|
There was a survey of cancer patients in a California hospital. A group of Christians prayed for half the group and not the other. The survival rate of those (who incidentally had no connection with the patients and neither prayer or prayee knew who each other was, or even that they were being prayed for) was statistically interesting. It's a pity I can't quote it but it was written up in the London Times around 2000 time. All I know is that the survival rate was over doubled for those patients who had been prayed for against...That study was put under heavy fire for flaws in methodology, as I recall, but never mind that -- it was superceded in 2006 by Benson et al. in the American Heart Journal, in a study of 1,802 patients (as opposed to ~350 surveyed in Ca). The 2006 results were as follows:
Results showed no statistically significant differences between the prayed-for and non-prayed-for groups.
Although the following findings were not statistically significant, 59% of patients who knew that they were being prayed for suffered complications, compared with 51% of those who were uncertain whether they were being prayed for or not;
18% in the uninformed prayer group suffered major complications such as heart attack or stroke, compared with 13% in the group that received no prayers. So what were the flaws in the original survey? I'm putting it out there because if the original study was flawed (if we are talking about the same study that is) I regret mentioning it.
In other words, there was no statistical difference. Numbers-wise, the people being prayed for fared LESS well than the people who weren't -- and that effect was more pronounced when the people being prayed for knew that people were praying for them.
My guess would the the sampling size for starters. ~350 is a very small group for a study such as this.
What I wonder is, if christians are so confident that their prayers work (and typically believe that they are the "right" religion), why don't they do studies like this that pit christian prayer groups against other religions' prayer groups? A head-to-head prayer death-match if you will! :P (a little bit of snark there, but mostly a serious question)
|
Okay, but your faith tells you that there is a God. It tells you that he is full of splendor and not just a man. It tells you so much about this being who is unobserved in any fashion except what is beyond my ken, apparently. This is why I ask what the source for the knowledge is. What is the source of your faith in God?I'll say this, but keep in mind that for me it's very quantitative.
"People"
I'm asking you personally. You don't have to answer if you don't want. Looking back, it doesn't look like Marcus wanted to either. :\
I'll drop it.
Sorry what was it I didn't want to answer? If I didn't it might be because I didn't know the answer. As for faith. Throughout many years I have seen things occur through prayer and faith that reinforced my beliefs. I'm not willing to share personal experiences on this thread, but you are free to email me or go to my website (See profile). If you are really interested in what I have experienced I'll share it freely but that is up to you. I'm not throwing my experiences to everyone because they are personal and some people on this thread are not interested in faith, they just want to score points.
My source of knowledge is experience of God working through my life.
|
|
That's right, Pascal's Wager!Pasqal."potential afterlife rewards"Dammit, I'm losing too much grey matter in my old age. Who was the mathmetician (i think he was a mathmetician) that had the theory that basically did a cost-benefit analysis regarding adherence vs. disbelief? fark...it'll come to me eventually.
Let's not go there, it doesn't help, believe me. ;)
|
|
What I wonder is, if christians are so confident that their prayers work (and typically believe that they are the "right" religion), why don't they do studies like this that pit christian prayer groups against other religions' prayer groups? A head-to-head prayer death-match if you will! :P (a little bit of snark there, but mostly a serious question)
Maybe they should, but good luck getting that, it would be like herding cats ;)
Seriously though its difficult to measure spiritual things with material things. Faith is faith you can try it or not try it. I'm not writing to convince people either way because I can't. God can. Belief and faith are personal but if they led to nothing people wouldn't bother.
|
|
What I wonder is, if christians are so confident that their prayers work (and typically believe that they are the "right" religion), why don't they do studies like this that pit christian prayer groups against other religions' prayer groups? A head-to-head prayer death-match if you will! :P (a little bit of snark there, but mostly a serious question)Maybe they should, but good luck getting that, it would be like herding cats ;)
Seriously though its difficult to measure spiritual things with material things. Faith is faith you can try it or not try it. I'm not writing to convince people either way because I can't. God can. Belief and faith are personal but if they led to nothing people wouldn't bother.
Marcus,
I believe you've misunderstood what xpltv was going for.If you run a test of different religions' prayers against each other and they produce equal results then there are a couple of conclusions you could draw:
1) Neither religion is right as God did not answer their prayers
2) Both religions are right as God answered their prayers equally. Given that most religions are rather jealous of being the one true path this isn't much better than 1
3) The experiment was wrong. The answer I would suspect would be agreed on by the participants but it does question what the point of doing the experiment was.
4) God really hates it when mortals try to second-guess him and answered/didn't answer prayers so that the result couldn't be conclusive. But that has the same problem as 3.
So in none of the answers is it really worth conducting the experiment in the first place.
|
|
Even if I were a believer, I would question the results of any prayer 'healing' study. If the people are taking part in a study to prove the efficacy of prayer, then it seems to me that their motives would be less than totally altruistic. Much like people posited that an omniscient being would reject a lifetime of belief based of of something like pascal's wager (due to the ultimate goal not being faith but self preservation), I believe it would be safe to assume that a deity would reject the prayers of study participants for the same reason.
|
|
Even if I were a believer, I would question the results of any prayer 'healing' study. If the people are taking part in a study to prove the efficacy of prayer, then it seems to me that their motives would be less than totally altruistic. Much like people posited that an omniscient being would reject a lifetime of belief based of of something like pascal's wager (due to the ultimate goal not being faith but self preservation), I believe it would be safe to assume that a deity would reject the prayers of study participants for the same reason.
Ah, so you're an option 4 man. *makes notes for forthcoming study*
Thank you, Moff. Your explanation of faith has helped me see things from a new perspective.
|
|
Even if I were a believer, I would question the results of any prayer 'healing' study. If the people are taking part in a study to prove the efficacy of prayer, then it seems to me that their motives would be less than totally altruistic. Much like people posited that an omniscient being would reject a lifetime of belief based of of something like pascal's wager (due to the ultimate goal not being faith but self preservation), I believe it would be safe to assume that a deity would reject the prayers of study participants for the same reason.Ah, so you're an option 4 man. *makes notes for forthcoming study*
Yes, but I believe it would be a problem with any prayer study, not just a faith vs. faith study.
My guess would the the sampling size for starters. ~350 is a very small group for a study such as this.
Byrd (1988): 393 patients, simple double-blind setup, results rated in terms of how many scored "good" on the qualitative system used by the hospital to rate a patient’s response to treatment. 85% of the prayer group scored "good," and also 73.1% of the non-prayer group. The main thing is, the "good" rating itself isn't sensitive enough to show that kind of a difference.
Harris (1999) replicated Byrd's study, with results of 67.4% and 64.5% (no statistically significant difference whatsoever).
The 2006 study is far better in terms of sample size, quantitativeness of results (additional number of days' hospital stay due to complications, if I remember correctly), and experimental setup (half the people being prayed for knew it, and the other half didn't, in order to assess whether prayer could act as a useful "placebo effect" in enhancing recovery).
|
I found this article on prayer and cancer patients when I was trying to find the study mentioned above. It had some interesting points. I don't subscribe to all of them (at least exactly as written) but it was still an interesting read on the subject.
Good or bad? (Feeling a little nervous.)
I would not classify it as either, but as a new way to see things.
I have faith that a multiple ton machine will get me -- through the air -- from Denver to New York. Yet I don't have an intricate working knowledge of how or why.
Is "Faith" blind? I would say that most people who are in whatever "faith" feel that they have made a conscious decision. Yet the decision still seems to be a bit "mysterious". I don't feel that faith is blind -- but I don't feel that faith is "logical" either.
Faith is not where you need all the answers to make an informed decision. Nor should it be an emotional walk down the aisle while the organ plays. I think it's somewhere between the two extremes, is different for different people, and isn't anything that can be easily defined.
The line about being between the two extremes really hit me. It is not about questioning everything ad nauseam. It is not accepting the first answer presented, either. It is questioning something until you reach (for the lack of a better word) a comfort level that you believe something to be true.
I am able to empathize with this as I have reached a comfort level that there is no god despite being able to offer any concrete evidence there is no god.
Comfort level is probably a very bad term.
However, I do continue to question. That is why I keep coming back to this thread. I know it may sound like I am trying to convince others of my point of view, but a large part of it is my internal argument.
Therefore, I am led to the conclusion that at least some believers may have gone down the same path with different results. Their 'circumstantial' evidence leads them to believe, while mine leads me to disbelieve. Neither of us accept things at face value. Our 'proof' is just different.
Am I anywhere near what you were trying to communicate? Even if not, I thank you for helping me see things differently.
|
|
The line about being between the two extremes really hit me. It is not about questioning everything ad nauseam. It is not accepting the first answer presented, either. It is questioning something until you reach (for the lack of a better word) a comfort level that you believe something to be true.
That's pretty close to what I was trying to get across. "Comfort Level" probably isn't as strong an idea as "faith" but I'm not sure if there's a better word for it either.
I was reading some online comics (smbc) and I came across this comic about David & Goliath .
It made me think. Why was David vs Goliath a big deal?
I mean a rock to the head, especially if fired from a sling, can kill a person pretty easily.
If anything, I would just look at David vs Goliath as a lesson about the advantage of ranged weaponry... and maybe a dishonorable way to win a duel.
|
|
I was reading some online comics (smbc) and I came across this comic about David & Goliath .
It made me think. Why was David vs Goliath a big deal?
I mean a rock to the head, especially if fired from a sling, can kill a person pretty easily.If anything, I would just look at David vs Goliath as a lesson about the advantage of ranged weaponry... and maybe a dishonorable way to win a duel.
This really struck my funny bone for some reason lol.
If anything, I would just look at David vs Goliath as a lesson about the advantage of ranged weaponry...
I always viewed it as Skill and Finesse over Brawn.
It made me think. Why was David vs Goliath a big deal?
I mean a rock to the head, especially if fired from a sling, can kill a person pretty easily.
The same reason it was a big deal that George Washington ate opponents brains, invented cocaine, was twelve stories tall, made of radiation, threw a knife into heaven and killed with his stare. I can't advise consulting my source from work, but you get the idea. Its history is about as good as the stories from a generation after he died about how Washington was an orthodox Christian imbued with some kind of heroic faith.
If anything, I would just look at David vs Goliath as a lesson about the advantage of ranged weaponry... and maybe a dishonorable way to win a duel.
Slender, hot guy beats burly bruiser through superior brainpower, I'd say. But if you're into rough trade I guess you could say it's about how twinks cheat.
But if you're into rough trade I guess you could say it's about how twinks cheat.
Homosexual agenda! I call homosexual agenda! See the gay inherent in the system!
;) Love ya, Sam.
I found this article on prayer and cancer patients when I was trying to find the study mentioned above. It had some interesting points. I don't subscribe to all of them (at least exactly as written) but it was still an interesting read on the subject.
"Several passages in the Bible state that you should not test God."
Well, yeah, no kidding, if he's always going to go out of His way to "prove" he's not listening. But seriously, the thing is, it's stuff like this that turns critical thinkers into atheists. Almost every atheist I know, myself included, started from a standpoint of general skepticism: "You say your dad is in charge of the entire country? Prove it!" That attitude -- that the burden of proof is on the one making claims (to put it into formal terms I didn't hear until much later) -- emerges in some kids very early on. It leads to things like Martin Luther's defiance of the entire Catholic Church, or (when more strongly present) to asking "Oh, you say there's a God? Show me!"
Marcus Aurelius, for all I disagree with him on a lot of things, at least attempts to face that question. On the other hand, attempts at dodging it, like "Do not test God," in my experience have the opposite effect of what's intended, leading most people with a healthy skepticism into the realm of agnosticism or outright atheism.
Homosexual agenda! I call homosexual agenda! See the gay inherent in the system!
|
But if you're into rough trade I guess you could say it's about how twinks cheat.Homosexual agenda! I call homosexual agenda! See the gay inherent in the system!
;) Love ya, Sam.
lol, an ex-friend of mine once asked me what my gay agenda was, I told him it was the little pink book I write my appointments in.
Or it's too scoop all your children and turn them all into godless little sodomites. Of course he didn't appreciate my sense of humor.
Completely different discussion, but the other thread was getting horribly derailed so relocating the conversation here.
Our cultures evolve.
If I understand them correctly, most Christian fundamentalists believe that the Fall introduced steady decay into the world, so that all human-driven change is inherently in the "wrong direction." With this understanding, a culture doesn't evolve, it "goes to Hell in a handbasket," and therefore we need to "return to out traditional values." By that standpoint, one very stubbornly adheres to a literal reading of Scripture, especially the New Testament -- and never, ever admits that some of the things in there might be better off modified.
I'm not saying that anyone on this thread is of that stripe (although some are closer than others) -- only that there are an awful lot of them around (my workplace is overrun), and that they are usually quite clear that in condemning homosexuals and denying them equal rights, they are "doing God's work" and "saving the fabric of our nation."
NOTE: All those quotation marks are for a reason: they're quotes from various people I've talked with about this stuff.
and never, ever admits that some of the things in there might be better off modified.
The question that arises when this comes up is: if the text is better off modified, why bother with the book at all?
You really come down to three options:
* Keep all of it, as written.
* Throw the whole thing out, as if you're going to change things why bother with the original text, just write your own/do without.
Or
* Cherry-pick the parts you like and throw out the parts you don't.
|
Completely different discussion, but the other thread was getting horribly derailed so relocating the conversation here.
Our cultures evolve.If I understand them correctly, most Christian fundamentalists believe that the Fall introduced steady decay into the world, so that all human-driven change is inherently in the "wrong direction." With this understanding, a culture doesn't evolve, it "goes to Hell in a handbasket," and therefore we need to "return to out traditional values." By that standpoint, one very stubbornly adheres to a literal reading of Scripture, especially the New Testament -- and never, ever admits that some of the things in there might be better off modified.
I'm not saying that anyone on this thread is of that stripe (although some are closer than others) -- only that there are an awful lot of them around (my workplace is overrun), and that they are usually quite clear that in condemning homosexuals and denying them equal rights, they are "doing God's work" and "saving the fabric of our nation."
NOTE: All those quotation marks are for a reason: they're quotes from various people I've talked with about this stuff.
and never, ever admits that some of the things in there might be better off modified.The question that arises when this comes up is: if the text is better off modified, why bother with the book at all?
You really come down to three options:
* Keep all of it, as written.
* Throw the whole thing out, as if you're going to change things why bother with the original text, just write your own/do without.
Or
* Cherry-pick the parts you like and throw out the parts you don't.
Or come to an understanding of the 'Spirit' of the law in stead of trying to be a rules lawyer and cherry pick what you want
Or come to an understanding of the 'Spirit' of the law in stead of trying to be a rules lawyer and cherry pick what you want
I find the text fairly straight-forward, only a few minor occasions where it's confusing and context generally clears that up quickly. So I'm curious what you're meaning by "spirit of the law".... It says what it says, which is what confuses me more than anything that people have arguments over what it means.
The question that arises when this comes up is: if the text is better off modified, why bother with the book at all?
You really come down to three options:
* Keep all of it, as written.
* Throw the whole thing out, as if you're going to change things why bother with the original text, just write your own/do without.
Or
* Cherry-pick the parts you like and throw out the parts you don't.
Apply that to yourself, assuming there's one thing you'd like to be better at:
Are these the only choices? It's impossible to have something that is largely good, but could be improved based on new discoveries, or on man's improvement as a whole?
How about this, if the literal view and straight-forward reading works so well:
If your answer is something along the lines of "well, that was the science of their day," then you're already modifying the text (if ony mentally) to suit the times. If the answer is "yes," then you're at odds with the physical world -- you might as well try flying.
At some point, some parts have to be taken as allegorical. And since allegory involves interpretation, we're far outside of the three possibilities you outlined. Aesop's fables weren't real, but they teach useful morals -- why throw them away, if they serve their purpose?
Not with QM it isn't. The point is that if you truly understand QM you will understand what I am saying. Why do you think scientists are still looking for the Universal Theory of Everything? To wrap up this paradox. The math is correct but the observations are at odds with it. Scientists know there is something missing. I'm sure, one day they'll find it, but they haven't as yet. The universe is far more complicated than any of us believed."Recent studies have revealed that interference is not restricted solely to elementary particles such as protons, neutrons, and electrons. Specifically, it has been shown that large molecular structures like fullerene (C60) also produce interference patterns."They are still very small though. I know atoms behave like this too. But a lump of rock doesn't.My knowledge of highschool physics is over a decade old, but I'm not 100% sure a lump of rock doesn't also behave this way. It might be an order of magnitude so slight that it is imperceptible to you and I. It might have more to do with the stability of multi-molecular clumps of matter. Whatever the reason, the phenomena is scientifically measurable, testable, and reproducible.
Dude, I don't want to keep nagging you with this, but stating this stuff lots of times won't make it true.
Let me say this for the last time: there are no observations at odds with quantum mechanics in respect to interference and diffraction of particles. Ambrosia is right. Quantum mechanics predicts diffraction for small particles and no diffraction for big ones. I know, I have studied it. It is taught in basic QM courses. Heck, my PhD thesis involved the interference effect.
The Theory of Everything you mention has not been achieved for other, very different reasons, one of those being the difficulty in incorporating gravity in QM.
The question that arises when this comes up is: if the text is better off modified, why bother with the book at all?
You really come down to three options:
* Keep all of it, as written.
* Throw the whole thing out, as if you're going to change things why bother with the original text, just write your own/do without.
Or
* Cherry-pick the parts you like and throw out the parts you don't.
Or do what the ancient Hebrews did: keep all that had been written and add to it with new information/interpretations.
Or come to an understanding of the 'Spirit' of the law in stead of trying to be a rules lawyer and cherry pick what you want
Getting everyone to agree on what the 'spirit' of the law is can prove tricky.
Disclaimer: I quote from the King James, New King James, or New American Standard Versions; however, the links to this site unfortunately list the NIV translation first. Please scroll down to find the appropriate quote before you ask me why my text says something different. :)
Apply that to yourself, assuming there's one thing you'd like to be better at:
Keep everything, as is. No improvement is allowed.
Throw the whole thing out (i.e., commit suicide), as if you're going to change things you might as well just do without.
Cut off your hand, if you're bad at sewing, but keep the rest. Are these the only choices? It's impossible to have something that is largely good, but could be improved based on new discoveries, or on man's improvement as a whole?
The problem with this analogy is that it's not on even footing. I'm a (heavily) flawed mortal, when the Bible claims to be the handiwork of an immortal, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent divine Being. RE: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." The phrase "inspiration of God" there can be, as the link demonstrates, literally translated as "Breathed of God". (See: Young's Literal Translation) The book also claims that God is incapable of lying.
So really, it comes down to two choices.
* A - the text is telling the truth, and therefore is the work of human scribes taking down God's message; to alter this is to change the message from God's intent, therefore rendering the new, changed result no longer his work and therefore no longer valid.
Or
* B - the text is not telling the truth, in which case - since it claims God cannot lie - it contradicts itself, rendering itself invalid. If this is the situation, the whole book is no better as a guide to how one should live than any other text and is of no more value than any other text.
Paul himself comments on the results if B is the correct answer: "Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God; ... we are of all men most miserable." He's speaking here of "if Jesus hasn't been raised from the dead as we've testified", but I think it quite logical to extend the application to include "if anything the Bible claims is untrue", because the end result is the same - we've spent our life studying, teaching, sharing, and depending on a falsehood and our time has been nothing but a waste. (I think any atheist would agree on this point - wouldn't someone who believes there is no God think that someone devoting their entire life to the commands of a book claiming to be written by God as a magnificent frivolity?)
At some point, some parts have to be taken as allegorical. And since allegory involves interpretation, we're far outside of the three possibilities you outlined. Aesop's fables weren't real, but they teach useful morals -- why throw them away, if they serve their purpose?
I'll agree that some parts are allegory, but I don't think anything about the commands in question are. I can't think of anything in the epistle letters off the top of my head that speaks as straight allegory. There's sarcasm, but not much allegory that I can think of. That's more common in the Gospels (parables) and Revelation. I'll happily take a look at something if you think I've overlooked/misread it though.
And by "throw away", I'm not necessarily suggesting completely discard the book. I am, however, suggesting that it would no longer hold anywhere near the value it does as an actual testament of God's commands. Because if A, adding or reinterpreting commands invalidates them; if B, the book is no longer the binding command of an absolute universal arbiter and why should I waste my time being concerned about what it tells me to do?
Or do what the ancient Hebrews did: keep all that had been written and add to it with new information/interpretations.
The problem with this is that such new interpretations and information are no longer forthcoming. So this isn't really an option.
* B - the text is not telling the truth, in which case - since it claims God cannot lie - it contradicts itself, rendering itself invalid. If this is the situation, the whole book is no better as a guide to how one should live than any other text and is of no more value than any other text.
I don't see the problem with that, but then I've previously asserted that "every book is a Bible".
The problem with this is that such new interpretations and information are no longer forthcoming. So this isn't really an option.
Why do you say that? The quote you provided...
Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.
...seems to me to be saying that the Love is more important than the Scripture. Why be so hung up on the validity Scripture if it's ephemeral?
Why do you say that? The quote you provided...
Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away....seems to me to be saying that the Love is more important than the Scripture. Why be so hung up on the validity Scripture if it's ephemeral?
The reason Love is of more value is because its existence will persevere longer. Prophecy, healing, tongues, and other supernatural gifts came to an end after the Apostles and the last people they laid their hands on and gave these powers to died in the beginning of the 100s. Scripture will continue until the end of the world, as will Hope and Faith, but will be fulfilled and therefore no longer of value once the world ends: you can't have Faith in something you're seeing firsthand (since it then becomes Knowledge), and can't Hope for something you're already experiencing. Only Love will continue on through eternity.
But just because Love is more valued does not mean Scripture is not important. And it certainly does not say that it overrides Scripture.
And, of course, there's the whole justice/Hell thing.
* B - the text is not telling the truth, in which case - since it claims God cannot lie - it contradicts itself, rendering itself invalid. If this is the situation, the whole book is no better as a guide to how one should live than any other text and is of no more value than any other text.
That doesn't sound so bad. I think Paul was a bit prone to hysterics. This is depressingly common in new religious movements.
B, the book is no longer the binding command of an absolute universal arbiter and why should I waste my time being concerned about what it tells me to do?
Absolute universal perfection and infallibility for all times and all peoples without exception, or not fit to use as toilet paper then? This is the false dichotomy Kirth was talking about. A flawed book can still contain good parts. Even I think the Bible contains good parts. I don't suppose you'd dismiss Beowulf because the scribe miscounted the number of warriors at one point.
Why should you waste your time with it? I don't know. Why do you waste your time with gaming books? With the help files on your computer? Text hardly needs to be magical to be useful. The worst fate you're looking at if the Bible wasn't blasted into the brains of its authors by a typical omnimax deity (hope they wore old pants, since I bet that was traumatic) is that you start reading it like every other book. You'll still be making decisions about your values and how to live your life, just like you are right now. You started doing that before you even knew what you were doing and haven't stopped since. Hardly the stuff nightmares are made from.
B, the book is no longer the binding command of an absolute universal arbiter and why should I waste my time being concerned about what it tells me to do?Absolute universal perfection and infallibility for all times and all peoples without exception, or not fit to use as toilet paper then? This is the false dichotomy Kirth was talking about. A flawed book can still contain good parts. Even I think the Bible contains good parts. I don't suppose you'd dismiss Beowulf because the scribe miscounted the number of warriors at one point.
I actually answered that in the part you deleted from that quote.
And by "throw away", I'm not necessarily suggesting completely discard the book. I am, however, suggesting that it would no longer hold anywhere near the value it does as an actual testament of God's commands.
------
The worst fate you're looking at if the Bible wasn't blasted into the brains of its authors by a typical omnimax deity (hope they wore old pants, since I bet that was traumatic) is that you start reading it like every other book. You'll still be making decisions about your values and how to live your life, just like you are right now. You started doing that before you even knew what you were doing and haven't stopped since. Hardly the stuff nightmares are made from.
While true, it would be an extreme shift in priorities, in values, in activity... especially speaking for someone like myself, who has built their entire life around their beliefs. I would find it quite hard for anyone not to view that as shattering.
(Also, as a book on its own - especially a fiction book - I have to admit it's rather lacking in several sections that are mind-numbingly dry [Leviticus and Numbers, I'm looking at you]. Some of the stuff though is great sociopolitical drama - especially Joshua/Judges/Kings/Chronicles if you like that sort of thing, it's gangster-ish before gangsters existed - and some of the vision stuff [Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Revelation, off the top of my head] is exceptionally mind-trippy and Lovecraft-esque.
I mean, flaming wheels with a bazillion eyes? First time I heard of that I wasn't very familiar with the OT, and seriously thought it was a Lovecraft reference I hadn't read, only being familiar with Call of Cthulhu and Nyarlathotep at the time. I think my eyes bugged out of their sockets when the person said "no actually that's from the Bible".
But I think that's enough snark for one night. :P )
While true, it would be an extreme shift in priorities, in values, in activity... especially speaking for someone like myself, who has built their entire life around their beliefs.
I do not think that happens, though. Could it be that many find a deeper meaning beneath the apparent inconsistencies which is seen as evidence of divine inspiration? How can you argue 'this is what the author or inspirer really meant' vs. 'you are just rationalizing whatever you want into the text'?
Merry Anniversary of the First Council of Nicaea.
Hey.... why not.
Regarding the interpretation of the Bible... my religion (The Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers) commonly teaches a concept of Continuing Revelation (at least amongst us East Coast Unprogrammed combined Christ-Centered and Universalist Friends... it's complicated. Never mind).
The core belief of Quakerism is God (the Light, the Spirit, whatever you like to call it) is in every person.
Ergo, your ultimate and purest source of Truth is what you receive and are moved to do is from the God Within directly.
The Bible is considered an important source of spiritual inspiration, and we are to take its advices and admonishments very seriously--but we also understand it was penned by human beings--inspired by the Light, most definitely, but still human beings. And that what those writers found to be their Truth may shift and grow with time, as the Light continues to guide us.
More cheekily, we have it in a song (the George Fox song, about the founder of Quakerism):
There's a Book and a steeple and a bell and a key
They will bind it forever, but they can't, said he
For the Book it will perish and the steeple will fall
But the Light will be shining at the End of it all.
Walk in the Light, wherever you may be...
This is of course my understanding of the concept. Part of being part of a religion that is somewhat individualistic in nature as far as defining influences of one's spirituality, is that others may interpret the concept differently. (In other ways, Friends are very group/consensus oriented, however.)
Just to throw in another view point. I'm not going to suggest anyone else is wrong one way or another.
Your nick now takes on a new meaning. (grin)
Thanks for chiming in. A few months ago, I attended a Quaker meeting. It was very refreshing. I was quite surprised when I 'came out' as an atheist that there were many deists and even one or two atheists within the congregation.
It is my understanding that Quakers were among the first Christians to speak out against slavery.
How can you argue 'this is what the author or inspirer really meant' vs. 'you are just rationalizing whatever you want into the text'?
Because I try to avoid both. Unless the text is being metaphorical/allegorical, I take it at face value. It says what it says, without need to read new "meaning" or rationalize anything out of it.
Which makes the metaphorical sections, like Revelation, a lot trickier to figure out than the literal sections, like the Gospels (minus the parables) and the Epistles.
Sorry I snipped that one line and then forgot about it, Orthos.
While true, it would be an extreme shift in priorities, in values, in activity... especially speaking for someone like myself, who has built their entire life around their beliefs. I would find it quite hard for anyone not to view that as shattering.
Discovering that one is wrong is never pleasant, sure. Discovering that the Christian god did exist would certainly have something of a similar impact on me. It wouldn't be one most Christians would much approve of, I suppose. But the sun would still rise tomorrow. I'd still have my loved ones. I bet you would too.
I don't mean to sound cavalier, but I've been badly (even obviously) wrong about things that were important to me before. It's not the end of the world.
|
|
Sorry I snipped that one line and then forgot about it, Orthos.
While true, it would be an extreme shift in priorities, in values, in activity... especially speaking for someone like myself, who has built their entire life around their beliefs. I would find it quite hard for anyone not to view that as shattering.Discovering that one is wrong is never pleasant, sure. Discovering that the Christian god did exist would certainly have something of a similar impact on me. It wouldn't be one most Christians would much approve of, I suppose. But the sun would still rise tomorrow. I'd still have my loved ones. I bet you would too.
I don't mean to sound cavalier, but I've been badly (even obviously) wrong about things that were important to me before. It's not the end of the world.
We are all wrong sometimes.
Your nick now takes on a new meaning. (grin)
I was teased by a friend for playing violent video games, when I belonged to a religious community that taught nonviolence. He called me a "Death Quaker." I thought it suited me. :)
Thanks for chiming in. A few months ago, I attended a Quaker meeting. It was very refreshing. I was quite surprised when I 'came out' as an atheist that there were many deists and even one or two atheists within the congregation.
I've found that in many meetings that accept universalist ("Hicksite") members. Hopefully, all feel welcome. (And all would be _welcome_ in any meeting, but I doubt the Evangelicals or Orthodox have atheists as members.)
It is my understanding that Quakers were among the first Christians to speak out against slavery.
They were, and many Friends participated in many abolitionist activities and the Underground Railroad (there was an old U.R. hiding place right across from the Meeting I grew up attending).
To be fair, however, there were also slave owning Friends as well. Quakers weren't as unified on the issue as we'd prefer to remember.
Many leaders of early Women's Rights movements were also Quakers.
|
|
Hyraxes... from my understanding the Greek and western translators didn't know what hyraxes were. They look an awful lot like rabbits and chew their cud.
If you were a biologist, would you insist that rabbits chew their cud, despite the fact of not having one?
This raises a question of just how many other mistranslations there were, though. If I recall, there's some doubt whether the translation of Mary as a 'virgin' is correct or whether it should be 'young unmarried woman'. I also remember controversay about one of the disciples (I think it was Thomas from memory) actually being referred to with the feminine form of the name in the original Hebrew.
Hyraxes... from my understanding the Greek and western translators didn't know what hyraxes were. They look an awful lot like rabbits and chew their cud.
Then you've failed the infallibility test again, by allowing God to allow the authors to make that mistake. Either the non-allegorical parts of the Bible are correct in a straightforward reading (as Orthos seems to prefer), or they're not.
