Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
maculated
Trad climber
San Luis Obispo, CA
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2005 - 02:14am PT
|
Okay Jody, I'll play along simply because I don't want to do anything but screw around on the computer for a while.
On the subject of religion, yes, I am closed-minded. I was a pretty devout little Catholic for years. Got confirmed, went to Catholic school and CCD and all that. Now, no stupid priest-little-boy jokes, and no telling me that Catholicism is a cult or not Christian. I get really annoyed by people's statements of fear like those. I have tolerance for Catholicism as I do for other religions because I know what religion does for a person.
The thing is, when you start to ask questions and seek out answers in a void of faith - you are NOT led back to the Christian God unless you are looking to have that happen. It took me a long time to be able to type or say the things I am saying. I had hell and sin indoctrinated into me. Saying, "I am not Catholic" is an utter rejection of what my parents hoped to instill into me and I did not take it lightly.
Point is, I am not a stranger to monotheistic religion. I know the same tenets you're preaching - I used to preach them. I am, indeed, close-minded when it comes to religion because it is one of the few things I've really spent serious time researching and thinking about (because as I said, letting go of Catholic heritage is hard . . . if I ever get married, I'll probably still get married in the church or my parents will die). It is one of those things where I am confident in my ability to say, "Yes, I think I may have this one right." Or, more likely, "Yes, what I have ruled out will stay ruled out" if that makes sense.
Jody said: "The posters seem rather set in their beliefs. Hmmm..."
As are you. I'm not looking to change yours. My belief is that if that's what makes you live your life as justly as you do and with virtue in mind, I am happy with that. I am also happy that you have a solid foundation of faith on which to stand.
Jody said: "First, I guess I can assume that most of you believe Jesus existed and that he was a good man and spoke the truth."
Well, I can agree with the first part. And I can probably agree with the second part. I don't know about the third part. What kind of truth are we talking about? Forgiving God versus previous toys-with-people God? Beatitudes truth? Platonic Truth?
Jody says: "Christians do not say that Christianity is the only religion because they are arrogant, close-minded, fools, and judgmental. They say it because they believe what Jesus said."
Again, you skipped right over the warrant that I reject - that Jesus spoke the truth of monotheistic God.
Consider this, Jody - there are other kinds of Gods out there. There are Hindu gods. There are animist gods. Greek gods. Etc. Think about this for a moment - the God that Jesus tells you about, that you believe was developed in one region. Interestingly, it is also the region in which hunting/gathering seems to have ended and agriculture prevails. All monotheistic religions are borne out of agriculture as far as I can tell. The idea was sparked by reading Quinn's "Story of B" and my research confirms this.
So agriculture is based on the same kind of solipsism that destroyed the First Nation in America . . . conquer and destroy, do not live in the world: dominate the world. That's the big rub - your God is based on a premise that you are meant to dominate, and are therefore privy to solipsism because God mandates it in the opening of the Bible. The Jews are the chosen ones. Christian disciples in turn become the chosen ones.
Other Christ-figures came after. You have ::cough cough:: Joseph Smith. You have Muhammad. The latter two are latter day Christ Figures who came with new messages that changed the course of human religion in their regions as drastically and profoundly as Jesus did. Yet you reject these religions. Why is that? How do you know Jesus is okay but the others are not? They, too, have scriptures.
Jody said: "Christianity is not a religion per se, it is a relationship with God."
On that warrant, you're saying that my relationship is wrong and yours is right? Given what you know about the human capability to enter into relationships of many types, how can there be a right or wrong?
Jody said: "It is based on trust in Jesus and what He did on the cross, not on what we might be able to do for ourselves."
Why, Jody? What's the warrant here? Jesus died for forgiveness of your sins. Did he just take all responsibility for yourself away, then? It is an infantile relationship. What exactly does your concept of God aim you for, then? What is the purpose of your existence?
There are a few answers to this that I can think of:
To spread the word of God - and the cynic in me says that if God truly had decided that humanity was chosen to be saved as a whole, he would not have revealed himself to one sector and allowed them to call themselves the "chosen people."
To procreate - again, if we procreate, we're spreading the word of God through our children, right?
It can't simply be to exist here and endure tests God hurls at us to make us worthy for Heaven - I thought that was what Jesus was for . . . the days of Job are over. Forgiveness, mercy. There is no vengeful God in the New Testament.
Jody said: "(How mac can equate that to "me, me, me" is a little puzzling)."
You are continuing a tenet of belief that says that YOU, above me, above the poor little pagans in the jungles, are chosen. And beyond that, going back to my agricultural thing - it also qualifies that taking over the world to procreate and dominate with your religion. If that is not human-egocentric I don't know what is.
There are other options out there.
Jody said: "Buddha, Confucius, et al, didn't rise from the dead. Muhammad didn't fulfill very detailed prophecy. Alexander the Great didn't raise people from the dead or miraculously heal people."
Oh dear. Buddha did not ask to be worshipped. Nor did Confucious. They were not performing miracles to show people their connection to God. They were working to attain a perfect realtionship with God. It is not their fault that human nature chose to venerate them. Nobody that I know worships Alexander the Great nor venerates him as a son of God. He was a conquerer, a heroic, epic conquerer.
Jesus fulfilled his very detailed prophecy VERY easily. "Eli, Eli . . ." anyone with a little knowledge of the Torah could have said that.
The connection you made there with Alex the Great is very interesting. Why would you do that? Was Jesus an epic conquerer? He could be. Haven't given that spin enough thought.
But here's the rub, Jody. Drop a television or some healing herbs on those people 2,000 years ago and they, too, would call you a god. They have shown how the plagues could have happened through scientific explanation. There are plenty of ways to raise Lazarus, I've read that science, too.
The biggest warrant you make that I would have to agree with, that I have already rejected, is faith that the Bible is 100% true as reported. You can't argue that to anyone who isn't looking to believe that. It is DEFINITELY founded in fact. The great flood happened, but not over the entire world as we know it. The plagues could happen. Egypt happened. Jesus probably did exist. Did he feed the multitudes? Did he heal the sick? I don't know. People in tent revivals think travelling pastors do it, too.
I'm not an atheist, by the way.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2005 - 02:14am PT
|
Fact one: Geological records show very clearly that there was indeed a water deluge - a flood.
Well, so much for the veracity of fact one: absolutely false - a) the geological record shows no evidence whatsoever of a single worldwide water deluge that would fit the bill. And b) you'd have to believe in evolution if you believe all the life on earth derived from pairs of animals in an ark as the diveristy of species wouldn't fit in a boat (we won't even get into how those pairs of insects, tuberculosis, smallpox, measles, rabies, malaria, and chargas marched aboard or where they quietly berthed).
Fact two - ten: Self-referencing and a classic case of circular reasoning.
These are all leaps of faith, not a real fact among them...
|
|
maculated
Trad climber
San Luis Obispo, CA
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2005 - 02:25am PT
|
Oh God, this reminds me of my mother's "facts."
Proof of the Bible
Fact one - I agree with this one.
Fact two - Oop, already skipped to the warrant that the Bible is fact. Where's that proof?
Fact three - "Are these great men of the Bible wrong?" Well, if you accept that the Bible is fact, I guess not. Still no proof on that one. BTW, the hebrew word for brother and comrade are the same. Did Jesus have siblings? NOBODY can prove that one either.
Fact four - "The genealogical records found in God’s word are intricately accurate." And the Lord of the Rings is intricately accurate. And Klingon is a real language people can speak fluently. The proof is?
Fact five - Same same same.
Fact six - "The throne of England contains records that show it is the throne of King David. Records can also be found in France connecting many of those kings to the genealogical records found in God’s holy, sacred and perfected word."
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I'm not laughing at you, but it's pretty funny to me. Might I direct you to this website: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~dschwart/engl513/courtly/translat.htm
Records in England and France connecting them to anything aside from their anglo-saxon backgrounds are pretty much all falsified because they wanted to be "cool."
Fact seven - "Halley’s Bible Handbook by Henry H. Halley and The Bible as History by Werner Keller use ancient archaeology to prove the Bible true, and should be on everyone’s book shelf."
Would need a summary for that, but based on the proofs so far, I'm not putting it on my bookshelf any time soon.
Fact eight - "Many ancient cultures record in their histories a time when the world was dark for a day, stayed light for a day, when the sun set for a day or rose in the east and stayed there for about a day."
That's interesting. I would love to read about that. Again, that's one incidence that's spread across an entire culture, it probably did happen then. But that doesn't say everything in the Bible is true.
Fact nine - "The Ten Commandments that were written by the Lord on stone, Aaron’s rod that budded, and a jar containing the manna (bread from heaven) were placed in the Ark were constant reminders to the Israelites that these miracles did happen anciently." Where's the proof here? The Ark was lost.
Fact ten - "King Cyrus was not a fictional character. His tomb is in the Middle East to this day." When was the Torah written? Hmm.
Again . . . this "proof" is about as useful as a circular proof of any account of historical fiction. The names and faces in some cases have not been changed, but it sure does make a nice story. Not proof.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2005 - 02:31am PT
|
Another thing, your god has historically been the point of the spear of genocide with his missionaries prime carriers of the diseases that wiped out many indigenous peoples in the new world and around the globe. My wife's tribal nation has been declared officially "extinct" in Canada due to smallpox alone (a WMD of agricultural societies), to say nothing of being relentlessly murdered as "savages" on their way to that "official" disexistence. Your god had nothing on theirs other than the savageness of those that represented him.
|
|
maculated
Trad climber
San Luis Obispo, CA
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2005 - 02:38am PT
|
"To specify one of them, Joseph Smith, et al did not fulfill any prophesies or heal the sick or raise people from the dead, Jesus was the most unique person ever to walk on the earth."
Did you miss the point at the end of that? That your argument is based on the warrant that the Bible is 100% fact, and since this cannot be proven as I've outlined with the points you think would answer them, it can't be proved as fact.
Here's the thing, Jody. I'm not tenaciously saying, "OOOOOOH, the Bible is all lies!" It's not. It's a wonderful historical fiction, just like some of the best Greek and Roman writings about the wars. The New Testament, the part you REALLY have to prove to get that warrant of yours to work, was written at the earliest 80 years after Jesus died. That's at least 1 generation removed.
The argument of divine inspiration comes up and that's based on the same warrant, too. The persons writing the Bible would have to be as perfect as Jesus to be the perfect mediums between God and text. Any writer can tell you that words are limiters. That's the funniest thing to me about close Bible study - you can interpret whatever you want - but words only exist to attempt to fill a vacuum of understanding. Those words might be perfect texts for God, but the permutations of interpretation means God didn't wire us all right if we don't all understand his words the same way.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2005 - 02:39am PT
|
They have to do with how all the various plants, insects, and bacteria survived your flood. Really, the whole fable is so human-centric as to be laughable. Look around, visit a zoo, google for "number of species" - we're back to the Tooth Fairy here as the biomass of two of every organism on land would be staggering - hell, skip evolution, just do the math, it doesn't hold water let alone float for forty days and nights...
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2005 - 03:31am PT
|
Mac - you can agree with fact one all you like, but the fact of the matter is nowhere in geological record is there anything remotely like the worldwide flood described by Noah's fable.
|
|
TradIsGood
Trad climber
Gunks end of country
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2005 - 07:37am PT
|
The origin of religion - perhaps (not the origin of man)
Suppose way back in prehistory there were men who were very strong and those who were not. Strength would be an asset for survival in a competitive world. They could run faster, kill game more easily, and even steal it from other men.
Suppose also that there were some weaker men who had a predisposition to form relationships. They had an ability to communicate effectively. Perhaps they could express ideas in a way that was convincing. They spend a lot of time trying to figure out how the universe works, why it is what it is, and so forth. Men with similar thoughts might very well tend to associate with each other in groups, gaining strength from numbers rather than pure physical strength.
In some environments the two manage to co-exist. In others, perhaps the strong are eliminated by the spiritual. But disagreements arise within the group. The group fragments. To distinguish which group one is in, they adopt distinctive clothing, or grow or cut beards. They stop communicating between groups and become distrustful of others. They disperse geographically and linguistically, increasing the separation.
Eventually the groups form religions, which must quest always for power. As civilization develops, the quest for power occurs politically and economically as well.
This natural tendency to group can be observed today in large cities and internet forums.
What would be required to believe this argument? One - that there is some genetic basis for the behavioral/intellectual difference. Two - that the difference conveyed a selective competitive advantage (and that selection works). Three - that the competitive advantage is not strong enough to eliminate those without it, or that we have not yet reached that point.
What is not required? That any of the beliefs actually be correct.
Conveniently, though not conclusively, it can also explain political development from tribal through modern forms.
|
|
426
Sport climber
The Pet Sematary, TN
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2005 - 10:13am PT
|
Jody: Which Mormons?
A lot of my fervent baptist brethren down here would disagree with you; they feel that Mormons are cultists.
Hold the phone; I got a call comin' in. We're playing 'Phone' Bible D&D over here....the best rest day activity...
Djian™ strolls down the corridor, checking for loot™~Ahead a door opens...
Isaiah 11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
Isaiah 14:29 Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.
Isaiah 59:5 They hatch cockatrice' eggs, and weave the spider's web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper.
The Cockatrice
Djian the Dwarf rolls '01' and slays the cockatrice with his +1 A5 Warhammer™.
But look out, down the hall, for here comes...
Jeremiah 9:11 And I will make Jerusalem heaps, and a den of dragons; and I will make the cities of Judah desolate, without an inhabitant.
Musing...
Christians oughta market this whole "dragons, flyin' fiery serpents and cockatri™" blend; I for one might dig it! Seriously, look up Bel and the Dragon; that apocrypha chit is rad!
|
|
Hootervillian
climber
Ponderosa, NV
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2005 - 10:41am PT
|
426,
China has been marketing the Cockatrice Blend™ for years. They call it a Chinese Crested.....
hatched with extra limbs and a vindictive countenance, the 'Crested' is known to chew off any parts which might leave them cornered yet still hold the rest of the world's creatures responsible for the bloody stub.
|
|
426
Sport climber
The Pet Sematary, TN
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2005 - 10:41am PT
|
Whoa!
Scary monster. Breaking...Poor Sam, "there'll never be another."
Conference call(?) I think this party needs a Cleric! Salve with balms the bloody rampages of the Crested™.
|
|
Hootervillian
climber
Ponderosa, NV
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2005 - 11:05am PT
|
stand back..... 426......
i've rolled a 19 Initiative, together with my Dexterity bonus....
May (insert name of deity here) guide my blade!
|
|
Spinmaster K-Rove
Trad climber
Stuck Under the Kor Roof
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2005 - 11:21am PT
|
Proof of the Bible? Jody its all hyperbole. They are stories through which lessons are passed down. Some of the events are historical, but its like a giant game of telephone through the ages. The Bible has changed so many times and by so many people with so many agendas. You yourself in one thread said that the Bible was to be taken literally, every word, and then said that there were parts that you didn't follow anymore because they had been intended for a different people in a different time. I'm all for the Bible as a source of inspiration and guidance if that is what you choose, but I get very frustrated when people try to say the Bible has one clear message, or that it was written directly by the hand of god. It's a very scattered and confusing collection of stories passed down by people to other people who altered it and changed it to suit their needs.
|
|
yo
climber
NOT Fresno
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2005 - 11:22am PT
|
WTF is up with that dog?
Try this out:
Fact one: Historical records agree that there was a man called Jesus born in 1 B.C. Wait, that doesn't work. How about 1 A.D.? Wait. Call it Year 0.
Fact two: The Book tells us how Jesus married Mary Magdelene, and had a daughter by her, although that is quite a cliffhanger and is only revealed, breathtakingly, in the later chapters, during a short break in a car chase.
Fact three: Peter the vice-Messiah was quite a jealous little minx. He wanted that broad dead.
Fact four: After the death of Jesus there was--handily--a proponderence of good Christian fellers with large swords and a lot of spare time; (semi-colon! boom!) Mary got a bunch of these shiftless do-gooders to look after the kid and the Jesus Empire. She called them the Knights Templar.
Fact five: Naughty Peter started the Catholic Church. Still no broads allowed. Mary and litte Jesusina were forced to run to France. The Knights Templar killed enough infidels to keep the kid living in immoral wealth.
Fact six: A millenium passed, give or take a few centuries. What, you don't believe in centuries now?
Fact seven: Leonardo Da Vinci, a weird old gay kook, took the Catholic Church's money and painted paintings with secret puzzles about Jesus and the power of the feminine goddess or some sh#t. Nobody but a character in a badly written novel could ever figure this stuff out, and even then it would only take nine seconds.
Fact eight: All these loads of gold just sat around, because no crusader worth his salt likes gold and prefers to store it up in exchange for the treasures of heaven, which won't be coming his way because he's such a mass murderer, unless of course it's a war, in which case it's not murder, simply killing, and if you kill you're still good to go in the presence of God and a few dozen virgins. (If that ain't a fact, I don't know what is.)
Fact nine: Treasure's pretty frickin' heavy, but they carted it out of France and off to Ireland or somewhere. I forget exactly. What else would you do during the Dark Ages but truck around unimaginable wealth and rebury it somewhere else? Also, everybody was boycotting France.
Fact ten: Yo is saving his pennies to get off to Europe and get himself some o' that loot, with Book in hand.
|
|
Hootervillian
climber
Ponderosa, NV
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2005 - 11:26am PT
|
I know some that became born-again Christians, but still consider themselves Mormons because that is what they have "been" all their lives.
yep much clearer now, i think.
Being a Christian is about a relationship with God. Being a member of a sect is about relationships with man.
fair enough, what now should we do with the .sect industry?
Ed. Fact three: Peter the vice-Messiah was quite a jealous little minx. He wanted that broad dead.
LOL, stellar
|
|
Hootervillian
climber
Ponderosa, NV
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2005 - 11:31am PT
|
would you go for a 'weed out the pagans'™ tax referendum?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2005 - 11:37am PT
|
Spinmaster wrote: "To be intellectually honest you have to have no personal interest in the outcome beyond its discovery."
IOW, you have to be interested in what is true, not what some part of you wants to be true, which is the rap against creationism and all the rest. They go into the game looking not for what is true, but for what will "prove" their agenda. That is NOT intellectually honest--but it is something that ALL of us do.
It's strange, but I've said it several times on this site -- many wisdom traditions (so-called "spiritual" traditions)are not based on intellectual concepts, dogma, faith or beliefs at all. What do you imagine they do work off?? How might that work, in your opinion??
JL
|
|
maculated
Trad climber
San Luis Obispo, CA
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2005 - 11:40am PT
|
Healyje - you're missing what I agree with. I don't agree there was a single, worldwide flood.
Think about the mindset of the people back then - the world was pretty small. It was that little tiny region. There IS evidence, as far as I know, of a big flood in that little tiny "world."
It's all perspective.
|
|
426
Sport climber
Another Slopey Nightmare, TN
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2005 - 11:57am PT
|
Hoot= Was that a Cleric or Rogue? High on Dex. low on Wis.? Djian's patron is Cthulu™ , so we're on new skool AD&D rules.
Need a 'little help' here...got some pesky demon goats to clear.
Isaiah 13:21
"But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there."
Fuggin' owls...always with the owls...
Djian rolls '13' and takes a hit from the pan flute. -7 HP (with modifier).
|
|
pc
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 23, 2005 - 12:32pm PT
|
Has anyone asked the question, Jody are you a troll?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!