alive. I think there is a world-to-come for the righteous but the details arent knowable. Conversely, G-d is loving and would not torture someone eternally in what people call Hell . This is not to say that G-d does not mete out punishment for the truly evil but that punishment would more likely come in the form of finite punishment or the destruction of the soul after death. We take care of what we can externally through systems of justice and G-d will take care of the rest.
Proselytizing is not necessary because the Jewish tradition teaches that you dont have to convert to Judaism to be a righteous person. There are basic laws that everyone should follow (see the Noachide Laws) like not committing murder, not stealing and setting up courts to mete out justice and these laws set a baseline for everyone that most can follow without abandoning the religion they were born into. I agree with what Rabbi Israel Salanter said, Think about your fellows body and your own soul, and not the reverse.
What I really like about Judaism is the love of life, commitment to social justice and wonderful holidays and traditions. I also like that, as a people, we Jews have so many different opinions on everything. If youve ever heard the saying Two Jews, three opinions its true! Weve even got minority opinions written into the Talmud. Questioning is part of studying and I love that. It does make it a little difficult to explain what Jews believe to the curious non-Jew ( Well, Shammai said this and Hillel disagreed and said this& ) but I like the give and take of arguing over what Jewish law says on this or that, what the nature of G-d is, etc.
Well, I should go - I have some work I have to finish before Rosh Hashanah begins. Best wishes to all for a happy and sweet new year!
Edited to add link about Noachide Laws.
Post by: Strings on October 03, 2005, 07:22:22 AM
We've got at least three different religions goin' in this discussion: did I miss anybody? Don't think we have any Muslims, Hindus, or Budhists lurking...
>You disagree with me and I havent called anything you've written illogical or a rant.<
True. You'll have to excuse me if I snapped a bit... not feeling 100% at the moment (more like 30%)...
Post by: Stand_watie on October 03, 2005, 07:23:41 AM
Angels also have a lesser free will than man, but the ability to make moral choices with everlasting consequence all the same. Lucifer/Satan being the most famous example. See Ezekiel 28 and Revelation 12.
Post by: BrokenPaw on October 03, 2005, 07:27:20 AM
Quote
SW, what is your source for angels having free will? To us that is not so, free will is limited to human beings, for reasons mentioned above.
As I understand it, Lucifer was first among all of the angels, and he (in his arrogance) chose to rebel against God, and took 1/3 of the angels with him. If that's the case, then either angels have to have free will, or it had to have been God's will that Lucifer should rebel. And it can't have been God's will that Lucifer rebel, because if it was, then it means that God got angry at Lucifer for doing what God had planned for Lucifer to do. Which would be hypocritical and machiavellian, and which would make for a rather poor God to put one's trust in.
Further, if Lucifer were simply carrying out God's plan without hjaving free will of his own, then it becomes evident that God intended for evil to be loose in the world.
So either angels had to have free will (which conflicts with scripture) or it had to have been God's intent for Lucifer to rebel (which makes Him seem more duplicitous than is commonly thought). Which is it?
Namaste,
-BP
Post by: The Rabbi on October 03, 2005, 11:26:09 AM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
I'm begining to think we need a score card, or something. Some way of keeping track of who's-who-and-what...
We've got at least three different religions goin' in this discussion: did I miss anybody? Don't think we have any Muslims, Hindus, or Budhists lurking...
Four. I wouldn't count SalukiFan's religion and mine in the same category.We've got at least three different religions goin' in this discussion: did I miss anybody? Don't think we have any Muslims, Hindus, or Budhists lurking...
Quote
As I understand it, Lucifer was first among all of the angels, and he (in his arrogance) chose to rebel against God, and took 1/3 of the angels with him. If that's the case, then either angels have to have free will, or it had to have been God's will that Lucifer should rebel.
Is that Christian Bible or is that John Milton?To my mind there is no need for angels to have free will. They have no obligations that human beings have. In the 10 Commandments it says Do Not Murder. But angels have no bodies, therefore murder is inapplicable to them. Do Not Steal. Angels have no needs that they would have to steal. Do Not Swear False Oaths. When would they need to do this? Etc etc.
Post by: griz on October 03, 2005, 11:34:52 AM
Quote
Evil is that which doesn't conform to the attributes of God. Not a villianous intelligent force (although there are plenty of those who happen to be evil), just not God. Not perfect, not holy, not just, not love. not omnicient nor omnipresent.
That which is not an elephant is neither more or less powerful than an elephant, it's just not an elephant.
If you stipulate that God and evil have always been, then the juxtaposition makes it fair to compare their strenghts. It's a circular definition to say God is everything that is good while saying evil is everything else.That which is not an elephant is neither more or less powerful than an elephant, it's just not an elephant.
And to the best of my knowledge, elephants make no claim to being the creators.
Post by: telewinz on October 03, 2005, 12:03:34 PM
On the growth of the Christian Church in America (it's worse in Europe):
The Barna Research Group of Ventural CA is the leading religious pollsters in the U.S. Since 1984
The percentage of American adults who identify themselves as Christians dropped from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001. This is an unprecedented drop.
Confidence in religious institutions has hit an all-time low.
There appears to be a major increase in interest in spirituality among North Americans. However, this has not translated into greater church involvement.
At the present rate of change, most Americans will be non-Christians by the year 2035
The numbers of "unchurched" people has increased rapidly in the U.S. These are individuals who have not attended church in recent months.
Agnosticism, Atheism, secularism are growing rapidly.
Interest in new religious movements (e.g. New Age, Neopaganism) is growing rapidly. In particular, Wiccans are doubling in numbers about every 30 months.
The influence of the central, program-based congregation is diminishing as more cell churches are being created.
Many Christians have left congregations and formed house churches - small groups meeting in each other's homes.
From 1992 to 2003, average attendance has dropped by 13% whereas the population of America has increased by 9%!
The greatest drop in religious practice was in attendance at services. The greatest declines (i.e. changes) in belief relate to: a greater acceptance that the Bible contains errors
their understanding of the nature of god.
The number of religious priests declined during 1999 by 2.3% to 15,465. 7
The number of brothers declined by 4% to 5,736.
The number of sisters declined 3.4% to 81,161
Over 2,000 parishes in the U.S. have no resident priest.
The number of seminarians has dropped from 41,129 in 1960 to 4,587 today.
Who wrote the Bible?
Iraneus, the bishop of Lyons in 180 AD, decided that the validity of any work had to be judged by whether it was "apostolic." That is, it should have been written by or for one of the twelve apostles. But, as Pagels goes on to say, regardless of whether the names given to the Gospels are those of the actual authors or merely reflect a claim to apostolic authority, "we know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the Gospels." The work of Irenaeus was solidified by Bishop Eusebius some 150 years later, early in the 4th century AD. Eusebius was a prolific church historian who gave us most of what we know of early church history. He also gave us the first surviving list of New Testament books that matches what we have today, putting them in thematic order as well. Relying on the tradition of the church, Eusebius created what was probably the first Christian Bible as we know it today.
Quite a few collections of stories about Jesus circulated in the early church, among them The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary, and the Secret Book of John. Some of these gave very different and in some cases conflicting accounts of the gospel and, most importantly, of Jesus' alleged resurrection. Some argued for the physical resurrection, with the mantle of leadership falling on those who had experienced it firsthand: the apostles. Others said the resurrection was a spiritual event that anyone could experience. Some thought this latter "heresy" would have led the church away from an organized entity into a situation where anyone could judge the truth for themselves. As with the Old Testament, we just don't know who wrote most of the New Testament.
This is what bugs me about "devout Christians" (Mind you, I was baptized Catholic and raised Lutheran)
Many claim to follow the Bible but how is that possible? Read the old testament, anyone following some of the "rights/laws" in the old testament would find themselves in a penal or mental institution in short order. They never taugh me that the old testament had a "time limit" but we all know it does. I asked my sister (a devout Christian) "Oh! do you walk several paces BEHIND your husband as the Bible says? "NO!"
"Do you obey your husband as the Bible says?" "NO!" She does what almost ALL Christians do, they pick and choose what they believe and practice, it's no longer a package deal (all or none). Whats changed? The Bible? Nope. Society? 500 years ago Christians "toed the line" or else!
Post by: SalukiFan on October 03, 2005, 01:27:40 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: Hunter Rose
I'm begining to think we need a score card, or something. Some way of keeping track of who's-who-and-what...
We've got at least three different religions goin' in this discussion: did I miss anybody? Don't think we have any Muslims, Hindus, or Budhists lurking...
Four. I wouldn't count SalukiFan's religion and mine in the same category.We've got at least three different religions goin' in this discussion: did I miss anybody? Don't think we have any Muslims, Hindus, or Budhists lurking...
Post by: Stand_watie on October 03, 2005, 04:55:47 PM
Quote
Is that Christian Bible or is that John Milton?
As far as I know it is both the Christian Bible (the Revelation reference) and the Hebrew scriptures (the Ezekiel reference).You do hold Ezekiel as Scripture don't you (not a sarcastic question)? Wikepedia (which I don't claim to be any authority) claims Jewish tradition make similar supports this as well in later texts referencing Samahazai and Azael.
Quote
If you stipulate that God and evil have always been, then the juxtaposition makes it fair to compare their strenghts. It's a circular definition to say God is everything that is good while saying evil is everything else.
And to the best of my knowledge, elephants make no claim to being the creators.
I don't claim it to be unfair, simply an incongruity. I'm stating my view of the nature of evil as something that does not have strength or weakness as an intelligent force. God is the definition of 'good'. If that's circular *shrug*, life is full of circularities, particularly in matters of concience.And to the best of my knowledge, elephants make no claim to being the creators.
Regarding elephants, what they do or don't claim to be is irrelevant to my point. I was pointing out that the definition of 'not an elephant' is neither strength nor weakness, it's that which an elephant is not.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2005, 09:50:49 PM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
Start a thread asking people for philosophy behind their chosen faith, and end up with proslytization...
Well, old buddy, you knew we would argue about our respective ideas. You've been on this forum long enough to understand that. If that passes for proselytizing, so be it.Quote from: Hunter Rose
Quote from: fistful
What I find interesting about all of the religions addressed above, is their lack of documentary, archeological and historical corroboration, compared to Biblical Christianity. In other words, I don't know what assurance anyone has that these other faiths are the real deal.
Heh... you have archeological finds that are suggestive of biblical history. Unfortunately, much of what is found is open to interpretation, and there is a bias on the part of many researchers.Quote from: Hunter Rose
Quote from: fistful
And WAY too many people are caught up in the conceit of pretended humility and false open-mindedness. I would like to know what is conceited about the belief that God revealed Himself and His way to salvation through one set of writings, one tradition, one religion.
What's conceited is the insistance on the right to preach your gospel to people who disagreeQuote from: Hunter Rose
and to use your gospel as proof of itself. Not saying you've been doing that yourself, but it IS a general trend among most Christians I have these discussions with
Yes, I have seen that, too. Turns out most people aren't interested in very rigorous thinking. But don't blame Christianity for this.Quote from: Hunter Rose
Or how about the conceit that YOU understand the totality of the Divine, and those who follow a different path are wrong?
First, the smart-aleck answer: How about the conceit that you understand perfect humility, and those who follow a different path are conceited? How about the conceit that your pluralism must be the correct way, and all exclusivists are therefore conceited? Now:
You're still gonna have to explain that one to me. First of all, Christianity does not claim to understand the totality of "the Divine," only that which is revealed by Him. Secondly, it's not as if I just woke up one morning and decided that I knew the one true way to believe. I am a disciple of a religion as old as creation itself, that happens to have a very believable set of scriptures. In fact, some learned men have decided after thorough study that these writings are not just possibly true, but so inerrant as to be necessarily the product of divine inspiration. Though I have had questions and doubts, I have come to believe this also. Not only that, but I believe I know this "Divine" and that He has changed me and my life. I know plenty of others with this same experience. And if God has declared all other "paths" incorrect and in fact evil, then I ought to warn others, don't you think?
Quote from: Hunter Rose
And what's with "pretend humility and false open-mindedness"? You REALLY need to back that one up, Fistful: comes across as an accusation...
It is an accusation. Just as you accused monotheists like myself of conceit. Your point of view makes a moral judgement that all religions must be at least partially correct, and then twists those religions to fit your own ideas. You demand to re-write the doctrines of other faiths, so that they suit what you believe. Millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and other monotheists for thousands of years have believed that their religion is the one and only, and you come along and tell them they are all wrong. You, a pagan, dictate to us what our religion teaches. And if we disagree we are conceited and narrow-minded. Can you see why I might be a little bothered by that?
Post by: telewinz on October 04, 2005, 01:11:27 PM
proof
n.
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.
Faith in a particular deity (IMHO) is of little importance, it's the positive influence a person's existence has had or does have. In short, is the World better off with you or without you?
Post by: Strings on October 04, 2005, 01:59:29 PM
>I believe I have the right to speak, just as you have. I can't believe you really mean to say this. Do I misunderstand you?<
I think you slightly misunderstand. Yes, you have a right to speak: in a forum like this thread, even preach a bit. I was refering to the "I'm gonna ride you constantly about the fact you don't follow the One True Faith" types. The one's that will NOT leave well enough alone...
>It is an accusation. Just as you accused monotheists like myself of conceit.<
Not all monotheists. Not even all Christians. Just seems that many ARE conceited, in that they understand "the One True Way", while benighted pagans like myself are gonna burn in Hell. Quite often, they also think anyone not part of THEIR particular sect is gonna be with me. Which would be good: means LOTS of company...
>Your point of view makes a moral judgement that all religions must be at least partially correct, and then twists those religions to fit your own ideas. You demand to re-write the doctrines of other faiths, so that they suit what you believe. Millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and other monotheists for thousands of years have believed that their religion is the one and only, and you come along and tell them they are all wrong. You, a pagan, dictate to us what our religion teaches. And if we disagree we are conceited and narrow-minded. Can you see why I might be a little bothered by that?<
No... I don't "demand" anything. If we wanted to be honest, those preaching "One True Way" are the ones making the demands: *I* simply gave a possible suggestion for how the world works.
As for "Millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and other monotheists for thousands of years have believed that their religion is the one and only"... Man, you REALLY need to go back to your Old Testament. "Thou Shall Have no other Gods before Me". Not "There are no other Gods". Heck... Moses wasn't showing Pharoh that his gods didn't exist, but that his (Moses) was more powerful...
Besides... we ALWAYS (as human beings) have to think we have everything right. Heck... study non-biblical archeology for a bit: there're LOADS of stuff that doesn't fit with the notion of modern man being at the pinnacle of creation, but we still think we are...
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 05, 2005, 09:04:24 PM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
I think you slightly misunderstand. Yes, you have a right to speak: in a forum like this thread, even preach a bit. I was refering to the "I'm gonna ride you constantly about the fact you don't follow the One True Faith" types. The one's that will NOT leave well enough alone...
Ah, now I understand. I agree that some people can be more annoying in that way than they ought, but sometimes people will seem annoying because they care about you, and think that you are hurting yourself.Quote from: Hunter Rose
Quote from: fistful
It is an accusation. Just as you accused monotheists like myself of conceit.
Not all monotheists. Not even all Christians. Just seems that many ARE conceited, in that they understand "the One True Way", while benighted pagans like myself are gonna burn in Hell.There is nothing conceited about exclusivism. We have been over this and over this, especially in my exchange with griz on page three. I suppose I should realize that this will take a major reformation of your way of thinking. I think you, and many others, have been led to believe something that just doesn't follow, and I don't mean your paganism.
Ill try a fuller explanation later on.
Quote
No... I don't "demand" anything. If we wanted to be honest, those preaching "One True Way" are the ones making the demands: *I* simply gave a possible suggestion for how the world works.
And thats really all I am doing. Im not demanding anything of you. If I believe that certain folks are going to hell, and that you might be one, would you prefer I not warn you? My choice is to be conceited or to just not care at all? Your demand is that I not believe in an essential doctrine of my religion, because it makes you look bad and makes you uneasy. What bothers me, though, is that you refuse to recognize that certain religions disagree radically and cannot be reconciled and that Christianity is a religion that claims to be the only true faith. These are statements of fact that you cannot argue your way out of, yet to recognize those facts earns one the labels of intolerance and backwardness. If Im a little bothered by this stuff, its not just you, HR, this kind of thinking is everywhere.Quote
As for "Millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and other monotheists for thousands of years have believed that their religion is the one and only"... Man, you REALLY need to go back to your Old Testament. "Thou Shall Have no other Gods before Me". Not "There are no other Gods". Heck... Moses wasn't showing Pharoh that his gods didn't exist, but that his (Moses) was more powerful...
The commandment you cite is a prohibition of all other religions, and this is what I was talking about. Even assuming other gods, this does not mean that worship of them is legitimate. Even if the Old Testament leaves wiggle room (which I doubt, but Ill keep an eye out when I read it again) the New Testament is clear that no other religion is acceptable to God. Even Jewish religious leaders who did not accept Christ were described as sons of your father, the devil and this by Christ Himself.
Post by: Strings on October 05, 2005, 09:36:39 PM
This though: "The commandment you cite is a prohibition of all other religions, and this is what I was talking about. Even assuming other gods, this does not mean that worship of them is legitimate."
Nope... you're talking about the rules given by Yaweh (sp?) to the Hebrews. The Egyptians had their own gods, as did almost every other group of people on the planet.
Now, when you start getting into the New Testament, things get a little different: I won't argue what you said. However, wasn't Christ claiming to be the Messiah (from Wikipedia:initially meant any person who was anointed by God. In English today, it is used in two major contexts: the anticipated savior of the Jews, and one who is anticipated as, regarded as, or professes to be a savior or liberator.)? The "annointed one" who "would lead the Jews". Last time I checked, I was in no way decended from Hebrew stock: I'd be Celtic, Latin and Amerindian.
Or, to quote Billy Idol: "Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine"
Post by: The Rabbi on October 06, 2005, 11:38:08 AM
Quote from: Stand_watie
Quote
Is that Christian Bible or is that John Milton?
As far as I know it is both the Christian Bible (the Revelation reference) and the Hebrew scriptures (the Ezekiel reference).You do hold Ezekiel as Scripture don't you (not a sarcastic question)? Wikepedia (which I don't claim to be any authority) claims Jewish tradition make similar supports this as well in later texts referencing Samahazai and Azael.
Quote from: Salukifan
Whatever happened to Ahavat Yisrael? Here it is, the Days of Awe are upon us and your taking a swipe at me? This is a shanda.
That IS AY. Reconstructionism is meenus and apikorsus, it certainly has nothing to do with any religion I practice. Anyone following that path is on the wrong track. I have a duty of tochacha to point this out. I am not swiping at you, merely at the movement you mentioned.
Post by: Strings on October 06, 2005, 01:09:28 PM
Post by: SalukiFan on October 06, 2005, 01:44:52 PM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
um... did any non-Jewish follow that exchange? 'Cause it lost me...
Hey Hunter Rose and anyone else we lost,Sorry if we lost you there. In my original reply, the term Ahavat Yisrael means love of your fellow Jew and the concept that we should all love and look out for each other despite our differences. The Days of Awe are the 10 days beginning Rosh Hashanah and ending Yom Kippur (this year from Oct. 3 to Oct. 13) when you are supposed to be reflecting on your actions, asking forgiveness of people you have wronged, and generally being repentant. Basically, G-d is deciding what our fate for the coming year is going to be during this time and can be swayed by our actions until Yom Kippur when your fate is sealed. Some people take it literally, some figuratively but its a pretty intense time.
A shanda is a shame.
Rabbi replied that he was practicing Ahavat Yisrael by telling me that Reconstructionism is heresy (meenus and apikorsus). He said that it was his duty to inform me (under tochacha the commandment to rebuke people who arent following the Torah) so that I could knock it off and become Orthodox like him. (Im paraphrasing here
)Rabbi,
I realize that you wouldnt recognize Reconstructionism as legit, but your post came off as quite snarky when I read it. Mostly Im upset because I spent quite a bit of time and effort into writing out my beliefs and you latched on to one thing (that I attend Reconstructionist services) and discredited everything Id said because of it.
Honestly, I wouldnt have minded if you had read my post and asked me to clarify why I believed something but instead it you simply tossed off that the way I practice couldnt possibly fall under Judaism. If you want to dialogue about it, Im open to the challenge (heck I was even planning on trotting out some Rashi) but if youre just going to ignore me as practicing some sort of fake Judaism with no common ground, I guess there isnt much to talk about.
To be perfectly honest, I thought you might be interested in talking to a Jew who is committed to tikkum olam, keeps kosher (well, not glatt kosher
), studies Torah, drives 2 hours round trip to get pesadik food, etc. and is not Orthodox, just to get a different perspective.So what do you think? Do you want to talk about anything Ive written?
Edited to avoid Jihad. J/K I didn't like the way I'd written one sentence...
Post by: The Rabbi on October 06, 2005, 03:23:16 PM
I wouldn't mind discussing the issues but I dont think this thread or maybe even this forum is an appropriate place for it. As the saying goes, "only old Nazis and Jews are interested in old Nazis and Jews."
Post by: SalukiFan on October 06, 2005, 04:08:31 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
You're right, SF, I did sort of dismiss everything out of hand. I suppose that was wrong. I take exception that you think I want you to be Orthodox just like me. That is not so. There are many fine people who are Orthodox not like me and that's fine too.
I was trying to joke around but I realize jokes can be cutting sometimes. I apologize for making such an assumption.Quote from: The Rabbi
I wouldn't mind discussing the issues but I dont think this thread or maybe even this forum is an appropriate place for it. As the saying goes, "only old Nazis and Jews are interested in old Nazis and Jews."
That's fine with me. I just got in a slew of work with my business so I probably wouldn't have had the time to write back and forth anyway. G'mar tov,
SalukiFan
Post by: Strings on October 06, 2005, 05:33:17 PM
Can't speak for the rest, but this particular thread is probably the most appropriate place for such a discussion: you're talking about the differences in religious philosophy, after all...
Post by: Stand_watie on October 06, 2005, 06:42:14 PM
Quote
I have yet to see any reference to anyplace in Ezekial that would support the idea that angels have free will. When someone produces it I'll take a look.
I cited you Ezekekiel 28. I'll be more specific .Ezekiel 28: vs 14 -18. Also the prophet Isaiah allegories the fall of King Nebuchadnezzar with that of Lucifer in the 14'th chapter of his prophecy.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 06, 2005, 08:48:19 PM
Quote from: telewinz
How is it "free will" if you will be tortured for eternity for making the wrong choice? Doesn't sound free to me. Does that mean my car is "free" as long as I make the $350 payment at the end of the month?
Free will does not mean that you can do anything you want with no consequences. It means that you can choose your route. Are you saying that criminals don't have free will? If not, then how dare we punish them? You might think that no one would choose hell, but then you must ask yourself why so many people choose to become drug addicts or why women choose to remain with abusive men. Why do teenaged girls choose a course of behavior that will lead to pregnancy? The consequences of these choices are well-known and nearly certain. How much more will people freely choose a consequence that can't be seen, and that they doubt is real? Quote
We have been conditioned since Sunday School NOT to ask the "hardball" questions, it's not "polite".
People don't like having their cherished beliefs questioned. Don't blame religion for this fact. Quote
Could it be that "Hell" and Heaven were invented by man to cope with the inadequacies of our justice and social systems through-out history? "I can't punish or reward you or know everything you do but GOD does".
Yes that's possible, but this cannot be strictly proven, either way, at least not until it is too late to change one's convictions. Quote
When it come to right and wrong is it God you fear or the police and the video camera at the intersection and the 7-11 store?
Both.Quote
That "old time religion" is rapidly losing favor and becoming obsolete, check organized Christian church attendance trends. 200 years ago church attendance was pretty much mandatory (to keep your job), whats changed? A lack of churches? A declining population? Education levels? A redefining of the words "devout" Christian?
Yes, education is in a terrible state of decay in our country. I wonder with this passage if you mean to say that what is unpopular is necessarily bad or wrong. And I believe you and the good Rabbi are both partially correct on this matter. While church attendence may have declined (I don't know), I think the Rabbi's impression comes from the fact that "liberal" churches are losing their members to "conservative" churches. Or synagogues, perhaps. A book was recently written on this, but I don't recall the name.Quote from: telewinz
Quote from: fistful
could God have created beings capable of love, reason, intelligence, consciousness, etc., but with no chance of doing evil? I don't believe so. Many Christians have reasoned that God is capable of creating perfect beings, but that such would only be automatons, pre-programmed to "love" their creator. A Stepford humanity, if you will.
Whats the purpose (goal?) of man's laws and society? Where God failed, man is succeeding (however slowly).Post by: The Rabbi on October 07, 2005, 06:31:01 AM
Quote from: Stand_watie
Quote
I have yet to see any reference to anyplace in Ezekial that would support the idea that angels have free will. When someone produces it I'll take a look.
I cited you Ezekekiel 28. I'll be more specific .Ezekiel 28: vs 14 -18. Also the prophet Isaiah allegories the fall of King Nebuchadnezzar with that of Lucifer in the 14'th chapter of his prophecy.
Post by: Stand_watie on October 07, 2005, 03:12:59 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: Stand_watie
Quote
I have yet to see any reference to anyplace in Ezekial that would support the idea that angels have free will. When someone produces it I'll take a look.
I cited you Ezekekiel 28. I'll be more specific .Ezekiel 28: vs 14 -18. Also the prophet Isaiah allegories the fall of King Nebuchadnezzar with that of Lucifer in the 14'th chapter of his prophecy.
That said, you believe what you believe, I'm merely laying out the foundations of why I believe this, rather than trying to change anybodies mind.
***
John 8
42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."
**
Rev 12
7And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9The great dragon was hurled downthat ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him
**
Rev 9
7The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle.... 11They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon
***
Luke 13
A Crippled Woman Healed on the Sabbath
10On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, 11and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all. 12When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, "Woman, you are set free from your infirmity." 13Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God. 14Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue ruler said to the people, "There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath." 15The Lord answered him, "You hypocrites! Doesn't each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? 16Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?" 17When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the people were delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing.
***
Mark 1
12At once the Spirit sent him out into the desert, 13and he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.
***
2 Peter
4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; 5if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others..
**
Post by: The Rabbi on October 08, 2005, 04:09:15 PM
I wont begin to get into what you have just shown with Luke 13.
Post by: Stand_watie on October 08, 2005, 04:20:47 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
No, I am not. Sorry. I really do not see what you see in Ezekiel.
I wont begin to get into what you have just shown with Luke 13.
O.k. We'll just disagree.
I wont begin to get into what you have just shown with Luke 13.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 08, 2005, 04:28:14 PM
Quote from: Stand_watie
Quote from: The Rabbi
No, I am not. Sorry. I really do not see what you see in Ezekiel.
I wont begin to get into what you have just shown with Luke 13.
O.k. We'll just disagree.I wont begin to get into what you have just shown with Luke 13.
Post by: Stand_watie on October 08, 2005, 04:46:09 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: Stand_watie
Quote from: The Rabbi
No, I am not. Sorry. I really do not see what you see in Ezekiel.
I wont begin to get into what you have just shown with Luke 13.
O.k. We'll just disagree.I wont begin to get into what you have just shown with Luke 13.
I was referring to Ezekiel and Isaiah's allegories of the the falls of the kings of Tyre and Babylonia to that of the fall of Lucifer described in Revelation.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 09, 2005, 06:47:55 AM
Quote from: Stand_watie
I was referring to Ezekiel and Isaiah's allegories of the the falls of the kings of Tyre and Babylonia to that of the fall of Lucifer described in Revelation.
OK, you'll admit that using a theory that proposes that Ezekial's prophecy actually alludes to an event written about several hundred years later to prove that angels have free will is not exactly the most persuasive argument in the world, right?
Post by: Stand_watie on October 09, 2005, 02:17:29 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: Stand_watie
I was referring to Ezekiel and Isaiah's allegories of the the falls of the kings of Tyre and Babylonia to that of the fall of Lucifer described in Revelation.
OK, you'll admit that using a theory that proposes that Ezekial's prophecy actually alludes to an event written about several hundred years later to prove that angels have free will is not exactly the most persuasive argument in the world, right?I'd caution that "persuasive arguments" in matters of faith are entirely subjective to worldview. I'm sure there are many on the board who find both of our positions that there is even any evidence of the existence of Angels amusing.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 09, 2005, 03:12:43 PM
Quote from: Stand_watie
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: Stand_watie
I was referring to Ezekiel and Isaiah's allegories of the the falls of the kings of Tyre and Babylonia to that of the fall of Lucifer described in Revelation.
OK, you'll admit that using a theory that proposes that Ezekial's prophecy actually alludes to an event written about several hundred years later to prove that angels have free will is not exactly the most persuasive argument in the world, right?I'd caution that "persuasive arguments" in matters of faith are entirely subjective to worldview. I'm sure there are many on the board who find both of our positions that there is even any evidence of the existence of Angels amusing.
But if you are unwilling to admit a basic premise in textual examination then there is really nothing more to talk about. Thanks.
Post by: Stand_watie on October 09, 2005, 03:52:09 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: Stand_watie
Quote from: The Rabbi
OK, you'll admit that using a theory that proposes that Ezekial's prophecy actually alludes to an event written about several hundred years later to prove that angels have free will is not exactly the most persuasive argument in the world, right?
No I won't do any such thing. (although Ezekiel's prophecy is merely a drop in the bucket of the argument, only a very small proof - the words of Christ, the apostle Paul and St. John are much more telling) The dates of the writing of the books of Revelation and Ezekiel are irrelevant for anyone who believes, as most orthodox Christians do, that they are both inspired Word. I'd caution that "persuasive arguments" in matters of faith are entirely subjective to worldview. I'm sure there are many on the board who find both of our positions that there is even any evidence of the existence of Angels amusing.
But if you are unwilling to admit a basic premise in textual examination then there is really nothing more to talk about. Thanks.
I had assumed, perhaps wrongly, that you accepted Ezekiel and Isaiah as prophets with direct revelation from God. If that's not the case, then discussing what otherwise would be the rantings of lunatics is pointless. If that assumption was correct, then the time frame at which various prophecies are codified has no relevance whatsoever regarding my belief that part of the meaning of the passage can be elucidated upon by other prophecies.
A basic premise in textual examination is a good start, but without an underlying belief that God can reveal otherwise humanly unknowable matters to man, is nothing more than an excercise in the study of historical documents.
Post by: Stand_watie on October 09, 2005, 03:58:44 PM
Quote
trhe only possible example I could come up with would be Deut 13:2.
Now it's your turn to explain. That appears to me to be an admonition for the children of Israel to kill false prophets whoa)Are actually genuine prophets
b)Attempt to introduce the worship of other gods.