|
It's not just the cost either, it's the time to build it. I figure that once this divine justice thing takes off I'll be able to afford a 20' long hallway with a 10x10 pit trap, a cardboard cutout of an orc, and a plastic pie.
I don't know -- have you looked at the cost of making a simple 10' x 10' pit trap?
(lol) a few years back, me and my pappy were wondering if a billionare nowadays would ever figure out how to make himself a pyramid bigger than Giza to get buried in, and how much bank such an endeavor would cost him.
|
...Some interesting things...
I understand what you are saying about understanding. Sometimes I feel like people try to put too much effort into this idea though.
Look at me -- There are some things that I do and I have a really good reason for and anyone that sees me can pretty well figure out what I did/do and why. Then there are some things that most/many people around probably have no idea what I did, if I did it, or why I might have done it. Some people might be able to deduce or guess correctly, but many people probably will never know for sure. Then (quite honestly) there are some things that I do that I don't even know why I did them -- so I certainly don't expect others to know.
Most of this we seem to be able to accept -- that you would have difficulty understanding everything that I did or why I did them. Yet, even though we accept that we don't understand mortals, for some reason we expect to understand God?
God/Jesus -- there are some aspects that are rather black and white. I feel like I understand this stuff pretty well (requirements to get into heaven, etc.). There are some aspects that are rather gray (much of what has been brought up in this thread). Then there are some things that I absolutely have no idea about. I guess that I don't necessarily see this as odd.
What does God want? At its simplest level -- he wants you to accept the gift he has given.
Why does God want that? Again, at its simplest level -- because he cares about what happens to you.
Whether or not you believe this is another matter. But as far as understanding God, I don't know why we expect to understand God better than we understand ourselves.
From what I understand he is the head of state for the exiled government of Tibet. Tibet was illegally overthrown by the Chines government in the 1940s, or was it early 1950s. Anyway he is still recognized arround the world as the head of state for the exiled government of Tibet.Correct, except that I'd argue that "illegal" only applies if there's an authority to recognize it. In the case of Tibet, China annexed them and no other nation that I know of did anything to help. By accepting that as a fact of life, the rest of the world tacitly made that takeover "legal." Everyone pays lip service to the Dalai Lama's legitimacy by agreeing to harbor him, but no one dares to go far enough to tick off China over it.
All participants to "The Law of Nations", which include France, England, USA, Chili, Japan and Hawaii, are obligated to recognize the "inherent"sovriegnty and self determination of a nation or peoples. In fact abidding to the "Law of Nations" is written into the U.S. constitution. "The Law of Nations", written by Erlic Vitale is a document which affords a nation the same rights as an individual might have in the U.S. Bill of rights. "The Law of Nations" is a document adopted by the "enlightned" nations of the world in 19th century and was the benchmark (and still is), in determining what a sovreign nation is and how sovreign nations should behave toward each other. "The Law of Nations" was the document to establish the "Family of Nations" in the 19th century and the League of nations in the early 20th century. So whenever a nation or people are denied the "inherent" right to sovreignty it is an illegal act.
Now just because no one is going to war with China, over Tibet, does not mean they support China's illegal occupation. The fact that others recognize the Dalai Lama as the sovreign head of state for Tibet, is a protest against China's claim to sovriegnty over Tibet. Just because China happens to be the "de facto" government in Tibet, does not legitimize that government, it remains illegal.
Just because a superpower decides to deny a people of thier "inherent right" to self-determination, self-governance and sovrienty, and no one can stop them, does not make it legal. China is not the only superpower guilty of such crimes there are others. It must be hard for Americans to accept this, because of it's past record with indiginous people and continued illegal occupations.
Don't say it's to late for Tibet either. Ireland was occupied for over 800 years. It's right to self-determination had been denied by the English until the 20th century. As long as a people retain there identity they can still regain thier self-governance and sovrienty.
But as far as understanding God, I don't know why we expect to understand God better than we understand ourselves.
That's a fair point.
I suppose many people assume that since God is supposedly perfectly consistent and never makes mistakes, it should be possible to know what He wants and why. In many ways his omnibenevolence should make Him easier to understand than a mortal. I suspect a lot of religious folk think of God as being sort of like a computer: A computer may be hugely complex but ultimately it's just a bunch of 1s and 0s and it can't lie to you. That's my generous version as to why people expect to be able to understand God.
My cynical version is that some people get a little ahead of themselves in terms of hubris and believe that not only can God be understood, but that they personally understand Him and can therefore speak for Him.
I think you have a far more reasonable stance. Why should we be able to understand God? I agree, there's no reason why. Funny how the same position leads to you being a humble Christian and me being a non-theist.
Some info about Tibet and China.
I read somewhere that Tibet was historically and for a very long time a part of the Chinese Empire's tribute system, and so was thus just one of the many provinces of China that happened to be populated by a non-Han ethnic group. When the western powers broke China in the 19th century and it fragmented during WWII, the Tibetans declared independance because they were religious and so were opposed to the communists.
The Chinese annexed them back first chance they got, but in the minds of most Chinese people it's not like they invaded another country: It's like if the US was shattered by war and then when it reformed, Ohio said they didn't want to be a part of it anymore and the US government said "tough luck" and annexed them.
It's not as historically simplistic a situation as the free-Tibet hippies will have you believe (though I'm not saying you said that Kai, I think your Ireland analogy is good). The Tibet situation has more in common with the Basques trying to separate from Spain than it does with Hitler invading Poland, especially since the Chinese would probably never have lost their empire if it hadn't been for western interference.
I suppose many people assume that since God is supposedly perfectly consistent and never makes mistakes, it should be possible to know what He wants and why. In many ways his omnibenevolence should make Him easier to understand than a mortal. I suspect a lot of religious folk think of God as being sort of like a computer: A computer may be hugely complex but ultimately it's just a bunch of 1s and 0s and it can't lie to you. That's my generous version as to why people expect to be able to understand God.
The Bible does tell us that God IS perfectly consistent and never makes mistakes, and so I would say that in most situations, it is actually easy to know what he wants you to do.
My cynical version is that some people get a little ahead of themselves in terms of hubris and believe that not only can God be understood, but that they personally understand Him and can therefore speak for Him.
I think you have a far more reasonable stance. Why should we be able to understand God? I agree, there's no reason why. Funny how the same position leads to you being a humble Christian and me being a non-theist.
But there is a reason why we can understand God, but it has NOTHING to do with us. We can understand God becasue He made us to understand Him, and He speaks to us. I thikn kthe problem comes when people forget these two very important things.
Becasue you are right, logically there is nothing that says we should be able to understand God (especially as He is so much bigger than we can even imagine), but we can, becasue of how He has made us.
|
|
The Bible does tell us that God IS perfectly consistent and never makes mistakes, and so I would say that in most situations, it is actually easy to know what he wants you to do.
Yes and no. And you need to be very careful here. Saying something like "God IS perfectly consistent" can quickly get you into some inconsistencies. What does "consistent" mean? I know that I can come up with some (apparent) inconsistencies that even you would have a great deal of difficulty justifying. Then if you say that He is consistent with himself, then what does that mean? Also, while the Bible does imply that God is perfect, I don't know where the Bible says that He is "perfectly consistent". Nor do I see why it would need to say that.
I also am not sure where you are getting the "because He made us to understand him". I don't know that I agree with you and I would like to know where you are getting your information from. I really don't think that it is a clear-cut as you are making it out to be, because if it was as obvious as you are implying, I don't know that we would even have this thread going.
Last, try not to imply that things like this are "easy" or "simple" unless it actually is true from all points of view and that it is VERY clear. Saying "He speaks to us" is about as vague as it gets. What does that mean? The Bible? What if you don't believe in the Bible (as many people here have said)? Do you have dreams where God tells you to go on a 6 month mission trip? Is it a "burning in the bossom"? Yet you talk about this stuff as if you expect everyone to know exactly what you are talking about.
If there is one thing that I have learned with this as with so many things -- the more I know, the more I know what I don't know.
Who is this 'God' guy, anyway? Is he important?
He is important and his name is Jo.
Who is this 'God' guy, anyway? Is he important?He is important and his name is Jo.
The Bible does tell us that God IS perfectly consistent and never makes mistakes, and so I would say that in most situations, it is actually easy to know what he wants you to do.
Unless the bible is not true. Why do you think the bible is true? You believe it is the truth because you trust that god would write the truth. But why do you trust god so much? Because the bible claims he was a nice guy? I don't get it. And I certainly don't see how this is easy.
SIDE NOTE: Why do christians act like it is so obvious that the bible is TRUTH? There are a LOT and I mean a FRIGGIN LOT of other religious texts besided the "good book" that claim to be the TRUTH and have way more credentials.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
But there is a reason why we can understand God, but it has NOTHING to do with us. We can understand God becasue He made us to understand Him, and He speaks to us. I thikn kthe problem comes when people forget these two very important things.
Yup. As mentioned above, he spoke to me. Sometimes he speaks to people and tells them to drown their kids. Other times, he tells people to blow themselves up. That's the great thing about talking to god...oh wait, hold on...
...
...
Sorry, tht was god on the other line. He wanted to remind me to bring my umbrella in case it rains. Big shout out to you g-man. But for your divine intervention, I would be wet.
Anyway, as I was saying, that's the great thing about talking to god, no one can verify it and there are many instances where people take actions that would be directly at odds with the general conception of our benevolent super-hero diety. Some might ask how it is that I can distinguish between the people that legitimately hear god and the crazies that are just, well, crazy.
To them I say: listening to voices in your head makes you crazy. Labeling them god doesn't change that fact.
|
|
I suppose many people assume that since God is supposedly perfectly consistent and never makes mistakes, it should be possible to know what He wants and why. In many ways his omnibenevolence should make Him easier to understand than a mortal. I suspect a lot of religious folk think of God as being sort of like a computer: A computer may be hugely complex but ultimately it's just a bunch of 1s and 0s and it can't lie to you. That's my generous version as to why people expect to be able to understand God.
My cynical version is that some people get a little ahead of themselves in terms of hubris and believe that not only can God be understood, but that they personally understand Him and can therefore speak for Him.
I think you have a far more reasonable stance. Why should we be able to understand God? I agree, there's no reason why. Funny how the same position leads to you being a humble Christian and me being a non-theist.
A few additional points --
As I said just above, I don't see why we should feel that God is "perfectly consistent". Being "perfect" and "perfectly consistent" are two entirely different things.
I agree that many people want to reduce God to some kind of computer that they can take apart and figure out. I think that they feel it will make them feel better about things.
Speak for God -- I am probably "speaking for God" quite a bit here. I don't know if I am adequately qualified, but I am doing my best and like to think that I am doing Him some justice. I think that there are quite a number of people who claim to be "speaking for God" who actually aren't or at least shouldn't. Actually, I don't know that I feel like I am "speaking for God" -- I am just doing my best to logically explain Christianity as I understand it.
Last thing -- I guess that I don't feel that my position in this leads me to Christianity, but rather being a Christian has led me to that position. Other things bring me to Christianity, as I can certainly understand that not being able to fully understand and predict God could be seen as a deterant rather than a benefit.
|
|
There are a LOT and I mean a FRIGGIN LOT of other religious texts besided the "good book" that claim to be the TRUTH and have way more credentials.
Just curious about this specifically. This has kind of been hinted at before and just would like some specifics. What texts are out there that seem to suggest that they have the "truth" that are as old as the Bible and have "more" or better credentials? Just trying to figure out more specifically what is being referenced here.
Good thing you're a lawyer, I guess...Long distance. Sometimes he calls collect too.
Is that a local call or long distance?
What...you think I should sue him?
Hmmm...
There was a 2001 movie about that exactly. The Man Who Sued God. Only so good until the last quarter then got predictable.
What texts are out there that seem to suggest that they have the "truth" that are as old as the Bible and have "more" or better credentials? Just trying to figure out more specifically what is being referenced here.
Out of curiosity, why do they have to be "as old as?" There are any number of older religions, some still extant, others not. If greater age implied greater truth, then we'd all be animists.
A Muslim might ask why all Christians were not Jews instead.
So...what exactly do you mean by this? I thought part of the point was that potentially everyone was saved."potentially everyone was saved"? I don't understand.
What I meant was; In Christianity, part of the core belief is that everyone on the planet had the potential to be saved. Their are no "lost souls" or "unsavables" from what I understand.
You believe it is the truth because you trust that god would write the truth.
The Bible does tell us that God IS perfectly consistent and never makes mistakes, and so I would say that in most situations, it is actually easy to know what he wants you to do.
Also, I have a copy of the bible that speculates on who wrote each book. Moses, Jeremiah, John, Peter...God is not mentioned. One will of course argue that these men were inspired by God...but that is impossable to prove. Perhaps this post was inspired by God.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Also, I have a copy of the bible that speculates on who wrote each book. Moses, Jeremiah, John, Peter...God is not mentioned. One will of course argue that these men were inspired by God...but that is impossable to prove. Perhaps this post was inspired by God.
It was. He told me so.
|
|
What texts are out there that seem to suggest that they have the "truth" that are as old as the Bible and have "more" or better credentials? Just trying to figure out more specifically what is being referenced here.Out of curiosity, why do they have to be "as old as?" There are any number of older religions, some still extant, others not. If greater age implied greater truth, then we'd all be animists.
A Muslim might ask why all Christians were not Jews instead.
True. Mostly I am looking for what constitutes more or better credentials. While I understand that age may not be a determination, I feel that "staying power" says a lot for a text.
Also, the Bible continues to be validated archeologically what can be validated. I understand that some things pretty much need to be taken on faith, but when so much of it can be validated, and nothing has been proven to be false, it seems to imply that maybe at least a little more than what can be validated in the Bible is true.
And as I said before, if I were to put false information in the Bible I would not have had a lot of the information that can be found in the old testament -- I would have "lied" in the other direction.
There are a LOT and I mean a FRIGGIN LOT of other religious texts besided the "good book" that claim to be the TRUTH and have way more credentials.Just curious about this specifically. This has kind of been hinted at before and just would like some specifics. What texts are out there that seem to suggest that they have the "truth" that are as old as the Bible and have "more" or better credentials? Just trying to figure out more specifically what is being referenced here.
Actually, not much from what I know...
The Pali Cannon and the Koran are both younger than the bible by a few centuries. The Vedas, the Ramayana, and Mahabharata are older than the bible, but I know little of Hinduism, so I cannot comment.Clerification: stuff that's been written down. Kirth mentioned older religions that do not neccessarily record their beliefs, such as animisms. Also, many older polytheistic religions recorded their beleifs, not just the Hindus.
|
|
Also, I have a copy of the bible that speculates on who wrote each book. Moses, Jeremiah, John, Peter...God is not mentioned. One will of course argue that these men were inspired by God...but that is impossable to prove. Perhaps this post was inspired by God.
Someone once asked my why there wasn't a book of "Jesus". We have the gospel of Mark, Luke, and so on, so why didn't Jesus write a book just to clear up a lot of this mess? My theory is that if I were to write a book about how I am God, people would just ignore me for a nutcase. But if a number of different people write about the same person from their point of view and it matches fairly closely, it tends to put a little more validity to the claim. Not saying that this validates the Bible (necessarily), but it at least helps explain why God isn't listed in the "credits".
And apparently Sebastians posts are inspired -- not sure about yours.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Also, the Bible continues to be validated archeologically what can be validated. I understand that some things pretty much need to be taken on faith, but when so much of it can be validated, and nothing has been proven to be false, it seems to imply that maybe at least a little more than what can be validated in the Bible is true.
I still find this argument very unpersuasive. The Stephen King analogy still applies. You would have a hard time proving the events in Christine actually did not occur, particularly looking back 2 millenia. Did people drive and obsess over their cars? Yes. Did they go to high schools and have friends? Yes. Was there a television and did people watch it a lot? Yes. All these facts can be derived from Christine.
Were there sentient cars that killed people? No. That's make-believe.
Did various tribes live in the Middle East? Yes. Did they have various prophets and believe in various gods? Yes. Were those gods/prophets real? No. That's make-believe.
Again, if God really intended the Bible to be his codified wisdom, why give it to one tribe in one region of the Earth? Sure, it does a great job with Middle Eastern history. Chinese history? Not so much. American history? Not at all. I guess I have higher standards for my divine handbooks; I sorta expect that omnipotent texts should be applicable, relevant, and, most importantly, available to all humans, not just the ones that speak a particular language, in a particular area of the globe, at a particular time.
Also, the Bible continues to be validated archeologically what can be validated. I understand that some things pretty much need to be taken on faith, but when so much of it can be validated, and nothing has been proven to be false, it seems to imply that maybe at least a little more than what can be validated in the Bible is true.
This was addressed beautifully a number of pages ago, when someone observed that almost 100% of Stephen King's "Cell" is archaeologically verifibale.
|
|
I still find this argument very unpersuasive. The Stephen King analogy still applies. You would have a hard time proving the events in Christine actually did not occur, particularly looking back 2 millenia. Did people drive and obsess over their cars? Yes. Did they go to high schools and have friends? Yes. Was there a television and did people watch it a lot? Yes. All these facts can be derived from Christine.
I don't know the answer to the following question -- Was there evidence of fictional writing that far back?
I don't know the answer to the following question -- Was there evidence of fictional writing that far back?
Most assuredly. Greek plays and all that.
"In ancient Greece, whenever lawyers met after some interesting case, they teased each other with "What if that happened?" "What if he had done...?" "What if...?" Supposedly, that was the origin of fiction.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I don't know the answer to the following question -- Was there evidence of fictional writing that far back?
I have no idea, but the great Greek and Roman epic poems are certainly fictional and certainly pre-date the New Testatment. I would imagine they were recorded at some point by those civilizations. My understanding is that the first uses of writing in most cultures is to record numbers and things of value; use as a communication tool follows that development.
I'd be shocked to learn that the Bible somehow predates the idea of fiction, much less the capacity of humans to believe in things they really want to be true or the art of persuasion through writing. The Bible need not be a work of fiction for the sole purpose of entertainment to be false. It is just as easily a record of a particular Middle Eastern tribe's beliefs and legends, which was later used as the basis for a piece of propoganda to organize a particular sect of said tribe.
|
|
I still find this argument very unpersuasive. The Stephen King analogy still applies. You would have a hard time proving the events in Christine actually did not occur, particularly looking back 2 millenia. Did people drive and obsess over their cars? Yes. Did they go to high schools and have friends? Yes. Was there a television and did people watch it a lot? Yes. All these facts can be derived from Christine.
I understand what you are saying. I guess that I feel differently simply due to scale. When entire cities/civilizations are wiped out and evidence supports what the Bible has said for centuries. When Egypt happens to lose its entire slave labor work force in a day with no fighting.
At the same time, I have been told that people shouldn't use archeology to support the Bible (by archeologists). While much of archeology does support Biblical accounts, it shouldn't necessarily be used to validate the Bible.
|
|
If the whole old testament could be theoretically validated by archaeological or some kind of scientific evidence, I think that'd lean toward proving God existed, and that would jack up the whole point of it all.
If God came down and told a bunch of shepherd Hebrews in 4,000 b.c. about Homo habilis, tyrannosaurus rex, and continental drift, we'd know something was up; there goes the whole "faith" deal.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I understand what you are saying. I guess that I feel differently simply due to scale. When entire cities/civilizations are wiped out and evidence supports what the Bible has said for centuries. When Egypt happens to lose its entire slave labor work force in a day with no fighting.
Do you have a source for the slave labor work force gone in a day fact? I find it hard to believe that the archelogical record, which normally is accurate within a range of decades to hundreds of years, can pinpoint an event occurring within the span of a single day.
As for the loss of cities/civilizations, the Bible mearly recorded the factual evidence and then attributed their fate to divine action. I could add a book to the Bible today called the Book of Sebastian, attribute the collapse of the Aztec civilization to God providing guidance to Cortez. Yeah, it's true that the Aztec civilization collapsed and that Cortez is the guy that gets the credit (blame?) for that fact, but adding in that he had divine intervention/guidance is a complete fiction.
There are also the many, many, many civilizations in Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and America that rose and collapsed and are not accounted for in the Bible. Why is it that God only caused the collapse of civlizations in the Middle East? If a civilization can collapse in the absence of divine intervention, then why is it that the only explanation for collapse of Biblical civilizations is divine intervention?
|
|
I have no idea, but the great Greek and Roman epic poems are certainly fictional and certainly pre-date the New Testatment.
I was more talking about the old testament which pretty well predates the Greek and Roman empires.
As far as the New Testament -- as I see it, if it isn't true at all, then it has to be the most well thought out, well planned and incredibly well executed hoax of (litereally) all time. The people who put that together must have been absolutely brilliant.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Were those gods/prophets real? No. That's make-believe.What would make them real?
Uh...magic.
That's like asking what would make unicorns real, or Excalibur real, or Zeus real. The answer is, they're not real. You can't make them real anymore than you can cast a spell and turn someone into a toad.
At the very least, if I'm going to be asked to accept the existence of an omnipotent being with benevolent intentions towards humanity, I want some evidence that said being actually directed its intentions towards all human beings and not just a particular segment.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I was more talking about the old testament which pretty well predates the Greek and Roman empires.
I have no idea. All human civilizations of which I am aware have creation myths and stories about what makes them unique, so I can't imagine writing that stuff down is all that inspired. That's the Old Testament.
As far as the New Testament -- as I see it, if it isn't true at all, then it has to be the most well thought out, well planned and incredibly well executed hoax of (litereally) all time. The people who put that together must have been absolutely brilliant.
Huh? What sort of planning is required? It's really not that hard to get a bunch of people together with a particular mindset and get them to believe something. Heck, it's happened in modern times with the book of mormon. They would take the same view of their own faith, that if it were false, it would have to be an elaborate and well executed hoax. At the rate their growing and converting, in a couple centuries, it'll be their version of the Bible that will be the accepted version anyway.
The Bible isn't actually that old. What we call the Old Testament was all oral tradition until about 500-450 BC, and the New Testament as we all know wasn't written down until well after Jesus' death. You don't even need Stephen King, you can go right back to earlier writings for the historicity analogy.
Take the Iliad: The Greeks existed. Troy existed (apparently - it is mentioned in other texts). Menelaus, Agammemnon, maybe even Achilles existed, though for some of these people we only have the word of the Iliad itself (just like many of the OT prophets and the bible). Now just because Troy was real, and assuming there was a war between Troy and a collection of Greek tribes led by a king called Agammemnon, does that mean that Zeus and Hera and Aphrodite are real, and that Achilles was Zeus' magical son?
The Olympian deities mentioned in the Iliad were not fictional - they had widespread cults and the intended audience of the Iliad most certainly belived that they were real. Does that make the Iliad fiction or a history? It sounds to me almost exactly like the Bible (bar the actual details). So once we see this, we have a choice of two responses to the Bible's claim of truth, as I see it.
1: Both the Bible and the Iliad are primitive histories which naturally include the myths of the deities of the cultures which produced them. Thus both contain bits of historical truth mixed with myth (the parts about the gods and miraculous feats).
2: The Bible (including teh supernatural bits) is true and the Iliad is false. This is proved because people still believe in God and the Bible but no-one believes in Zeus anymore*
I tend to go with no. 1, for a variety of reasons which I'm not sure I want to go into.
*This is no longer true. The Olympian pantheon has recently been revived by Greek neo-pagans so I guess the Iliad is now a religious text again!
|
|
Huh? What sort of planning is required? It's really not that hard to get a bunch of people together with a particular mindset and get them to believe something. Heck, it's happened in modern times with the book of mormon. They would take the same view of their own faith, that if it were false, it would have to be an elaborate and well executed hoax. At the rate their growing and converting, in a couple centuries, it'll be their version of the Bible that will be the accepted version anyway.
Except that it didn't happen at the same time, it didn't come from one person, it didn't even come from the same locations. The documents came during a span of quite a few years. The documents don't mirror each other exactly -- there are significant differences. And yet they all seem to point towards the same "facts".
And I don't get Mormons. As much faith as you seem to imply it takes for a Christian to be a Christian, I feel it is that much more to be a Mormon. I can understand Hindus, Buddhists, Athiests, Muslims, -- even Jehovah's Witnesses, but I just don't get Mormons.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Except that it didn't happen at the same time, it didn't come from one person, it didn't even come from the same locations. The documents came during a span of quite a few years. The documents don't mirror each other exactly -- there are significant differences. And yet they all seem to point towards the same "facts".
So, if some of David Koresh's followers had lived, gone out, written accounts of him and his teachings, and then had them assembled by one guy who created an organization to promote the teachings of David Koresh as the son of god and who only incorporated some of the writings, would that be sufficient proof that David Koresh was the son of god?
It's not that hard to do. And it's not too hard for the compiler to make sure the docs fit together like that person wants.
And I don't get Mormons. As much faith as you seem to imply it takes for a Christian to be a Christian, I feel it is that much more to be a Mormon. I can understand Hindus, Buddhists, Athiests, Muslims, -- even Jehovah's Witnesses, but I just don't get Mormons.
*shrug* They're beliefs are exactly the same as any other Christian in my book. In a lot of ways, they are more palatable. They at least offer the possibility that God gave a damn about the Americas. They have magical events happening within the past century or so, not two millenia ago. Every argument you make, they can make. Which brings me back to one of my recurring points: how exactly do you know that they're not right? The challenge is not in believing in a God, it's believing in a particular God.
Edit: And what I find funny is that most mormons I know are incredulous as to Scientology. I figure that within the next century, we'll have a new religion, and the Scientologists will be able to point at it and laugh and say "well, at least our religion didn't just get made up by some guy, unlike Sebastiantology."
|
|
*shrug* They're beliefs are exactly the same as any other Christian in my book. In a lot of ways, they are more palatable. They at least offer the possibility that God gave a damn about the Americas. They have magical events happening within the past century or so, not two millenia ago. Every argument you make, they can make. Which brings me back to one of my recurring points: how exactly do you know that they're not right? The challenge is not in believing in a God, it's believing in a particular God.
While there may be a lack of evidence supporting the Bible, there seems to be a fair amount of evidence against the validity of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. Many Mormons have even acknowledged this and still they believe.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
While there may be a lack of evidence supporting the Bible, there seems to be a fair amount of evidence against the validity of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. Many Mormons have even acknowledged this and still they believe.
What, you mean like the age of the Earth, or the existence of dinosaurs, or any of the other scientific facts that contradict the Bible's account of creation and were subsequently ret-conned as "interpretations?"
I have never heard a Mormon make such an acknowledgement, and, from what I have seen, they make the same arguments as defenders of the core Bible. When science turns against them (e.g., age of the Earth, the great flood, the age of dinosaurs, DNA of native Americans, etc, etc, ect), they just pull out the old card of "that particular passage is metaphorical, not literal" and go on their way.
Edit: That's one of the most frustrating things about discussing religion. Every time you can point to actual scientific data that contradicts the Bible, the answer you get is either "you haven't proven your science" (e.g., evolution) or "that passage of the Bible is not meant to be interpreted literally" (e.g., age of the Earth). Seems to me that there's a whole lot of judgment going on in interpreting the Bible given that some passages are literal, some passages are metaphorical, and yet there's not a clear indication of which is which.
|
|
All I can say is this: the parable of the traffic jam.
I just got back from a 4-day training class in North Carolina. My wife picked me up from DFW airport. It took dang 1 1/2 hours to get home from the airport.
As I was sitting there in that infernal traffic jam, my kids in the back seat railing at the humanity of it all, I looked to the right, up in the air, and saw a redtailed hawk hanging like a kite, his talons dangling, and I saw him plunge into the grass and strike something with his claws about 15 or 20 yards away. What an awesome sight. What a worthwhile excuse for this hideous traffic jam.
I guess my point is that, for me, there has to be some reason for all this crap. I don't understand it, I may never understand it. But like a sublime striking hawk, it will one day come like a flash of lightning in the black night, and for one instant it will all be revealed. There has to be some reason for this traffic jam, this life, maybe for some there doesn't. That's fine. But for me, there must be some reason for all this crap.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
All I can say is this: the parable of the traffic jam.
I just got back from a 4-day training class in North Carolina. My wife picked me up from DFW airport. It took dang 1 1/2 hours to get home from the airport.
As I was sitting there in that infernal traffic jam, my kids in the back seat railing at the humanity of it all, I looked to the right, up in the air, and saw a redtailed hawk hanging like a kite, his talons dangling, and I saw him plunge into the grass and strike something with his claws about 15 or 20 yards away. What an awesome sight. What a worthwhile excuse for this hideous traffic jam.
I guess my point is that, for me, there has to be some reason for all this crap. I don't understand it, I may never understand it. But like a sublime striking hawk, it will one day come like a flash of lightning in the black night, and for one instant it will all be revealed. There has to be some reason for this traffic jam, this life, maybe for some there doesn't. That's fine. But for me, there must be some reason for all this crap.
And were I to subscribe to a diety, it would be as a result of such sublime moments. Were I to believe in a diety, I would expect him to provide each person with the tools to their own salvation, to be uncovered and used as such person sees fit.
What I chafe at, what I cannot and will not accept, is that any diety worth worshipping would lock up his truth in a dusty old tome, passed down by power hungry and fallible men, and inaccessible except by the most learned of persons.
There are a LOT and I mean a FRIGGIN LOT of other religious texts besided the "good book" that claim to be the TRUTH and have way more credentials.Just curious about this specifically. This has kind of been hinted at before and just would like some specifics. What texts are out there that seem to suggest that they have the "truth" that are as old as the Bible and have "more" or better credentials? Just trying to figure out more specifically what is being referenced here.
Baha'i
BuddhismChristianity
Confucianism
Jainism
Judaism
Hinduism
Islam
Mormonism
Paganism
Shinto
Sikhism
Taoism
Zoroastrianism
Just to name a few are mainstream religions with with dozens of different independent factions. Most of these factions have their own books of prophets gods and holy events.
If you are really that interested in looking them all up you go ahead. But yes their are a LOT of religious writings.
Now what do you find in a lot of these books?
1. descriptions of a higher power and how good and soft and fuzzy wuzzy it is.
2.What you can do to please it. The majority of these directions mirroring commonly held standards of behavior, usually with some flair to set them away from the pack (cows are sacred, pork is off limits, no birth control etc.)
3. What happens when you do/don't please it and additional red tape concerning stuff like creation, unbaptized babies and armmageddon.
What makes anyone feel they have it right? How is the bible different?
Generalized and not accurate? Probably, does it hit the mark enough to still be a valid question? I think so.
What counts as a credential? Not age, thats for damn sure. Their were lots of religions in ancient times.
What did they die out because heir gods were false? Or did they die out because mass communication wasn't around in even its infant stages, life spans were abysmal, and philosophy and rational thinking were not widely practiced yet?
Credentials, well lets say I was handing out a position to save the souls of all humanity and I had to look at the resumes of religions to decide which one was best for the job.
Christianity: Okay lets see, oops doesn't work well with others. Looks like he's had s few issues with inquisitons and crusades in the past. Look like it's mostly cleared up now but occasionally there are still some complaints about killing in his name.
Buddhism: Wow, very popular. Little bloodshed and never on a grand scale. Certainly never used to justify large scale slaughter or enslavement.
Muslim: This one seems a little too volitile for this kind or work. Lots of issues with other religions and seems a little attractive to violent extreamists.
Hinduism: Well it did have the caste system in place for a long time but it seems to have gotten over it for the most part. Popular among an intelligent populace and a moderate amount of killing that has not come up for long long time. not bad
Lest you think Killah speaks in jest. Witness.Who is this 'God' guy, anyway? Is he important?He is important and his name is Jo.
Interesting. Never saw this sight but know of the arguement. Jade knows somethings of Hawaii? If I remember you know about the word Haole.
Aloha