Gah! I should have never stepped into this thread. I really do apologize.
This is just a lot of stuff I have been thinking about for a long time. I try to avoid religious discussions in real life because I want to respect other people’s beliefs. This thread has been an opportunity for me to throw this stuff out and see what happens.
I should have never stepped into this thread.
Spend all this time and effort newspaper-training him in the new thread, and now he wants to run out the doggie door and go dig up bones somewhere. Poodles.
|
Courtfool, I encourage you to actually study the bible... you do it a diservice by so casually dismissing it. While I myself believe the Bible to be true and authoritative, I understand that you don't. i would have more sympathy with your position though if you gave concrete examples of where the Bible was wrong in your view or of examples that show it is less than inspired.
Why do bad things happen to good people? Because there is no god.
It seems to me that a lot of your answers beg the question. Just because you can come up with a possible answer does not make the answer right. A bad thing happening to a good person no more disproves God then a good thing happening would prove God. The existence of the God of the Bible has to be determined apart from such things. Unless you can find a passage in the Bible that says bad things will never happen to His people in this life.
Why does Genesis seem to contract [sic] evolution? Because the Bible was written by man who had no concept of evolution yet.
Full disclosure - I believe in a 'micro-evolution' as being a natural part of the world and genetics but see no evidence for "macro-evolution." The book of Genesis however is in perfect agreement with the concept of genetics (Kind reproduces after kind). It is important to understand that kind does not mean the same as the modern word species. It is broader, meaning animals that can mate and suggests life only arises from life. This is actually a very advanced concept. There are actually several such concepts in the Bible (the hanging of the earth upon nothing, the spherical nature of the world, fresh water springs in the ocean, air pressure, etc.) and though the Bible is not a book of science, many of these things were unknown in the time in which they were written.
As far as science goes, a lot of what is debated is origins, which is unproveable by either side but being a person of faith does not mean rejecting the scientific method. It does color the way in which the evidence is interpreted but this is true of your side as well.
To go back though to the knowledge of the men writing the Bible, can you explain how Daniel, writing during the Babylonian empire knew that the Babylonians would be replaced by a dual Medo-persian empire who in turn would be replaced by the Greeks, that the leader of the Greeks would die and his kingdom would be split into three sections and that the Greeks would in turn be replaced by a fourth empire and that during the days of this Empire (the Romans) God would establish the church? If you are going to bring up the ignorance of Biblical writers I feel obliged to point out when they were genuinely prophetic (and the examples of such are legion). :)
Why is the holy trinity such a wonky concept? Because it was the best explanation the early Christian church could come up with without violating the ten commandments.
I have no idea how the idea of a trinity (I prefer Godhead as its actually a scriptural term) has anything to do with not violating the ten commandments (please explain). In point of fact, the language of the Old Testament points to a plurality in the Godhead. In Genesis we read that the Spirit of the Lord moved over the waters. We also hear God say, "Let us make man in our image;. Moreover, in the ten commandments, the language suggests a plurality and a singularity at the same time. It doesn't translate well in english but the Hebrew reads "The Lord your God (plural) is one God (singular)."
And the concept is not that wonky, at least IMO. The idea of a group entity that acts with perfect harmony is fairly common, whether you are talking about a family or a corporate board.
|
|
Gah! I should have never stepped into this thread. I really do apologize.
No apologies needed.
I find it instructional and useful to know how other people see things. I want to know the reasoning my opponents (philosophically speaking) use and why they think the way they do. Your viewpoints and comments are therefore valuable to me intellectually. You might not convince me of your views but that does not mean I can't learn something from the exchange. Furthermore, if there is a flaw in my faith, I will likely not discover it until it is pointed out. Self editing (internally speaking) is always the hardest.
Full disclosure - I believe in a 'micro-evolution' as being a natural part of the world and genetics but see no evidence for "macro-evolution." As far as science goes, a lot of what is debated is origins, which is unproveable by either side...
As a geologist, I've seen plenty of such evidence. I'm able to tell which rock layers are older than which others, and I can see, for example:
I never see examples where a species or genus or class (or whatever a "kind" is) remains constant over geologic history. Even crocodile bits aren't found in rocks older than about 240 million years old.
What you call "macroevolution" would be absurdly easy to disprove in favor of the Biblical creation story: just find a fossil that's too old by a large enough margin (for example, an ape fossil older than the first small mammals fossils). The fact that no such fossil has ever been produced, whereas (contrary to Creationist claims) frequent examples of what you'd call "transitional fossils" ARE found, puts the physical evidence firmly against literal truth of Biblical creation. The only way to reconcile the physical evidence with the Bible, in fact, is to assume that some supernatural agency (God or Satan) has selectively moved, hidden, and manufactured fossil evidence on a worldwide, pan-historical scale in order to make it look like evolution has been taking place.
I'm not making any of this up. I've read Genesis, and I've been out, personally, and looked at the fossil beds in various places, in rocks of various ages.
Note that I make no statements regarding the origins of life; that’s a separate issue, and one with scant evidence – in strict science-speak, it’s “hypothetical” rather than “theoretical.”
Courtfool, I encourage you to actually study the bible... you do it a diservice by so casually dismissing it.
Have you studied the Avesta?
|
|
Kirth, like I said, the evidence remains the same the interpretation of the evidence differs. The stratification of the soil is a prime example of this. As are "transition fossils."
To be honest, I will admit that my view of the world and its history is based on my trust in the Bible but there are some very intelligently written treatises on the subject that allow me to think that the interpretation of the evidence is not as one sided as you are stating.
while the uniformitarian worldview is currently in vogue, there are still points to be made for the catasrophism argument. To do the argument more justice than I could probably do here (I find it interesting but its not really my area of expertise) I would refer you to a book called, "The Genesis Flood" by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris. While it might not convert you, it at least is clearly and well written and i suspect you will find it interesting. :)
|
|
Courtfool, I encourage you to actually study the bible... you do it a diservice by so casually dismissing it.Have you studied the Avesta?
Nope (though I've done a little reading on Zoroastrianism- not a lot but some). But if you want to recommend it to me for some reason I'll hunt up a copy.
Do you recommend it? And if so why?
Nope (though I've done a little reading on Zoroastrianism- not a lot but some). But if you want to recommend it to me for some reason I'll hunt up a copy.
Do you recommend it? And if so why?
Why haven’t you read it?
To be honest, I will admit that my view of the world and its history is based on my trust in the Bible but there are some very intelligently written treatises on the subject that allow me to think that the interpretation of the evidence is not as one sided as you are stating.
I'm not talking "interpretation" so much as physical fossils, in the rocks, in the field, that I myself have seen. I am a geologist. I go out and look at rocks and fossils and soil and water for a living. When I "interpret" that a fossil isn't found in a certain unit, usually that means that I don't ever find that fossil in that rock unit.
while the uniformitarian worldview is currently in vogue, there are still arguements to be made for a catasrophism argument.
I'm not relying on uniformitarianism here. There are a large number of other, independent dating principles that agree with one another. The physical evidence for a worldwide flood at a specific point in time is lacking.
To do the argument more justice than I could probably do here (I find it interesting but its not really my area of expertise) I would refer you to a book called, "The Genesis Flood" by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris. While it might not convert you, it at least is clearly and well written and i suspect you will find it interesting.
Believe it or not, I'm familiar with that work; a guy came to our geology department and gave a big presentation on it and handed out copies. The "evidence" supporting its conclusion is faith-based, not physical. If you're interested in this topic, I'd recommend you take a field geology or paleontology class from any college or university that does not specifically cater to the Creationist viewpoint. You recommend people read the Bible; I recommend they look at the evidence -- the actual fossils in the actual rocks in the field -- for themselves.
---
Again, it's possible that God is intentionally playing games with the rock record in order to confuse us here. Barring a trickster God, however, a young Earth, Biblical Creation, and flood geology just flat-out don't work -- they contradict all of the physical evidence. I'm not attacking anyone's faith here, and I'm not saying anything at all about the validity of Christianity (or any other religion). All I'm saying is that, in this narrow area at least, an overly-literal reading of the Bible disagrees with a look at what actually exists in nature.
Barring a trickster God...
Maybe not a trickster. Let us instead say he is testing our faith by altering physical laws.
|
|
Why haven’t you read it?Nope (though I've done a little reading on Zoroastrianism- not a lot but some). But if you want to recommend it to me for some reason I'll hunt up a copy.
Do you recommend it? And if so why?
Probably because no one ever recommended it too me.
Though as I start looking into it, it appears to be mostly missing so perhaps one reason I have not read it is because it does not actually exists anymore. To whit, "The Avesta, as known today, represents only those parts of the text that are used liturgically, and therefore survived in the memory of the priests; and, as it now consists of all surviving liturgical texts in the Avestan language, it may include material that never formed part of the 21 nasks at all. In that sense, the current Avesta is a "prayer book" rather than a "Bible". The remainder of the 21 nasks has been lost since then, especially after the fall of the Sassanid empire, after which Zoroastrianism was supplanted by Islam. However, some secondary literature in Pahlavi purports to contain paraphrases or lists of contents of the lost books."
|
|
Believe it or not, I'm familiar with that work; a guy came to our geology department and gave a big presentation on it and handed out copies. The "evidence" supporting its conclusion is faith-based, not physical. If you're interested in this topic, I'd recommend you take a field geology or paleontology class from any college or university that does not specifically cater to the Creationist viewpoint. You recommend people read the Bible; I recommend they look at the evidence -- the actual fossils in the actual rocks in the field -- for themselves.
Fair enough. :)
Is it not possible that the portions that survived are divinely inspired?
|
|
Is it not possible that the portions that survived are divinely inspired?
:) Heh.
A God powerful enough to serve should be powerful enough to preserve His own written words.
I believe in inspiration. That does not mean that I believe every book that someone thinks is inspired must be by default, each must stand on its own.
Still having not read the book in question I don't even know for sure if the author(s) of the work claim it to be inspired. You have piqued my curiousity enough to make an attempt sometime to get ahold of the book just to see what it says.
Edit: To better answer the question: I concede that if a written book claims to be inspired then it bears investigating. Such a claim is a serious claim and has actually been made very few times, relatively speaking, in history in relations to scripture. Anyone who says he has a message from God is either a liar or telling the truth. Such men should be tested and heard out. Those exposed as frauds should have scorn and ridicule heaped upon them. But the presence of false prophets does not of necessity mean that all prophets are or have been false.
You have piqued my curiousity enough to make an attempt sometime to get ahold of the book just to see what it says.
Me, too. I've read the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Rig Veda, the Poetic and Prose Eddas, most of the Pali Canon, the Tao Te Ching, and a variety of others, but I haven't read the Avesta yet.
I believe in inspiration. That does not mean that I believe every book that someone thinks is inspired must be by default, each must stand on its own.
That is my point. I am sure most religious texts claim some sort of divine inspiration. I do not have time to study all of them. Why should I choose the Bible over any of the others?
|
|
Gah! I should have never stepped into this thread. I really do apologize.
This is just a lot of stuff I have been thinking about for a long time. I try to avoid religious discussions in real life because I want to respect other people’s beliefs. This thread has been an opportunity for me to throw this stuff out and see what happens.
And I for one have enjoyed your posts. I also feel that I understand where you are coming from and respect your position.
However, I am busier at work than I have been in years and simply cannot devote the time to discuss some of the points you have brought up. For that I apologize and if time warrants, I'll look into responding some time next week.
Dear lord, now I am a Zoroastrian missionary.
|
|
I believe in inspiration. That does not mean that I believe every book that someone thinks is inspired must be by default, each must stand on its own.That is my point. I am sure most religious texts claim some sort of divine inspiration. I do not have time to study all of them. Why should I choose the Bible over any of the others?
I added an edit to my post above. There have not actually been that many religious texts over the course of history that actually claimed inspiration. The Illiad for instance did not but the Greeks used it as a sort of religious text. I would wager that a man could easily read most of those that did in the course of a single life (a single year actually) without taxing himself.
And you should choose the Bible because it has been personally recommended to you by people who have studied it and found it profitable. :)
For that I apologize and if time warrants, I'll look into responding some time next week.
Take your time, Moff. Neither of us is going to change¹ the other in a day.
¹ Give new perspective. Change != convert
|
|
That is my point. I am sure most religious texts claim some sort of divine inspiration. I do not have time to study all of them. Why should I choose the Bible over any of the others?
From your point of view, you have no reason to. The only reason that I can come up with for you is that it has given guidance to a people for thousands of years. That alone doesn't make it "right" or "better" or anything else. Other than that, I would normally say to use people as examples of what to study, but you've shown that doesn't necessarily work either. In the end, it simply comes down to what it is that you want to know.
|
|
For that I apologize and if time warrants, I'll look into responding some time next week.Take your time, Moff. Neither of us is going to change¹ the other in a day.
¹ Give new perspective. Change != convert
For the record, I'm not necessarily trying to "change" or "convert" you (or anyone else). There are a number of other reasons I'm doing this. I'm trying to gain as much insight into others points of view as I can. I'm also trying to correct some misconceptions about what Christianity is really about or what we believe. And it's really good for me to go through so that I know myself what I believe and why.
And I simply hope to provide others with a good example of Christianity since there seem to be so many poor ones out there.
There have not actually been that many religious texts over the course of history that actually claimed inspiration.
You may be correct.
Still, in my opinion, just because the Bible says it is divinely inspired does not mean that it is. I have read more of the Bible than I have of any of the other religious texts. And honestly, Buddhism speaks more to me than the Bible, Judaism or Christianity.
The only reason that I can come up with for you is that it has given guidance to a people for thousands of years.
That is an acceptable answer for me. I still have the problem with all of the other religious texts offering guidance to people for thousands of years.
I have read parts of the Bible. And every time I do I ask myself, is it more reasonable this is true or is it more reasonable this is not true. I do not need to prove it. I do not need to prove the theory of air. I take air on faith and it allows me to make some pretty reliable predictions about my environment.
So I take that the Bible is fiction on faith until I am faced with new data. At which time, I ask myself the same question. Thus far, for me, every time, the answer has been consistent.
Much the same way that “God works in mysterious ways” works for believers, “This is all a work of fiction created by man” works for me.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
CourtFool, I could kiss you for your posts (and, that's intended as a compliment). Those are the exact same thoughts I go through. I can't imagine any type of caring divine being would prescribe one way to salvation and then bury it in some misbegotten book, subject to the whims and revisions of powerful men, the inaccuracies of translations, and the loss of the historical and cultural context in which it is written. It's a piss poor way to communicate the (allegedly) most important truth in all of existence, and any being who would choose to communicate through such a method is unworthy of my respect, much less my worship or devotion.
I find the alterantive explanation, that men wrote the bible, that men turned a prophet into the son of god, that men built institutions to control other men using the bible, that men fought wars over the bible, and, to the extent there is a divine being, he is represented in the bible only insofar as it is a product of man and all men have a spark of the divine in them, to be significantly more logical and believable.
And honestly, Buddhism speaks more to me than the Bible, Judaism or Christianity.
Me, too (the heart of Buddhism, though, not the associated mythology and trappings), which is why I'm a Zen Buddhist... Of course, a lot of people claim that Buddhism should technically be classified as a form of applied psychology, not a religion. That, to me, is engaging in a needless semantic discussion; I don't care what people call it, as long as it works.
I would refer you to a book called, "The Genesis Flood" by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris.
You might also check out J. Laurence Kulp's Deluge Geology (1950, J. of the American Scientific Affiliation). Kulp, an ardent evangelical Christian (Plymouth Brethren) and a geochemist, rebuked so-called "flood geology" (proposed by George McCready Price and others in the 1920's -- see The New Geology, 1923) as too-easily debunked, and therefore leading to nothing but ridicule of the faith (his view was that an old earth was in no way incompatible with scripture). Witcomb and Morris drew on Price's ideas for their 1961 book, but largely ignored what Kulp had to say.
Some quotes: "[Flood geology] has grown and infiltrated the greater portion of fundamental Christianity in America primarily due to the absence of trained Christian geologists," and "has done and will do considerable harm to the strong propagation of the gospel among educated people."
But my point was that every religion feels it has a handle on the truth more than the others, whether they are similar or not. Even your belief (or non-belief) subtly maintains that claim. After all, if you believe I am wrong in my theology, you are making the claim that you know something I don't. In that exchange, we might be good friends, but one of us is incorrect. One of us has a monopoly on truth over the other.
I do think you're absolutely wrong about certain subjects. It think everyone is wrong about something. I can state for a fact that I have the wrong idea about one or more things. I just don't know what those things are. And I can never rid myself of ignorance, because I am just one person. So, we can always learn more. Observation can only take one so far. If we're to really approach the truth, we have to compare notes. That's what we're doing here. That's why sciences demands peer review. And that's why I say no one has a monopoly on truth. But they might have an expertise in one area.
I am curious, why would you reject the notion that anyone has a grasp on the truth. Is it because you don't believe there is a truth? Or because you don't consider its pursuit worthwhile?
No, quite the opposite. Concepts like truth and perfection are irrational, but not in the everyday meaning of that word. I mean irrational in the mathematical sense, like pi. Nothing can every match the ratio of pi, because pi is infinite and the observable universe is finite. But many, many things approach pi, from circles to circuitry to winding rivers. We can estimate these irrational numbers because they are, as the chaoticians call them, strange attractors.
We can never be omniscient or omnibenevelont, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to to approach these ideals. These too are strange attractors. And just as in mathematics there are many equally valid (or differently flawed) ways to approach them.
This is also why I've suggested previously in this thread that God wanted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of knowledge and, as his agent Lucifer says, become like unto God, because striving to be ominscient and omnibenevelent (though it is ultimately impossible) is the goal of any worthwhile religion.
|
|
(edited)
My perception is that Jesus puts more emphasis on praying than on reading holy scriptures, but I may have failed to understand something properly in arriving at this view - and/or there could be other factors such as literacy rates of the time which could explain this, which mean that it should not be taken as a literal example for current practice.
The Jews of Jesus's day were fairly literate. The synagogues, which were in every city and town, ensured this. When your faith is based on a written book it is important to be able to read said book. (Many institutions and schools today have a Christian background for the same reason.) The apostles, considered uneducated by the more learned Jews, could probably read and write in at least three different languages: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.
You made me curious and I looked up some things. The word "written" occurs some 57 times between Matthew and John, many times with Jesus himself telling someone, "it is written."
The words "scripture" and "scriptures" occurs a total of 24 times in the gospels.
The word "read," or "reads" occurs 13 times
Conversely the words "pray," "prays," "prayer," and "prayers" all combined occur a total of 47 times in the four gospels.
While prayer is certainly important, there is always an emphasis in the Bible on the written word.
Of course, a lot of people claim that Buddhism should technically be classified as a form of applied psychology, not a religion.
I have, in the past some years, developed my own theory¹ that religion is a necessary part of sentient evolution. At some point, any being with self awareness is going to have some questions. Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here?
Religion answers those questions.
However, I believe, at some point, religion should give way to philosophy. I guess you could say religion is a philosophy. To me, philosophy is more of a science though in that it is willing to step aside should a new theory better fit the given data. Religion seems far too hard wired into dogma. Quite possible because of man's abuse of the system.
I further propose that, on Earth, religion has stunted our growth. Instead of moving on to philosophy, and accepting we simply do not know, we cling to dogma and focus on the messengers instead of the message.
¹ Unpublished, not reviewed by any peer and pretty much completely made up in my own head.
I understand there is some question that the 'Law of Moses' was written by Moses at all.
|
|
Is it relevent that that is coming from the background and culture of Judaism, where there are still (at the time) prophecies being fulfilled, and the written Law of Moses is of the greatest importance?
I have a feeling that Christ was supposed to come to sweep away that old law, under which practically everyone who claims to live by it must be convicted of sin and punished.It is relevant that the prophecies were being fulfilled but the written word was/is also important because unlike an oral tradition, the written word remains unchanging.
Jesus did take away the old law, "having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." (Ephesians 2:14)
But the old writing was replaced with a new writing. And the rest of the new testament continues to emphasize the importance of the written word. The word "written" occurs a total of 132 times in the New Testament." Again, the four words combined (prayer, prayers, pray, praying) occur a total of 121 times.
I hear complaints like Sebastians every now and then about how unreliable a written word is but I have to ask, compared to what? There are three options for the transmission of knowledge - face to face, in writing, or oral transmissions through intermediaries. While I grant that God could appear to each person personally, He has chosen not to do so and the scriptures acknowledge this (c.f. John 20:29). This leaves oral traditions or written words. I personally will choose to have things in writing every time. And the scriptures, while they could have been mishandled have demonstrably not been badly handled by their caretakers through the years. The dead sea scrolls point to the accuracy of our old testament manuscripts and the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is simply astounding. Furthermore, the language of Koine Greek is a dead language. It is fixed and unchanging so the greek manuscripts of the New Testament are not subject to much tranlational misunderstanding. And having studied Greek personally, I can attest to the worthiness of most of the main translations (though I'm a bit rusty in being able to just pick up and read it). All of which is to say, when you pick up an English Bible, the ideas in that Bible are identical to the ideas that were in the Bible 2000 years ago.
|
|
I understand there is some question that the 'Law of Moses' was written by Moses at all.
There are 'questions' about every author as far as I can tell. Some people question whether Matthew wrote his gospel, whether Paul wrote to the Corinthians, etc. But there are those who question whether Shakespeare wrote his plays or whether Mary Shelley actually penned Frankenstein herself. In another three hundred years I bet some scholar decides to prove why Tolkien didn't actually write The Hobbit by comparing the styles of the Lord of the Rings to the earlier book.
There is no good evidence or reason to suggest Moses didn't write His books other than a preference on the part of some biblical theologians to try and have a later date for the bulk of the Old Testament. The 'evidence' they use is varied but tends to rely on the ability to make different lists of vocabularies and then assign them to different sources. I find such reasoning faulty myself. It makes the assumption that a writer cannot use two different words on two different occassions to say the same thing. The field of source criticism is an area of study where it is popular to follow fads and it doesn't matter what proof you have so much as how enlightened you sound as you say it.
The same thing is often done with the gospels of Matthew and Mark. The earliest sources all say that Matthew wrote his gospel first. They date it to somewhere between forty and fifty AD. The earliest sources also say that Mark wrote his after the death of Peter around 70 AD. Today, because the book of Mark is shorter, the source critics insist that Mark had to be written first. Despite all the historical data to the contrary they put more faith in their theories than the testimony of those who lived closer to the sources.
My personal opinion on all of these things is that the people who were there probably have a clearer understanding of who wrote what then some textual/source critic in the twenty first century relying on theories created in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. But thats me.
Edit - typed textual when I meant source. fixed it.
|
|
I have, in the past some years, developed my own theory¹ that religion is a necessary part of sentient evolution. At some point, any being with self awareness is going to have some questions. Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here?
Religion answers those questions.
However, I believe, at some point, religion should give way to philosophy. I guess you could say religion is a philosophy. To me, philosophy is more of a science though in that it is willing to step aside should a new theory better fit the given data. Religion seems far too hard wired into dogma. Quite possible because of man's abuse of the system.
I further propose that, on Earth, religion has stunted our growth. Instead of moving on to philosophy, and accepting we simply do not know, we cling to dogma and focus on the messengers instead of the message.
¹ Unpublished, not reviewed by any peer and pretty much completely made up in my own head.
You are not alone in your thoughts. I've heard a lot of this before. Kind of that we've "evolved" past the need for religion. I guess that I feel that if this were really true, then televangelists wouldn't be quite as successful as they are. However, that may be more of a discussion for another time.
What hit me was that you felt that religion has stunted our growth. I don't really get this at all. At the very least, a lot of the reason that most of us can read and write is because there were religious "texts" that needed to be read. Many (most?) religions started most schools and so on. Granted that a lot of that is older news, but I really feel that religion ultimately helped growth rather than hindered. Even now, I don't really feel like religion inhibits anything with me. I choose not to do things that are generally considered morally wrong. Not sure how my growth has been affected by that. And at least for me, I really hope that I am focusing on the message rather than the messenger.
|
|
Moff Rimmer:
A thought. Do some people confuse Religion (with all the monolithic institutions, rituals, and dogma) with Faith?
I suppose so. I guess that in that regard, people might see that they don't really need to learn or "do" anything because they have "faith" that everything will be fine in the end.
Doesn't it say "God helps those who help themselves"? (j/k -- it doesn't really.)
About the only thing that I can come up with is that the Bible doesn't ever even imply to stop growing or learning or to ignore science. But since I'm not really sure how much "science" or even true learning was a hot topic in that day and age, I don't really have much to compare or rebute.
|
Moff Rimmer:
A thought. Do some people confuse Religion (with all the monolithic institutions, rituals, and dogma) with Faith?
Yes, I know several people who do make this confusion part of thier daily lives. I know many who embrace faith and have no clue what religion is, as well. And as such totally disreguard religion out of hand because of this.
In another three hundred years I bet some scholar decides to prove why Tolkien didn't actually write The Hobbit by comparing the styles of the Lord of the Rings to the earlier book.
Hamlet, Frankenstein and The Hobbit do not claim to be the divine truth. I am a little more forgiving of a work of fiction being penned by different authors. Furthermore, I do not see Hamlet, Frankenstein and The Hobbit being used as reasons to discriminate against people.
It makes the assumption that a writer cannot use two different words on two different occassions to say the same thing.
I concede that I have not researched all the biblical criticism. From what little I did read, it sounds like you are over simplifying.
Again, without first hand knowledge, I fall back on what seems more reasonable. Since I have never seen a snake talk, a sea part or a person come back from death, I am going to go with the scientific gobbledy gook. Why? I know my own writing falls into patterns. I notice that people I chat with seem to have patterns when they text. Can the patterns be altered? Sure. By concentrated effort.
My own experience suggests there is something to this. My own experiences with the Bible do not suggest the same to me. Well, except for some of the commandments and JC's teachings.
I guess that I feel that if this were really true, then televangelists wouldn't be quite as successful as they are.
That is an excellent point. Maybe people still need to believe in a higher power that has their back. Maybe people are not satisfied with 'I do not know' for life's biggest questions.
I'm cool with chaos theory.
What hit me was that you felt that religion has stunted our growth. I don't really get this at all.
I will not deny that religion does a lot of good.
When I say I feel religion has stunted our growth, I am referring to things like the Catholic church trying to silence Galileo Galilei. I understand that happened nearly 400 years ago and in hind sight, the Bible can be interpreted to support Galileo's theory. But I am sure the theologians were quite certain of their position back then and I can not help but wonder what another 400 years may tell us about stem cell research and same sex marriage.
And at least for me, I really hope that I am focusing on the message rather than the messenger.
I would not presume to speak for you, Moff.
Every time I go to church I am bombarded with praise for and prayers to Jesus Christ. It seems to me his message was more about loving others and less about him.
That gets us back to the faith and works discussion though. I think we are all on common ground on that.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Still, in my opinion, just because the Bible says it is divinely inspired does not mean that it is. I have read more of the Bible than I have of any of the other religious texts. And honestly, Buddhism speaks more to me than the Bible, Judaism or Christianity.
It would. Your perspective is very humanocentric. Buddhism doesn't require you to subject yourself to a sovereign being, it recommends that you treat others with grace and peace and pursue wisdom. Who wouldn't that appeal to, on its face? I want grace and peace in my life. I'm sure everyone does.
But the Bible predicts history and suggests scientific knowledge that is impossible for it to have contained if it is written by merely Moses, Joshua, Luke and others. Moreover, it tells a story of God's attempt to communicate to us, which no other religion does (of course, religions based on Judaism are lumped into this category, though that includes departures that are neither Judaism nor Christianity). The Bible contains accurate history and is authenticated, historically, by secular accounts. You might not believe Christ was resurrected, but you have to believe he was real, that he impacted the people of his homeland, etc.
More proof that the Bible is inspired might include the similarities of the dead sea scrolls to the manuscripts of current Bibles at the time. To be sure, there are minor differences noted in every study Bible, like "Some mss add the phrase '..word to your mother'." But we know what those differences are, and the DSS authenticated translations of the Bible throught the early church years, through persecution, by the Catholics, the King James version, and after the invention of the printing press. Many argue that there's no way the book can be even close to the same as it was 1000 or 2000 years ago, but the fact that it is should at least pique our interest.
Another thing that compels me about the Bible is the accuracy of it as a guide for living. You might not agree with everything contained within, but you can't argue that as a definition for morality and ethics it sets the bar pretty high. Parts of me might want to break away from the lifestyle I am called to as a Christian, but I am always convicted to return, and I am consistently happier and more able to live my life effectively when I return. I have a sin nature, but I know that I am happier when I fight that off and can focus on staying inside God's will and serving others. I grant you that that is somewhat anecdotal, but it is a widespread experience.
Back to the miniature example for a minute: I did point out it was just a silly illustration. But even so, your criticism of it doesn't make sense to me. The point wasn't that God can't paint a perfect mini, it's that when one has a flaw, it's noteworthy. It is imperfect. It isn't the same. It was just an example, but to carry it a tiny bit further, imagine you paint a perfect mini, and then it chooses to be flawed. And then it refuses to be repainted.
God didn't create sin for humanity, we chose it. While Adam and Eve brought sin into the world, and marred the miniatures forever, God determined a way to reconcile them all and set out to do just that.
Criticizing the example by saying if God wanted us perfect he should have made us perfect ignores the idea that we are an experiment in freedom. Whether to illustrate God's capacity to redeem us to Lucifer, or for some other reason, God gave us the ability to screw up, and then reconciled himself to us.
On God creating us knowing we'd be imperfect: there's no way for us to understand the character or nature of a being that made the world. Did God plan to send his son to save us even before the world was formed? Yes. Can I explain that rationally? No. Nor can I explain how I know when my kids are lying to me, or how the passages I read for my quiet times (such as they are) seem to speak to a part of my life that is always contemporary. To be sure, if the Bible is accurate, a lot of God is beyond me. If the Bible is inaccurate, all of God is beyond me. If there is no God, better I spend my life in my current faith than I make my decisions on the basis there's no ramifications for my actions.
On God just reconciling me since it's not my fault: There is the Arminian argument that if God prechooses those who he saves, it isn't fair that God knew I'd sin, made me anyway, then elected not to save me. Then there's the Reform argument that we are all lost, we are all a result of Adam's sin, and if anyone is saved, they must be chosen by God, and it's an issue of grace, not fairness. If my kids are hanging around the house and I give the oldest $50 and the car keys, am I obligated to give the others something? It was a gift. No one earned it, I just decided to give it, and maybe later I'll choose the next kid. Again, that's a limited example, but I hope you get the idea.
I am somewhere in the middle. God can't just make us perfect - that would defy his nature and reward my rebelliousness. It would be like inviting Sandy Berger back to the National Archives. We know you aren't sorry, buddy, but it's better if everyone gets along. Come on in.
I know you might not accept this arguemt, but something isn't untrue because you don't believe it. When I was weighing the decision to become a Christian, I read and heard some things that merited looking into. My hope for you is that you'll think it merits examination, not that you'll throw it out just because it's not fair to another religion or because you assume anything you don't already believe isn't true. After all, none of us are perfect and we're all wrong about something. It would suck to be wrong about that.
I promise you guys I will try to post shorter. Always seems I have more catching up to do than everyone else.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
But I am sure the theologians were quite certain of their position back then and I can not help but wonder what another 400 years may tell us about stem cell research and same sex marriage.
You get that the objection to stem cell research by most conservatives is that embryonic stem cells haven't accomplished much yet, right?
I mean, there is a big pro-life component to me, and maybe to lots of others. But my strongest objection is that adult stem cells reward research, so they get private funding. Embryonic research hasn't yielded much, and therefore industry doesn't invest in it. So it becomes a divisive political issue in an attempt to secure government funding since potential investors won't take the risk. And that offends me, because the government should be spending less money on darn near everything, not more money on more failed projects.
The Bible doesn't prohibit believing the world is round, or hung in space, or thath the moon influences the tides, etc. It does prohibit same-sex marriage. Churches who believe the Bible is the word of God won't be renegging on the gay marriage thing in 400 years.