Official Soldat Forums
Misc => The Lounge => Topic started by: Mangled* on July 17, 2008, 07:12:23 pm
-
So you probably just looked at the title and then looked at the name next to the thread and rolled your eyes and thought to yourself lets see what kind of anti-religious views Mangled* is spouting today.
But cast aside your preconceptions. This thread is not religion vs non-religion. This thread is about literal interpretations of scripture vs personal interpretations of scripture.
If you are religious do you take everything your religion says literally? That it is all absolute truth? If so why? Or do you take what is obviously in your personal opinion metaphorical or abstract and apply your own meaning to it? Give some examples if you can.
Perhaps you feel it's preposterous to believe everything literally as there's some obvious impossibilities and absurdities in most religious texts. Or Perhaps you feel it is wrong to apply personal meaning to Gods word, and that it is almost like filling in the blanks with whatever you want. Whatever your opinion is, share it with us.
Personally my opinion is divided quite evenly between the two... but I will be reserving my opinions until after the thread has progressed a little.
PS: I will not be responding to any posts made by BondJamesBond because he is stupid (http://forums.soldat.pl/index.php?topic=28376.msg339138#msg339138).
-
This thread is now about non religion vs non-religion.
-
The bible was written by many different people over a very long time for very different reasons. It was assembled by a small group of people of books and letters written to various groups/people, also for different reasons. Many of the things in the New Testament overwrite things in the old testament. To choose one or the other and follow it blindly would not be the greatest idea ever. I will now excuse myself from this topic.
-
I really hope someone doesn't bring the Da Vinci code into this thread...
I'm a proud Catholic, I don't agree with everything in it, but I understand why it's there. The no sex before marriage makes sense because it can reduce the spread of STD's. The thing against masturbation also makes sense, if you have dirty hands you can really fuck yourself over. (..which is why I always thoroughly wash my hands before and after..)
I think I know what's right and what's wrong. I'm not a bad person. I've never stolen anything or beaten anyone up. I don't con people.
It is true that the Catholic church has been through some really shitty times, with corrupt leaders and complete greedy assholes ruling it. It seems nice now, though.
-
I don't take the bible literally or metaphorically, these are both incorrect views.
-
Understanding the Bible 101:
The Bible was written by man but inspired by God. What does this mean? Look at it like this:
A secretary takes a dictation from the head of a large business, this dictation is a memo that will be send out nationwide talking of half the workers for this company will be fired in the coming week. Now the fact that it was penned and shipped out by a lowly secretary doesn't take away its power. Just means that is how it needed to be done.
How is the Bible meant to be read?
Easy, the Bible isn't something you open up, read a page then put down. It's suppose to be read, and meditated on. Which means you are suppose to seek what wisdom lay in the words through those who are set to help guide you in your walk with Christ and of course prayer. It's not just a book of rules, its a tool to help you come closer to God.
Why do people find so many chinks in the Bibles armor?
Well they probably aren't reading it like its suppose to be read. Also people that do not have faith in God will not understand it in its entirety. Â That doesn't mean they are dumb, they just don't have the right footing to understand where all this information is coming from.
Does the Bible give the answers to everything?
No, humans can't know everything around them. Faith is a massive part of the Christian religion, because it builds a closer relationship with God. Although in a sense yes it does give all the answers because it tells us to trust God.
Can you understand the Bible just by reading this post?
No, Christianity is suppose to be a very personal religion. Meaning you need to treat God like a friend that knows a crapload more than you do than a man with the best banhammer ever. Because of that your understanding of the Bible will be a direct result of your relationship with God.
Do all the Christians fully understand the Bible?
No, a thousand times, no. Humanity is flawed by bias, stupidity, and stubbornness. All of these three things create division in beliefs and alter interpretations.
I should probably make more points but I kind of have stuff to think about. Though I doubt I will get a chance too.
-
Well, Gram, which christians DO understand the bible and how can we tell?
-
Well, Gram, which christians DO understand the bible and how can we tell?
Can't really answer that, since everyone claims proof their beliefs are right it just comes down to muckslinging. There will always be a war of who understand the Bible in the Christian faith, its why we have denominations. When we die we will find out :D
-
My interpretation of the bible states we won't find out when we die. It states we already know, we must.
If you can't answer who is right, why believe in yours? Faith is case, but if your views change then your pretty much fucked, especially if you dont nail it right before death. Unless of course, death doesn't matter.
-
My interpretation of the bible states we won't find out when we die. It states we already know, we must.
If you can't answer who is right, why believe in yours? Faith is case, but if your views change then your pretty much fecked, especially if you dont nail it right before death. Unless of course, death doesn't matter.
I can give you reasons why I think my beliefs are right. Doesn't mean you will say I am right though. That is the problem. Religion is all personal.
-
I know its personal, yet a firm logical standing in your beliefs is necessary to be founded in them. The faith comes into play at the basis in which your beliefs are founded. I do not argue those yet, for if religion is personal how can we be sure we are correct?
-
I know its personal, yet a firm logical standing in your beliefs is necessary to be founded in them. The faith comes into play at the basis in which your beliefs are founded. I do not argue those yet, for if religion is personal how can we be sure we are correct?
Who said I don't have a logical understanding? I am sure my religion is the right one because of my personal experiences. God is as real to me as the chair I sit on. I have already questioned my faith before. When I did I was reassured I was right in my beliefs.
-
I know its personal, yet a firm logical standing in your beliefs is necessary to be founded in them. The faith comes into play at the basis in which your beliefs are founded. I do not argue those yet, for if religion is personal how can we be sure we are correct?
Who said I don't have a logical understanding? I am sure my religion is the right one because of my personal experiences. God is as real to me as the chair I sit on. I have already questioned my faith before. When I did I was reassured I was right in my beliefs.
I never said you don't, but I was merely trying to point to the heart of the argument as it did not seem to be addressed.
Questioning your beliefs once and concluding they are sound is justified? I'd be interested once again, to hear why you find your beliefs true. Not because I don't believe you, but I have yet to find a valid argument. Maybe you can help me.
-
@op
No. Not everything in the Bible was meant to be interpreted literally. It's pretty obvious where in most cases.
The thing against masturbation also makes sense, if you have dirty hands you can really feck yourself over.
What? I didn't know the Bible said anything about masturbation.
-
@op
No. Not everything in the Bible was meant to be interpreted literally. It's pretty obvious where in most cases.
Once again, why at these points was it more obvious to be a metaphor?
-
(http://www.neatorama.com/images/2006-06/worst-sin.gif)
-
I know its personal, yet a firm logical standing in your beliefs is necessary to be founded in them. The faith comes into play at the basis in which your beliefs are founded. I do not argue those yet, for if religion is personal how can we be sure we are correct?
Who said I don't have a logical understanding? I am sure my religion is the right one because of my personal experiences. God is as real to me as the chair I sit on. I have already questioned my faith before. When I did I was reassured I was right in my beliefs.
I never said you don't, but I was merely trying to point to the heart of the argument as it did not seem to be addressed.
Questioning your beliefs once and concluding they are sound is justified? I'd be interested once again, to hear why you find your beliefs true. Not because I don't believe you, but I have yet to find a valid argument. Maybe you can help me.
Welp how I first got into it was just being a kid in a Christian school. I heard a sermon and just wanted whatever that guy was talking about, I stayed behind and decided to take Christ as my savior. I just kind of walked along and did what I was suppose to until around 13, for some reason I just didn't want to be a Christian but I still thought it was the right choice for me, I was pretty confused on the subject. I ended up basically becoming a hateful depressed hermit. To this day I still believe the only thing that kept me from painting the wall with my inards was God telling me to hold on. Like everytime I was seriously mulling over the way to do it, a little voice just told me to hang on. Â I ended up working it out and getting my mind focused back onto God and not everything around me. I finally beat my depression at about 15-16 fully. I am have had a few instances where the presence of God was just amazingly clear, like my choice to join the military. It was like God ripped off the roof to my house and tossed an "answer rock" at my head. Another time I was just a kid in a service of some guest speaker. My dad walked us up to be prayed for or something like that. I had no clue what was going on the speaker just walked up and blew across the line of me and my brothers. I was instantly laid out. If you don't know what that is, you just fall back and get some one on one time with God. I can't really explain it in detail, its just something completely unreal, like a waking dream. I have also seen God provide for my family countless times. Since my parents are local missionaries they don't get alot of money and I used to hear alot of financial concerns when they thought I was listening to music on their computer. Like one time after a while of worries someone just out of the blue walked up to my parents and church and gave them a check for the exact amount they needed, no one but them knew that they needed that money.(These types of stories happen alot more than you think)
I have had times where I felt I couldn't take anymore, no matter what I did, said, or was told I couldn't calm down. However the moment I cried out to God I felt peace. I am not some great Christian that hears from God daily if you are wondering. In fact I have been in a dry spot for ages, I screw up constantly and its a struggle just to be a decent Christian. However I know the more I pursue God I am happier, I have wisdom I didn't know I had, and I become a better person. Even if I am wrong and I rot in the ground my faith has kept me alive and its making me a vastly better person than I could ever be by myself. That is why I believe what I do. No man can take away what has happened to me and or give me what God has given me.
-
Once again, the question remains. How do you know these experiences related to God?
-
I just do, sorry if that's not enough for you.
-
I just do, sorry if that's not enough for you.
It doesn't have to be enough for me, they aren't my experiences. It has to be enough for you.
If your justification is such, then I suppose you can never really be angry at anyone or anything in the first place to make you turn to God. So maybe, its not enough for me. I would hope its not enough for you, unless you are just having trouble putting your true feelings into words.
-
The question would be where would you draw the line between bad persuasive attempt(t) and the inability to understand reasonable reasonings?(smeg)
-
Ah yes, reasonable reasoning, how could I forget that?
Its reasonable to justify your answers by "I just know". As I said, fine, but with this you cannot logically find right or wrong in humans and the distress obtained from life isn't really there. This of course, spurred some of the religious conviction.
Why can't you think about the question before you conclude it to not be reasonable?
-
Perhaps. Or Perhaps that his answer is so deep and intelligent that we could not grasp it.
My question stays. Where you draw the line?
-
Lock, what i thin k of the vejetarianism is no short of it is being WRONG!
I mean cool jus tink about, if man shuld not ate meat, why are we have canine teeth? Vegetabels are build for being vejetation, not only plants to eat...
-
It's nice to see some healthy debating on the subject for once.... Disregarding the previous post of course...
To this day I still believe the only thing that kept me from painting the wall with my inards was God telling me to hold on. Like everytime I was seriously mulling over the way to do it, a little voice just told me to hang on. Â I ended up working it out and getting my mind focused back onto God and not everything around me. I finally beat my depression at about 15-16 fully. I am have had a few instances where the presence of God was just amazingly clear, like my choice to join the military. It was like God ripped off the roof to my house and tossed an "answer rock" at my head.
I found what you said in this post interesting really, your experiences and trials have obviously made God a big part of your life and I can more understand how a spiritual experience can build on faith. I'm not so sure about the whole joining the military thing.... I wouldn't attribute that to divine influence, you're clearly patriotic about your country and perhaps it was more your patriotism that spurred you on to join the military rather than God... Do you feel it is more the concept of God that willed you on? That by attributing your good feelings and experiences to God allowed you to build stronger faith?
Anyway, on the matter at hand. As I said earlier I was divided quite evenly between the two sides of interpretation...
I think on the one hand I think you'd have to be quite ignorant to interpret scripture literally if I may take for example the talking snake from Genesis who tells Eve that eating the apple from the tree will not kill her. If you were to believe literally that there was a talking snake then you're kind of ignoring the fact that snakes don't have the ability to talk and never historically could. - This isn't a great example, I know.
On the other hand I can't understand where the authority comes from to self-interpret scripture... as obviously wrong beliefs can be extrapolated from misinterpretation. As the most obvious example is Islamic Extremists who through their, or someone elses misinterpretation believe that killing non-muslims in suicide attacks (particularly Jews) is what God intended them to do.
You could of course interpret that the talking snake from Genesis is a representation of a person who lies, and the form of the snake and its forked tongue have over hundreds of years because of the Bible been associated with deceit and liars.
-
A lot of interpretation issues of the bible come from evil people not getting their languages correct. My favorite example:
In Genesis, if you go back to some of the original hebrew texts, and literally translate it into english, it actually says PERIODS OF TIME instead of DAYS. Could be days, or could be billions of years Therefore, all those people that think that the Earth is 6000 years old are immediately invalidated.
There are countless minor things like that in the bible that are interesting to notice.
-
To this day I still believe the only thing that kept me from painting the wall with my inards was God telling me to hold on. Like everytime I was seriously mulling over the way to do it, a little voice just told me to hang on. Â I ended up working it out and getting my mind focused back onto God and not everything around me. I finally beat my depression at about 15-16 fully. I am have had a few instances where the presence of God was just amazingly clear, like my choice to join the military. It was like God ripped off the roof to my house and tossed an "answer rock" at my head.
I found what you said in this post interesting really, your experiences and trials have obviously made God a big part of your life and I can more understand how a spiritual experience can build on faith. I'm not so sure about the whole joining the military thing.... I wouldn't attribute that to divine influence, you're clearly patriotic about your country and perhaps it was more your patriotism that spurred you on to join the military rather than God... Do you feel it is more the concept of God that willed you on? That by attributing your good feelings and experiences to God allowed you to build stronger faith?
The more I look back the more it seems like God to me. I have always been patriotic and thought highly of the military but absolutely feared going into it, many times I said I would never go unless I was drafted. I was also 300 pounds(mostly fat) at the time, and had no reason to start losing weight. Â I honestly had no direction in my life and was putting off making big decisions. When I decided to go into the military everything became clear. It was literally like a light was turned on in a dark room. That being said I honestly don't believe I will stay in it for my entire life. I just believe its just a stepping stone in my life.
-
I'm an atheist, or, so I label myself, because religion does not play a role in my life. That being said, my knowledge of religion [esp. the nuances of Christianity] is rather meager, but what I do believe is that, as Gram said before, religion is a personal thing, since, well, that's what faith is. I think what's wrong about religion is when it becomes organized -- sometimes it seems so that one person's image of faith is impressed upon another, and the argument whether it is accepted willfully is rather moot, because in that respect, religion's basis on [taking things on] faith also greatly facilitated to the point that the difference between persuading an unwilling person and indoctrinating a willing person is quite tenuous. Objectively speaking, organized religion in some respects is a brainwashing in that it rewires your brain to think in a way agreeable to the larger whole. This isn't bad conceptually, since I do believe the Bible is a book founded on good intentions [morality codes, etc.] but it can be gruesomely twisted by human interpretations.
On a tangent, fanatics who believe so deeply into religion are a problem, I think, because the religion relies on interpretation, and by slighting changing interpretations, one can twist the meaning of a passage dramatically to suit personal needs, while still referencing a "higher authority." It's something that will be a thorn in the sides of people trying to be objective, since the existence of divinity cannot be proven or disproved.
I think that God is something that... well if he is so omnipotent and omniscient, then he is always with believers and that his home would be in every believers' heart, and the fact that there is a Church would be as if to say... well, I think that the Church is a part of religion that has become somewhat bloated in its function, becoming a business rather instead of just a service to help counsel others in the interpretation of the Bible.
I don't like how many religions try to find believers forcefully. I can understand people passing on a religion to a person that is in some personal crises that needs that 'higher authority' to lend them a hand [technically a placebo effect in my eyes], but I don't think there's anything wrong with me that calls for a total conversion to like, Christianity. Heck, it's the same morals and stuff I practice now, give or take a few, just repackaged under a different brand, haha.
Well, those are my rather ignorant thoughts.
-
Perhaps. Or Perhaps that his answer is so deep and intelligent that we could not grasp it.
My question stays. Where you draw the line?
Then why pretend like you can? Henceforth, if we cannot grasp it, why do you think we can extrapolate anything from it. Before you play the ineffable card, think about the results it entails.
My questions are not meant to be persuasive at all, merely to clarify.
-
I just do good to others and it always pays me back tenfold. Im pretty damn sure there a God. Its irrelavent to me all the complications of religious faith but im confident I will get there some day
-
The more I look back the more it seems like God to me. I have always been patriotic and thought highly of the military but absolutely feared going into it, many times I said I would never go unless I was drafted. I was also 300 pounds(mostly fat) at the time, and had no reason to start losing weight. I honestly had no direction in my life and was putting off making big decisions. When I decided to go into the military everything became clear. It was literally like a light was turned on in a dark room. That being said I honestly don't believe I will stay in it for my entire life. I just believe its just a stepping stone in my life.
But concider that this happens to alot of people from different religions. They are all 100% convinced that it was their divine being that helped them focus on what they wanted to do.
This also happens for non believers.
I think it has more to do with your relationship with yourself. Your own ability to push trough and do something that you weren't sure of doing. Knowing that you did it all by yourself and have noone else to thank for it, is a nice feeling for many.
-
Perhaps. Or Perhaps that his answer is so deep and intelligent that we could not grasp it.
My question stays. Where you draw the line?
Then why pretend like you can? Henceforth, if we cannot grasp it, why do you think we can extrapolate anything from it. Before you play the ineffable card, think about the results it entails.
My questions are not meant to be persuasive at all, merely to clarify.
I can't grasp it. Yet I did not make any comment about the argument being unreasonable/wrong. But you did. So I guess you do know how to draw the line?
How did you do it.
PS.: my question is not rhetorical
Henceforth, if we cannot grasp it, why do you think we can extrapolate anything from it.
the difference between genius and insanity is success. Perhaps his point is crazy/insane, or perhaps it's just pure genius, I am in no position to comment on it. Since you are so sure, why don't you clarify your thought process.
-
I can't grasp it. Yet I did not make any comment about the argument being unreasonable/wrong. But you did. So I guess you do know how to draw the line?
How did you do it.
PS.: my question is not rhetorical
I never said it was wrong, I was merely asking. I only said that if that is where you wish to stop, then all opinions are just as valid as yours.
Apparently you are asking for me to draw a line on one of my queries. I wonder how you even began to reference it to another point.
the difference between genius and insanity is success. Perhaps his point is crazy/insane, or perhaps it's just pure genius, I am in no position to comment on it. Since you are so sure, why don't you clarify your thought process.
So, as long as I'm successful I can be a genius? If his point is true, why does God show him truth. If so, then its no longer incomprehensible.
I never said it was wrong, I just said it was illogical.
If the source of knowledge cannot be understood, then how can we justify the knowledge gained from it. If the knowledge gained is understandable, then it is lesser than God. To the point which I said, its just not justified and therefore you COULD be false.
-
Christianity is suppose to be a very personal religion. Meaning you need to treat God like a friend that knows a crapload more than you do than a man with the best banhammer ever. Because of that your understanding of the Bible will be a direct result of your relationship with God.
Fine, but how do I know my friend is God?
-
After agreeing with Espadon almost verbatim, I would add that you can draw the line wherever it's useful, it all depends where you're trying to go.
Personally, I don't see a point in god, considering that most everything the bible professes can be learned or reinvented with a little empathy and intelligence. More so, I can't attribute anything that happens in the world to god because it's incredibly easy to find the merging lines of causality that led an event to happen, from a forest fire to being moved to a decision, to being approved for a loan.
To me, religious belief in any sort of extraneous control and influence from god is most often coupled with reluctance to see those causal lines. I have observed that many of the very religiously devout have found god during some crisis in their lives, when they 'needed' him, he was there.
It's nice to believe that someone else will take care of our problems, that something warm and nurturing and watching and protecting looks out for us, but most likely, the person who was wailing to god for help because they were going bankrupt and homeless and hungry, simply got a dose of life. People get or don't get the loan they've been wanting for that nice house not because they prayed, but because they applied for the loan and got approved maybe because the person who reviewed their case was in a good mood.
The person who approved the loan was in a good mood because... so on...
To me, god's just a bunch of people and things
-
So, God is everywhere?
-
If God is everywhere then he is merely a concept.
Even within one religion, if God is self-interpreted then that means there are millions of different people with a different interpretation of what God is and isn't, what he does and does not influence et cetera... How could their 'Gods' possibly all be the same one? Their God is as individual as they are because nobody thinks the same.
With a literal interpretation of God, at least everybody is on the same lines and could possibly be believing in the same God. But would that make him anything more than conceptual?
This is not to say that a concept of God is anything less than a real God.
'The concept of God spurred you on through a hard part of your life.' 'The concept of God gave you strength'. Is that any less powerful than saying the same but with the implication of him being real? Not really.
Surely that's the same difference as between a self-confessed imaginary friend and a friend who is invisible and inaudible and who only you are aware of. Any less profound?
-
How could their 'Gods' possibly all be the same one? Their God is as individual as they are because nobody thinks the same.
Because they are only partially correct.
-
There is no GOD.
The word 'GOD' is only created by people.
-
Yes, we've established that "God" is indeed a word and that words are created by people and construct languages by which we communicate.
-
Yes, we've established that "God" is indeed a word and that words are created by people and construct languages by which we communicate.
mm-hmm ya definitely right, even though I'm a Christian. I am not very convinced to believe that there's a GOD co'z I feel that if there's a GOD he should help you on anyway but im the only one who help's myself.
You know what I mean.
-
poopdogg have you ever seen kids that have parents that give them anything and everything they want? Usually they end up worse than the others.
-
poopdogg have you ever seen kids that have parents that give them anything and everything they want? Usually they end up worse than the others.
yes it's true that they are worse than others I've seen it their parents should be blame on that cause they spoil their child to much.
But that's not my point. :-X I won't say anything now about this topic then you should understand that I know your an open-minded person.
-
I won't say anything now about this topic then you should understand that I know your an open-minded person.
.... and who is the one putting God in a box here?
-
.... and who is the one putting God in a box here?
(http://ebeanstalk.com/images/products/035-007-0-04.jpg)
-
I won't say anything now about this topic then you should understand that I know your an open-minded person.
.... and who is the one putting God in a box here?
Both?
-
I think on the one hand I think you'd have to be quite ignorant to interpret scripture literally if I may take for example the talking snake from Genesis who tells Eve that eating the apple from the tree will not kill her. If you were to believe literally that there was a talking snake then you're kind of ignoring the fact that snakes don't have the ability to talk and never historically could. - This isn't a great example, I know.
I personally think you'd have to be ignorant to assume that just because something is a certain way in the present, that's how it's always been. But, aside from that, I'm actually pretty impressed at how open-minded and non-judgmental you've been in this thread.
A lot of interpretation issues of the bible come from evil people not getting their languages correct. My favorite example:
In Genesis, if you go back to some of the original hebrew texts, and literally translate it into english, it actually says PERIODS OF TIME instead of DAYS. Could be days, or could be billions of years Therefore, all those people that think that the Earth is 6000 years old are immediately invalidated.
There are countless minor things like that in the bible that are interesting to notice.
Source? I've heard the opposite argument, that since the exact same word is used in Genesis for "days" as in other books, they should be considered literal days. At any rate, let's assume that they're periods of time (which still could mean days, or even seconds). Let's assume further that they're long periods of time. Now you have minor issues where the plants on day 3 have to wait millions of years for the sun to come up on day 4, and millions of more years for the pollinating insects to come on day 6. Clearly, those "periods of time" can't be referring to millions of years.
But, moving on. How do I feel about God? It's hard to say. I'm a Christian, but I'm far from a devout one. I'd like to be, but little things keep popping up that at the time are more interesting than God. That's a shame too, because I'd really like to know God better.
What is God? Well, he is the epitome of all that is good and all that is holy. Everything God wills is good; everything God does is good. Acting according to his plan is doing good. Acting opposite to his plan is doing evil. Because God defines good, he can never do something evil, as those actions would become good by means of being from him.
How can a God love people, the insignificant bits of matter that are essentially like dust to him? It's because he created us in his image. There's a shadow of what God represents in all of us, and that binds us to him. Unfortunately, because we're not God and because we haven't seen God for who he truly is, we are often prone to evil.
Now, there's a minor problem. Being that God is all that is holy and good, he cannot have anything that's not holy in his presences. That's not a choice he explicitly made; that's just the nature of being the epitome of holiness. So, unfortunately, every human is disqualified from being in his presence even by sinning once. Luckily, Jesus was willing to take that sin from us, go to hell as a punishment, and defeat Satan there.
But because I'm not trying to preach, I'll move on. God cannot directly interact with us as sinners, but he has other methods of reaching us. This is where the Holy Spirit comes in. The Holy Spirit is our link between God and man. The Holy Spirit is the source of believers' gifts, such as prophecy, healing, speaking in tongues, and so on. It is also sort of a source of inspiration to become more like God. You may hear people talking about how the Holy Spirit moved them to do this or that. The Holy Source is the cause of unnatural peace and calmness in trying situations. It's the thing that kills your desire for earthly things and motivates you to pursue Godly things instead. It's what gives you joy when you're singing praise to God or listening to a powerful sermon.
Have I experienced God in my life? Well, not as much as I'd like, but that's due to my lack of efforts in trying to forge a relationship with him. Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, worldly things have a way of being more appealing than studying the Bible. However, I have noticed that when I tithe, I always get reimbursed in some way. I've noticed that when I pray (in a Godly mindset, of course), I tend to get what I request. I know that asking God to change my mood and feelings towards things works.
Is this just my personal experience? Of course. Are there other explanations for what I've felt and experienced? Maybe. But this is my faith and it works for me. Besides, there's some saying that it's better to believe in God when no God exists than to not believe in God when one does exist. If my religion is nothing more than a get-out-of-hell-free card, I'll take that. But if it's also capable of influencing my life and making me a better person, then I'll definitely take that too.
-
(just based on christianity, i dont know much about other religions.)
Thats the problem with most people and religion, they believe that they can just use religion as a 'get-out-of-hell-free' card and so they call themselves christians and they dont do the work.
Sure they'll go to church, every so often you know, when they feel like it; sure they'll pray to God and most likely ask him for something, instead of giving thanks; they dont spread God's word as he intended, they keep it to themselves; all things that most people dont consider, they overlook it, most likely because its too much of an inconvience or (insert excuse here); yeah, maybe God will understand if i do things my way.
Christianity may be a big religion, but very few 'real' believers, very few who use it as more than a 'get out of hell free' card.
I dont think its truely a 'get out of hell free' card, unless you view it as more than that, like how gamer explains, someone who lives like that, according to the bible, would go to Hell. (remember, we are created in God's image, and no one likes to be taken advantage of)
Why do people call themselves 'christians' if they live like that? Now, i am being hypocritical, as i do the same exact thing as gamer explains, except that i know God doesnt give us anything, he gives us the opportunity but ultimately we have to do it. I do not claim to be christian because i do not follow God as he would like me too, according to the bible(but this isnt about me). Honestly, in the name of christianity, dont claim it unless you are doing it for more than a 'get-out-of-hell-free' card, you give the religion a bad name, and you give false hope to others who think that just calling themselves 'christians' will send them to heaven.
-
If you take the bible metaphorically (to all those who do), where do you stop?
Do you believe that God made the world in 7 days?
If not, do you believe that God made the world at all?
-
If you take the bible metaphorically (to all those who do), where do you stop?
Do you believe that God made the world in 7 days?
If not, do you believe that God made the world at all?
And furthermore, if you doubt the authority of Genesis, why should you trust the authority of the New Testament, where it outlines the only way to get saved? Is the Bible only true when it's convenient?
-
Are you circumsized Gamer?
-
Are you circumsized Gamer?
Yep. But even if I wasn't, there's a difference between not doing what the Bible says and not believing what it says.
-
You don't do what it says unless you believe it is meant to be taken literally, as the sole way to save your soul.
How about kosher foods? ( I have to admit not even expecting a 'yes' to my previous question. )
-
You don't do what it says unless you believe it is meant to be taken literally, as the sole way to save your soul.
Right, which is why I used the negative. Doing what the Bible says implies belief in its truth, but belief in its truth doesn't mean you'll do what it says. I'm guilty of all sorts of things that the Bible says I shouldn't do, but that's not because I believe that those things are right.
How about kosher foods? ( I have to admit not even expecting a 'yes' to my previous question. )
Why not? I was under the impression that circumcision was a pretty common practice these days.
At any rate, I do not eat only kosher foods, just as I don't sacrifice sheep every time I sin. The New Testament brought a whole new set of rules that invalidated many of the Old Testament practices. But it's worth noting that a change in rules is not the same as a change in history.
The Old Testament rules were undeniably true for their time period. However, they only applied to that time period. Creation, on the other hand, is an event, not a rule. Events cannot be valid at one time and invalid at another. There's no way that creation as an event, if it is true, can be falsified so that it's not true.
Consider the Prohibition era. At one point in time it was illegal to buy, sell, and consume alcohol. Now it's not. However, the fact that Prohibition happened can never be altered, even if the rules that applied to that time were changed. And it can also never be altered that the rules were true and applicable during that time period, regardless of what they are today.
-
My apoligies: here, in conservative Yurop, mostly only jews or muslims are circumsized ( and some gay people ). The western it gets, the more common it is, and it may have it's medical benefits, but I'll take daily showers over cutting The Admiral.
A jewish friend of mine who holds some speeches at their annual religious camp put kosher eating and circumsision ( and for the sake of fun, pubic hair trimming ) as a cultural habit: as time passes, this must be sorted to see which part of it is actual culture and which is nothing more than a once beneficial practice that had overgrown it's use, becoming more of a burden.
The Prohibition era is a pretty peg-legged example: at that rate, we're in another prohibition era right now, added up with a global anti-drug war against petty smokers and an ever-growing black market. Those rules and these rules are not practical, benefical or for the sake of a greater good in any way, but rather serve lobbies and tight groups - but 'tis off-topic.
Let me put another point. Taken an omnipotent being, which would make more sense? Creating everything in six days, building it up piece by piece, or making it so that things will sort themselfes out within billions of years, like a self-extracting pack? Putting imagination to the test, which is more hardcore? Also, which is absolutely scientifically unsound ( and has been for the last couple of hundred years ) and which is more acceptable?
Literal understanding of the Bible is like a getaway for those with box-closed minds.
-
Let me put another point. Taken an omnipotent being, which would make more sense? Creating everything in six days, building it up piece by piece, or making it so that things will sort themselfes out within billions of years, like a self-extracting pack? Putting imagination to the test, which is more hardcore? Also, which is absolutely scientifically unsound ( and has been for the last couple of hundred years ) and which is more acceptable?
If you were designing a robot, would you make thousands of self-assembling nanobots and see what happened, or would you just build the robot the way you wanted to?
And why should God, who can see the past, present, and future simultaneously, bother with evolution? If he does have feelings, then the thrill of creation would be in the act of creating, not in watching organisms take excessively round-about ways to get to the design that he had already planned. Seems to me like the best course of action is to make animals the way you want to, then give them the ability to adapt to the environment that you know will change over time.
God's motivations aside, the concept of evolution is completely incompatible with the Bible. Why should God associate with humans if evolution is true? They're just animals like everything else, only they happened to evolve intelligence. I know there are people who will jump on me for saying this, but evolution is essentially chance, and God would have no reason to associate with humans just because they happened to be evolutionarily lucky. Also, humans wouldn't have souls and spirits any more than animals would, meaning that either every living thing would go to heaven or hell, or dying is final. It gets more complicated than it's worth to argue that God arbitrarily picked a point in the evolution of man to determine that they were human and worth giving a soul to, especially since the whole point of evolution is that no divine intervention is required.
If, on the other hand, God specifically created humans like the Bible says he did, then there's all the reason in the world for him to interact with us. We're made in his image; we're more than just animals. A conscience isn't some adherence to arbitrary social norms; it's representing true, absolute morality. Prayer and salvation can happen because and only because we're created specifically and intentionally by God; it would make no sense any other way.
-
If your God than why do anything? Why not?
-
Heh, that is at first unanswerable. One of the great Roman emperors (I think Justinian) declared that that was because "He wanted to"—nothing more, nothing less. The Bible doesn't actually directly say anything about that, but you must keep in mind that we are made "in His image," so His behavior is not vastly different from what a person would be if he was stripped of sin and imperfection and was pure holiness in all its majesty, and moreover was omnipotent, omniscient, immutable, and so on and so forth. Which would you or I rather do, in any situation (particularly of boredom), really—stagnate, or do something creative? :) I know what I'd want to do, even when momentarily assuming a non-believing standpoint!
I don't like how many religions try to find believers forcefully.
And you put forth that declaration so boldly! ;D Every religion—no, every belief must spread, naturally; everyone spreads him-/herself. Every post here tries to convince you that it is correct. Every website in the worldwide web (well, most, anyways :P) wants to persuade you that it correct in whatever issue it regards. Ultimately, nothing is "neutral"; even the stance of neutrality is a positive issue (and by that I refer to the economic definition of "positive," that it is intentionally propelling itself to the people it reaches out to). Motive, motive! But HOW these are spread—peacefully and not intrusively, or otherwise—is the question. There is nothing wrong with trying to recruit others to your cause, in the act itself (unless of course you yourself in the back of your mind consider it of no worth or value ;D).
By the way: there, depending on the method of spreading, can we already rule out beliefs whose doctrines are to gain followers by force.
... I can understand people passing on a religion to a person that is in some personal crises that needs that 'higher authority' to lend them a hand [technically a placebo effect in my eyes]...
That is true. That is very true. In the naturalistic sense, the psychological boost that comes from submitting to an all-powerful God and thus fearing nothing can be immense, especially in the lives of people who were not already born into believing homes or atmospheres. The problem is that you can't gain this kind of relief/comfort/energy/whatever you wish to call the Holy Spirit ( ;) ) by simply pretending to believe in it, because with all mental veils uncovered you would know that that's not the case. You must truly believe.
Thats the problem with most people and religion, they believe that they can just use religion as a 'get-out-of-hell-free' card and so they call themselves christians and they dont do the work.
You hit it SPOT ON! :D It isn't like that. If you are selfishly believing just to get to heaven, or massively sinning with the idea that you'll repent in the end and be forgiven of it all ("supposedly" in alignment with Christianity's doctrine), you are not really believing since you're just manipulating it to your own desire, and so your future may not be so bright. You really must wholeheartedly abide by it constantly or it just becomes a mask, no matter how well-worn, to be ripped off at the end of all things. I even trashed Soldat on my comp. and I barely even game anymore in general, because I ultimately realized that it was detracting from the true priority that I should be holding. (Now note that in this particular example, this is just the case with me in particular—I'm not saying all Christians absolutely must abandon Soldat if they are to truly follow their beliefs, but everything I personally get involved in, I completely dedicate myself into to the point of losing sight of the real priority. So I needed to kick it out.)
... I don't think there's anything wrong with me that calls for a total conversion to like, Christianity. Heck, it's the same morals and stuff I practice now, give or take a few, just repackaged under a different brand, haha.
Haha. Mmmmmmmmm... that's, yeah... that's an issue many tend to have, when it comes to something like (if you'll excuse the particular focus here! xD) Christianity. A foundation of Christianity is based on perfection—as Ravi Zacharias put it, Christ did not come to Earth "to make bad people good. He came to make dead people live." I'm sure none of us ate our victims like Jeffrey Dahmer or slaughtered millions like Hitler—their cups were definitely pure mud, haha. But would you drink a cup of water with even a sprinkle of dirt in it? Christianity's focus is on submission—then, and only then, can you strive for true greatness and peace and satisfaction and well being in the community and society around you.
If God is everywhere then he is merely a concept.
This may be nitpicking but I think the original sentence should have been worded "God's presence is everywhere." :P God cannot be found in all beliefs (such as Buddhism, which completely ignores God).
Even within one religion, if God is self-interpreted then that means there are millions of different people with a different interpretation of what God is and isn't... How could their 'Gods' possibly all be the same one?...
They aren't. Beliefs are easily contradictory, and we're hopefully in the process of taking down one of the clearly incorrect ones (Scientology, namely :P). Everyone strives for the whole, objective truth, and ultimately not every group is correct when it comes to the crux of the matter. (I think I might be missing Smegma's point, though.)
-
So if we are created in his image, the world was made in seven days, and all other things should be taken literally?
If God is present everywhere, then he must be present in all beliefs.
-
If God is present everywhere, then he must be present in all beliefs.
And he is. Any religion that worships any sort of deity or deities is trying to pin down who or what God is. Any religion that has no god but is built on compassion and good works has God in it by nature of their godly actions (even if it's not intentional). Even religions that discard the notion of any God at all or are devoted to the devil and evil are still often built on some sort of search for truth, and it's God's will that people seek the truth. That's the nature of humanity: By being created in God's image, everything we do must have some minor aspect of God in it. Otherwise we'd be no better than Satan and demons, who are beyond redemption.
-
Clearly, literal interpretation of the Bible/Qoran/Halakha is wrong. I think to be believing what those texts say literally is to be ignoring plain and simple truths that surround our every-day lives and honestly I know one or two people who do believe in the literal truth of the Bible and they are nothing short of absolute lunatics.
Okay, so we pretty much agree that personal interpretations of spiritual meaning is where it's at, but I'm curious... Why didn't God give us a literal account of events that was meticulously documented and incredibly consistent and flawless? Something where everything is plain as day and everybody is on the same level in terms of interpretation and where there's no need to read between the lines?
Why not? If God made us intelligent enough to invent all the things we have invented and discover all the things we have discovered then why not just give it to us straight?
No more than 507 words in the Bible explain how God created the universe. I mean, that's cutting it pretty thin. Most of that is just him saying what should happen and it happening spontaneously. That explanation may have been acceptable 2000 odd years ago, but this isn't just some trivial event like walking around helping people... this is the creation of everything we know out of nothing. Surely we could handle something a little more detailed and profound than "God said, Let there be x: and there was x."
By being created in God's image, everything we do must have some minor aspect of God in it. Otherwise we'd be no better than Satan and demons, who are beyond redemption.
Satan is also a God, is he not? Does he have not Godlike powers and influence over the wicked and evil as much as God does over the pure and good? How could Gods sworn enemy be nothing less than a God himself?
-
Ooh...and you were doing so well too. But somehow in a single post, you introduced your own opinions as fact, you misinterpreted other peoples' opinions, you assumed that the Bible was intended to be a history of the earth, and you think that Satan is a god. Ouch.
-
I introduced my opinions as opinions. What exactly did I misinterpret in that post? I don't think Satan is a God, I don't believe in Satan just like I don't believe in God but that doesn't stop me from giving my opinions on interpretation. Your opinion is that Satan is not a God?
If Satan is not a God then how is he a worthy opponent of God? Why does God always seem to have his hands full with keeping Satan at bay? After all these years you'd think that one of them would have won.... unless of course they're evenly matched?
-
Clearly, literal interpretation of the Bible/Qoran/Halakha is wrong.
Opinion stated as fact.
Okay, so we pretty much agree that personal interpretations of spiritual meaning is where it's at
Misinterpretation of other people's opinions.
Satan is also a God, is he not?
Assertion that Satan is a god.
Satan was an archangel (the second most powerful being in heaven) who was cast out of heaven after his pride cause him to believe that he was better than God. Satan has free reign over the earth because man chose to introduce sin into the world. Before then, the world was perfect, with no sin and none of Satan's influence. Now the world is filled with sin. However, with God's help we can rebuke Satan, and in the end, on Judgment Day, God will cast out Satan and release heaven and earth from his grip. There's no doubt in any believer's mind that God will triumph over Satan in the end, and there's also no doubt that God has authority over Satan. In the beginning of the book of Job, for example, we see Satan asking God for permission to test Job's faith by inflicting pain and suffering on him. Read Job 1:6-12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%201%20:6-12;&version=9;) and it should be pretty clear.
Why is Satan still prevalent in this world? It's because of the nature of free will. God wants us to follow him, not because he's the only option, but because we choose it over the alternative.
-
If you only do what is right then you can't save your soul on that way. You must believe in GOD and to have closure on him.
-
If you were designing a robot, would you make thousands of self-assembling nanobots and see what happened, or would you just build the robot the way you wanted to?
And why should God, who can see the past, present, and future simultaneously, bother with evolution? If he does have feelings, then the thrill of creation would be in the act of creating, not in watching organisms take excessively round-about ways to get to the design that he had already planned. Seems to me like the best course of action is to make animals the way you want to, then give them the ability to adapt to the environment that you know will change over time.
Another awkward example, but let's stick with it. Would you create that robot with your bare hands? No, you wouldn't, you couldn't. It would require complex tools to build even the simplest part, not to mention assembling and programming it. The most primitive lifeforms are a million times more advanced than anything mechanical we have built, and afaik, robotology and artificial intelligence studies are currently going by the line of mimicing evolution, as in self-assembling and self-advancing simple designs.
God's motivations aside, the concept of evolution is completely incompatible with the Bible. Why should God associate with humans if evolution is true? They're just animals like everything else, only they happened to evolve intelligence. I know there are people who will jump on me for saying this, but evolution is essentially chance, and God would have no reason to associate with humans just because they happened to be evolutionarily lucky. Also, humans wouldn't have souls and spirits any more than animals would, meaning that either every living thing would go to heaven or hell, or dying is final. It gets more complicated than it's worth to argue that God arbitrarily picked a point in the evolution of man to determine that they were human and worth giving a soul to, especially since the whole point of evolution is that no divine intervention is required.
You have a poor understanding of evolution, hence you speak so lowly of it. To phrase it another way: if we are right and evolution indeed exists, than it is one, if not the most magnificient creations of God, a force powerfull enough to create a world as we know it. It is a tool, and gives a much better explanation of how things came to be than the image of an old man sitting in the clouds and zapping life here and there. It is only incompatible if you choose it to be.
( also, who said we have souls in the first place? )
There are some other posts I'd reply to, but it seems they've been more or less covered. The day is still long though!
-
If you were designing a robot, would you make thousands of self-assembling nanobots and see what happened, or would you just build the robot the way you wanted to?
i know i'd make sure the robot's ass only worked one way, and i'd definitely stop it from metabolising mind altering drugs. if god really was creator of everything he's not very good at it. for what it's worth i'd take the nanobots option anyway, it'd excuse their shortcomings and be way more awesome.
and for god's sake, why are religious leaders always bigoted pieces of shit? the catholics are homophobic, islamophobic misogynists. the muslims are homophobic, misogynistic antisemites. fundamentalist christians are money-hungry xenophobes. not sure about the jews, i know they don't like pizza...
-
If God isnt in satan and demons, then he is not everywhere.
-
The traces of His creation can be found in everything, especially them, in their recognizing and acknowledging the presence of truth, and their always trying to distort it. Without Him nothing that has been made would've been made.
Satan is also a God, is he not?
Satan isn't a god. He envies God, though, and constantly strives to be powerful like Him. But there is no other "god" than God; all others are idols.
Why does God always seem to have his hands full with keeping Satan at bay?
He doesn't. He lets Satan roam free. God could speak "Satan, begone!" at any moment and he would immediately disappear from existence (as He could for anything else that exists). Satan was even formed by God—without Him "nothing was made that has been made," in accordance to the opening verses of the gospel of John.
... i'd make sure the robot's ass only worked one way...
Yeah, but humans aren't robots. :P Humans are real living things with real emotions and desires. God wishes to see us turn to Him honestly and truly; He's not going to force us to obey Him by programming us to loop [ iluvu.wav ] over and over again; it wouldn't be genuine.
... why not just give it to us straight?
He did - this was the original compilation of books that went into the Bible. That's something like asking "Why did God plant the tree of good & evil?" This was to give us free will—the power to choose. He wants us to truly love Him for creating us, and so He constantly sits on the border of human perception. He could easily write using clouds "Behold, I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Moses, manifested in the flesh through Jesus Christ, with whom I am well pleased. Worship me," in every language throughout all the sky during today's times and keep all sides of the Earth at noon for 100 hours displaying it. There would surely be a lot of devastation among nonbelievers, but afterwards there would be no active choice to believe. Everyone who doesn't outright dismiss it (which would be quite an incredible act IMO :P) would be forced to obey, and everyone would grudgingly submit to His existence. That kind of burden-like believing is the exact opposite of the enthusiastic, joyful way He wants us to believe in Him.
( also, who said we have souls in the first place? )
The soul is the entity that composes us. You're a Christian and you don't believe in souls? That's the same as declaring you're an atheist who believes in heaven and hell! What is the thing of you that goes beyond the Earth- no, I should be saying the known physical world - if your physical body is buried, cremated, or donated to science, if you believe there's nothing beyond the body? Are you of an Abrahamic faith? ???
-
The soul is the entity that composes us. You're a Christian and you don't believe in souls? That's the same as declaring you're an atheist who believes in heaven and hell! What is the thing of you that goes beyond the Earth- no, I should be saying the known physical world - if your physical body is buried, cremated, or donated to science, if you believe there's nothing beyond the body? Are you of an Abrahamic faith?
I believe that the words spirit and soul, or what we mean by them today are due to misinterpretations of biblical text ( even though other religions nail this down in a similiar way ). It doesn't even need a scientific approach, just common sense. You may split a man down to the very building blocks, but you will not find the soul anywhere. From the simple words that God gave us life and spirit, which puts us above animals, a powerfull illusion came to be which makes everyone feel oh-so-special and gives a sniffet of immortality. This is another great hook of Christianity, and makes it personal and intimate like Jesus ( whom is, out of all religions, the only 'link' between humanity and the omnipotent deity of worship ).
There is nothing beyond my body. What you call soul, I call my personality, which will die off once my heart stops beating or my brain ceases to function: however, the promise of ressurrection states that it will be very much physical. My knowledge stops here, because I have no clue what so ever how literaly should this be interpret - but in the meantime, my soul will be nothing more than trillions upon trillions of electric impulses roaring under the skin.
-
You mentioned common sense, so let me share with you what I believe to be common sense.
Why would you believe in an immaterial God but doubt the existence of an immaterial soul? Furthermore, why would this aforementioned God (who has to be immaterial, as he's the one who created matter) reside in a physical place? And once we've determined that God and heaven cannot be physical, how can you possibly justify saying that there is any sort of an afterlife for humans if they're only composed of material substances?
And if you don't believe in an afterlife, how can you believe in Christianity and the need for a savior? Failing that, how can you believe that good actions are justified? After all, if you are only your body, and you'll cease to exist once you die, what does it matter how much you give to charity? Why does God even need to exist, if right and wrong are only local beliefs that cease to have meaning once you're dead?
And like Keron said, do you consider yourself a Christian? If so, what are you basing that on? If it's the Bible, then you should be aware of the parts of the Bible that do talk about heaven and hell, and do talk about living on after the body has died. We're not just making this stuff up because it sounds good.
-
I call myself a christian because I was raised ( more or less ) as a christian, my morals are christian, I try to live as a christian and I accept Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation.
However, instead of taking a blindfold, I'll question everything I encounter. Over the past year, mainly from the point of my conviction, I gave these things quite a lot of thought and tried to look around very well in search of answers.
To my understanding, literal interpretation of the Bible or any other religious text is a pretty dumb thing to do. There is a God, an omnipotent and loving supreme being, but He is quite possibly not like how we had pictured him all this long. For all I know he could be the tenth dimension itself, or something even farther beyond comprehension. But since he is infinite, he must span through the physical realm aswell, otherwise he would be finite in a way. Taken that scale, we are nothing more but measly dots - but we had been gaven a promise of salvation.
I'd be best described as an annihilist: hell is the end of existance itself, the destruction of your being as a whole, whilst salvation would be ressurrection. Again, that could be getting created again at the dawn of a new universe, or getting transformed into something else, or you could pick a - in comparison, quite lame - possibility of getting raised the way you were with all other just folk.
I ain't making this stuff because it sounds good either, but because it sure as hell ( ha ha PUN ) fits better with the whole loving-creator-of-everything image.
-
Saying that God's infiniteness implies that he must be physical is the same as saying that his infiniteness implies that he's evil. Can God show us a physical representation of himself? Of course. That doesn't mean he is physical. The state of being material means that you're constrained in some way. If you truly believe that God is infinite and omnipotent, then you must understand that he cannot be held in check by time, space, dimensions, thermodynamics, or any other natural laws. Creating a universe and all of its elements means that you are outside of that universe. If God existed before the concept of matter, space, or time, how can he be composed of or constrained by those things?
And it appears that you consider the book of Revelation to be as mythical or metaphorical as Genesis. The parts where it says that we'll live in heaven forever with God...that doesn't mean anything to you? And if you don't think that's true, how can you say that the path to salvation as described in the Bible is true? What makes it more or less true than any other part of the Bible?
I know it probably seems like I'm attacking you, but I'm not at all sorry for doing so. The common Christian beliefs of creation, salvation, and eternity all exist because of inspiration from the Bible. If you're going to call yourself a Bible-believing Christian, it's important that you stick to the Bible, and it's important that you accept the authority of the Bible. And if you're going to tell me that the Bible says something different than the average Christian believes, you'd better be prepared to back it up with proof. If you're going to tell me that the Bible can't be taken at face value, then you'd better be questioning your own faith and what its based on.
-
Mh, I'm faulty with phrasing, hence you misunderstood.
God is physical in the way that our whole physical world is a part of him. Let's take an example: if you take a sheet of paper and draw a line on it, that's two dimensional. We are three ( or rather, in our current state, four ) dimensional beings, hence we can 'see' everything on that sheet of paper, not just the draw line itself. We may fold, rip or draw on the paper, because we are above it. Whetever you believe in fate or not, knowing both the future and past would require literally overseeing our world as much as we bend over a sheet of paper ( fate would mean one, predetermined line, while the lack of would mean an infinite number of possible lines branching off every moment depending on what you decide to do ). This example is a bit crooked, as we do not have two dimensional elements that we can manipulate - but omnipotence would require standing above all other dimensions, which also means that everything is a part of Him. This might be awkward, but watch this (http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php) to see what I mean.
It's funny how we are basically debating over what God is like, despite agreeing on his existance. You seem to describe him with human feats, while my image of God is completely abstract - and afaik the Bible does not contradict me in this.
Yes, I consider the book of Revelations to be metaphorical and mythical. There is no giant seamonster, there will be no seven-headed creature rising to power, and Heaven may be just as symbolic as Hell. Then again, this universe is quite friggin' huge, and we could all end up in some brimstone filled planet of devils... but that's an option I'm highly doubting.
You do not have to take my word, as this is purely my interpretation of what I learned and read. However, we're still running laps around a topic which is, imo, pretty far off from what Christianity is really about, just like many fanatical atheists nit-pick every bit and piece of scripture to back their own beliefs up.
-
I'm not sure if this is considered hijacking the thread.. something just occured to me when I read †'s first post.... The word of god is written down by human beings... If God wanted it done right, and to pe precisely the composition of words that He intended.... then why didn't he make a book by himself? He's said to have created the world in 7 days, he created a woman, by taking a man's rib... why didn't he make a book by himself? This whole "literaly vs metaphoricaly" thing is just holding christians back from unity... it's like what he did in Babylon.... no-one really understands anymore...
-
If you stand over that piece of paper, are you that piece of paper?
Yes, I consider the book of Revelations to be metaphorical and mythical. There is no giant seamonster, there will be no seven-headed creature rising to power, and Heaven may be just as symbolic as Hell. Then again, this universe is quite friggin' huge, and we could all end up in some brimstone filled planet of devils... but that's an option I'm highly doubting.
So then what does the book hold?
-
No, but I did say that the example was a bit crooked because we do not have two dimensional elements in ourselfes - it was merely to illustrate how something that is capable of foreseeing the events of the future stands above what we call reality.
As for your other question, it's all symbolism. Unfortunately for me, I'm no scholar on the subject, and despite attending a religious high school, we never 'decoded' revelations. The only interesting things about this were borderline conspiracy-theories, with the mark of the beast on one's forehead or right hand + the identification chip they're working on, and the urban legend that barcodes have 666 hidden in them.
-
Let's say, hypothetically, that God really did write down the Bible in its entirety, all by himself. Â Let's say he put it on rocks or clay tablets or scrolls or gold plates or something. Â Now let's suppose that he gave them to someone and told that person to spread the word. Â Let's call that someone Joseph Smith (this is all purely hypothetical, of course).
Joseph Smith takes these gold plates and tells everyone that God has spoken directly to him and has given him new scriptures. Â He goes ahead and translates them and shares them with everyone. Â Everyone who believes in the message also believes that it was truly inspired and written by God. Â Everyone else thinks that Joseph Smith made it all up, and he should stop sending teenagers to their houses telling them how the Book of Mormon is the one true way.
The point is, it doesn't matter whether or not God truly wrote the original scriptures, or even if he dictated them word by word for someone else to write them down. Â When that original person dies, or maybe even before, people will doubt that God was the source. Â Anyone can write a book and say that God did it. Â But how would you prove such a thing?
-
No, but I did say that the example was a bit crooked because we do not have two dimensional elements in ourselfes - it was merely to illustrate how something that is capable of foreseeing the events of the future stands above what we call reality.
As for your other question, it's all symbolism. Unfortunately for me, I'm no scholar on the subject, and despite attending a religious high school, we never 'decoded' revelations. The only interesting things about this were borderline conspiracy-theories, with the mark of the beast on one's forehead or right hand + the identification chip they're working on, and the urban legend that barcodes have 666 hidden in them.
If god knows future as certain, then there is no freewill.
On the second part, then I suppose God doesn't exist, as its just a metaphor. All the references to God are merely literary tools, right?
-
Deja vu. Haven't we gone through this already?
Each choice you make defines the future, and immediately locks out an infinite number of other timelines. To put it in a different perspective, your free will is basically a choice of infinite variations - and God's omnipotence lies in that he knows all possible outcomes. You have free will, but you can't surprise him.
God exists, but the common image we have of him is faulty.
-
Deja vu. Haven't we gone through this already?
Each choice you make defines the future, and immediately locks out an infinite number of other timelines. To put it in a different perspective, your free will is basically a choice of infinite variations - and God's omnipotence lies in that he knows all possible outcomes. You have free will, but you can't surprise him.
God exists, but the common image we have of him is faulty.
Okay, so God knows the future as possibilities.
But the bible is all metaphors, so is its statement of God being not one?
-
Most statements in the Bible, even some of the straightforward ones can still be interpreted in many ways, and there can be debate about the literal meaning aswell ( not talking about the 'thou shall kill those whom make love with animals' type of things ).
Let's take your approach then. If all scripture on the existance of God ( I am the lord, thus spoke the lord, etc ) is metaphorical, and it does not literally mean that there exists an omnipotent deity, what would be your interpretation of it?
-
I don't know, but if you say the whole bible is metaphorical I said that God doesn't exist.
-
So, you interpret a metaphor which says that something is, and that something does other things ( like, creating the world ) as it does not exist.
Derrida himself would be in awe.
-
So, you interpret a metaphor which says that something is, and that something does other things ( like, creating the world ) as it does not exist.
Derrida himself would be in awe.
If the bible is a metaphor, then whatever it says is comparing it to something other than itself. So if the bible says God created the world, taking that as literal would not be a metaphor.
-
If the bible is a metaphor, then whatever it says is comparing it to something other than itself.
Furthermore, where can you look to for facts if the book that's supposed to define absolute truth is inaccurate, especially in spiritual and metaphysical matters that there is no other source for?
-
Calling the bible an extended metaphor does not state its false.
-
ok, firstable - it's a WTF moment for me seeing a RELIGION thread in a SOLDAT forum =)
secondable - religion is for sheep IMO....and damn, there are so many beliving blindly....there is no scientifical proof that God exists in a way that christians or muslims ETC ETC ETC see it
one of the most ridiculous religion for me is scientology................no comments
if i have to classify myself then atheism all the way.
actually i have a lot of to say about religion but i have go through this thread first and then get some sleep ^^
-
You love scientifical stuff too?!
-
secondable - religion is for sheep IMO....and damn, there are so many beliving blindly....there is no scientifical proof that God exists in a way that christians or muslims ETC ETC ETC see it
You seem to not quite grasp the concept of what religion is. Part of the DEFINITION of a religion is that it is not scientifically observable.
I gotta agree with your sheep comment, though. Why bother searching for understanding of the metaphysical when scientists can just TELL you that there's no way they can quantitatively prove or disprove its existence?
-
God exists, but the common image we have of him is faulty.
Faulty on account of believers who broadcast their interpretations of God, what he is, and how he operates as the truth? If I make make some examples:
By being created in God's image, everything we do must have some minor aspect of God in it. Otherwise we'd be no better than Satan and demons, who are beyond redemption.
God is physical in the way that our whole physical world is a part of him.
omnipotence would require standing above all other dimensions, which also means that everything is a part of Him.
You know, it's almost as if you're making it up as you go along really. If those are your opinions then fine, but they don't appear to be based of any scripture at all, let alone scientific findings.
ok, firstable - it's a WTF moment for me seeing a RELIGION thread in a SOLDAT forum =)
secondable - religion is for sheep IMO....and damn, there are so many beliving blindly....there is no scientifical proof that God exists in a way that christians or muslims ETC ETC ETC see it
one of the most ridiculous religion for me is scientology................no comments
if i have to classify myself then atheism all the way.
actually i have a lot of to say about religion but i have go through this thread first and then get some sleep ^^
Hey, I'm an Atheist too. But like I stated at the beginning, I don't want this debate being about Theism vs Atheism, because whenever that is discussed (argued) it always ends with flaming and really ends up with the 'side' with more arguing for it self-proclaiming victory and the thread being locked because it just ends in flame wars.
Personally I'm sort of more interested in seeing individually how believers differ from each other and why. For the purpose of the debate I am posting with the false presumption God theoretically has any plausibility at all. It gives me a somewhat impartial standpoint on it.
-
By being created in God's image, everything we do must have some minor aspect of God in it. Otherwise we'd be no better than Satan and demons, who are beyond redemption.
You know, it's almost as if you're making it up as you go along really. If those are your opinions then fine, but they don't appear to be based of any scripture at all, let alone scientific findings.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Now tell me, using pure logic, what does "Being made in God's image" imply?
-
Multiple things. But from what you quoted, I fail to see how everything we do has to have some aspect of God involved, "lest we be no better than Satan and demons".
Every time I hear that it always feels like implies we were just made to look like him. Not to act like him. And since both male and female were created in "his" image, shouldn't "it" be more appropriate then him? How does a male create a female in his own image without...scary results?
-
god is a pair of siamese twins, one male, one female
-
Doesn't that mean God is really two separate Gods in the same way that siamese twins are recognised as two separate (despite being attached) people? Which would make anybody who believed in him really an unknowing Polytheist. In fact, that doesn't even clear up the gender issue.
Which brings me to the question, do believers believe God is male? If so why? Does he have a penis and testicles and testosterone-related hair-loss problems? Does he produce sperm? What if God is really of indeterminate gender but the fact that the Bible was only written by men gives God a false masculine ego.
-
What if it isnt?
-
God was an artist see, and when he made man he decided that his best medium was some dirt that was laying around at the time. Man = dirt. Then he made woman using that dude (adam)'s rib. Woman = rib of dirt.
If you actually read that and expect it to be true literally, then you are idiot. But if you take it as a metaphor, then you are true.
-
@Mangled
You compared God with science. your saying we get to choose what makes you a "Man", the physical features of a male. The word Man does not nessecarily mean Male, it's more focused towards the "mankind" sort of thing.
-
@Mangled
Science is not everything ;)
-
@Mangled
Science is not everything ;)
Scientology?
-
@Mangled
Science is not everything ;)
Scientology?
what I mean is science can't answer or knows everything.
-
Or you just read my post and decided to be on my side because im cool =D
-
God was an artist see, and when he made man he decided that his best medium was some dirt that was laying around at the time. Man = dirt. Then he made woman using that dude (adam)'s rib. Woman = rib of dirt.
If you actually read that and expect it to be true literally, then you are idiot. But if you take it as a metaphor, then you are true.
dirt is a metaphor for black people and even scientists agree that man came from africa
this is p. cool
-
Or you just read my post and decided to be on my side because im cool =D
I don't know you. How should I know your "cool". ña
-
Get back on topic. This was going well, and it would be a shame if a bunch of idiots like you ruined it. (Especially you, marine b. harm; you've done nothing but post garbage since you joined the forums.)
Every time I hear that it always feels like implies we were just made to look like him. Not to act like him. And since both male and female were created in "his" image, shouldn't "it" be more appropriate then him? How does a male create a female in his own image without...scary results?
Well, that's the problem right there. You're treating the word "image" as something that refers to visual similarities. But that can't be the case, if God is truly immaterial (and therefore without form). What single word would you choose that says we share God's qualities?
Consider a picture of St. Peter's Basilica. It's impressive, sure, but there are a number of shortcomings. You can only see it from one angle. You can only see it at one state (varying amounts of light, tourists, damage, etc.) You can only see the outside (meaning that all of the interior is still unknown to you). Finally, there's no sounds, no smells, no tastes, and no feelings (such as the wind blowing or the heat of the sun). This image lacks 99.9% of what makes the Basilica what it is, and your perception of what it truly represents changes based on where and when the picture is taken.
Which brings me to the question, do believers believe God is male? If so why? Does he have a penis and testicles and testosterone-related hair-loss problems? Does he produce sperm? What if God is really of indeterminate gender but the fact that the Bible was only written by men gives God a false masculine ego.
They really shouldn't, since gender is a physical attribute. However, there are two reasons that God is referred to as a male. The first and most obvious reason is that the masculine form of a word is used when referring to a collective. For example, "mankind" refers to all humans, and encompasses both male and female people and qualities. The second reason is that while gender itself may be restricted to physical shape and capabilities, the state of being masculine or feminine does not. That's why many languages use a masculine noun for some objects and a feminine noun for others. God is often referred to as a male because the qualities he displays are often more representative of the masculine rather than the feminine (especially in the Old Testament).
-
@Mangled
You compared God with science. your saying we get to choose what makes you a "Man", the physical features of a male. The word Man does not nessecarily mean Male, it's more focused towards the "mankind" sort of thing.
If I say "once there was a man..." you will immediately produce a mental image of a male adult human. Besides, I said male you thicko.
Which brings me to the question, do believers believe God is male?
@Mangled
Science is not everything ;)
You're sat at a computer that is the product of decades and decades of science. Science is certainly not "everything" but science is very important and all modern societies are based around it. This thread isn't about science vs creation, but for purposes of not losing integrity scientific arguments are accepted as part of the debate.
They really shouldn't, since gender is a physical attribute. However, there are two reasons that God is referred to as a male. The first and most obvious reason is that the masculine form of a word is used when referring to a collective. For example, "mankind" refers to all humans, and encompasses both male and female people and qualities. The second reason is that while gender itself may be restricted to physical shape and capabilities, the state of being masculine or feminine does not. That's why many languages use a masculine noun for some objects and a feminine noun for others. God is often referred to as a male because the qualities he displays are often more representative of the masculine rather than the feminine (especially in the Old Testament).
I agree that God does seem a masculine figure in the Judeo-Christian faiths although I can't tell if that's influenced by the writers or of masculine-dominance we have in our societies.
-
Meh.
The dogmatic views of God feed a few strange things. One would be that he seems masculine, and is refered to as the Father, which -imo- is more of a product of the society that grew from the teachings. The other is stuff like creationism and intelligent design.
Making things up. Right. An omnipotent being is most likely unimaginable and undescribable. My ramblings in this thread where just attempts to tackle the thought itself - however, these things, like what exactly God is, the existance of heaven and hell, the existance of an immortal soul, etc. are -once again, imo- NOT the main point of christianity, and it's sad that we have to debate over them again and again.
The real fundaments of the church and the whole religion were laid down by Paul, and his letters are worth reading for anyone, because they have every essential teaching described in a clear and simple way.