|
What is your interpretation of the slavery in the Bible?
I've talked about this before but I'm typically ignored. People who generally bring this up seem to want to believe that the Bible is an evil book that endorses rape, promotes slavery, and so on.
Slavery in the Old Testament (as far as the Hebrews were concerned) was a very different thing than how we think of slavery. There were very specific rules on how it worked. Keep in mind that there were no police and certainly no jails. At best there was a loose military system. It was set up as a means of discipline/punishment. If I stole property from you and was found guilty, I would have to be your "slave" for a specified time period. Basically indentured servitude. There were very specific rules for both the "slave" as well as the "master". If the "master" did anything wrong in their treatment of the "slave" the "slave" was released from his debt. There was no selling. There was no kidnapping or whips or any of that kind of thing. It was part of the law to help maintain order within their own borders.
I don't know as much about the slavery in the New Testament. There is certainly evidence that people chose to be a "slave". (Something about allowing another to pierce their ear.) I've done more research into the Old Testament stuff since that seems to be what gets brought up most often.
|
Are you suggesting Hindus have no faith?...but to an agnostic, a Hindu, an atheist, or any other third party, that's a false dichotomy.Or it could just be a matter of faith, and those with out any faith will just never understand those who have it.
I never said that. they have faith, an atheist does not.
I will reiterate this once again. Religion is not and never has been a science. Science is not a religion. We should all learn to separate the two. Any sane person would and should do so. Holding either up to the same criteria as the other, is insane. This mistake has been made for centuries.
...but it's a far cry from fiction.
But our history books are changed when evidence is presented. The Bible is not. And, you are not doing this, but many people insist it all be taken for fact.
If it is a far cry from fiction, then it is fact, correct? If I remember you correctly, the point of Genesis was to tell us that god created us, not exactly how many days it took him. But the Bible does give us a very specific count of how long it took to create the world. Is that true, false or something else?
Or, is Genesis merely a story, but other parts are fact? If so, which parts are meant to be interpreted literally?
I have a hard time believing Jesus raised the dead. I have never seen it done, so I am skeptical. Then add Genesis, at least to our current science, seems unlikely to be entirely accurate. This makes CourtFool skeptical of the entire book. There are other examples of things I find unlikely which just dog pile on more reasons for me to view the Bible skeptically.
You say it is a history book and prone to error just like our other history books. Except most history books I am familiar with did not tell of fantastical events. Wasn't the Odyssey once believed to be historical? Why is it now believed fiction? Have we proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that those events never took place? Or is it that it simply seems very unlikely?
What is your interpretation of the slavery in the Bible?I've talked about this before but I'm typically ignored. People who generally bring this up seem to want to believe that the Bible is an evil book that endorses rape, promotes slavery, and so on.
If slavery has to be placed within context, then all of the Bible's laws need to be placed within context. Maybe the 10 Commandments were well and good for the Jews back in the day, but not really appropriate now.
I do not want to believe the Bible is an evil book so much as an old book writen by men who had much less understanding of the world around them than we now do.
If slavery has to be placed within context, then all of the Bible's laws need to be placed within context. Maybe the 10 Commandments were well and good for the Jews back in the day, but not really appropriate now.
Yes! That is EXACTLY the Christian perspective, and explains for example why gentiles are allowed to eat shellfish (despite the ban on them in Leviticus).
|
|
The Ten Commandments are a set of legal Laws between 2 parties. A covenant, a legal obligation between Between these two groups.
1.)I Am your God
2.) Do Not worship any but me
3.) Don't have Idols
4.) Don't invoke the name of God
5.) Remember my day and keep it for Holy purposes
6.) Honor your Father and Mother
(subtext on this one saying you shall receive certain benefits for doing so)
7.) Do Not Murder
8.) Do Not Steal
9.) Do Not Purger yourself
10.) Do Not Covet
I hope that is not in order of priority. One through five sound frighteningly like 'convert or die' a certain other religion gets dogged about.
I hope that is not in order of priority. One through five sound frighteningly like 'convert or die' a certain other religion gets dogged about.
I like Carlin's commandments better.
How come the Catholic ones (and Lutherans!) are different from the Protestant ones (and Jewish ones)? I mean, they cover the same basic points, but they can't even agree on the order. And CJ has yet a different order.
Abbreviated Protestant Ten Commandments:
1. You shall have no other gods but me.
2. You shall not make unto you any graven images
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain
4. You shall remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
5. Honor your mother and father
6. You shall not murder
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal
9. You shall not bear false witness
10. You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor
Abbreviated Catholic Ten Commandments:
1. I, the Lord, am your God. You shall not have other gods besides me.
2. You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain
3. Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day
4. Honor your father and your mother
5. You shall not kill
6. You shall not commit adultery
7. You shall not steal
8. You shall not bear false witness
9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods
I like Carlin's commandments better.
Agreed. I am all about the efficiency.
I like Carlin's commandments better.Agreed. I am all about the efficiency.
RIP, George
|
|
well in the Bible it does not actually list them by priority but rather by if they are between God and Man or Between Man and Man. Jewish Tradition gives us one list.
The standard order as Listed by The Catholic Church is based off of the Numbering of Saint Augustine in ad 380.
Truth be told if you look, there are actually two similar listings in 2 different books of the Bible.
Onto Carlin, I think he summed it up just like Jesus did, if I remember. Love your Neighbor as yourself. Of course Carlin being slightly bitter towards the end, did add an addendum to his.
Onto Carlin, I think he summed it up just like Jesus did, if I remember. Love your Neighbor as yourself. Of course Carlin being slightly bitter towards the end, did add an addendum to his.
Bitter? I took it as simply pragmatic and shaped by his usual low tolerance for BS.
|
|
Onto Carlin, I think he summed it up just like Jesus did, if I remember. Love your Neighbor as yourself. Of course Carlin being slightly bitter towards the end, did add an addendum to his.Bitter? I took it as simply pragmatic and shaped by his usual low tolerance for BS.
I feel, that he younger satire was much more to the point and very intelligent. So much so that even if you did not agree with him he made you think. I liked that. I feel, and have met many who agree with me, that as he grew older, he was less funny, less intelligent in his approach and more "cranky old fart, get off my lawn you snot nosed little kids."
You don't have to agree.
I feel, that he younger satire was much more to the point and very intelligent. So much so that even if you did not agree with him he made you think. I liked that. I feel, and have met many who agree with me, that as he grew older, he was less funny, less intelligent in his approach and more "cranky old fart, get off my lawn you snot nosed little kids." You don't have to agree.
For what it's worth, I do.
|
|
I feel, that he younger satire was much more to the point and very intelligent. So much so that even if you did not agree with him he made you think. I liked that. I feel, and have met many who agree with me, that as he grew older, he was less funny, less intelligent in his approach and more "cranky old fart, get off my lawn you snot nosed little kids." You don't have to agree.For what it's worth, I do.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have to agree with someone to like them. I like being made to think, why do I believe the way I do. What is it that I believe in? Carlin was a master with this. Once. Then it was like he felt no one was listening and got pissed at the world. I miss the Old Carlin. And though he gave up his roots in the Faith. I pray he was wrong, and forgiven.
|
|
...but it's a far cry from fiction.But our history books are changed when evidence is presented.
Reminds me of Firefly when River is changing the Bible.
It's not quite that simple. First of all, we might have some idea what wasn't but not necessarily what was. For example, it is that many of the "numbers" in Numbers are not correct. But there really isn't any way to be sure what is correct. (One of the ideas is because very early on, the word used could be taken a number of different ways and at some point they chose to make it the larger number.) So, now that we know that it's wrong, what's "right"? We have no way of knowing what the "correct" numbers should be at this point.
Also, it's not really a history book. I'm saying that in many regards it can be looked at that way, but that's not really what it's about. I don't know if there really is an equivalent as a comparison. So, while you can look at some of the events as straight history, there's usually more of a point to it.
If I remember you correctly, the point of Genesis was to tell us that god created us, not exactly how many days it took him. But the Bible does give us a very specific count of how long it took to create the world. Is that true, false or something else?
Or, is Genesis merely a story, but other parts are fact? If so, which parts are meant to be interpreted literally?
Genesis is a huge book. It's really hard to grasp how much time it is meant to cover. And (at least in theory) the person who wrote about the previous few thousand years wasn't alive during any of it.
What you are talking about is Genesis 1. Genesis 1 was not written as historical fact. There are a number of things that point to this (outside of science). It was written to give glory to God. So, no. The Bible doesn't give us a very specific count of how long it took -- really the "story" is broken up into seven sections.
As to the rest of Genesis, I'm not sure. It was written as "fact" but the people who wrote it down weren't there. But what happens in Genesis? You have a little bit with Adam and the fall. Shortly thereafter is the flood. (I say shortly, but it's implied that a fairly large span of time is between the two.) Shortly after that you have the tower of Babel. Many of these stories I believe are fairly consistent with others of the time/area. Most people had stories like those -- defining the origin of the species, origin of different languages, etc. The odd one to me is the flood. Many other cultures have a very similar flood story, but it doesn't seem to have any purpose in explaining anything. So if it didn't happen (a big flood of some kind) then why so many stories? After that you get into Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and then that puts them in Egypt. So you ask what parts are to be taken literally? There was probably an Abraham, Isaac, etc. Did they do the things mentioned? Possibly. Specific minor things -- did Lot's wife really turn to salt? -- I have no idea. The passage doesn't imply that this came from God. The point of the story was that she longed to go back to something bad. If you want to believe that she turned to salt, died on the spot, or ran back to town as it burned, it doesn't really change the point of the story. It also doesn't have anything to do with "history".
I have a hard time believing Jesus raised the dead. I have never seen it done, so I am skeptical.
He only raised one person (besides himself). Well, maybe one and a half. I guess that at the very least, everyone else thought they were dead -- Jesus just corrected them.
Wasn't the Odyssey once believed to be historical? Why is it now believed fiction? Have we proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that those events never took place? Or is it that it simply seems very unlikely?
Here are some differences as I see them. First of all, I don't think that there are that as many fantastical things in the Bible as you make it out to be. God created the earth (etc). Even within science, it seems a rather fantastical event -- He certainly could have. What was the next fantastical event? Eve tempted by the serpent? Ok, probably more alagorical than factual. Nothing special happened to Cain. Noah -- there was probably a big flood and a big boat of some kind. Encompassing the earth? Did they discover the Americas yet? Tower of Babel -- language is interesting to me. What is further interesting is that with anthropology, there seems to have been a definite event that got humans to migrate around the world. Did it happen exactly like this? Probably not, but it's still interesting. After that you get to Abraham. A couple of cities burn (could have been anything), Lot's wife dies dramatically, Abraham's aged wife gives birth -- not too much that is terribly fantastical. Are there any fantastical events around Isaac? Jacob tricks his father into giving him the birthright. After that, he works hard for 21 years to get the woman he loves. He then gets 12 kids. One gets shipped off to Egypt. Joseph interprets a few dreams, there's a famine and the family comes to live in Egypt. There's some fantastical event involving spots of goats that can be proven with genetics (and has nothing to do with the branch in the water like the story tells). I can't think of all that much that's truly fantastical. The Exodus has a number of pretty fantastic things. Not sure -- Red Sea or Sea of Reeds? Millions of people or a few thousand? (Hundred?) Pillar of fire and Smoke? Water from rock? I don't know. Some of this we'll never know. Most likely it was only a few thousand. It was probably the Sea of Reeds -- mostly due to routes of travel etc. (Why even lead your people to a dead end?) Water from rock and most of the other stuff? We'll never know for sure -- it ends up being a matter of faith and what you believe.
Here's something to consider. The Hebrews believe that they suffered in Egypt. So much so that they created a ceremony to remember it. They believe that they were in a wilderness trying to survive until an entire generation passed on. (And include this in their ceremonies.)
I guess it depends on what things you want to believe are historical and what things are more religious. The Hebrews were in Egypt -- History (although they weren't really "Hebrews" at the time. More like a group of Canaanites that had a common family ancestor.) The Hebrews crossed a parted Red Sea -- Faith. The Hebrews crossed the Sanai Peninsula -- History. They were guided by a pillar of fire and a pillar of smoke -- Faith.
Wow, that was long. Not sure if that helps.
Then it was like he felt no one was listening and got pissed at the world.
Or someone put out a new version of his favorite role playing game?
Don't worry. I'll show myself out.
Lil more on this Civil Carlin Discussion:
Carlin's comic genius began to sputter out for me in the end and he still had the Carlin form, but not the Carlin content. His second to last HBO special... didn't laugh once. He looked terrible. I thought he'd die any day.
Then the last one I saw, It'll Kill You? My favorite thus far, and I've seen every one of his many concert films. I found his swan song deafening, and that felt good.
|
|
If slavery has to be placed within context, then all of the Bible's laws need to be placed within context. Maybe the 10 Commandments were well and good for the Jews back in the day, but not really appropriate now.Yes! That is EXACTLY the Christian perspective, and explains for example why gentiles are allowed to eat shellfish (despite the ban on them in Leviticus).
Pretty much "ditto" what Kirth said. In many ways Jesus said what you just did. There were a number of places where Jesus basically says "You say XXXX, but I say YYYYY." Jesus said that while they didn't technically "kill", they weren't taking the next step. Jesus then said that you shouldn't hate your brother. Basically, figure out the point of the law and do the right thing.
You don't have to agree.
'Sokay. Having listened/seen the earlier stuff and the latest, I always took it as shifting his delivery. I assumed his "bitterness/crankiness" was part of the performance more than anything. I totally agree that he was pissed off at the world, but not because no one was listening... regardless of a person's faith (or lack thereof), how can anyone stay current on the state of the world and not be pissed off?
Then it was like he felt no one was listening and got pissed at the world.Or someone put out a new version of his favorite role playing game?
I think Carlin would have made a pretty good DM, but the mortality rate on dumb PCs would have been astronomical.
|
|
How come the Catholic ones (and Lutherans!) are different from the Protestant ones (and Jewish ones)? I mean, they cover the same basic points, but they can't even agree on the order. And CJ has yet a different order.
The commandments are the same, they are just broken up differently. They weren't numbered. So while we know there are supposed to be 10, there seems to be some question as to how they are broken up.
The most common differences tend to be either break up/combine "no other gods"/"No graven images" and "covet neighbor's wife"/"covet neighbor's stuff".
There probably won't be a concensus -- and not sure how important that is.
Pretty much "ditto" what Kirth said. In many ways Jesus said what you just did. There were a number of places where Jesus basically says "You say XXXX, but I say YYYYY." Jesus said that while they didn't technically "kill", they weren't taking the next step. Jesus then said that you shouldn't hate your brother. Basically, figure out the point of the law and do the right thing.If slavery has to be placed within context, then all of the Bible's laws need to be placed within context. Maybe the 10 Commandments were well and good for the Jews back in the day, but not really appropriate now.Yes! That is EXACTLY the Christian perspective, and explains for example why gentiles are allowed to eat shellfish (despite the ban on them in Leviticus).
What you guys don't realize is that Jesus was a silent partner in the very first Arthur Treacher's fish and chips... like, the OlDEST fast food place in the world. Think about it. Christianity comes along and all the sudden it's battered abalone happy meals to go? Coincidence? I DON'T THINK SO!
I am so ghostwriting Dan Brown's next book.
|
|
Lil more on this Civil Carlin Discussion:
Carlin's comic genius began to sputter out for me in the end and he still had the Carlin form, but not the Carlin content. His second to last HBO special... didn't laugh once. He looked terrible. I thought he'd die any day.
Then the last one I saw, It'll Kill You? My favorite thus far, and I've seen every one of his many concert films. I found his swan song deafening, and that felt good.
I had not seen that one. I may have to go find it and watch it. I would love to see Carlin on top one last time.
Jesus raised someone from the dead, and escaped death himself. Jesus walked on water. Jesus fed thousands with a fish and some wine (I do not remember exactly how much he had). Jesus turned water to wine. Jesus resisted temptation by and actual, visible, present Satan.
As far as I know, none of those feats can be reproduced. And don't you have to perform at least three miracles to be sainted? How many saints are there?
I know, I am missing the point. The point was be kind to others and only through Jesus can I go to the happy place. Being kind to others just seems like a good idea, so I am cool with that. I am just not convinced Jesus preformed all the deeds the non-science, non-history, some other kind of book tells me he did. I am not convinced he was the son of god or part of god or whatever he is suppose to be. For that matter, I am not convinced there is a happy place or a god that loves me. I see no proof beyond this book that is not science, not history but more of just a story.
|
|
Pretty much "ditto" what Kirth said. In many ways Jesus said what you just did. There were a number of places where Jesus basically says "You say XXXX, but I say YYYYY." Jesus said that while they didn't technically "kill", they weren't taking the next step. Jesus then said that you shouldn't hate your brother. Basically, figure out the point of the law and do the right thing.If slavery has to be placed within context, then all of the Bible's laws need to be placed within context. Maybe the 10 Commandments were well and good for the Jews back in the day, but not really appropriate now.Yes! That is EXACTLY the Christian perspective, and explains for example why gentiles are allowed to eat shellfish (despite the ban on them in Leviticus).What you guys don't realize is that Jesus was a silent partner in the very first Arthur Treacher's fish and chips... like, the OlDEST fast food place in the world. Think about it. Christianity comes along and all the sudden it's battered abalone happy meals to go? Coincidence? I DON'T THINK SO!
I am so ghostwriting Dan Brown's next book.
I hope so, none of the others were very good, despite their popularity.
On a side note, I love spell checker.
What you guys don't realize is that Jesus was a silent partner in the very first Arthur Treacher's fish and chips... like, the OlDEST fast food place in the world. Think about it. Christianity comes along and all the sudden it's battered abalone happy meals to go? Coincidence? I DON'T THINK SO!
I am so ghostwriting Dan Brown's next book.
D*mn it! All my local AT's closed years ago, but now I'm craving it! Curse you, O' Gastronomically Tempting Canine Fiend!
... The point was be kind to others and only through Jesus can I go to the happy place...
That's one of my huge sticking points. I should do good for the sake of others and mankind as a whole, not for any heavenly reward.
|
|
I know, I am missing the point.
Sometimes, but not usually. I don't feel that the New Testament was written with preserving history in mind. A number of people who were in some way influenced/"touched" by Jesus wanted to preserve what they experienced and lived through.
I guess that it's possible they had an agenda to lead people to believe falsely that there is hope in something more, while laughing as they died.
The gospels (at least the events found within) are largely a matter of faith. The rest mostly deals with morality. If you're looking for history, go to Acts. A few strange encounters there as well, but not on the scale as the gospels.
|
|
Jesus raised someone from the dead, and escaped death himself. Jesus walked on water. Jesus fed thousands with a fish and some wine (I do not remember exactly how much he had). Jesus turned water to wine. Jesus resisted temptation by and actual, visible, present Satan.
As far as I know, none of those feats can be reproduced. And don't you have to perform at least three miracles to be sainted? How many saints are there?
I know, I am missing the point. The point was be kind to others and only through Jesus can I go to the happy place. Being kind to others just seems like a good idea, so I am cool with that. I am just not convinced Jesus preformed all the deeds the non-science, non-history, some other kind of book tells me he did. I am not convinced he was the son of god or part of god or whatever he is suppose to be. For that matter, I am not convinced there is a happy place or a god that loves me. I see no proof beyond this book that is not science, not history but more of just a story.
[snark]I thought you were showing yourself out[/snark]
Seriously you are missing the point. Jesus came for all, not just us few believers. Not for the hypocrites who do things and say sorry.
Relax.
|
|
... The point was be kind to others and only through Jesus can I go to the happy place...
That's one of my huge sticking points. I should do good for the sake of others and mankind as a whole, not for any heavenly reward.
Christianity doesn't teach that. I really wish that people would stop. There is no "do 5 good acts a day and you will get to heaven". There isn't even a "be more good than not and you will be saved".
Salvation seems to easily get muddied. It really boils down to two bits -- 1) Jesus Saves. 2) Because of (1), be good to others. Or if you prefer -- 1) Love God. 2) Love your neighbor as yourself.
There is no "be good to get into heaven" found in the Bible.
Christianity doesn't teach that. I really wish that people would stop. There is no "do 5 good acts a day and you will get to heaven". There isn't even a "be more good than not and you will be saved".
I can only speak from my experiences, but every lay person and priest/rabbi/minister I have discussed this with have all re-affirmed that as the message.
Salvation seems to easily get muddied. It really boils down to two bits -- 1) Jesus Saves. 2) Because of (1), be good to others. Or if you prefer -- 1) Love God. 2) Love your neighbor as yourself.
There is no "be good to get into heaven" found in the Bible.
I don't need Jesus in the message. I should do good because it is the right thing to do, the right mindset I should have. Period. Not because Jesus is the Savior. Not because God loves me.
(Edited for clarity.)
|
|
I don't need Jesus in the message.
Neither do I. Christianity is a choice I've made. I'm just clarifying what Christianity believes. It doesn't say that you need Jesus to do good.
Just to be clear -- I'm not trying to convert here. Choose what you will. I just want people to know what it is that I believe. Saying that Christians are good in order to get into heaven is false. If that's what all the rabbis, priests, pastors, etc. have told you, I'm surprised since that isn't Biblical at all.
Edit: (Missed an important "not" there.)
I don't need Jesus in the message.Neither do I. Christianity is a choice I've made. I'm just clarifying what Christianity believes. It doesn't say that you need Jesus to do good.
Just to be clear -- I'm trying to convert here. Choose what you will. I just want people to know what it is that I believe. Saying that Christians are good in order to get into heaven is false. If that's what all the rabbis, priests, pastors, etc. have told you, I'm surprised since that isn't Biblical at all.
5 Catholic priests, 1 Episcopalian, 1 Rabbi, and 1 Baptist minister. I didn't even get to the whole gay thing. :) I certainly don't think all religious leaders and laypeople think that way, and I know I am limited to very small polling sample.
They all emphatically stated that even the very best of atheists would still be damned to Hell, regardless of how much Good he/she had done. 3 of the Catholic priests and the Baptist said the agnostics would be keeping the atheists company.
W. T. F.?
If they hold these views, how can the majority of their church-goers be expected to think differently? How is this not a measure of failure in how they were taught? If Life had handed me different events, would I still think the same way?
|
|
I don't need Jesus in the message.Neither do I. Christianity is a choice I've made. I'm just clarifying what Christianity believes. It doesn't say that you need Jesus to do good.
Just to be clear -- I'm trying to convert here. Choose what you will. I just want people to know what it is that I believe. Saying that Christians are good in order to get into heaven is false. If that's what all the rabbis, priests, pastors, etc. have told you, I'm surprised since that isn't Biblical at all.
5 Catholic priests, 1 Episcopalian, 1 Rabbi, and 1 Baptist minister. I didn't even get to the whole gay thing. :) I certainly don't think all religious leaders and laypeople think that way, and I know I am limited to very small polling sample.
They all emphatically stated that even the very best of atheists would still be damned to Hell, regardless of how much Good he/she had done. 3 of the Catholic priests and the Baptist said the agnostics would be keeping the atheists company.
W. T. F.?
If they hold these views, how can the majority of their church-goers be expected to think differently? How is this not a measure of failure in how they were taught? If Life had handed me different events, would I still think the same way?
Maybe you would think the same maybe you would not.
If I remember correctly the lien in the Bible was something along the lines of we will all be surprised who gets in and who does not. I am sure we will all be equally surprised as to why those who got in did.
|
Don't get me wrong, I don't have to agree with someone to like them. I like being made to think, why do I believe the way I do. What is it that I believe in? Carlin was a master with this. Once. Then it was like he felt no one was listening and got pissed at the world. I miss the Old Carlin. And though he gave up his roots in the Faith. I pray he was wrong, and forgiven.I feel, that he younger satire was much more to the point and very intelligent. So much so that even if you did not agree with him he made you think. I liked that. I feel, and have met many who agree with me, that as he grew older, he was less funny, less intelligent in his approach and more "cranky old fart, get off my lawn you snot nosed little kids." You don't have to agree.For what it's worth, I do.
I think he was agreeing that Carlin turned into a bitterman at the end there.
I loved George Carlin, thought he was insanely poignant and hilarious, but it was painful to watch him towards the end, as bile and acid replaced wit and sarcasm.
D*mn it! All my local AT's closed years ago, but now I'm craving it! Curse you, O' Gastronomically Tempting Canine Fiend!What you guys don't realize is that Jesus was a silent partner in the very first Arthur Treacher's fish and chips... like, the OlDEST fast food place in the world. Think about it. Christianity comes along and all the sudden it's battered abalone happy meals to go? Coincidence? I DON'T THINK SO!
I am so ghostwriting Dan Brown's next book.
I am full of dangerous knowledge. Fear my shocking noodle! <--as in a crackling brain... not anything untoward.
I hope so, none of the others were very good, despite their popularity.
Amen! I didn't find Da Vinci Code particularly controversial, just amateurish and poorly-written.
It was like he got so into his "neat ideas" that he forgot that international espionage thrillers constitute a large, popular genre -- one in which readers typically expect the author to be semi-competent at writing semi-believable (or at least interesting and/or fresh) international espionage stories. Including biblical conspiracies and illuminati doesn't give one a "free pass" on all the other stuff.
D*mn it! All my local AT's closed years ago, but now I'm craving it! Curse you, O' Gastronomically Tempting Canine Fiend!I am full of dangerous knowledge. Fear my shocking noodle! <--as in a crackling brain... not anything untoward.
Rats. I was kinda in the mood for something untoward. ;)
Edit: And to remind me not to take myself so seriously... smurf!
I hope so, none of the others were very good, despite their popularity.Amen! I didn't find Da Vinci Code particularly controversial, just amateurish and poorly-written.
It was like he got so into his "neat ideas" that he forgot that international espionage thrillers constitute a large, popular genre -- one in which readers typically expect the author to be semi-competent at writing semi-believable (or at least interesting and/or fresh) international espionage stories. Including biblical conspiracies and illuminati doesn't give one a "free pass" on all the other stuff.
As long as Mr. Brown doesn't write for Paizo, I can happily ignore him.
|
|
They all emphatically stated that even the very best of atheists would still be damned to Hell, regardless of how much Good he/she had done. 3 of the Catholic priests and the Baptist said the agnostics would be keeping the atheists company.
Ephesians 2:8-9 -- For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Being "good" has little to do with it. Atheists have chosen to deny/reject God. Assuming that God does exist, they get what they chose -- to live eternity without God.
Why is it that we want to blame someone else for our choices?
"So they will be damned to hell?"
"No, they chose to deny God."
"But they didn't choose to go to Hell."
"They chose to deny God."
"But that's not fair."
"What's not fair? They made a choice. Why should they get all the 'benefits' of being a Christian while not being one?"
It's like saying "I want my prize, but I don't want to do what's required to get it."
Also, being a Christian to avoid hell is looking at things wrong. It's like trying to pass a class in school with a D- -- looking at the bare minimum to get by. For Christians, the "goal" should be to be Christ-like. There are a lot of people who think they "got it" but don't.
Matthew 7:21-23 -- Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'
"But they didn't choose to go to Hell."
"They chose to deny God."
"But that's not fair."
"What's not fair? They made a choice."It's like saying "I want my prize, but I don't want to do what's required to get it."
Yeah, but the Muslims say you've chosen to deny God's most important prophet, so you're going to hell - it's your choice. And the Hindus are telling all of us that we're choosing to deny Brahma. That's the problem: almost every theistic religion (except maybe Baha'i) claims to have a monopoly on God. And if one of them does, unfortunately for everyone else, that God left NO objective way to determine which one. You just have to hope like hell you guess correctly.
Which basically means that everyone should really hope that Baha'i is actually the correct one.
Being "good" has little to do with it. Atheists have chosen to deny/reject God. Assuming that God does exist, they get what they chose -- to live eternity without God.
There is a huge difference between spending eternity in an afterlife without God, and being damned to Hell.
Why is it that we want to blame someone else for our choices?
I'd like to think I take responsibility for the choices I make. As a very-questioning agnostic, I consider my covenant with a Creative Being or Force (if there is one) to have only two parties. I firmly reject any forms of control or authority by other parties to renegotiate or place riders & limitations on this. If I'm wrong, then I will be ultimately responsible. But I'll be damned by no mortal church or it's representative.
If someone's religion works for them, I'm totally cool with that. Presenting a specific religion as the only way to God is wrong. Attempting to force or coerce that religion on others is wrong.
|
|
Yeah, but the Muslims say you've chosen to deny God's most important prophet, so you're going to hell. And the Hindus are telling all of us that we're choosing to deny Brahma. That's the problem: almost every theistic religion (except maybe Bahai) claims to have a monopoly on God.
Kind of. Muslims -- for the most part that is correct. Islam is still more of a works oriented religion. Hindu's -- I don't think that is entirely true. Especially since they believe in reincarnation. To my knowledge they don't believe much in the concept of "hell".
But what you are saying is correct -- if I am wrong and Islam is right, then I have chosen my destiny.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blah -- I'm getting preachy. Sorry.
To help lighten things up, not familiar as much with the Carlin bits. I love Eddie Izzard's stuff on religion. "Why didn't you say 'Drink this wine -- it is a Merlot'?"
You should see more Carlin. You probably won't change your religious beliefs, but hopefully you'll find it funny and thought-provoking.
As for merlot, rent Sideways. :)
D*mn it! All my local AT's closed years ago, but now I'm craving it! Curse you, O' Gastronomically Tempting Canine Fiend!I am full of dangerous knowledge. Fear my shocking noodle! <--as in a crackling brain... not anything untoward.Rats. I was kinda in the mood for something untoward. ;)
Edit: And to remind me not to take myself so seriously... smurf!
Oh I'm a tall gob of untowardness. Doctors say nothing can be done. They're making a movie of the week about me called True Blue: The Rone Barton story. Thing is, they're switching my gender. Apparently I don't play sympathetically in the industrial midwest. S'okay. Wouldn't be the first time I cross-dressed for my art but I'm not wearing falsies!