I do not just take what some ya-hoo behind a pulpit says on "faith".
But do you take the Bible on "faith"?
How do you know that they are "unbiased"? That they don't have an agenda? That they aren't deliberately hiding other possible "evidence"?
This is how I feel about the Bible. You dismiss the Book of Mormon because it clashes with your world view, but for me, the Bible is just as clashing. So how do you dismiss other religious texts for their 'obvious' errors while maintaining the Bible is divinely inspired without the least feeling of hypocrisy?
Please note, I am not saying you are a hypocrite. What I am saying is this is a large obstacle for me. If I can accept talking serpents, parting seas and raising from the dead then I can just as easily accept horses in North America before Europeans. Otherwise, I would feel like a hypocrite.
|
Please note, I am not saying you are a hypocrite.
I know.
Let me try this.
I feel that the Bible is a window (possibly a little foggy right now) into who/what God is.
I feel that the Book of Mormon is meant to be a historical account of ancient Hebrews in America.
I also feel that many people have tried (rather hard) to make the Bible into something that it wasn't meant to be.
It seems to me the Bible tries to be the historical account of the creation of the Earth. You may say it is allegory, but I think it is pretty obvious this is a fairly modern view. Jesus mentioned the flood but forget to mention it was just allegory or only a localized flood.
Why is it so hard for the Book of Mormon to be a rather foggy view? Or the Qu'ran? Or the Tao Te Ching?
Why is the Bible possibly 'foggy' at all? Surely god could have divinely inspired a less ambiguous book. One that does not deliberately mislead countless people to believe he created the world in seven days.
How do you know that they are "unbiased"? That they don't have an agenda? That they aren't deliberately hiding other possible "evidence"?
I don't know that they're unbiased. I don't think an unbiased human being exists. Removing bias is the work of groups, not individuals. Everybody is biased this way or that, but enough people working together will cancel out the biases, producing a more accurate work.
So far as Finkelstein committing fraud, the archaeological community would out him. Science is quite good at policing its own.
The truth is that I actually agree with a lot of what Finkelstein has said. Not necessarily all of his conclusions. But my point is that in the end I have a certain amount of "faith" that what he says is true -- because I have no real means by which to prove or disprove it at this point. (And the fact that others share his feelings doesn't really "prove" anything either -- there are certainly a lot of Christians who share similar feelings.)
Unqualified others? Yeah, their opinions are meaningless. Qualified others? That's a different story. Those people would have the means, education, and ability to go right down into the dirt with Finkelstein and find out if he's a fraud. That's what the peer review process is all about, and why it's so vital to the sciences.
I feel that I have taken what I know, what I have observed, and how I see things and put that together to fit my current "religious" view. That is "faith". I do not just take what some ya-hoo behind a pulpit says on "faith". That is "blind faith".At least how I see it.
Certainly that's different than just taking some random person's word on it, but you could be mistaken too. I don't think either of us is perfect, so seeing with our own eyes might be helpful but is not sufficient. We must allow that we may be mistaken, or even delusional. (I've had a few hallucinations over the years myself, and my only recreational drug is caffeine.) Since we are not infallible, don't we have to subject our own observations to the same scrutiny that we ask of others?
That's why I've gone and asked CJ for evidence. Evidence isn't private. It's not magical. It's plain, ordinary stuff we all have access to. We can all go over it and tease out all the errors to arrive at increasingly accurate models of the universe. If our perceptions are any good, they'll withstand that scrutiny. If they're not, then we're wrong just like if we said a placebo cured our cancer.
In a bit of a coincidence, I just started reading a novel where the protagonists are actually doing something like this right now. A family moved into an old house in Virginia. They all went away and when they came back there was a short hallway between the kids' room and the master bedroom that had not previously been there. Everybody is sure that the hall wasn't there. They check the blueprints and it's not in them. They go to measure the house out and along the exterior they get the exact measurement from the blueprints. But inside, allowing for the thickness of the walls and all, the house is a quarter of an inch bigger. So now the husband is calling his friends in and they're bringing all kinds of tools to figure out how the discrepancy came to be.
Of course it's all fiction, if done in a wonderfully documentary style, but they're putting the same scrutiny to their perceptions that we'd want to have for our own.
|
|
It seems to me the Bible tries to be the historical account of the creation of the Earth. You may say it is allegory, but I think it is pretty obvious this is a fairly modern view.
I'm not saying that it is allegory. I'm saying that the purpose is different and has little to do with that.
You feel that the Bible "tries to be the historical account of the creation of the Earth". Why? Partially because you were brought up as an American and not a Hebrew or a Jew, but also because Christians have been trying to push this idea on people for the past 100+ years.
While there are certainly things written in it that are historical in nature, that isn't the point of the stories.
Also (and a little tongue in cheek here) -- "less ambiguous"? Like our health bill?
Could it be that maybe "God" from our point of view cannot be more than a little "ambiguous"? Or from the other point of view -- is it impossible to clearly define "God" sufficient for us to comprehend?
There are a lot of things I don't understand. I'll ask God about it when I get the chance.
Try reading the Bible as though it is written trying to show an aspect of God.
Adam and Eve is not about a story of two people stuck in a magic garden with talking serpents eating all forms of plants except for two magic trees. It's about how God gave people a choice and we chose -- poorly.
Jonah isn't about a dude who gets swallowed by a fish. It's about how God is willing to forgive an entire city in spite of all they had done. It's also about how even a prophet of God doesn't get God.
While those other things are in the stories, they are not the point of the stories. Did they really happen? Maybe, maybe not. In either case it doesn't change the point of the story.
I know I don't want to argue what constitutes reasonable doubt. Instead, here's a humorous link: Teach The Controversy T-Shirts
Courtfool I am not sure if you have come across this before and though I have stepped out of this discussion, it is not going anywhere anyway, I thought you might enjoy this.
|
And you don't have faith in anything? How do you know that what you know is correct?
Seriously? I ask Santa Claus at Christmas and the Easter Bunny at Easter. Why does faith have to determine morality? Is it easier for people to be moral if they feel that a being will punish them for not doing the right thing?
Socialisation usually helps determines one's behaviour and moral choices. An individual can easily choose the right way to act without any foundation in Judeo-Christian morality. How does someone know if the choice they have made is the right one? Because society has invested a moral code within us as we have grown up.
Christianity is way too preoccupied with sin. It is dominated by sin. Jesus Christ died for our sins. The seven deadly sins. The faithful need to seek atonement for their sins. Sin. Sin. Sin.
The responsibility is on Christians to explain why they cannot be moral people without religion. Why do you need the fear of punishment by a divine being or that being to set out what is wrong or right for you. Are you not capable of figuring out a decent moral code yourself? Be nice to people and generally people will be nice to you. Sometimes they're not.
I grew up in a secular household. My parents are good, decent people who devoted themselves to our family and the community. Religion played no part in their decision to be good people. The benefits for our local community were enough. It is insulting that Christians believe that you need a work of fiction to help determine your morality.
Free will = God does not exist and is an excuse to explain why God does not intervene in our world. Exercise your free will, make a decision based on your moral upbringing and do it without fear that a deity is going to be either happy or angry with you. Really, it is not that hard to be a moral person without having a demigod or god or prophet to tell you how to live.
|
|
I would have went with:
Blind Faith -- accepting what someone else tells you without thinking about it.
Faith -- accepting something without proof or evidence.
Is there a distinction between faith and blind faith. Both require belief without evidence. In terms of religious faith, how can you have a distinction between the two?
Since there is no proof that God exists, then a Christian is accepting what someone says without proof. How does thinking about it make it different? Does not one either believe or not believe?
Is religious faith not blind?
The Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce:
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
I generally see that as decent view of faith.
|
|
Try reading the Bible as though it is written trying to show an aspect of God.
May be try reading the Bible as a work written in a more ignorant time when humanity did not have science. Instead they explained the world through religion.
I am not saying that science has proved everything and we're still gathering evidence, yet we have come a long way through the centuries. Enough that we can start to reject the Bible as anything but a work of fiction.
It is a great story book and arguably the most influential text in modern Western literature. In some parts of the Bible we even have historically useful information, influenced by contemporary events or included as historically relevant to the text, though none of it proves the divine.
Hence, the need for faith...
|
|
I wasn't talking about morality at all. In fact, all three of your posts are missing my point(s) entirely.And you don't have faith in anything? How do you know that what you know is correct?Seriously? ... Why does faith have to determine morality?
Fair enough. I came out swinging blind on an isolated part of your response!
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I know I don't want to argue what constitutes reasonable doubt. Instead, here's a humorous link: Teach The Controversy T-Shirts
The one about dowsing brought back memories of my childhood, when my dad used to bend a coat hanger and go dowse a new well from the back yard when the old one ran dry. I watched him do it a few times, but I never tried it myself. When I asked him how it worked, he said he didn't know how it worked, he just knew that it did. I'm still drinking the water from the last one he found, and it's still the best water I ever tasted.
So, CRD, what are your thoughts on dowsing? Possible, or bulls__t?
So, CRD, what are your thoughts on dowsing? Possible, or bulls__t?
Move the well 15 feet west, and I'll wager he'd still hit the same water. Across the yard, too, most likely. Dowsing "works" because (a) water doesn't usually "pool up" in one discrete 5-ft square and then not drain laterally, and (b) if you dig deep enough anywhere, you hit groundwater eventually.
The ONLY time you'll get shallow water in one spot and not another is if you have a series of shallow perched zones -- even then, shallow perched groundwater is (a) easily contaminated and (b) usually sucked dry easily as well, so you wouldn't want to put a well in it anyway.
Check out "There Will Be Blood" and listen to Danny Lewis school the priest kid about "DRAINAGE!"
As a hydrogeologist, groundwater is my bread and butter.
|
|
The ONLY time you'll get shallow water in one spot and not another is if you have a series of shallow perched zones -- even then, shallow perched groundwater is (a) easily contaminated and (b) usually sucked dry easily as well, so you wouldn't want to put a well in it anyway.
I wonder if this is the situation my grandparents have with their well. It often dries out in the summer or freezes up in the winter.
As a hydrogeologist, groundwater is my bread and butter.
So, when you drop groundwater, does it always land hydrogen-side up?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
As a hydrogeologist, groundwater is my bread and butter.
Thanks, Kirth. I always had a sneaking suspicion that it worked because our backyard just had ground water all over the place. We've dug 2 or 3 wells there that I can remember. It is a really big yard, though (6 acres, out in the woods) so it isn't inconceivable that there'd be water some places and not in others.
So, CRD, what are your thoughts on dowsing? Possible, or bulls__t?
Kirth beat me too it, and he's got the better answer anyway. Instead, I'll offer a mechanism by which dowsing works. It works for lots of things.
Scientific tests by American psychologist William James, French chemist Michel Chevreul, English scientist Michael Faraday (Zusne and Jones 1989: 111), and American psychologist Ray Hyman have demonstrated that many phenomena attributed to spiritual or paranormal forces, or to mysterious "energies," are actually due to ideomotor action. Furthermore, these tests demonstrate that "honest, intelligent people can unconsciously engage in muscular activity that is consistent with their expectations" (Hyman 1999). They also show that suggestions that can guide behavior can be given by subtle clues (Hyman 1977).
Of course the knowing frauds will make a better living at it.
It is a really big yard, though (6 acres, out in the woods) so it isn't inconceivable that there'd be water some places and not in others.
That would depend on the subsurface conditions more than it would on the size. There are aquifers (groundwater-bearing units) that take up substantial portions of states in area. Drill into one at just about any point and there's water. Dowsing "works" because most people don't think of water as filling up the spaces between soil and rock grains up to a certain elevation -- they think for some reason that it's scattered around, separated from other "bubbles" of water by magic force fields or something, I guess. It makes no sense.
Home Demonstration: Fill a box with sand. Pour water in until the sand is half saturated. Stick a straw in different places and see if it makes a difference where, in terms of finding the water.
While there are certainly things written in it that are historical in nature, that isn't the point of the stories.
Why do you not make the same allowances for The Book of Mormon? Or The Qu'ran? Or The Tao Te Ching?
Could it be that maybe "God" from our point of view cannot be more than a little "ambiguous"?
Sure. It could also be there simply is not a god.
If god is truly all powerful and he truly wants us to understand him, The Bible seems a terribly inefficient means. As before, I concede that god can do as he pleases and does not have to answer to me. But for me to believe he is all powerful and all loving, he is going to have to do a little better.
Try reading the Bible as though it is written trying to show an aspect of God.
Replace 'Bible' with 'Book of Mormon' and I will as soon as you do. :)
Courtfool I am not sure if you have come across this before and though I have stepped out of this discussion, it is not going anywhere anyway, I thought you might enjoy this.
Thanks, CJ. I will check it out.
Incidentally, why do you feel this discussion is not going anywhere? I have found it very insightful. Yes, we go over the same ground, but I think that is because we fundamentally disagree on those points. So it is going to take some time to really understand where the other person is coming from.
I know that my perception of Christians has changed considerably (for the better I would say) since engaging you and Moff in this thread.
|
|
Why do you not make the same allowances for The Book of Mormon? Or The Qu'ran? Or The Tao Te Ching?
You've asked this a few times. I guess I'm not answering it directly.
The Book of Mormon -- There is surprisingly little in the Book of Mormon that actually gives glory to God. There is a lot of stuff about democracy and flags. There is a lot of stuff about the setting up a system of government and voting. There are some miracles but even those don't really give glory to God. It's more like He forgot something and had to make up for it. There is also a lot of emphasis on artifacts and devices that don't really point to God. There are devices in the Bible as well (and miracles) but these are generally used to show "God's plan" or "the glory of God" or something similar. I can try it again, but the truth is that God isn't mentioned quite as much as you might think it should be. In addition, most of Mormon "doctrine" really comes from The Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants. And those don't really have stories as such.
The Qur'an -- Not as easy as you might think to find a copy in English. We did check one out from the library at one point but Muslims (rather strongly) feel that writing the Qur'an in anything but Arabic is ... well, wrong. At any rate, the Qur'an is much more a dissertation on how one should act. These will often be written to give glory to Allah, but the historical aspect is much more lacking. There are some historical aspects to it, but more as an afterthought to help emphasize the point.
I know nothing about the Tao Te Ching. Is God even mentioned?
My overall point (and something that Chubbs really seemed to miss) was how or why (I believe) the book(s) were originally written. The overarching story of the Bible -- especially the Old Testament -- is how God had a plan for his people and how that plan came to realization. It wasn't written to be a historical documentary on the origin of the earth or people or similar things. The problem comes around because we as Westerners don't really know how else to read something like the Bible. It looks like a historical document at first glance and so we try to read it as a history textbook.
I feel that what I'm trying to say is getting lost in my obfuscation. Sorry. I know what I'm thinking but can't quite communicate it well.
|
|
Why do you not make the same allowances for The Book of Mormon? Or The Qu'ran? Or The Tao Te Ching?
You've asked this a few times. I guess I'm not answering it directly.
The Book of Mormon -- There is surprisingly little in the Book of Mormon that actually gives glory to God. There is a lot of stuff about democracy and flags. There is a lot of stuff about the setting up a system of government and voting. There are some miracles but even those don't really give glory to God. It's more like He forgot something and had to make up for it. There is also a lot of emphasis on artifacts and devices that don't really point to God. There are devices in the Bible as well (and miracles) but these are generally used to show "God's plan" or "the glory of God" or something similar. I can try it again, but the truth is that God isn't mentioned quite as much as you might think it should be. In addition, most of Mormon "doctrine" really comes from The Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants. And those don't really have stories as such.
The Qur'an -- Not as easy as you might think to find a copy in English. We did check one out from the library at one point but Muslims (rather strongly) feel that writing the Qur'an in anything but Arabic is ... well, wrong. At any rate, the Qur'an is much more a dissertation on how one should act. These will often be written to give glory to Allah, but the historical aspect is much more lacking. There are some historical aspects to it, but more as an afterthought to help emphasize the point.
I know nothing about the Tao Te Ching. Is God even mentioned?
My overall point (and something that Chubbs really seemed to miss) was how or why (I believe) the book(s) were originally written. The overarching story of the Bible -- especially the Old Testament -- is how God had a plan for his people and how that plan came to realization. It wasn't written to be a historical documentary on the origin of the earth or people or similar things. The problem comes around because we as Westerners don't really know how else to read something like the Bible. It looks like a historical document at first glance and so we try to read it as a history textbook.
I feel that what I'm trying to say is getting lost in my obfuscation. Sorry. I know what I'm thinking but can't quite communicate it well.
You've asked this a few times. I guess I'm not answering it directly.
It is something I do not believe has been answered to my satisfaction. I believe that many of the reasons you dismiss other religious texts are the same reasons I dismiss the Bible.
There is surprisingly little in the Book of Mormon that actually gives glory to God.
…aaaaaaand obviously I am way off again. This is why I find this thread fascinating. So why is giving glory to god important?
The Qur'an -- Not as easy as you might think to find a copy in English.
Just FYI, Internet Sacred Text Archive Home
Qu'ranThere are some historical aspects to it, but more as an afterthought to help emphasize the point.
Do you not keep saying that I am missing the point of the Bible by focusing too much on the accuracy of certain stories?
I know nothing about the Tao Te Ching. Is God even mentioned?
Why does god need to be mentioned? How can you be so sure you have the right religion when you have not even investigated the other options? How can you be sure your belief is not simply because of Sam's suggested socialization?
You ask is god mentioned and glorified, but is that not simply an idea implanted by the Bible? So essentially, are you not saying that these other religious texts are false because they do not agree with the Bible? Is that not rather circular? And where is the proof the Bible is accurate? If you just take it on faith, then how is that different than anyone else taking their own religious text on faith? Then it just becomes a matter of which religion you are exposed to first.
The Book of Mormon -- There is surprisingly little in the Book of Mormon that actually gives glory to God.
Moff,
Sorry to kind of take the current conversation on a tangent, but I would like to know why you think that the Book of Mormon doesn't "give glory to God"?
I certainly see in my reading of the Book of Mormon, that it is most certainly another testament of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice to save us from death and our sins. It does contain some historical writings about Lehi and his descendants, but by far the main point of the Book of Mormon is that the Lord, Jesus Christ is our Savior.
I can try it again, but the truth is that God isn't mentioned quite as much as you might think it should be.
I think that if you even just read 1 Nephi Chapter 1, that you'll find that this is not the case, and certainly if you read the whole Book of Mormon, you'll find that it does give glory to God.
I would make the same suggestion in regards to reading the Book of Mormon that you asked of CourtFool in reading the Bible, that you read it with the intent of looking for God, and not just approaching it as a work of fiction or a historical document.
Well thanks for "listening" to me ramble on. Have a good day.
|
|
It is something I do not believe has been answered to my satisfaction. I believe that many of the reasons you dismiss other religious texts are the same reasons I dismiss the Bible.
…aaaaaaand obviously I am way off again. This is why I find this thread fascinating. So why is giving glory to god important?
Do you not keep saying that I am missing the point of the Bible by focusing too much on the accuracy of certain stories?
Why does god need to be mentioned?
Not exactly what I'm trying to communicate.
I also feel that many people have tried (rather hard) to make the Bible into something that it wasn't meant to be.
I'm not (necessarily) saying that "giving glory to God" is important. I'm saying that it's important to the Bible. I'm saying that we as Westerners have a tendency to read the Bible ignoring its original purpose or intention. It's like reading a "how-to" book as a fairy tale. So, likewise, reading other works -- like the Book of Mormon -- the way the Bible was meant to be read doesn't work well either. The Qu'ran was not meant to be read as a history book. Reading it that way will only cause problems. It also wasn't written the same way the Bible was written. Reading it that way will also cause issues.
With regard to the Tao Te Ching, I can look at it, but (for better or worse) I know that Christianity is "right". I will fully admit that I am "jaded" in that regard and it would therefore be incredibly difficult for me to truly look at it with an "open mind". I guess in the same way that Samnell would have a great deal of difficulty looking at the Bible with an "open mind". (And if memory serves me right, isn't "Tao Te Ching" more about a philosophy of living rather than a true religion?) (In any case, I wasn't trying to suggest that having "God" mentioned makes it "valid" -- I was trying to show that the two works can't really be read the same way.)
Probably more obfuscation -- but I'm trying...
With regard to the Tao Te Ching, I can look at it, but…
In all honesty, I have a hard time understanding the Tao Te Ching at all. I done better with explanations people have given me. I have found Taoism.net/TrueTao.org to be much more 'enlightening'.
I will fully admit that I am "jaded" in that regard and it would therefore be incredibly difficult for me to truly look at it with an "open mind".
Fair enough. I believe we are all guilty of this…including Samnell despite his, most likely, protestations. So we are all kind of stuck saying we are right and they are wrong.
And if memory serves me right, isn't "Tao Te Ching" more about a philosophy of living rather than a true religion?
You could argue that.
|
|
Haven't been in here in awhile, but I failed my will save today :(
This is a quote made by the pope on his trip to Europe this week:
It is also a great sadness that the authority of the Church was not sufficiently vigilant and not sufficiently quick and decisive in taking the necessary measures.
I cannot believe he had the nerve to say this. There is documented evidence that he played an ACTIVE part in covering up at least one priest's many instances of abuse. If he wants to be quick and decisive in taking the necessary measures, then maybe he should turn himself in and face the charges he is guilty of. Obstruction, harboring a fugitive, manslaughter (for any of the victims who killed themselves), etc.
If anyone wants to see what is wrong with organized religion, look no farther than Joseph Ratzinger. Not only does he approve of child molestation and shelter offenders, but he was a willing member of the Hitler youth. I, for one, hope he gets to have a little sit down chat with his "boss" a hell of a lot sooner rather than later (it will assuradely be a short conversation and stop on a trip to a much, shall we say, "warmer" location).
|
|
Moff,
Sorry to kind of take the current conversation on a tangent, but I would like to know why you think that the Book of Mormon doesn't "give glory to God"?
I don't have all my "stuff" here at work. So I'm going off memory right now but...
(I just looked up the story.)
The brass plates were held by a bad man. There is a lot of "The Lord said to me" (doesn't always say how -- often in dream, but it's never said what the dream was -- which is a significant difference with the Old Testament). But there really isn't that much that actually gives glory to God. There is a lot of "we must obey his commandments" but apparently that doesn't include the "thou shalt not murder". But even aside from that, I couldn't find anything that actually brought glory to God. Even to the point where Nephi continued deceiving other Hebrews. All this over something that was apparently excedingly important -- but we're never told why it was. (It was a geneology list for the most part. Actually, there are a couple different places where it says what it is and it differs -- but not why it's important.) The Ark of the Covenant was important for many ceremonies and services and was part of the "Holy of Holies". So I'm not sure how murdering a helpless man (evil though he might have been) over something that had a list of names on it is supposed to give glory to God. As near as I can tell it is a story about God commanding something, it happening, and life goes on.
Compared to David having the opportunity (a number of times) to kill Saul -- and he was certainly in his right -- this story just doesn't fit. The closest thing that I can come up with is the story of Jael in the book of Judges. But in that story, God never told Jael to kill the "bad king". Also, the last verse in the chapter essentially said that God was the one responsible, and how His glory was realized.
I'd have to get my stuff to figure out where the democracy stuff is and the information about flags and so on.
And if memory serves me right, isn't "Tao Te Ching" more about a philosophy of living rather than a true religion?
Pardon me, but isn't that sort of forcing all religions to be like yours in order to count as "true" religions? I mean, it looks like you're saying, "well, it's not about God, it's about how to live your life, so it's a life philosphy, not a religion." And then next you can look at Islam and say, "well, they worship somebody called Allah, not God, and describe how to live your life, so it's a life philosophy, not a religion." And then you can look at the Catholics and say "all that 'no meat on Friday' stuff is telling you how to live your life, and I disagree with their stance on God, so Catholacism is a life philosphy, not a religion."
If you get to pick and choose the conditions as to what "qualifies" as a religion as you see fit, then of course only yours will be a "true" religion!
I will fully admit that I am "jaded" in that regard and it would therefore be incredibly difficult for me to truly look at it with an "open mind".Fair enough. I believe we are all guilty of this…including Samnell despite his, most likely, protestations. So we are all kind of stuck saying we are right and they are wrong.
One or the other is the case. My project is to figure out who and, if necessary, get on that side. As I understand the term, this is the very definition of open-minded. If that's not what it means, then what does it mean?
Pardon me, but isn't that sort of forcing all religions to be like yours in order to count as "true" religions?
I think Moff has a point on Taoism. I believe someone on this thread told me there was Taoist philosophy and Taoist religion. Where does one end and the other begin?
Having said that, I do feel that Moff is essentially saying other religions do not jibe with the Bible and are, therefore, not true.
So…yeah.
|
|
If you get to pick and choose the conditions as to what "qualifies" as a religion as you see fit, then of course only yours will be a "true" religion!
Interesting.
I guess then -- what makes a "religion"?
(And I didn't mean for it to come across quite like that. There are people who feel that you can be Buddhist and Christian at the same time. Not sure how I feel about that yet, but it tells me that (at least) one of them is probably more of a philosophy of living than a "how to get to the afterlife" religion.)
Religion:
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience
Pick one.
Thanks, CJ. I will check it out.
Incidentally, why do you feel this discussion is not going anywhere? I have found it very insightful. Yes, we go over the same ground, but I think that is because we fundamentally disagree on those points. So it is going to take some time to really understand where the other person is coming from.
I know that my perception of Christians has changed considerably (for the better I would say) since engaging you and Moff in this thread.
It seems like we keep beating the same dead horse and while some of us continue on to other things someone new jumps in and beats upon the same said horse.
|
|
Religion:
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience
Pick one.
Yeah, pretty much what I was understanding. But something like "The Eightfold Path" -- is that a "belief" or a "philosophy"?
It seems like we keep beating the same dead horse and while some of us continue on to other things someone new jumps in and beats upon the same said horse.
I am sorry you have not gained any new insight from this discussion. I shall continue to beat the horse as long as I continue to learn from it.
Yeah, pretty much what I was understanding. But something like "The Eightfold Path" -- is that a "belief" or a "philosophy"?
Thou shall not kill. Belief or philosophy?
Yeah, pretty much what I was understanding. But something like "The Eightfold Path" -- is that a "belief" or a "philosophy"?Religion:
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience
Pick one.
In my opinion, and experience it depends on the practitioner. Some treat it as a philosophy and a good one. Others as a deep spiritual and religious devotion.
So…I can be a Christian philosopher in that I try to practice Jesus' "Golden Rule" while at the same time not giving any particular religious devotion to the rest?
|
|
Yeah, pretty much what I was understanding. But something like "The Eightfold Path" -- is that a "belief" or a "philosophy"?
Before I get attacked...
I feel that the core of something like Christianity, Catholicism, Hinduism, Islam and so on is more than just the philosophy of life stuff. When you talk to people who are one of these, more often than not, while the "how to live" stuff is important, there is more to it that seems to have greater importance. (And you can argue with whether or not that's "right".) But other things (at least to me) are set up to be little more than "How to Win Friends and Influence People". Ok, kind of an oversimplification, but essentially they are set up to be guides on how to live your life. Buddhism is odd to me because it seems to have both aspects -- and people seem to be able to choose their path.
I'm rambling -- so I'll stop now...
|
|
Yeah, pretty much what I was understanding. But something like "The Eightfold Path" -- is that a "belief" or a "philosophy"?Thou shall not kill. Belief or philosophy?
Philosophy. But I didn't explain myself well. (I immediately thought about the Sermon on the Mount myself.)
I don't feel that "Thou shalt not kill" is a core belief of Christianity. It seems like the "Eightfold Path" is a core belief of Buddhism.
Maybe it depends on the individual.
I think that is exactly why I find Eastern religions/philosophies more appealing. They seem to focus on the inside, while Abrahamic religions focus on an external force.
Except for maybe Quakers which is a somewhat of a melding of the two.
If you get to pick and choose the conditions as to what "qualifies" as a religion as you see fit, then of course only yours will be a "true" religion!Interesting.
I guess then -- what makes a "religion"?
A religion is a set of positions affirmed to be true, so it's an ideology. A religion is an aggregate of beliefs, thus a system. But something like support for the gold standard or open borders isn't usually considered religious, except maybe figuratively, so it's not just any ideology. It's a specific sort the deals in specific things. Specifically, the supernatural.
I would say a religion is a system of belief in the supernatural. This obviously includes every god-centered religion, but also includes other things we generally consider religious like Buddhism where divinities are relatively unimportant or even absent yet other supernatural doctrines (karma, reincarnation, a soul) persist.
Moff,
Sorry to kind of take the current conversation on a tangent, but I would like to know why you think that the Book of Mormon doesn't "give glory to God"?
I don't have all my "stuff" here at work. So I'm going off memory right now but...
(I just looked up the story.)
The brass plates were held by a bad man. There is a lot of "The Lord said to me" (doesn't always say how -- often in dream, but it's never said what the dream was -- which is a significant difference with the Old Testament). But there really isn't that much that actually gives glory to God. There is a lot of "we must obey his commandments" but apparently that doesn't include the "thou shalt not murder". But even aside from that, I couldn't find anything that actually brought glory to God. Even to the point where Nephi continued deceiving other Hebrews. All this over something that was apparently excedingly important -- but we're never told why it was. (It was a geneology list for the most part. Actually, there are a couple different places where it says what it is and it differs -- but not why it's important.) The Ark of the Covenant was important for many ceremonies and services and was part of the "Holy of Holies". So I'm not sure how murdering a helpless man (evil though he might have been) over something that had a list of names on it is supposed to give glory to God. As near as I can tell it is a story about God commanding something, it happening, and life goes on.
Compared to David having the opportunity (a number of times) to kill Saul -- and he was certainly in his right -- this story just doesn't fit. The closest thing that I can come up with is the story of Jael in the book of Judges. But in that story, God never told Jael to kill the "bad king". Also, the last verse in the chapter essentially said that God was the one responsible, and how His glory was realized.
I'd have to get my stuff to figure out where the democracy stuff is and the information about flags and so...
The reason that the brass plates were important to Lehi and his family are that they were essentially the "scriptures" of their day. They did contain a genealogical record as do many of the books of the Old Testament. The brass plates also contained the Law of Moses and many of the writings of the prophets of the Old Testament up to about the Book of Isaiah.
They were important to Lehi and Nephi in the fact that it would enable them to remember the Law of Moses and the commandments as they had been given to the prophets. Thus they could teach their children and not forget the Lord.
In the Book of Mormon the Lord speaks to people in a variety of ways. Through dreams, by feelings and impressions, by hearing just his voice, whether just in the mind or heart, or an audible voice, by angels, and the Lord Himself appeared to the descendants of Lehi after his resurrection.
I have to ask, have you actually read the Book of Mormon? Because it sounds as if you've only read a summary of it, and depending on the summary and who wrote it, it may not be all that accurate. I would ask that you only pass judgment on it after having actually read the book.
In fact the the last prophet to write in the Book of Mormon makes the very same request. That if you really want to know the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, that you read it, and then sincerely pray to know if it is true and you will receive an answer.
Buddhism where divinities are relatively unimportant or even absent yet other supernatural doctrines (karma, reincarnation, a soul) persist.
That would be Hinduism, or a person who read some Buddhist stuff and didn't understand any of it. The whole essence of Buddhism is no-self, which means the individual soul does not actually exist, which means reincarnation is nothing but an illusion.
Not sure how I feel about that yet, but it tells me that (at least) one of them is probably more of a philosophy of living than a "how to get to the afterlife" religion.)
So that's where you're drawing the line? Anything not founded on the assumption that there is an afterlife, and giving you directions there, isn't a religion? Personally, that seems like an awful narrow definition.
|
|
I've done more than just read a summary. But I'll admit that I haven't read the whole thing from cover to cover.
The reason that the brass plates were important to Lehi and his family are that they were essentially the "scriptures" of their day. They did contain a genealogical record as do many of the books of the Old Testament. The brass plates also contained the Law of Moses and many of the writings of the prophets of the Old Testament up to about the Book of Isaiah.
They were important to Lehi and Nephi in the fact that it would enable them to remember the Law of Moses and the commandments as they had been given to the prophets. Thus they could teach their children and not forget the Lord.
Ok. Do know why geneology is/was important to the Jews/Hebrews and why it is so carefully documented in the Old Testament? I don't see the religious importance of it in the Book of Mormon. It's not well explained. In fact, it didn't seem all that important to the family in the first place -- they were going to leave it until the Lord told them to go back and get it. Also, something this important should have been important to the entire Hebrew nation. Yet they didn't care that the Lord was abandoning them and sending the plates on with this one family?
In the Book of Mormon the Lord speaks to people in a variety of ways. Through dreams, by feelings and impressions, by hearing just his voice, whether just in the mind or heart, or an audible voice, by angels, and the Lord Himself appeared to the descendants of Lehi after his resurrection.
Yes, but in the Bible, it's generally pretty clear how God is communicating with his people. In the Book of Mormon, it isn't very clear. The Bible talks about dreams of statues made of different materials, stalks of grain bowing to other grain, and so on. Here it's just "God came to me in a dream". I guess -- it just doesn't seem to coincide well with the Bible in this regard.
But again, none of this really did much to give glory to God as near as I can tell.
Also, and keep in mind that the Jews (really they were "Hebrews" at this time) were always considered "God's chosen people" -- but I cannot find anywhere where God told his chosen people to kill another chosen people. If God saw need to "take someone out" he did it -- usually from a non-Hebrew -- but he never commanded a Hebrew to kill one of his chosen people no matter how evil they may have been.
Another story (that really bugs me -- but for other reasons) is the story of the brother of Jared.
Here it almost looks like it's giving glory to God. Almost. In this story, it almost feels like God has been reduced to the role of ... well, Santa Claus. There's a whole lot of "Please Lord ..." and the Lord acquiesces. I can't find a Biblical story like it. The brother of Jared (a man highly favored in the Lord -- but not so much as to give us his name) and his family are about to be stricken with a case of tongues (I believe that this story is meant to take place at the Tower of Babel). Jared asks his brother to intercede with God (because I guess that they had sufficient warning) and not make it so that his family can't communicate with each other. Then Jared asks his brother to do the same thing for their friends and he does. Then he's told to ask God if they will be driven from the land -- but then to also check and see if God has a nice pretty place for them to live. There are a couple times when God is a little more forthcoming with His plan or what his people are supposed to do next, but for the most part the conversion seems to go like -- "see if God can get us some light", "see if God can get us some air for the boat", and so on.
Compare this with the Exodus story. God presented his plan to Moses -- and then Moses whined about it -- once (and God said that Aaron could speak if Moses was a little shy about it). Moses didn't keep asking God after that -- well what about the sea? or how are we going to eat? and so on.
In the Exodus, God has a plan and Moses through God realizes that plan. In the brother of Jared story, Jared seems to have a plan and God kind of helps them make it happen.
|
|
Not sure how I feel about that yet, but it tells me that (at least) one of them is probably more of a philosophy of living than a "how to get to the afterlife" religion.)So that's where you're drawing the line? Anything not founded on the assumption that there is an afterlife, and giving you directions there, isn't a religion? Personally, that seems like an awful narrow definition.
No. But something more than "be good to others".