Why is your interpretation of the Bible right, and theirs wrong? As a Bible believing Christian, I believe in the plenary inspiration of the Bible in the original texts. This means that I believe that every word was inspired by God, and that the writers wrote, as they were moved of the Holy Spirit, 2Ti 3:16 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God," I believe that the originals although long gone now, are accuratly represented in the textus reseptus i.e. KJV. This is why I can be sure that my interpretation is correct.
Yes, but other Christians believe in the Bible too, and disagree with you, on both homosexuality and evolution, so again, I ask, why is your interpretation right and theirs wrong?
They probably read the wrong Bible.
|
The only version to date that has been confirmed was used King James for translation would be the Latin Vulgate(Vulgar for its use of plain language) which was apparently translated from greek texts. In anycase there were a lot of translations before it hit english. Do you believe these other scholars who were translating it all over the centuries were all inspired or something?
|
I believe that the originals although long gone now, are accuratly represented in the textus reseptus i.e. KJV. This is why I can be sure that my interpretation is correct.
Ok, this is a bit extreme (I feel) and a bit misguided. As I understand the translations, the NASB is the best for a literal word for word translation, and the NIV was the best modern day language translation. (I say was because the "modern day" is not the same as when that translation came out.)
Regardless, I really don't care what translation you use. But to say that the only true translation is the KJV seems to me a bit absurd. If we really were to remain truthful, we would all learn ancient Greek and Hebrew and study them ourselves in the original texts.
All this is really besides the real point.
The question that was brought up is what makes mine (or anyone else's) interpretation 'right'? Some might say education. Some might say experience. I say that if you need to know either look for yourself or ask someone you trust.
As far as what the Bible says is 'right'/'wrong' -- it basically says that whoever knows the good he ought to do and does it not, to him it is sin. (James 4:17 -- and you can look it up in any translation you want to.) Don't use my interpretation of it -- what do you think it means?
As with so many other things there are some things that are important. There are some things that are less so. I really feel that Christians need to "major on the majors and minor on the minors" a lot more. Who cares if someone is homosexual? That is such a minor part of the Bible. Do people really think that by telling gays that they are sinning just by being and are going to hell that suddenly they will rise up in droves and say "We were SO wrong -- we will stop immediately and live the way you tell us to"?
Sorry -- don't mean to rant. It's just that it is so easy for some people to focus on one particular sin (in theory) or another. Even if homosexuality is wrong, why is it any more wrong than when I got angry when that b(#@%*@#$ cut me off? Answer -- it isn't. So why then do we seem to get so hung up on this?
Ok -- I'm done with that.
|
|
If god doesn't want people to go to hell then wouldn't he make an effort to let people know that hell exist? Surely god couldn't expect Jesus to be able to spread word of god to all the people in the world? If he did, well then Jesus didn't do a very good job. What about all those poor aboriginals all around the world the were never exposed to chrisitianity and never had a chance to decide for themselves? If god really cared or existed you'd think he'd let people know- it's just plain old good manners. The fact that he hasn't says a lot.
Dungeon--I enjoy your contributions, and I respect your opinions, but I'd like your questions a lot more if they didn't duplicate ones that were answered over several full pages earlier in the thread. Moff has been here all along; I hate to see him have to explain the same things repeatedly when he could easily be spared the effort. That said, please keep on posting, and feel welcome--but maybe skim over the past stuff when you get a chance.
Thanks Kirth (Man I love the people here at Paizo...)
Ok -- so you don't have to sift through a zillion posts on this thread (even though a lot of it is some pretty good reading)...
Here is Moff's attempt at answering P.H. Dungeon's question above
The first link is referencing the second post and the other link is referencing a post little more than half-way down the page. Either way, I thought that would be better than re-posting what I have already said on this subject.
You're right I haven't bothered to go through the last 35 some odd pages of this thread. I just am not that interested. If I'm duplicating questions that have already been asked then don't bother responding or just say it was already asked. I'm not sensitive, well at least not to the comments made by strangers over the internet that I have no personal connection to.
If god doesn't want people to go to hell then wouldn't he make an effort to let people know that hell exist? Surely god couldn't expect Jesus to be able to spread word of god to all the people in the world? If he did, well then Jesus didn't do a very good job. What about all those poor aboriginals all around the world the were never exposed to chrisitianity and never had a chance to decide for themselves? If god really cared or existed you'd think he'd let people know- it's just plain old good manners. The fact that he hasn't says a lot.Dungeon--I enjoy your contributions, and I respect your opinions, but I'd like your questions a lot more if they didn't duplicate ones that were answered over several full pages earlier in the thread. Moff has been here all along; I hate to see him have to explain the same things repeatedly when he could easily be spared the effort. That said, please keep on posting, and feel welcome--but maybe skim over the past stuff when you get a chance.Thanks Kirth (Man I love the people here at Paizo...)
Ok -- so you don't have to sift through a zillion posts on this thread (even though a lot of it is some pretty good reading)...
Here is Moff's attempt at answering P.H. Dungeon's question above
The first link is referencing the second post and the other link is referencing a post little more than half-way down the page. Either way, I thought that would be better than re-posting what I have already said on this subject.
Anyhow I read your previous post. It didn't really strike much of chord with me other than to say that a believer can pretty much come up with a way to explain whatever inconsistencies they need to explain in their beliefs if they think about it long enough. At any rate, I'm not out to try to talk someone out of their faith (and probably couldn't do it even if I wanted to), but I do find it interesting to hear how people explain some of these inconsistencies. If your religion works for you then that's great. I only have problems when people try to subject their religion on others- well it doesn't bother me to hear people discuss it, just to have someone come up to me and tell me what I should believe.
If god doesn't want people to go to hell then wouldn't he make an effort to let people know that hell exist? Surely god couldn't expect Jesus to be able to spread word of god to all the people in the world? If he did, well then Jesus didn't do a very good job. What about all those poor aboriginals all around the world the were never exposed to chrisitianity and never had a chance to decide for themselves? If god really cared or existed you'd think he'd let people know- it's just plain old good manners. The fact that he hasn't says a lot.Dungeon--I enjoy your contributions, and I respect your opinions, but I'd like your questions a lot more if they didn't duplicate ones that were answered over several full pages earlier in the thread. Moff has been here all along; I hate to see him have to explain the same things repeatedly when he could easily be spared the effort. That said, please keep on posting, and feel welcome--but maybe skim over the past stuff when you get a chance.Thanks Kirth (Man I love the people here at Paizo...)
Ok -- so you don't have to sift through a zillion posts on this thread (even though a lot of it is some pretty good reading)...
Here is Moff's attempt at answering P.H. Dungeon's question above
The first link is referencing the second post and the other link is referencing a post little more than half-way down the page. Either way, I thought that would be better than re-posting what I have already said on this subject.
Man, hasn't this thread exploded in the last day or so. Months with nothing, than BAM! off we go.
Now I am going to remain civil but maybe a bit controversial. Now personally the main reason I have had a problem with christianity is that I am a man who is married to another man. I think some of the christian ideals are all fine in good but condemning a person for loving another person well that seems hypocritical. And really there is no justification behind it. Yes I know there is scriptural thou shalt nots such as in Leviticus and one of the pauline epistles and I think in Jude, not too mention the dubious sin of Sodom and Gomorrha. But there was no justification as to why it is a sin just that it is.
In my own study the only person who really had much to say why is one St. Augustine who said that all relations that aren't toward the goal of reproduction is a sin but, I find that a hard pill to swallow.
No offense toward anyone but do you have an explanation as to why?
Moff already gave you a pretty good Biblical answer, but I'll try to flesh it out a bit more. It is long, so grab a seat (and a drink?) :)
The first place to start is with sex. God made sex. He made it for two reasons. The first is for procreation. But sex isn't just physical, it is also emotional and spiritual etc. The other reason God made sex is to join two people together. (See Genesis 2:24 and "one flesh").
The Bible teaches that the only right way to have sex is within the relationship of marriage. There are many references throughout the Bible, I can find them if you want.
Marriage, as the Bible understands it, is between a Man and a Women. (Again see Gen 2:24 amongst others).
So ANY sex outside of marriage is wrong. This includes heterosexual sex, homosexual sex, sex before marriage with your girlfriend / fiance etc. Any and all sex outside of marriage is wrong.
Now, that doesn't however mean you should be condemned for being gay. One big thing Christians need to stop doing is expecting non-christians to live by Christian standards. Hell, even Christians can't do it, and we have the Holy Spirit helping us out, how can we expect those without the Holy Spirit to do it?
I don't expect to be able to convince you (or anyone) that homosexuality is wrong, but I hope you can at least understand how the Bible explains it as being wrong. If you have any more Questions, feel free to ask, and I'll do my best to answer them.
You've asked a lot of Questions, and I don't have time to answer them all, but I'll try a few.
Why should I love god? What the heck has he ever done?
He has made you, and made the entire world. And he made you to love and worship him. That is your purpose, to Love, Serve, Worship and Glorify God. You should love Him because he made you, and it is what you have been made for.
To me it seems like being christian is like trying to a do a job and wanting to do what the boss asks, but having to get your orders through a whole bunch of intermidiaries or a rather vague and confusing employee manual (that also happens to be a couple thousand years old).
I know a lot of Christians who feel very similar. But the thing is, it is not so much WHAT you do, as HOW you do it. God doesn't really care what job you have (apart from a few that are obviously out, like prostitution, working in the porn industry, slave trader etc), so much as he cares about HOW you do it. It doesn't matter whether you are a doctor, trash man, parent, teacher, whatever, as long as you are a kind, loving, generous, whatever, seeking to serve God, and those around you.
As Moff said, "Love God. Love your neighbour"
Once again all these things you are suggesting are things being conveyed to me by people. I don't trust people as the spokesmen for the divine. God has never told me that he made me. I was always under the impression that my parents made me, and only other people have told me that god has made me, and even these people have never claimed that they actually had a conversation with god and were specifically informed by him that this was the case. Let's face it the only reason you claim to know anything about god is because you happened to be raised by a christian family, and they passed on all the things that they think they know. You might say, "well I know god because I can feel his presence in my heart and soul or something to that effect, but those feelings are just feelings that you have interpreted that way because that is what you want to believe. It is far different then a voice in your head saying "Hey welcome to life young man. I'm god, and I created this earth, so you need to give me some proper respect."
And if you really want to get into it. I think that the whole need to "create" anything is intrinsic to being mortal. We feel the need to build and the need to procreate because we one day going to die and the only way we have of achieving any semblance of ever lasting life in this world is to produce chilren and leave something behind that will stand the test of time. God by the christian definition is immortal, all powerful, and has always existed. I have always felt it strange to think that if such a being existed it would be interested in creation ( a completely mortal concern) or have emotions such as love (again a very mortal thing). I think there could be an omnipotent being somewhere out there, but I don't think such a being would in any way resemble the god that christians like to imagine exists. That god is far to human. Far too much of our own mortal outlook has been projected on him. If there is a divine being out there I can't imagine him being anything more than a passive observer watching his creation evolve over time.
You've asked a lot of Questions, and I don't have time to answer them all, but I'll try a few.Why should I love god? What the heck has he ever done?He has made you, and made the entire world. And he made you to love and worship him. That is your purpose, to Love, Serve, Worship and Glorify God. You should love Him because he made you, and it is what you have been made for.
To me it seems like being christian is like trying to a do a job and wanting to do what the boss asks, but having to get your orders through a whole bunch of intermidiaries or a rather vague and confusing employee manual (that also happens to be a couple thousand years old).I know a lot of Christians who feel very similar. But the thing is, it is not so much WHAT you do, as HOW you do it. God doesn't really care what job you have (apart from a few that are obviously out, like prostitution, working in the porn industry, slave trader etc), so much as he cares about HOW you do it. It doesn't matter whether you are a doctor, trash man, parent, teacher, whatever, as long as you are a kind, loving, generous, whatever, seeking to serve God, and those around you.
As Moff said, "Love God. Love your neighbour"
I think the idea that god himself has to tell you anything is silly. It takes away the faith thing, and that's important in the "intent". Also, I've always felt that people are being selfish when they say that they will only believe in god when angellic voices in the sky tells them too. I mean, no offence, but compared to an immortal and omnipotent god, we are all worms in the dirt, why should god do anything for us?
On a completelly different note, there is this one guy whith epilepsy in a specific part of his brain such that when he wakes up from his seizures he believes he is god. Thoughts? The implications are varied, as I see it. Either Jesus was nutty or the second coming is happening NOW.
People are religious for selfish reasons. They pray and worship because it makes them feel better about themselves, which is selfish (that doesn't mean its a bad thing to do). If they weren't getting anything out of it they wouldn't bother. So big deal if it's selfish to want some evidence. To some extent everything we do is selfish.
"Why should go do anything for us?" Exactly, but if he doesn't then what would be the point in worshipping him?
I think the idea that god himself has to tell you anything is silly. It takes
away the faith thing, and that's important in the "intent". Also, I've always felt that people are being selfish when they say that they will only believe in god when angellic voices in the sky tells them too. I mean, no offence, but compared to an immortal and omnipotent god, we are all worms in the dirt, why should god do anything for us?
|
|
People are religious for selfish reasons. They pray and worship because it makes them feel better about themselves, which is selfish (that doesn't mean its a bad thing to do).
Where does this come from? You really think that I/we pray and worship because it gives us a "warm fuzzy"? Do you really think that I am a Christian because of what I get out of it? I guess that you can believe that if you want to.
I still think that it is kind of humorous that you are looking for some kind of Monte Python appearance of God parting the clouds and greeting P.H. Dungeon for no other reason other than to acknowledge that he exists.
From Luke 16 (and again -- look at it in any translation you want to).
"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "
Even if God did speak to you, you would probably write it off as some weather balloon sighting and the wind was just blowing in the trees a different way.
If you really are searching, then ask God to reveal himself to you. If you really don't care, then this is a waste of time.
The god that you appear to be describing (as far as what you are looking for God to be) comes dangerously close to losing the idea of free will. (Which was also covered LONG ago on this thead.) You are looking for someone/something that is in your face. All the time. Telling you exactly how you should live (the plural you). And constantly reminding you when you don't do what he has -- incredibly clearly -- laid out for you to do.
That sounds fun. Not quite sure why that is what you appear to be looking for or expect God to be like.
|
|
Anyhow I read your previous post. It didn't really strike much of chord with me other than to say that a believer can pretty much come up with a way to explain whatever inconsistencies they need to explain in their beliefs if they think about it long enough.
I think that what you have said can be applied in almost any situation. Kind of the ultimate "what I said was true ... from a certain point of view."
We are continuously learning more about language, history, and so on. It doesn't really surprise me that people have changed their thinking as we get smarter about things. I would imagine that you do the same with things outside of religion. Why would this be any different?
Anyhow I read your previous post. It didn't really strike much of chord with me other than to say that a believer can pretty much come up with a way to explain whatever inconsistencies they need to explain in their beliefs if they think about it long enough.
This is actually the way this stuff seems to work. Religion, in my experience, is a feeling before it is an idea that needs to be justified. No matter how correct the justification might be, it still comes after the feeling. When someone says "I believe X because of Y and Z", what they may be saying instead is "I have a strong feeling about X, and Y and Z look like pretty good explinations for that." This isn't always the case, but it's very common from what I've seen.
You really think that I/we pray and worship because it gives us a "warm fuzzy"? Do you really think that I am a Christian because of what I get out of it? I guess that you can believe that if you want to.
Moff, you've learned earlier in the thread of the great respect I have for you and your views; no need to revisit that now, hopefully. But I have to admit that, yes, I believe that also. People follow Jesus because it gives their lives meaning and purpose that they would otherwise have to look elsewhere for. That's a gain. People pray and do good works in Jesus' name because it makes them feel special to believe they are serving God. That's a gain for them. If Christians didn't get anything out of it, the whole free will thing would be out the window ("I serve God because I am compelled to, or because I am forced to?" Not likely).
You said, in your view, that my entire basis of morality seemed "rather selfish." I don't deny the truth of that from where you stand... but in my view, yours is equally so. That doesn't make either one of them any less moral, mind you; nor do I think there's anything wrong with it, so long as the net result is good.
It didn't really strike much of chord with me other than to say that a believer can pretty much come up with a way to explain whatever inconsistencies they need to explain in their beliefs if they think about it long enough.No matter how correct the justification might be, it still comes after the feeling. When someone says "I believe X because of Y and Z", what they may be saying instead is "I have a strong feeling about X, and Y and Z look like pretty good explinations for that." This isn't always the case, but it's very common from what I've seen.
You're not wrong, Dirk; very well said. The difference, I think, is in the approach after the justification. As a scientist, I'm trained to find ways to show that my justifications don't work, and that my "strong feeling" was misguided. That's the basis of how we operate, and in my case it often extends into my personal views as well.
With faith, it seems a little more like "I will ignore any indication that my justifications are wrong, because my feeling can't be." That approach is perfectly appropriate in the case of something like religion, more so than the scientific one. Keeping those approaches separate, and using each for the things it's best used for, is a trick that most people never get the hang of: look at Richard Dawkins and his inane attempts to scientfically "disprove" God, and at Michael Behe and his childish efforts to "debunk" evolution by invoking a Creator.
I think epidemiology provides more answers than theology on the problem of religion. I wholeheartedly wish it were in my power to spare my future children any contact with religion and its power to crush and collapse curiosity and free thought. The crippling of human enquiry begun in our dark era of monotheistic superstition is finally on the mend. I only regret that I will not be alive to see the days when our last barbaric crutches are cast away and we are free of petty and vengeful gods and spirits. I just hope that the evils wrought by fundamentalism and faith can be contained before we slaughter each other based on which irreconcilable worldview our peers are indoctrinated into. Thank you all for the stained glass windows and mosques. Now could you please let us get on with the era of science and discovery without you. Our brief lives are far too precious to waste in the shadow of your paradigm.
I wholeheartedly wish it were in my power to spare my future children any contact with religion... I just hope that the evils wrought by fundamentalism and faith can be contained before we slaughter each other based on which irreconcilable worldview our peers are indoctrinated into.
I like to think I've learned the lessons of the French and Bolshevik revolutions too well to easily believe that one set of beliefs can be swapped out for another without a lot of the same old problems popping up. A rabidly anti-religion standpoint, alas, also serves as an "irreconcilable worldview."
|
I think the problem comes down, more often, to the same quandary faced by two dogs at one feed bowl: share and maybe get enough, or fight and get it all. Religion, be it as it may, is a window dressing on the real problems posed by biological drives and finite resources.
A primary motivating factor behind the Crusades was easier access to trade routes to the east.
I don't claim to have an ultimate truth. Just my truth. I am aware that I just advocated censoring my children's curiosity about religion and that my language is strong. I hope that it is read as an athiest's feelings about what he sees as a danger in the world. Religion terrifies me because it seems to be the most probable cause of our extinction, along with nationalism and racism. like religion, atheism is not easy to rationalise logically and it is something I feel strongly about, which makes it hard to seperate my thoughts from my feelings. My experience in the racist religious fascist state of apartheid South Africa and my struggle to preserve my sense of truth in the face of considerable social sanction cloud my judgement somewhat in the matter at hand. My purpose for posting is to express an opinion that is usually left out of debates such as this one as it is only a few hundred years since we atheists were brutally tortured to death or burned for not sharing the delusion held by our peers. I just used this thread as an outlet for an opinion that does not get a lot of exposure this close to the dark ages. It is lonely to be certain of the non existence of god in a religious age.
The observant Kirth Gersen wrote:
I like to think I've learned the lessons of the French and Bolshevik revolutions too well to easily believe that one set of beliefs can be swapped out for another without a lot of the same old problems popping up. A rabidly anti-religion standpoint, alas, also serves as an "irreconcilable worldview."
religion seems to have built in mechanisms for deflecting logical enquiry, but so, as you eloquently said, do secular dogmas.
Blood will be spilled without religion. That does not excuse the butchery commited by the religious against those who do not cling to the same mythos as the core of their being or the especially gleeful slaughter of those whose doctrinal differences are smallest. Religion just happens to be the dogma most likely to slaughter billions of us in the future. The United States is become, to my admittedly innacurate and foreign appraisal, a petrophiliac theocracy.
|
|
I don't claim to have an ultimate truth. Just my truth. I am aware that I just advocated censoring my children's curiosity about religion and that my language is strong.
I don't proffer what I am about to say as a bone of contention; if anything an illustration of a concept I find endlessly fascinating.
If my sense of literary irony serves me correctly, you have decided or are in the process of deciding to transpose religion for the forbidden fruit from Genesis. It is within these little snippets that seemingly court contradiction where I find endless fascination. I almost feel, probably delusionally, that the final answer to everything is but a thought experiment away.
I feel I will achieve little in these posts except possibly alienating people I like to consider friends. I hope no-one is offended by this rant of mine and I see from rereading what I posted that I was not particularly civil. Sorry for the strident tone and the smug certainty of my posts. An infinite spectra of irreconcilable paradigms is probably our birthright for the remaining time of our imprint on the universe. Some time when it is not 1:20 in the morning after a long day, I will come back to this post and try to restate some of my points with courtesy and rigour.
|
|
Moff, you've learned earlier in the thread of the great respect I have for you and your views; no need to revisit that now, hopefully. But I have to admit that, yes, I believe that also. People follow Jesus because it gives their lives meaning and purpose that they would otherwise have to look elsewhere for. That's a gain. People pray and do good works in Jesus' name because it makes them feel special to believe they are serving God. That's a gain for them. If Christians didn't get anything out of it, the whole free will thing would be out the window ("I serve God because I am compelled to, or because I am forced to?" Not likely).
I have mixed feelings here and I may have been out of place earlier.
First of all, the "gives their lives meaning" I have always felt was a bit 'corny' and cliched. I understand what you are saying, but I have never liked that. Whether people like it or not, everyone's life has 'meaning'. They may not like their current meaning, but it has meaning regardless.
(Sorry -- kind of a 'pet peeve'.)
Maybe I am a little misguided myself with this. I like to believe that I am a Christian (at this point in my life) because it is the right thing to do/be. While the additional perks might help some people's initial decision, I really don't think that it should be why we are in it. (Thinking 'aloud' here a little...) On the other hand, if there weren't 'perks' to being a Christian, it would most likely be a far smaller religion and it most likely wouldn't be 'right' either.
I cannot speak for others, however I do not feel that I am a Christian because of what I get out of it. (I guess that if that were true, I would like to think that I would be getting more out of it than I currently am.)
I understand what you are saying about being compelled, but I feel like this is the ultimate in faith. Is it truly 'faith' if you are truly expecting to get something out of it?
|
|
I don't claim to have an ultimate truth. Just my truth. I am aware that I just advocated censoring my children's curiosity about religion and that my language is strong.
This is curious to me. I want my children to live in the world to make sure that they see both sides and can make an educated decision for themselves when the time comes. And if anything, I feel like I have much more to 'fear' from the world than you do.
Also, it seems to me that the world seems to be as much angry at or against democracy and/or capitalism as they are with religion. I am just chiming in with Kirth -- I think that people will always have something to fight about. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on that.
|
|
I wholeheartedly wish it were in my power to spare my future children any contact with religion and its power to crush and collapse curiosity and free thought.
By the way -- I've never been referred to as a disease before. I guess that there is a first for everything. (And, no I am not offended. That is a little bit of sarcasm.)
While to some degree I agree with you (in that many people will follow things blindly without thinking about it) I at least am really trying hard to teach people to think for themselves. And anyone that has taught high school or middle school will tell you -- teaching people simply to think is not as easy as it sounds. And I blame laziness far more than religion for this.
"There is a train 20 miles away traveling towards us at 10 miles an hour. It is 2:00 pm. What time will it arrive here?"
"200 miles"
"Really?"
"Yes."
"That's what time it will get here? 200 miles?"
"uh..."
"Does that make sense?"
"uh....."
Seriously though -- you want to teach your children curiousity and free will through censorship?
|
|
...a petrophiliac theocracy.Perhaps my English skills are lacking, but I had difficulty with dictionary.com as well -- what is 'petrophiliac'?
I believe a petrophiliac theocracy would be a religion based government in which leaders rule with gasoline-powered genitalia*. Sort of steampunk, but gone horribly wrong.
And these days, I'm not entirely sure it isn't a valid observation.
*I'm being diplomatic. There's a more accurate way of putting this, but if I said it someone would call for an adult.
I looked it up petrophilia is "love of spending time in rocky areas."Are you ever NOT here?
I thought you were down with omnipresence?
I like to believe that I am a Christian (at this point in my life) because it is the right thing to do/be.
Which, of course, makes you feel good--a validation of your choices. Pretend, just for an instant, that there was no God, and that you suddenly knew it beyond the shadow of a doubt. After a period of stunned disbelief, would you fall apart and commit suicide, or would you continue to be the man that you are? From what I've seen of the way your mind works--I've come to respect you--I'm guessing the latter. And if so, you're getting something for yourself, psychologically, out of your current choices... but like I said, that's NOT a bad thing. I don't see that "something for you," in this case, can in any way mean "less for God."
...a petrophiliac theocracy.
Break it down. "Petro" = oil (as in "petroleum"). "Philiac" = love, as in "necrophiliac." The "philiac" connotation is therefore love to the point of need; a fetish. So petrophiliac = oil-loving/oil-dependent, which adequately desctribes all of modern civilization (China and Russia and the Middle East equally with the West; this isn't a solely American thing).
"There is a train 20 miles away traveling towards us at 10 miles an hour. It is 2:00 pm. What time will it arrive here?"
"200 miles"
"Really?"
"Yes."
"That's what time it will get here? 200 miles?"
"uh..."
"Does that make sense?"
"uh....."
My former students would probably have replied, "200." If I asked them miles or seconds, or minutes, or dollars, or hamburgers, they would have stared at me blankly.
|
|
...a petrophiliac theocracy.Break it down. "Petro" = oil (as in "petroleum"). "Philiac" = love, as in "necrophiliac." The "philiac" connotation is therefore love to the point of need; a fetish. So petrophiliac = oil-loving/oil-dependent, which adequately desctribes all of modern civilization (China and Russia and the Middle East equally with the West; this isn't a solely American thing).
Oh no, I got it the moment I saw it. Like I said, I could have been more accurate. I just didn't feel like bringing fetishes and other assorted not-too-family friendly descriptions and explanations into the thread. I know how the kids get all excited when they hear the Adult Table talk.
Oh no, I got it the moment I saw it. Like I said, I could have been more accurate. I just didn't feel like bringing fetishes and other assorted not-too-family friendly descriptions and explanations into the thread. I know how the kids get all excited when they hear the Adult Table talk.
Gotcha. Just ignore the drunken satyr. Sometimes his liquor gets to him, and he starts thinking that DR 5/cold iron means the world by the tail. There are no baby satyrs hopping about, so occasionally he forgets himself and starts rambling in Sylvan.
|
|
I like to believe that I am a Christian (at this point in my life) because it is the right thing to do/be.
Which, of course, makes you feel good...
Which kind of comes down to "which comes first-- The chicken or the egg?" I guess that I'm not so much as arguing with you -- just not sure where the emphasis is (or should be). :-)
EDIT: Or am I a Christian because of the perks or are the perks some form of after-effect?
So petrophiliacs buy the Petroleum-Lovers pizza, at Pizza Hut? Is that what you're sayin'?
::camera pans in as black crude pours hearty in syrupy rings around a steaming cheese pie.::
I think the idea that god himself has to tell you anything is silly. It takes away the faith thing, and that's important in the "intent". Also, I've always felt that people are being selfish when they say that they will only believe in god when angellic voices in the sky tells them too. I mean, no offence, but compared to an immortal and omnipotent god, we are all worms in the dirt, why should god do anything for us?
Holy S#~!! You're BACK!
Petroleum = petra (rock) + oleum (oil). Oil that comnes out of the ground.
|
|
The United States is become, to my admittedly innacurate and foreign appraisal, a petrophiliac theocracy.
Petroleum = petra (rock) + oleum (oil). Oil that comnes out of the ground.
So is what Taliesin saying that the U.S. has become a nation of people that worship doing naughty things with stones?
Just want to make sure what it is that I am being compared to or described as to see if I should be offended. ;-)
Very briefly, I was referring to the founding of the church by Peter. The Rock on which yadda yadda yadda....
And hoping to also mention the addiction to oil.
I horribly botched my Craft (neologism) roll.
Any thoughts of consorting with minerals in a lewd and lascivious manner are purely coincidental and do not reflect the views of Taliesin Hoyle or any of his memes.
Oh. Get off of the oil. It will do no good. Just say no to hydrocarbons.
Maybe I am a little misguided myself with this. I like to believe that I am a Christian (at this point in my life) because it is the right thing to do/be. While the additional perks might help some people's initial decision, I really don't think that it should be why we are in it. (Thinking 'aloud' here a little...) On the other hand, if there weren't 'perks' to being a Christian, it would most likely be a far smaller religion and it most likely wouldn't be 'right' either.
I cannot speak for others, however I do not feel that I am a Christian because of what I get out of it. (I guess that if that were true, I would like to think that I would be getting more out of it than I currently am.)
I understand what you are saying about being compelled, but I feel like this is the ultimate in faith. Is it truly 'faith' if you are truly expecting to get something out of it?
I'm with you Moff. I would like to think I am a Christian because it is the right thing to do. I serve and follow God because it is right, it is what I ws made to do, it is what He wants.
Why do I do things to serve / please my God?
Why did I give up my (lucrative) career to become a pastor (nearly finished first year of Bible College, YaY!)
I do them because it is what God wants. Sometimes I get something out of it, but often I don't. And sometimes it costs me, and costs me big time. But that's cool, because it isn't about me, it's about God, and bringing Him Glory and Honor.
But I will gladly admit that in the end I do get something out of it. Salvation. I think when you boil it down, the reason most people follow Jesus is because it is how you avoid hell. I know it is the reason I follow Him. And it is also the only thing that God promises us we will get out of it in this life (accept for a pain, and suffering and persecution). The only thing you can be certain following Christ will bring you is Salvation at the last day. Any other benefits in this life are a bonus.
I do them because it is what God wants. Sometimes I get something out of it, but often I don't. And sometimes it costs me, and costs me big time. But that's cool, because it isn't about me, it's about God, and bringing Him Glory and Honor.
I have it on good authority that god wants your girlfriend to wear an Abaya. He also does not like that you have eaten leavened bread on the Sabbath. You have angered Papa Guede because you did not spit whisky on his effigy. You allowed your mother to cast her shadow on you during her time of shame. Why did you not put unto the sword they who turn their face from your lord. Your lack of faith in the divine sancion of the prophet and his Quran is enough to bar you from paradise.
How dare you eat lasagna which is not in the image of his noodly appendage.
The voices say you shouldn't look at the moon directly or the ones who take you away will come back.
The only thing you can be certain following Christ will bring you is Salvation at the last day. Any other benefits in this life are a bonus.
You are certain of this because of the agreement of the results of the experiment with the theoretical framework of the hypothesis in question? Perhaps you have a credible eye witness account of salvation?
The last day? The Earth is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). 1660750000000 days so far has been a pretty good run so when should I head to the hills for the rapture? Can you ask Him if June is good?