Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
No,
just his points were fairly obvious and not at all obtuse.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
so largo--i take it you know yourself and are empowered? that would make you the one person on this thread?
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
So when does Zen and the Art of Climbing Anchors hit the shelves?
First there is extension,
Then there is no extension,
Then there is.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
"The last question is the only reasonable question to discuss." Not for those who bother enough to distinguish between them. God Jehovah is as fictitious as God Zeus or God Amon-Re.
Not distinguishing between the many and various god concepts is as useless as not distinguishing between workshop tools. How far does that get you?
Or perhaps even better: it is as useless as not distinguishing between knots. It points to ignorance. To distinguish them doesn't point to "arrogance" (the cry of those on the losing side), either, but to education, experience with that education.
Christians and Muslims call their God God. Don't let them. Reframe it. Their God is Jehovah. Among those who distinguish God concepts, who are read across many theologies, there is not so much useless argument, there is actually intelligent discourse.
The difference between Jehovah (the God of the ancient Hebrews and modern Jews, Muslims and Christians) and Diacrates (the hypothetical Intelligence physicists and others speculate about as a possibility) is as different as paper tiger and tiger.
Challenge yourselves. Get with it.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
Paul-
That was so well said, especially:
On the other hand if you say god is simply a final term as in "energy is God as it is eternal and can neither be created nor destroyed" well, that I might buy.
I may misunderstand Largo, but I think that is what he is trying to say when he describes the witness that remains when discursive thought is finished??
Both I believe, are trying to find the ultimate constant of the universe, the glue that holds it together. Of course this is very impersonal, which is what the non theistic religions of the East propose.
They are still confronted with the human experience of interacting with something that does seem to grant favors/understanding, has a sense of humor at times, teaches hard lessons, and comforts. The East deals with this by positing Boddhisattvas , angels, ancestral spirits and so on, (benevolent life in other dimensions) many of which are also familiar to western religion. Many modern people would maintain that these are simply mental projections of ourselves or Jung's "collective unconscious", something that could perhaps, be more easily explored.
In any case, we may be talking about two different phenomena, which might open up the possibilities for understanding more, or just confuse them further.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
One can be just an observer in this thread.
Largo makes some statement.
Then all these clucking chickens start squawking in circles around the statement making no sense at all.
Knowing who you are is the first real step .....
|
|
paganmonkeyboy
climber
mars...it's near nevada...
|
|
do you think more people believe because they want to be better to each other and want an example, or do you think more people believe because they are afraid ? afraid of death, being alone, not belonging, burning in hell, etc...
honest question. i've met maybe three people that tell me they are trying to be better people, and all the rest bring up fear of hell first and foremost...
sorta sad, imho
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
|
|
The Koran was written by God too...
No, it wasn't...
It was written by Mohamad, as dictated to him by the angel Gabriel. Thus, they believe it is devinely inspired...
…And to be fair, it [Qur'an] is much more devinely inspired than the NT, as it was passed directly to Mohamad from God through Gabriel. The NT however, was written by many men, decades to over a century after the fact, then edited and revised numerous times. What books were written by actual 'eye witnesses' were not canonized, since they didn't fit the "Mythological Jesus" they wanted to center the religion on.
According to Muslim tradition, Mohammed was under the tutelage of the angel Gabriel and was bestowed with prescribed precepts…. but he wrote none of them down himself, the content being verbally memorized by his companions (sahaba) who could not read or write. The Qur’an did not exist in collected written form at Mohammed’s death in 632.
As sahaba gradually became literate, the Qu’ran was recorded on tablets, deerskin and other media….various versions existed. The third caliph Uthman ibn Affan ordered the preparation of an official, standardized version, about 650 CE….and other versions burned.
Most of the Quaranic text can be evidenced combining extant manuscript fragments from the first century after Mohammed’s death…the first complete version, more than two centuries after.... .
|
|
rrrADAM
climber
LBMF
|
|
rrrADAM, your statement below is a half-truth.
"Ummm... If you look into it, most Biblical scholars agree that not a single book of the cannonized NT was written by a person who actually knew Jesus, or witnessed any of the events described in it persoanlly."
Mark, Matthew, and Luke were 'written' by people who knew and followed the three apostles closely, heard their stories and probably even helped them write, since they were very old men or had just died by the time they were written. John was written by himself and was an apostle.
And, of all the Gospels, John is the given the least credibility by scholars. As I said, many confuse "traditional" beliefs as historically accurate, but those beliefs were heavily influenced by the early church fathers, and todays Fundies have done a reall hatchet job on the history as of late. Biblical scholars do their best to objectively seperate fact from fiction, "history" from "tradition". There is a reason why a significant portion of theologions with post graduate degrees or higher are agnostics or atheists, as coupling disciplined objective thinking with an expertise in the subject matter leads many to see just how absurd it is.
You may wish to start with these guys:
http://www.westarinstitute.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar
And, it appears you aren't familiar with the "Synoptic Problem", are you?
BTW... It is obvious that you read my reply(ies), that were information dense, with many points, but that you have ignored every point, only 'cherry picking' what you [confidently yet mistakenly] thought you could readily dismiss. How 'bout addressing ALL of the points?
Ignore... Ignore... Deny... Deny...
|
|
rrrADAM
climber
LBMF
|
|
Sorry Dr. F, I forgot that you're in on it to. So, what medical training did you go through Dr. F or is that just a screen name? Not saying he has a PhD, but ANYONE with a PhD is a Dr... They don't have to be a medical doctor.
So, if someone get's a PhD in Theology, they too are a Dr.
Don't really understand how acedemia (higher education) works, do you?
Or was that just a weak ad hominem?
|
|
rrrADAM
climber
LBMF
|
|
I also think God created the earth and heavens over billions of years. "WHY" do you think that?
'Just because'?
See... That's the difference between science and faith, as in science we have to have a 'reason' to think something is valid, else it is just speculation.
And, they can articulate WHY they believe it. Now, can you even reasonably articulate WHY you believe that?
Ya know, Azimov wrote a nice little essay that is relevant here:
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
To summarize:
Not so long ago, there was a group of scientists who were convinced that the world was flat... Given what they knew about the world, they even had arguments, as well as historical belief, to make the case for this.
There was also a group of scientists who though the world was a perfect sphere, and they too had arguments to make their case.
Well, as it turns out, neither is technically correct, since the world isn't flat, not is it a perfect sphere, but is instead more of an oblate sphere with bumps and dimples on it.
The point... One is certainly "more wrong" (or right) than the other. Yet, all too often people say or think, if it's all "theory" then they are all equal. Not true.
|
|
rrrADAM
climber
LBMF
|
|
...how religiously and theologically illiterate American pop culture is...
|
|
rrrADAM
climber
LBMF
|
|
According to Muslim tradition, Mohammed was under the tutelage of the angel Gabriel and was bestowed with prescribed precepts…. but he wrote none of them down himself, the content being verbally memorized by his companions (sahaba) who could not read or write. The Qur’an did not exist in collected written form at Mohammed’s death in 632.
As sahaba gradually became literate, the Qu’ran was recorded on tablets, deerskin and other media….various versions existed. The third caliph Uthman ibn Affan ordered the preparation of an official, standardized version, about 650 CE….and other versions burned.
Most of the Quaranic text can be evidenced combining extant manuscript fragments from the first century after Mohammed’s death…the first complete version, more than two centuries after.... .
I stand corrected, Thanx!
Source?
As I understand it, he did write much, and that is what was collected by his followers, and compiled after his death into the text.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
interesting notes on koranic scripture.
islam seems to inject a certain tone of sanity into monotheism, not that i'd ever be interested in pursuing it. i have had some acquaintances make their hejira from christianity to islam and feel quite at peace there. rather intelligent people too.
isn't it interesting that mohammed came along when he did, lived the life he did, had the supposed inspiration he had, and never saw the "light" of jesus?
also interesting that mohammed's grave is in medinah, and visiting it seems to be a fairly sober affair.
according to catholic tradition, jesus arose from the dead, and mary, their demigoddess, was "assumed" into heaven after her death. because of the terms of redemption, these are the only two people who have passed onto eternal life with their bodies.
but then we have elijah, taken directly into heaven on a chariot of fire. they don't talk about that much in catholic churches. later came ezekiel, who brought the beautiful youths killed by nabuchadnezzar back to life. but they got married, had kids, and died a second time.
it sure is nice up in the sierra. all these ancient headaches are so easily forgotten.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
The reason Islam and Christianity is so prominent in our history is because those religions were developing the same time as our written language, so they were the first major religion to be spread around to masses via written form Judaism was one of the first "written" religions. Writing appeared in Egypt and Mesopotamia well before 2,000 BCE, long before Christianism or Islamism. The Phoenician alphabet began to appear about 1,000 BCE, which is to say at about the same time as a nomadic people identifiably Hebrew showed up in nearby Palestine, and eventually adapted the alphabet for their own use. Interestingly, that also coincided with the appearance of the idea of human history.
|
|
illusiondweller
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2010 - 12:34am PT
|
"Why do so many people believe in God?"
Because we "ought" (the least we can do) to. Look what he did for us!
|
|
illusiondweller
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2010 - 12:36am PT
|
On one such night, I read the story of the Good Samaritan. In my mind, I became the "Good Samaritan." Most sermons I have heard about this text makes the main application be that "we shouldn't be like the Levite or the priest who passed by the wounded man without helping him. We should be like the Good Samaritan."
|
|
illusiondweller
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2010 - 12:36am PT
|
However, God showed me that this is not the meaning of the story. Jesus was teaching us about Himself. The main lesson isn't that we are to help the pitiful, helpless man - it's that we are the pitiful, helpless man! Jesus is the Good Samaritan who found us after legalism and religion didn't lift a finger to help us.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!