The holy bible...........or not so?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 12:18 am
@wayne,
wayne;172841 wrote:
Wow, that is amazing, I have felt caught out in the cold too. Don't worry about the math, it hates me.

There may be a few of us out there, but it's a hard road at times.
People like definitions and would rather be told how to believe.
Besides, it's not easy to describe, words just don't do it.

Your idea of love as the primary is great, we just don't need anything else.


Before you write off math, check out a few of my crazy threads! I like the beautiful math. But enough of that...

I have tried on many many belief systems. I think it was logic strictly applied and math even that made something click. Wittgenstein's TLP is a bomb on superstition. Math & Hegel lead me to the absolute concept, which is empty. All concept is temporary and vulnerable, in my opinion.

Love is such a radically simple solution to the "problem" of religion. It's a punch in the face. We indeed simply do not need anything else, because enough Love allows us to find ourselves in those already dead and those not yet living. Hence fearlessness, or relative fearlessness. And also a lack of envy, because Love itself is Paradise. :detective:
 
wayne
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 12:31 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;172847 wrote:
Before you write off math, check out a few of my crazy threads! I like the beautiful math. But enough of that...

I have tried on many many belief systems. I think it was logic strictly applied and math even that made something click. Wittgenstein's TLP is a bomb on superstition. Math & Hegel lead me to the absolute concept, which is empty. All concept is temporary and vulnerable, in my opinion.

Love is such a radically simple solution to the "problem" of religion. It's a punch in the face. We indeed simply do not need anything else, because enough Love allows us to find ourselves in those already dead and those not yet living. Hence fearlessness, or relative fearlessness. And also a lack of envy, because Love itself is Paradise. :detective:


I wandered around a lot too. I seem to have a natural aversion to things that don't add up, I can see why you like math.

Love is a kind of fearless selflessness that has power beyond our comprehension, it does require courage of us.
I had a thought about that relationship with the dead and the future awhile back but I can't find it now, there is something to that though.

I think it's a bit like how you can see better in the dark by not looking directly at things, when i try too hard to grasp it, it starts to require defining and I lose it again.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 12:42 am
@wayne,
wayne;172851 wrote:
I wandered around a lot too. I seem to have a natural aversion to things that don't add up, I can see why you like math.

Right, I think there is an itch for coherence. We want our ideas to fit together as perfectly as possible. To stay on thread, I remember being stirred by the sayings of Jesus, but some of them seemed incompatible. The afterlife concept distracts from the love concept. If we are seeking an afterlife, then religion is an investment.

Of course exposure to science and the history of religion utterly destroyed the bible as written by God as often conceived. At least for me. And yet the book is so brilliant. For awhile Ecclesiastes was my nihilist comfort. All is vanity. A way not to worry too much. But lines like "Before Abraham was, I am" stuck to me. And I also read great writers who were not traditional believers. Walt Whitman is a poet for the ages. If you don't know him already, I can't recommend him enough. Harold Bloom compared Whitman to the resurrected earthy Jesus. The American Jesus who doesn't think of death, who is in love with Life.

---------- Post added 06-04-2010 at 01:47 AM ----------

wayne;172851 wrote:

I had a thought about that relationship with the dead and the future awhile back but I can't find it now, there is something to that though.

For me, we all meet at our highest human potential, which is nothing but intense love which is also the perception of beauty. I think this is Plato's Form of the Good. A personal interpretation that clicks with God is Love.

If Love is our highest "self" then all humanity through the ages has had its moments. Those in the future, when they are full of love, will be very much like us here in our highest moments. So what dies is not what is important. I like to think of a flame leaping from melting candle to melting candle. If the candle (we) thinks its wax is more important than its flame, it (we) suffers.

To stay on thread, the Book cannot be holy except inasmuch as everything as holy, if "it" (the whole) is lit by love which is the true good.Smile

---------- Post added 06-04-2010 at 01:48 AM ----------

wayne;172851 wrote:

I think it's a bit like how you can see better in the dark by not looking directly at things, when i try too hard to grasp it, it starts to require defining and I lose it again.


I have this idea related to math and logic that wards off any temptation to define/delimit it. But I don't want to pour it all over this thread.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 07:32 am
@wayne,
wayne;172754 wrote:
Yes, it is similar, but I think we should stop short of defining God.
God remains outside of our human understanding and cannot be defined.
The creation in which we live is of God, and part of God, but is not all of God.


Hi Wayne,

I am more than happy to define God. But, what must be recognised is that my God is my God alone - In other words - Only I see God as I see God.
I know not two persons that can percieve God in exactitude with one another.

Thank you, and have a splendid day.

Mark...

---------- Post added 06-04-2010 at 02:39 PM ----------

Hi All,

Is there a chance of getting back to the thread soon?

Thank you, and have a brilliant day, All.

Mark...
 
Neil D
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 06:01 pm
@Klope3,
Klope3;172521 wrote:

How about this:

It was government that acted on Manifest Destiny and drove countless Native Americans from their rightful homes. It was government that massacred millions of Jews for no better reason then their heritage. It was government that sent hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers to fight a war in Vietnam which many people still believe was unwinnable. It STILL is government that dictates that unborn children can be terminated before they have a chance at life. "The good that comes from [government] will never outweigh the destruction that it causes." Therefore, all government should be abolished forever.


I won't dispute the fact that evil exists in the world, and its even worse when its organized. However, this thread is about religion.

On that note. Let the religious worship ther imaginary beings. But when their sickness gets to a point where they feel that I, and others must die because we dont share in the same delusion. Then we have a problem.

Also, I can't say i know of any governments where raping children is a passtime activity, but if there are. Then that is also a problem.

Its only my opinion that the world would be a better place if it excluded religion and relied solely on science and the like.

I was brought up catholic and brainwashed with that Heaven and Hell foolishness. Even believed it for a while. Until I became rational(sort of).
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 06:08 pm
@Neil D,
Neil;173138 wrote:
I won't dispute the fact that evil exists in the world, and its even worse when its organized. However, this thread is about religion.

On that note. Let the religious worship ther imaginary beings. But when their sickness gets to a point where they feel that I, and others must die because we dont share in the same delusion. Then we have a problem.

Also, I can't say i know of any governments where raping children is a passtime activity, but if there are. Then that is also a problem.

Its only my opinion that the world would be a better place if it excluded religion and relied solely on science and the like.

I was brought up catholic and brainwashed with that Heaven and Hell
foolishness. Even believed it for a while. Until I became rational(sort of).




Amen brother! :listening:
 
Klope3
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 09:24 pm
@reasoning logic,
Krumple;172843 wrote:
Well this is a good question but I think it might have something to do with scope. The universe is incredibly large it would seem strange to me if you were god to create such a large place and only have these incredibly tiny humans as your point for making it? It would be like constructing a sports stadium to hold your six inch diameter fish tank with microscopic bacteria. It just doesn't add up unless you actually planned to have many different planets with many different forms of life all arising at different times. If you designed a set of rules then you could let the laws of the universe do the work for you. Then you wouldn't have to babysit all the details to make sure it turned out right. It's the most efficient method for large scale production. Make the rules do all the work so you don't have to.

But you would then have to accept that god planed for many hundreds of billions of other life forms in the universe on other planets. However very few theists would accept that. It would mean jesus is not special in any way and that we are not the only intelligent life in the universe.


The universe is indeed quite a big place. But look at the direction we're going with space exploration. Sure, we'll probably NEVER explore the whole universe, but if human existence as we know it is allowed to continue long enough, humans will probably expand their borders far past what our relatively tiny planet now inhabits. ("Galactic Empire" Asimov style, maybe...)

It would be a troubling thing indeed if other life was found on other planets, such as Mars. (Though I would at that point question how evolution could possibly be true since it requires ASTRONOMICAL odds to happen even on the one planet Earth--never mind another planet in the same solar system.) I would deal with it as best I could if/when it came. But, it hasn't yet, so I won't fret over it yet.


Krumple;172843 wrote:
What about the element problem? We know that within stars heavier elements are formed through the process of fusion. We know this because the light given off by the star reveals their elements. We also know this because during the after effects of supernovas we can see rings of elements that have been shed from the exploding star which give off different spectrum bands identical to the elements we know.

So if god fashioned everything with these elements, why create stars that also form these elements. That seems like a little absurd back end details. I find it hard to believe that he would make the earth first, and then all the stars. When the earth is made up of many heavy elements. Why create all these heavy elements and then supply us with stars that will produce more heavy elements? Isn't that a little backwards?


It may be an interesting philosophical topic to delve into, but once again--aren't we sort of speculating as to God's intentions?

Krumple;172843 wrote:
Actually no I can't because I wasn't asked if this is what I wanted, it was just sprung on me. If I had never been created I would have never known these things at all. But to then turn around and place conditions on these things, then they really never were gifts or shared things but instead they are obligations without contract. It sounds more like entrapment than anything nice. More like a person trying to contrive some special offer by handing you a bunch of free things, vacations, new clothes, a new car, paid dinners to turn around and say well, now all you have to do is ... If that is the case I would rather of had nothing, because it isn't a gift if there is an attachment or condition.

[...]

"Oh thanks god for giving me life and all these wonderful things. Now I will obey any command you give me no matter what it is or how difficult it might be to keep."


Again, your phrasing (in the last part, this time utilizing understatement) changes my meaning subtly, but that's basically what I'm saying, yes. If someone does something "nice" for you, and you feel gratitude, I would think you'd want some way to express that gratitude. One of the best ways within human power to express gratitude to God is through actions-- through obeying him to whatever extent possible. Some of that obligation would come from God, but much of it would also come from your ("hypothetical") desire to express your gratitude.

However difficult it may be for you, to follow my analogy you need to imagine that nothing which has happened to you in this life has actually happened to you at all, and that instead all you've lived and experienced is joy and perfection. 1) Wouldn't you feel gratitude? (The stuff you've been "hypothetically" given is alot better than cars and vacations--and it includes a relationship with a perfect, loving, all-powerful God.) And 2) wouldn't that gratitude be great enough to at least do *something* within your power for the one who gave you the opportunity to enjoy the joy and perfection?

I suppose it's possible we've reached an impasse regarding whether or not you would express your gratitude to God in this "hypothetical" situation, or whether you would feel any gratitude at all. I believe both would be true, but if we can't agree on that, we might as well drop the analogy and move on.

Krumple;172843 wrote:
Isn't that what you would expect from "imperfection"? But I find it strange that if a great all powerful god made something, that it would have been so imperfect. Why if you are perfect would you create something less than perfect? Unless your whole point is to purposely watch these beings suffer.


It's a good question, and one that has been debated even among Christians for many, many years. I would suggest that, by creating imperfect beings who may suffer and then later come to know salvation, God tells a better "story," and also makes things better for those beings. (THAT is a whole other philosophical discussion, perhaps for another time.)

Krumple;172843 wrote:
Right, however there is a problem. Given enough time all things will eventually happen regardless of the consequences. Why? Boredom. No matter what the rules state, and no matter what the punishment is, if you are living in some place for eternity, eventually you will do that one thing that you were not suppose to do. It is all just a matter of time. It might take a billion years, but eventually you will do it. I guarantee that.


I must say, you're standing on shaky ground here. The reasoning you present is "boredom," and that reasoning assumes that boredom would actually occur in the presence of paradise and a perfect, loving God.

Krumple;172843 wrote:
Well it would have to. On some level you would have to not have certain emotions and certain thoughts. I simply can not see how certain things would transpire. Many of the things you enjoy in this life simply could not exist in a heaven. I find it hard to believe that there would be this hardcore punk band show in heaven just waiting for you when you get there. Chalked full of beer bottles and cigarettes. Just would not happen so if I were to end up in heaven it would become a hell to me, because all the things I enjoy in this life which most people find repulsive just would not happen. How could they? Unless it was all just an illusion, not real just a make believe scenario. If it were just fake to place me into some blissful enjoyment, I wouldn't want it, because it was fake. That is only one problem with heaven. What about your feelings for the people who didn't get to go there? Would you really be able to enjoy yourself if some of the people you loved in this life ended up not going? How could you "live" with yourself? Heaven would turn into a hell, that is unless god would just fabricate that person. But then again that would be a lie, since it wouldn't really be them, it would just be an illusion of them to make you feel happy they were there. I wouldn't want that either. Sure I might not know the truth but that would make god a liar.


You have some interesting thoughts about the nature of the afterlife. But I would assert that there's a bit more to life than punk bands, beer and cigarettes. And that, even with the ideology you seem to profess, you could probably do better than such things for yourself.

Krumple;172843 wrote:
The thoughts themselves are immaterial however they have materialism as their basis. You can't have thoughts without their basis.


Interesting. That actually sounds rather close to what I believe (and what many Christians would say the Bible teaches).

Krumple;172843 wrote:
Well not to offend you but I think you have been fed nonsense with that concept of immaterial morality. It simply does not exist. If it existed it would be clear as day to everyone but I can ask you some simple questions and could you answer them for me?

Is taking drugs morally right or morally wrong?
Is purchasing sex from a prostitute morally right or morally wrong?
Is eating an animal morally right or morally wrong?
Is stealing food so you don't starve, morally right or morally wrong?

See I can't even answer these questions. I have absolutely no idea what is what. If morality were innate I should be able to answer them. The only way in which I can even have a chance to answer them is by their impact on myself or those around me. If everyone around me is cool with it then what is the harm? It's not actually hurting anyone, why would it be morally wrong then? Can you answer them for me? Or does this prove that there are no universal morals?


Actually, you just showed me that morality has both material AND immaterial roots. (I believe the immaterial part because I'm Christian.) But even the material part (the way our actions affect others) would be meaningless in materialism. You say "[if] it's not actually hurting anyone, why would it be morally wrong?". But I say in response to that, "If it IS hurting someone, what makes it morally wrong?" From a materialist standpoint, what's so "wrong" about killing a fellow lump of goo and meat? No more wrong, certainly, than smashing a rock...

----------------------------

Neil;173138 wrote:
I won't dispute the fact that evil exists in the world, and its even worse when its organized. However, this thread is about religion.

On that note. Let the religious worship ther imaginary beings. But when their sickness gets to a point where they feel that I, and others must die because we dont share in the same delusion. Then we have a problem.

Also, I can't say i know of any governments where raping children is a passtime activity, but if there are. Then that is also a problem.

Its only my opinion that the world would be a better place if it excluded religion and relied solely on science and the like.

I was brought up catholic and brainwashed with that Heaven and Hell foolishness. Even believed it for a while. Until I became rational(sort of).


I wasn't turning the thread toward government; I was using an analogy. The point was to show that government, like religion, has caused some pretty nasty things to happen, too.

I'm not sure what biased you like this against "religion," but you might want to have a more open mind. Do you really think that all Christians are just waiting to launch another, global Crusade? Or that every Muslim is getting ready to terrorize America on a national scale? If you do, then you need to look more closely. I'm Christian, and I personally think the Crusades were (almost) entirely STUPID. (The only good thing was that, at the core, they were supposed to be for good.) What the Pope did/is doing/is accused of doing is inexcusable, and either shows that he's unfit to lead or that such a position of glorified figurehead-ship should, perhaps, be disposed of entirely. Meanwhile, there is loads of documentation (see for yourself) showing that the majority of Muslims don't even agree with what Islamic/Islamist terrorists did.

And if the world relied on science alone it would be a much worse place (even going off what your idea of "bad" is). Morality isn't scientific, as I've been discussing with Krumple. There'd be nothing wrong with raping children. The view would be, "If people like to do it, then why get angry about it, right? After all, we're nothing more than heaps of self-actuating biological material. As long as we reproduce, we're serving our purpose. Let's do whatever else we want."
 
Neil D
 
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 08:36 pm
@Klope3,
Klope3;173695 wrote:
I'm not sure what biased you like this against "religion," but you might want to have a more open mind.


That's comical. We all know that religious persons are the most "open" minded people you will ever come across. They would never believe something "just" because they read it in a book, or because someone says it is so. I should strive to be more like them. All I have is this thing called "faith", but its very powerful. With it I can make fantasies real, or just believe in something, and it is so.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 09:23 pm
@Klope3,
Klope3;173695 wrote:
It would be a troubling thing indeed if other life was found on other planets, such as Mars. (Though I would at that point question how evolution could possibly be true since it requires ASTRONOMICAL odds to happen even on the one planet Earth--never mind another planet in the same solar system.) I would deal with it as best I could if/when it came. But, it hasn't yet, so I won't fret over it yet.


I am a little confused by your statements here. If we discovered there was life on mars, you would find it hard to believe evolution were true? If you meant it this way, and it's not some spelling error, has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Life does not mean it can only happen one way. If we find life on other planets, the chances are high that it won't have the same exactly chemical make up. It could, but probably not as likely. We just don't know for certain since we haven't found any yet. But even so your argument makes no sense since all life originates from chemical compounds that are found in abundance in the universe. The chances are extremely high that there is other life out there somewhere but we are just not in any situation to prove it.

Fact. We found amino acids on comets. We recently sent a probe to a comet and collected debris from it. Steps were taken to ensure that no contamination could occur. When the samples returned to earth we discovered there was amino acids. This is a huge find because it means that amino acids will form even in space. This is key to life because amino acids are what make up RNA the foundation to DNA.

Klope3;173695 wrote:

It may be an interesting philosophical topic to delve into, but once again--aren't we sort of speculating as to God's intentions?


I absolutely love this kind of response, because it flies in the face of your own arguments but you can't even see that it contradicts itself. How is it you can determine that god has your best interest in mind, that god loves you and all people? Yet turn around and ask me, how is it that I can even begin to ponder what god's intentions are? How do you know that god didn't create you just to watch you suffer? That god has no plans for any heavenly paradise? How is it you know it is not just the opposite of how Christians profess it is? What if there is only hell after this life and that was how it was always planned?

Klope3;173695 wrote:

Again, your phrasing (in the last part, this time utilizing understatement) changes my meaning subtly, but that's basically what I'm saying, yes. If someone does something "nice" for you, and you feel gratitude, I would think you'd want some way to express that gratitude. One of the best ways within human power to express gratitude to God is through actions-- through obeying him to whatever extent possible. Some of that obligation would come from God, but much of it would also come from your ("hypothetical") desire to express your gratitude.


No because I can just as easily state that I did not want to be created. So if what you say is true than I should be able to hold god reliable for my actions and not my own because it was not I who wanted to be created in the first place. That god would have known this about me, so why do it anyways? I don't have to be greatful or thankful for forcing me into this game. If I had my choice I would have said don't create me if this is the condition you are going to place on to me. Id rather stay in oblivion.

Klope3;173695 wrote:

However difficult it may be for you, to follow my analogy you need to imagine that nothing which has happened to you in this life has actually happened to you at all, and that instead all you've lived and experienced is joy and perfection. 1) Wouldn't you feel gratitude? (The stuff you've been "hypothetically" given is alot better than cars and vacations--and it includes a relationship with a perfect, loving, all-powerful God.) And 2) wouldn't that gratitude be great enough to at least do *something* within your power for the one who gave you the opportunity to enjoy the joy and perfection?


No just like the answer I gave previously. (see my above response) I didn't ask to be created so don't expect me to be thankful for it. If you are going to expect something from me, then I don't want it.

Klope3;173695 wrote:

I suppose it's possible we've reached an impasse regarding whether or not you would express your gratitude to God in this "hypothetical" situation, or whether you would feel any gratitude at all. I believe both would be true, but if we can't agree on that, we might as well drop the analogy and move on.


Well not to be insulting but I just think that you have been sold on this idea because it is necessary to maintain your concept of god. However it is not realistic. It's like if I slipped a bunch of money into your bank account without you asking. Then I said indirectly, well now you need to obey me. Are you going to be thankful if what I ask of you is inconsiderate?

Klope3;173695 wrote:

It's a good question, and one that has been debated even among Christians for many, many years. I would suggest that, by creating imperfect beings who may suffer and then later come to know salvation, God tells a better "story," and also makes things better for those beings. (THAT is a whole other philosophical discussion, perhaps for another time.)


Why would you have to make them imperfect to experience suffering? So suffering is the only point then?

Klope3;173695 wrote:

I must say, you're standing on shaky ground here. The reasoning you present is "boredom," and that reasoning assumes that boredom would actually occur in the presence of paradise and a perfect, loving God.


See this response is another one of those face palm moments. Almost back to back, with your previous paragraph being about making an imperfect being and then turning around and saying in a paradise with a perfect, loving god present there wouldn't be any boredom? You can not honestly say that makes any sense. If you are an imperfect being of course you would find boredom in a paradise.

Klope3;173695 wrote:

You have some interesting thoughts about the nature of the afterlife. But I would assert that there's a bit more to life than punk bands, beer and cigarettes. And that, even with the ideology you seem to profess, you could probably do better than such things for yourself.


It was only an example to show you how absurd an after life could be. Think about it, do you get to keep your clothing style? Your hair style? Do you have the same eyes? The same physical shape? Yeah all that seems all material doesn't it? Well if you are not material then what are you? Do you still have love for the ocean? Love for hiking? Love of mountain climbing? Or are all those things mundane to you? If they are mundane and you no longer care about them because now you are in heaven then a HUGE part of who you are in this life is completely lost. You are like a very tiny shell of the person you were then if that is how it is. If that is how it is I would rather not exist at all.

Klope3;173695 wrote:

Interesting. That actually sounds rather close to what I believe (and what many Christians would say the Bible teaches).


Okay...

Klope3;173695 wrote:

Actually, you just showed me that morality has both material AND immaterial roots. (I believe the immaterial part because I'm Christian.) But even the material part (the way our actions affect others) would be meaningless in materialism. You say "[if] it's not actually hurting anyone, why would it be morally wrong?". But I say in response to that, "If it IS hurting someone, what makes it morally wrong?" From a materialist standpoint, what's so "wrong" about killing a fellow lump of goo and meat? No more wrong, certainly, than smashing a rock...


They are not the same. Humans are social animals. We have survived because of community support. There are two types of mammals, solitary ones and societal ones. Primates are societal animals and we humans stem from a common ancestor that also was a societal animal. What does that mean? It means that humans rely on other humans for survival. So if you try to kill all other humans then you actually endanger your own survival. So I do not look at others as mere meat or like a rock, but instead I see them as my own self and my existence. For me to survive today requires probably about ten thousand people. Now I am not saying that I couldn't survive with less, it is the standard of living in which I live, takes about that many. Think about all the jobs it takes to get the food you eat. Think about all the resources you use every day, water, heating, security, ect they all require people.

Sure I could go and try to kill everyone but all I end up doing is making my existence harder. Why would I want to do that? But I can see you try and turn this around to say that I only care about people because of what they can offer me. That if they can't offer me anything then I don't care about them. That is not the case. There are a lot of people in the world that do not offer or do anything for me, yet I still feel the same way. That they too are just as worthy as what I have and I shouldn't have the right to kill them simply because I wanted to, or hated them, or what ever reason. I have mutual respect for all life including plants. Sure I eat plants but I still respect them.
 
Dr Seuss
 
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 11:26 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;170922 wrote:
The Holy Bible is a collection of books made out of paper. Do you percieve it as a Holy document, or not?

The point here is - Many "christians" attach a sacredness upon what is merely "ink upon paper" without ever realising that what they are doing is "Kneeling to wood" - Isaiah: And therefore performing an act of idolatry.

Do you see the bible as Holy (I don't mean the message within)?

What do you think of a legal system that obligates those being tried and those bearing witness to swear upon the bible?

"Let your yes be a yes and your no be a no."

I welcome your replies to this thread, and wish you each a good journey...Always.

Thank you.

Mark...



Its not just ink on paper. The Bible is the only book that has never expired. If we were to follow what it said a lot of things would not be happening right now.

All the prophecies have shown to be true and we are going to see the few remaining ones soon.

If you recall the Bible was written by man yes but dont forget that it was under inspiration. What they wrote was not their thoughts but those of God. The same way someone could dictate a letter to a secretary so that she can type it and send it. Does it mean they are the secretary's thoughts? No.

If more people would had read the bible back then we would had not needed Columbus to write that the world was not flat :sarcastic: It was already written. Laughing
 
mark noble
 
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 11:41 am
@Dr Seuss,
Dr. Seuss;174259 wrote:
Its not just ink on paper. The Bible is the only book that has never expired. If we were to follow what it said a lot of things would not be happening right now.

All the prophecies have shown to be true and we are going to see the few remaining ones soon.

If you recall the Bible was written by man yes but dont forget that it was under inspiration. What they wrote was not their thoughts but those of God. The same way someone could dictate a letter to a secretary so that she can type it and send it. Does it mean they are the secretary's thoughts? No.

If more people would had read the bible back then we would had not needed Columbus to write that the world was not flat :sarcastic: It was already written. Laughing


Hi Dr Seuss,

Nowhere in history has it been recorded that the world was flat, it is a complete misconception. The ancient greek mathematicians even had its circumference within 100 miles of its actual size.

Is the Book Sacred to you? Not the message, which can be spoken, downloaded from the web, or even to your mobile phone.

Thank you, Dr Seuss, journey well, sir.

Mark...
 
Dr Seuss
 
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 12:15 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;174262 wrote:
Hi Dr Seuss,

Nowhere in history has it been recorded that the world was flat, it is a complete misconception. The ancient greek mathematicians even had its circumference within 100 miles of its actual size.

Is the Book Sacred to you? Not the message, which can be spoken, downloaded from the web, or even to your mobile phone.

Thank you, Dr Seuss, journey well, sir.

Mark...


The book is just an object, the content is what matters.
 
Klope3
 
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 02:01 pm
@Dr Seuss,
Neil;174032 wrote:
That's comical. We all know that religious persons are the most "open" minded people you will ever come across. They would never believe something "just" because they read it in a book, or because someone says it is so. I should strive to be more like them. All I have is this thing called "faith", but its very powerful. With it I can make fantasies real, or just believe in something, and it is so.


You're generalizing, AGAIN. Didn't you even read the rest of my post? I went on to give examples of "religious persons" who ARE open-minded.

I should strive to be just like materialists! Because, ha, everyone knows God doesn't exist, right? I mean, seriously--"God?" It's been proven that humans innately tend toward belief in such a thing, so therefore, you know, it can't be true! EVERYONE can see the logical progression there. Also--evolution's true! So I guess therefore there must not be a God.

Now, instead of exchanging blows of sarcasm and wild generalization, why don't we try and have a reasonable discussion?

Krumple;174060 wrote:
I am a little confused by your statements here. If we discovered there was life on mars, you would find it hard to believe evolution were true? If you meant it this way, and it's not some spelling error, has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Life does not mean it can only happen one way. If we find life on other planets, the chances are high that it won't have the same exactly chemical make up. It could, but probably not as likely. We just don't know for certain since we haven't found any yet. But even so your argument makes no sense since all life originates from chemical compounds that are found in abundance in the universe. The chances are extremely high that there is other life out there somewhere but we are just not in any situation to prove it.


No, that's not what I meant. If viable life was discovered on Mars, it would be a point in evolution's favor. But again, it hasn't happened yet. I will worry about it if/when it does. (By the way: It's very likely that there's life elsewhere, IF evolution/non-designed life is true.)

Krumple;174060 wrote:
I absolutely love this kind of response, because it flies in the face of your own arguments but you can't even see that it contradicts itself. How is it you can determine that god has your best interest in mind, that god loves you and all people? Yet turn around and ask me, how is it that I can even begin to ponder what god's intentions are? How do you know that god didn't create you just to watch you suffer? That god has no plans for any heavenly paradise? How is it you know it is not just the opposite of how Christians profess it is? What if there is only hell after this life and that was how it was always planned?


I can't know for sure that God is loving or that there is heaven or hell. What I can know is that there is pretty good evidence pointing to the reliability of lots of the Bible and, most importantly, Jesus' message.

Krumple;174060 wrote:
No because I can just as easily state that I did not want to be created. So if what you say is true than I should be able to hold god reliable for my actions and not my own because it was not I who wanted to be created in the first place. That god would have known this about me, so why do it anyways? I don't have to be greatful or thankful for forcing me into this game. If I had my choice I would have said don't create me if this is the condition you are going to place on to me. Id rather stay in oblivion.


I'm not suggesting that you necessarily ARE thankful for existing. I'm suggesting that you probably would have been if you had been Adam. If you can't agree with that, then I'll suggest that MOST people probably would have been.


Krumple;174060 wrote:
Well not to be insulting but I just think that you have been sold on this idea because it is necessary to maintain your concept of god. However it is not realistic. It's like if I slipped a bunch of money into your bank account without you asking. Then I said indirectly, well now you need to obey me. Are you going to be thankful if what I ask of you is inconsiderate?


Just like the other analogy, it still doesn't quite work. Firstly, I would be rather pleased (but confused) about getting the money, but it wouldn't make me joyful; I'd be keenly aware that it is finite and will eventually be gone and fail to please. Secondly, I have to reiterate that the obligation to do something in return wouldn't only come from the side of the giver. It would also come from the one to whom the gift was given. The latter would almost inevitably be saying "You've given me these priceless, eternal gifts. This makes me want to serve you." (Note: the magnitude and nature of the gift is important to the analogy.)


Krumple;174060 wrote:
Why would you have to make them imperfect to experience suffering? So suffering is the only point then?


Because suffering exists, we can experience improvement. We can learn lessons in life. We also have something against which we can compare eternal happiness, and thus make the latter even more amazing.

Krumple;174060 wrote:
See this response is another one of those face palm moments. Almost back to back, with your previous paragraph being about making an imperfect being and then turning around and saying in a paradise with a perfect, loving god present there wouldn't be any boredom? You can not honestly say that makes any sense. If you are an imperfect being of course you would find boredom in a paradise.


I say that because I hesitate to classify what would happen as "boredom." (Maybe it's just mincing words, I don't know.) I would suggest the term "temptation," and that's exactly what happened in Genesis.

Krumple;174060 wrote:
It was only an example to show you how absurd an after life could be. Think about it, do you get to keep your clothing style? Your hair style? Do you have the same eyes? The same physical shape? Yeah all that seems all material doesn't it? Well if you are not material then what are you? Do you still have love for the ocean? Love for hiking? Love of mountain climbing? Or are all those things mundane to you? If they are mundane and you no longer care about them because now you are in heaven then a HUGE part of who you are in this life is completely lost. You are like a very tiny shell of the person you were then if that is how it is. If that is how it is I would rather not exist at all.


ALL of the characteristics you mentioned are material, or based on the material. This is because we live surrounded by a largely material world, and therefore much of our lives are filled with and influenced by the material. However, I am not sure that losing these things in accordance with an afterlife would equate to losing who you are.


Krumple;174060 wrote:
They are not the same. Humans are social animals. We have survived because of community support. There are two types of mammals, solitary ones and societal ones. Primates are societal animals and we humans stem from a common ancestor that also was a societal animal. What does that mean? It means that humans rely on other humans for survival. So if you try to kill all other humans then you actually endanger your own survival. So I do not look at others as mere meat or like a rock, but instead I see them as my own self and my existence. For me to survive today requires probably about ten thousand people. Now I am not saying that I couldn't survive with less, it is the standard of living in which I live, takes about that many. Think about all the jobs it takes to get the food you eat. Think about all the resources you use every day, water, heating, security, ect they all require people.


Maybe we prefer to have other people around because they help us. But I find it sort of hard to believe that we, as humans, NEED many others, much less ten thousand people. It seems to me that as a race humans could survive if everyone went about things pretty much alone, or accompanied by two or three others at most. That is, if society didn't exist.

Krumple;174060 wrote:
Sure I could go and try to kill everyone but all I end up doing is making my existence harder. Why would I want to do that? But I can see you try and turn this around to say that I only care about people because of what they can offer me. That if they can't offer me anything then I don't care about them. That is not the case. There are a lot of people in the world that do not offer or do anything for me, yet I still feel the same way. That they too are just as worthy as what I have and I shouldn't have the right to kill them simply because I wanted to, or hated them, or what ever reason. I have mutual respect for all life including plants. Sure I eat plants but I still respect them.


Yes, that is the reality of the world we live in today--killing others would make our own lives more difficult. But the philosophy would still stand that there'd be no bad thing with killing others.

I completely identify and agree with all the respect you mention. But I'm not materialist, and I still hold that, in materialism, it's completely unfounded and silly to have any kind of respect for others. [In materialism] there is no use for respect. It does nobody else any good, and it means nothing at all. So why have it?
 
Greatest I am
 
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2010 04:14 pm
@mark noble,


Regardless of your religion, Christian, Muslim or any other religion, have you ever wondered why people began personifying God?

Why did we start giving Him a name when the Bible begins by telling us that He is the word. Word meaning rules.

The reason to me seems clear.
Our first God was a man.
Who but man can give voice to the will/rules of God?

There is only man.

The word God should then never be personified. When we do, it becomes idol worship.
God should be considered a title only. Somewhat like king or law.
Regardless of your religion or lack of it, to tie yourself to any Word is also idol worship.
We all label ourselves according to the set of rules we follow be they Christian, Muslim, Democrat or Green.

Our political Gods = rules.
Our religious Gods = rules.
Our natural Gods = rules.
Seek God yes. When you find Him, raise the bar of excellence for both Him and man.

Whoever you are, you live by one or two or three of those sets of rules mentioned. More than likely, a combination of all of them.
In this, none of us have any choice.

My question is aimed primarily at literalist and fundamentals who believe that their WORD is the WORD of a personified God. In other words, to my mind, idol worshipers.

Do you agree and see that to lock yourself to any WORD, including a personified religious God, is idol worship?

Am I wrong in saying that our first God was a man and that our last God should be a man as well?

Regards
DL

P. S. For a bit of Biblical history and insight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvg2EZAEw5c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L7cQ3BrD5U&feature=related
 
mark noble
 
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 07:44 am
Hi Greatest,
I started this thread to lightly expose to people the error of materialising the spiritual. The names "I am, God,Father, iehovah, etc" are clearly supported throughout the bible, and are, in my eyes, simply referencial. It is impossible for people to understand a subject with no title, after all.
I think I understand your point though, to imagine or create an image of anything of heaven is, indeed, idolatry, but to utter a name...? I'm not so sure. I will invest time to this over the following week, and get back to you.
Thank you, greatest. Have a smashing day.
Mark...
 
lazymon
 
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 07:43 pm
@mark noble,
Didn't the Egyptians, or the hermetical teachings explain the world as being a flat surface with a giant iron plate covering the sky.
 
lazymon
 
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 07:53 pm
@Greatest I am,
I agree 100% with this post, and you are the first person I have ever met with this view. God to me is personified so we can explain him. The way the Sun use to be personified as someone walking across the sky with a lamp.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2010 05:54 am
Hi William,
I too agree that God is a human concept, but Nature takes place beyond that concept, with or without human perception.

Hi Lazymon,
There are many myths from many eras, giant turtles, atlas etc, But they are not historically recognised as anything other than such.

Thank you guys, and have a brilliant everything.
Mark...
 
Xenoche
 
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2010 08:22 am
@Klope3,
Only the religious put so much onus on evolution.
For example, me, being atheistic accept evolution as a very plausible theory of how we eventuated but wouldn't otherwise give it a second thought since it has very little impact on my day to day life.
On the other side of the coin I could see how evolution could feel corrosive of one's faith, hence the emergence of the 'god of the gaps'.

Your use of the term 'open/closed mind' is as wildly generalizing as you condemn, your only flaunting your hypocrisy klope.
Your worry upon finding extra terrestrials is telling of the closed mindedness you apparently loath.

I'm glad your not a materialist, cause it sounds like you'd be completely lost without your ideologues holding your hand.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The superstition surrounding 'holy books' is as ridiculous as the fools that blindly accept their ancient drivel as fact, condemning mankind with psychological schisms which can never be remedied, but by the sword.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2010 08:39 am
Hi All,
RIGHT......Enough! Get back to my original post, or go and start your own threads. We all do it, I know, but I'm trying to get to the crux of this issue of materialistic idolatry.
Thank you for coming though, and have a great weekend - each and every one of you.
Mark...
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/23/2019 at 05:31:48