Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not fully knowledgeable about Onan, but is he the one who still had sex with his dead brothers wife, knowing full well he did not want to take her own as his wife?
Onan was Tamar's second husband, who was to fulfill the duty of a redeeming kinsman via Levirate Marriage, which was the marriage of a dead man's wife to his brother to continue seed in that dead brother's name. It was an act of kindness done to both the deceased and the widow as it continued the family name and prevented the widow from returning to her father's house as well as preventing one's name from dying out - which was a grievous offense in a world that only saw immortality through its progeny. Out of selfish reasons - the children would not be counted under his name, but his brother's - he practiced coitus interruptus. This angered Yahweh, so he killed him. Other examples can be found with Boaz acting for Naomi, via Ruth.
Onan's death sets up the story of Judah and Tamar and how she had to boldy act on her own to preserve seed, much like Lot's daughters did with their bold (yet scandalous?) actions. Many people see this as a barbarism, but only from our modern perspectives. Back then - fertility was everything, as echoed in the Bible's blessing upon humans to "multiply".
Just to say, Ella that I liked your post and I will deal with it asap. I also just want to say that, on the basis of your posts so far, even if we make no progress from where we are, I have no problem with your brand of Christianity, nor with you.
Thanks for your insight. You have helped me to understand those who don't take Genesis literally, but still hold those Scriptures as valuable. The message of the Bible is excellent, it's a statement of God's love. Yet if the things discussed in the Bible literally happened, I believe we can better understand that message. I will tell everyone if you want to see God's heart, what He purposed for man, just look at Genesis. It was a utopia God created for us. And it wasn't some boring, everyday is the same thing kind of utopia, but everyday was an adventure to learn new things and grow. There was no slavery, no sexism, no murder. Man, even the animals didn't eat each other. So I tell people who say God is unjust, that He murders, that He enslaves, and that He created a world full of disease and natural disasters, I would tell them to look at the world He created in Genesis. All you need to know about God, can be found there.
I agree with you.
Back when the "earth was flat", mankind could look around him and actually see the flatness and it made sense. But once science began to say that the earth was round, we moved into a realm of "concept". I walk out into my yard and there is nothing there to prove to me that the earth is round. There is plenty to prove to me that the earth is flat.
When the "concept" (an idea, a belief that does not have a visual aid or does not have proof that we can hold in our hands) of a big ball hanging magically in the nothingness, moving around in a small circle, which is moving in a big circle, with mankind hanging off of the sides (some of us are hanging upside down) came along, it must have seemed too impossible to even be considered. Yet, lo and behold, it is indeed true.
I think the "concept" of God is the same principle. The Bible is designed to help us understand a "concept" that we can't hold in our hands and examine. It really does seem, on its face, to be a "concept" that is too outrageous, too fantastic, too impossible to even consider. Our rational human minds are just overwhelmed with the very idea of it. Unless we can take a "leap of faith" beyond the capacity of our human minds and delve into the seemingly impossible, we cannot make the God-connection that allows this "concept" to become a reality.
I don't see any problem with taking the Bible literally. There are things, that IMO, are being presented incorrectly about the Bible, and again IMO, these things cannot be proven as literal because they never existed in the text of the Bible in the first place (these include six 24 hour days for creation and a global flood). If we have a creation that was six eras long and a flood that was localized, then I can take them both as literal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
I think we dream of such a world. Wouldn't it be great to say that world actually existed! So God's message is for all of us to experience His love. If that is literal, then it brings out so much more in it's message. That's how I see it.
Indeed. My belief is that is exactly what we "believers" are working toward. If we do better than Adam and Eve did, we will attain the "Garden of Eden" as our own.
Ok. So, I, being sure that the Bible (New and Old T) is not reliable enough as fact or not enough, do not believe it, nor the god -claims for YHWH or Jesus the Christ. I don't know whether you do or not
Ok. That's cool.
Yes. I believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
. Perhaps the 'what then' is whether one supposes that an invisible (probably what we would call intelligent thinking and planning) entity exists and can be accessed by us mentally or is a 'spiritual way' (e.g experienced by the soul - as an incorporeal element of the bod). And I am trying to lay down comprehensible defs. here, and am not trying to mock.
Yes. That is it.
I know that you are not trying to mock. That's why I'm still talking to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I recall that you posted something that implied that you supposed that this 'God' (identifying personal title rather than generic term) could be accessed by others of other faiths. In fact (as many God -believers say) God is the same god in all faiths. If so, you choose (perhaps because it is what you are familiar with) to find the inspiration - to -contact through the Bible just as a muslim might find it through the Quran or a hindu through the methods they use.
Yes. That is what I believe.
The choice of "Christianity" was made FOR me - by Judaism, actually. The OT of the KJV of the Bible was "commandeered", if you will, from Judaism and from their Torah. Back in the days when the Torah is set, only Jews (and specifically, the direct blood line of Jacob's [renamed Israel] 12 sons; and then even more specifically, the direct blood lines of some of Jacob's sons, Judah, Levi, Benjamin, and the half tribe of Manasseh [one of the sons of Joseph, another son of Jacob] and then more specifically, the sons of Judah and Levi - according to the OT) were "born" with a pathway to God of the Torah. The gentiles living among these Jews could "convert" or females could marry one of the male "heirs" of the God of the Torah. But, otherwise, the gentiles were pretty much considered "disposable" in the world of the Torah.
The entrance of Jesus into the mix allowed for gentiles to embrace the "world of God". Jesus, a Jew, gave the gentiles a "pathway" to God - conditioned on the premises of accepting Jesus as the son of God and as the "go-between" between gentiles and God. Being a gentile and without converting to Judaism (or something else), Jesus is my only choice - my pathway.
As far as Islam (and I do not know enough to speak at all, much less knowledgeably or in-depth - so everybody, please, cut me some slack here) as I understand it, it has the same roots in the Middle East as does Judaism. So, the God, Allah, is the same God as YHWH.
My very limited understanding is that the split in the Hebrews came from Abraham's 2 sons, Ishmael and Isaac. If this is the true division of the Hebrews, then the God of Abraham is the God of both Ishmael and Isaac. When Ishmael and his mother, Hagar, were sent away (Isaac's mother, Sarah, asked that this be done), God assured Hagar that she was still "blessed" and would be taken care of. God also blessed Ishmael and promised him great things. So, Ishmael would have taken his God, the God of Abraham, with him. We just don't know by the KJV what happened next with him.
Then we come down a generation. Isaac had twin sons, Esau and Jacob. Esau was first born and therefore entitled to the "birthright". Jacob lied, cheated, and stole to take that birthright away from Esau. Then Jacob went on to be called Israel and his 12 sons became the focus of the Torah - the children of Israel - and subsequently, the focus of the Bible. Esau was blessed by God and given many things, but his journey is not followed in the Bible.
In addition to Ishmael and Esau, there are the 10 tribes of Israel that split from the 2 tribes of Israel. There were thousands of them and the God of Isaac would have been the God of these 10 tribes. The Bible doesn't follow any of them.
This leads me to believe that Islam came out of this group of people. Therefore, their God is the God of the Torah and the God of the Bible.
Yes, I believe that there is one God, no matter what name he is called.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Ok that far?
Yes. I think we're doing good. You've sorted all this stuff out really quickly. It is a complicated maze.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Or would you say that the Bible is God's preferred vehicle and the others are...not false gods but ..inaccurate, shall we say..religions. Perhaps because they do not believe this idea that God sent a representative, shall we say, to save us from sin either by death - sacrifice or teaching example?
Let's sort that one before going any further.
P. s though. I hadn't forgotten the business of a god being needed to give us moral sensibility.
This is kind of a multi-part question, so please be patient with me.
I do not think that the Bible is the preferred vehicle of God. I think the Bible is the preferred vehicle of Christians. "Christ" means "messiah" and messiah is defined as "redeemer", "savior". Therefore, those who believe in Christ are "Christians". We Christians tend to say, "Jesus Christ". Actually, it is Jesus, the Christ which equals Jesus, the messiah which equals Jesus, the savior.
The deal is (according to the KJV of the Bible): The Jews made blood sacrifices for sins, for peace, for praise and for worship, etc. God promised them everlasting life. Now, as I read the Bible, it seems to say that this everlasting life was a long time off in the distance and there would be a judgment day and then, those judged worthy, would be "saved" - given everlasting life - and those not saved would be tossed in a fiery furnace and burned up. So, it seems to say that as the Jews died, they kind of went into a holding pattern somewhere waiting for the judgment day. (please, don't everybody pounce on me here. All I've got is the Bible. I don't know what the Torah says)
So, now the KJV of the OT seems to be offering two ideas. (1) God would send a messiah (presumably at the end of time) to deliver the living Jews and resurrect the dead Jews into the eternal place. (2) God would send a messiah to be the ultimate blood sacrifice to replace the burnt offerings as atonement for sin. Jesus, the Christ, is the blood sacrifice for the atonement of sin. Now, at the time of Jesus, all Jews did not accept Jesus as "the lamb of God" (the ultimate blood sacrifice), hence Judaism, but they believed that their messiah that was promised by God was yet to come - the one coming at the end of the world.
Some people ("Christians") accepted that Jesus was the "lamb of God" and that also Jesus was the messiah that would return for the faithful (Jews and Gentiles) at the end of time. The people who accepted Jesus as the Christ then had a pathway to God. The Jews already had a pathway to God (they were born with that "right"), but it wasn't "open" to gentiles who did not convert. Accepting Jesus as the Christ created a pathway for the gentiles. If Islam was indeed created out of the stock that had been Hebrews, I assume they are born with their own pathway. Christians have to be "adopted", if you will, into the family of God, hence, the Jesus connection.
I see this as the same situation as with Adam and Eve. If Adam and Eve had done the "right thing" in the Garden, we wouldn't be having this conversation today. If the Jews had believed that Jesus was the promised messiah, we wouldn't be having this conversation today. But, here we are.
So, the Holy books of the Jews, Muslims, and Christians are kind of like designer jeans. They are made to fit the needs of the people who want to reach toward God. Jews have a pathway to God, as do Muslims and Christians. Three sets of people. Three pathways. Three books. The other people out there that have a different religion and a different Holy book are the same. Their pathway; their special instruction and guide. I think the epitome is: There is a God. He is offering you everlasting life. You have a pathway of your own. Here's a book to help. Go find God.
Does this tangled mess of ranting answer the question you asked?
You are doing great and I decided last night that, as soon as we got past sorting out what you think to persuading you to think something else, I would call a halt. Because you are fine as you are.
You are happy with your beliefs and as you have dealt with me in a truly Christian way (which is by no means what I can always expect from those who profess the title) I do not want to take it away from you or even attempt to.
Now, we got as far as designer jeans or bespoke suits perhaps religions and books intended by a god - who is equally interested and relevant to those of all religions, not just one - and that leads me to ...let me read your post again..... mmmh...ahhah.....yep...mmmh,mmmh..yep all Holy books and presumably all religions and all their views of God are can we say, tailor made to fit the people who need to find their way to God in their own way.
Now I haven't addressed your explanation of the development of Judaism and Christianity out of Judaism as you know I don't believe either book is reliable as a source of such info. and I will leave that to you.
Where we get to is a god of all religions and that is where I got to as a teenager - except that I put it 'A god of all religions -or of none'. I looked around for one that seemed to offer the most direct link to 'God' (the rule is upper case) without the stuff I thought man -made and, after a look at Sufism, I decided on Buddhism.
Now, I am cool with those who are content with the religion they were taught and also with those who are not and who look around for something else that suits them better. The point is that no one religion, its book or its view of God can claim (in my view and perhaps in yours) to be any better pathway to God than another. In fact, God would hardly have 'allowed' (shall we say) the Hindus, Shintoists and worshippers of the ancient religions, for that matter, to have adopted an inadequate religion that would not lead them in the most efficient way (via moral example, metaphor and meditation) along the spiritual path to understanding or at least spiritual communication with the entity we call 'God'.
Of course, it could be argued that the 'dead' religions served their purpose and have been supplanted by better ones, though why Hinduism might be better than the graeco - Roman pantheon escapes me.
You might feel that it could be the 'inadequate' exception and only the monotheist religions are adequate, though I would hate to suggest that Hindus are incapable of receiving a religion that is adequate or indeed why God would allow them to have Buddhism (which does not have a focus on gods) instead of a monotheistic religion.
Now, that's far (and maybe tangled) enough and you can probably see what is looming: religions are designed to meet the needs of the people who 'receive' them. If there are questions about the coherence, might I say of the method of doing spiritual upgrades to a more appropriate religion (for, if that wasn't needed, why does a new religion supplant a perfectly good one?) does it not strongly suggest that the religions and indeed the books and by implication the view of 'God' in those religions are all man -made?
I'll await your comments on that for now as you may be getting palpitations or alternatively, you may say - well of course! Isn't that what I've been saying? Again thanks and i don't know when I've enjoyed a discussion more.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-30-2013 at 06:09 AM..
Reason: tidy -up
You are doing great and I decided last night that, as soon as we got past sorting out what you think to persuading you to think something else, I would call a halt. Because you are fine as you are.
Aw, shucks. Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
You are happy with your beliefs and as you have dealt with me in a truly Christian way (which is by no means what I can always expect from those who profess the title) I do not want to take it away from you or even attempt to.
It's that "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" thing.
Yes. Some of the most nasty, hateful, rotten people I have known have been the ones screaming the loudest that they are Christians. Go figure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Now, we got as far as designer jeans or bespoke suits perhaps religions and books intended by a god - who is equally interested and relevant to those of all religions, not just one - and that leads me to ...let me read your post again..... mmmh...ahhah.....yep...mmmh,mmmh..yep all Holy books and presumably all religions and all their views of God are can we say, tailor made to fit the people who need to find their way to God in their own way.
Hey, close enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Now I haven't addressed your explanation of the development of Judaism and Christianity out of Judaism as you know I don't believe either book is reliable as a source of such info. and I will leave that to you.
That's cool. Besides, about all I "actually" know is what I said. Again, the details are really not important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Where we get to is a god of all religions and that is where I got to as a teenager - except that I put it 'A god of all religions -or of none'. I looked around for one that seemed to offer the most direct link to 'God' (the rule is upper case) without the stuff I thought man -made and, after a look at Sufism, I decided on Buddhism.
I had to look up Sufism. From what little I read, I think I like them. Buddhism is cool with me. Again, what I "know" is only a cursory overview, but they seem to be reaching up to a better/higher state of being (beyond the tiger-self that I believe is the base/root/foundation of all humans).
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Now, I am cool with those who are content with the religion they were taught and also with those who are not and who look around for something else that suits them better. The point is that no one religion, its book or its view of God can claim (in my view and perhaps in yours) to be any better pathway to God than another. In fact, God would hardly have 'allowed' (shall we say) the Hindus, Shintoists and worshippers of the ancient religions, for that matter, to have adopted an inadequate religion that would not lead them in the most efficient way (via moral example, metaphor and meditation) along the spiritual path to understanding or at least spiritual communication with the entity we call 'God'.
Yes, I believe that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Of course, it could be argued that the 'dead' religions served their purpose and have been supplanted by better ones, though why Hinduism might be better than the graeco - Roman pantheon escapes me.
I do think they, probably, served their purpose. As to the "why", I don't have any knowledge. History may have some answers. Perhaps it tied in with migration or perhaps it was just a change of ruler of the day. The OT talks about the kings of Judah "who found favor with God" and those "who displeased God" or "did not walk in the ways of their fathers", etc. Maybe the opinions of the ruler of the day set standards and changed religions over time as they changed other things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
You might feel that it could be the 'inadequate' exception and only the monotheist religions are adequate, though I would hate to suggest that Hindus are incapable of receiving a religion that is adequate or indeed why God would allow them to have Buddhism (which does not have a focus on gods) instead of a monotheistic religion.
Again, I don't have enough knowledge to answer with any authority or understanding, but my first impression of Buddhism is that it is promoting a moral compass and that it encourages one to rise above the tiger-self . Basically, that is "God" and it is "God's work" and it constitutes "God's favor on the human". I don't think it has to be called "God" for it to be "God" (if that makes any sense). We could add another "o" in the mix and call Him and it, "Good". Do "Good", be "Good", strive against "Bad" in the name of "Good". The moral compass is for the pursuit of good. "Good" is how we categorize "God" and the pursuits of good are the pursuits of God. So maybe it is as simple as figuring out what is good and what is bad and pursuing good as best we can. Maybe it is as simple as recognizing that there is a moral compass and embracing that moral compass and using that moral compass to keep the base tiger-self in check - because that is "Good" (or maybe it is "God"? ). Maybe that is all there is too it - the pursuit of good for good's sake.
So, I hope you are sitting down, my friend, because: If you have a moral compass and you strive to live by that moral compass and you keep your base tiger-self in check then: You may be an agnostic/atheist in your mind, but you are being "Godly" in your heart. You've already found your path (to the awakening of that moral compass). This is what the God-thing is all about. Continue to search and to question and study, and poke a stick at everything and everybody "religious", and if nothing can dissuade you from your moral compass (if nothing can revert you back to your base tiger-self) then you are doing everything "God" or "Good" requires of you. You don't have to do anything else. That's it.
I hope I didn't just blow a really amicable relationship here. But, I have believed this since just a few posts into our conversation. I need the connection I have with God, because I need the "therapy" that it gives me. I need the guide book because of the comfort it gives me. That does not mean that you do. Some people "walk the walk and talk the talk". Many people "talk the talk" and some do so as loudly and nastily as they can. But you, my friend, have "walked the walk" in this forum with me. Just because your brain and your "heart" have not reconciled all this yet, doesn't mean that your moral compass is not alive and well - and may well be functioning better than others who "believe" in everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Now, that's far (and maybe tangled) enough and you can probably see what is looming: religions are designed to meet the needs of the people who 'receive' them. If there are questions about the coherence, might I say of the method of doing spiritual upgrades to a more appropriate religion (for, if that wasn't needed, why does a new religion supplant a perfectly good one?) does it not strongly suggest that the religions and indeed the books and by implication the view of 'God' in those religions are all man -made?
I've just started a conversation with Whoppers where the point I'm about to make here is the same point that I want to make in that conversation. I need to split an atom with you here in order to speak to this. Please bear with me.
We must have a definition of "religion" (whether we can agree on it or not ) for the sake of discussion. This is mine.
First note that I am making a distinction between religion and organized religion.
There are several major divisions describing the act of a group of people participating in activities relating to God, gods, spirituality, Holy books, etc. These are categorized as Religions. They include divisions such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc., which became "umbrellas" for one standard religion or for groups of closely related organized religions.
To the best of my knowledge, all these are based on good vs evil with good as the thing to strive for.
They were, mostly, based on ethnicity in the regard that like people living in a like area had like beliefs. IMO, this was because there was no CNN and continents, even countries therein, were virtually isolated.
Organized religion: these are the various divisions under each umbrella. While Judaism, for example, has one God and one book, they have different groups (4 or 5) who interpret the Torah differently. While differing in their beliefs and/or executions of policy and/or requirements to be "good enough for God", they are all members of Judaism.
Then we come down to the Christian umbrella and it is estimated that there are 4,000 different groups (called denominations in Christianity). One God. One book. 4,000 different sets of beliefs.
The religions (the umbrellas) have basic "planks" in the foundation that makes them fall into a category.
Judaism: One God. Holy book. Jews [as the founding people]
Christianity: One God. Holy book. Jesus. Anybody - especially gentiles.
Islam: One God. Holy book. Middle Easterners [as the founding people]
etc.
Then members within these separate groups began to quibble over the particulars and broke away from the founding religion and started new sects, groups, denominations. By and large, they based their version of the organized religion on the basic plank of their religion and added or subtracted ideas and opinions of their own. The Christians did it 4,000 times.
Not that all umbrellas of Religion are not "organized", but all the sub-religions certainly are. When I refer to "organized religion", I am referring to the sub-religions under the broad umbrellas. Most of the time I am referring to the "organized Christian religions" (OCR), because those are the ones I know and the ones I reference often.
The deal is that the Religions had a plank that identified the broad span of the particular religion. The first Christian religion was the Roman Catholic Church. They took the Torah and did whatever it was that they did with it, added the New Testament and created the Christian Holy Book (for right or wrong) called the Bible. This Bible became the foundation reference for all of Christianity.
Then the Roman Catholics took the Bible and some men somewhere read it and drew opinions and interpretations from it. Then they devised an organized set of rules and regulations (covering everything including how one should dress for "church service"), rituals, holidays, prayers that should be said when and for what, what people should eat on certain days, and what was a sin and what was not a sin and what you had to do to atone for those sins, etc., etc. (whether this stuff was in the Bible or not) All this became the "law of the land" and anyone who did not agree was murdered.
As time moved on, people, like Martin Luther, a former Catholic Priest, read the Bible or just hated some of the stuff the Catholics did and he formed a different opinion and added ideas and subtracted ideas from the basic Catholic doctrine and dogma. His ideas/views/opinions then became the foundation for the Lutheran denomination under the Christian religion umbrella. Sooner or later, 3,999 other men did the same thing.
Yes, I see your trap here, you little dickens . It's ok. I got it covered!
Religion (the large umbrellas) were/are mostly identifiers based on the "planks". Those divisions were made by man as a way of grouping beliefs together.
Organized religion is most definitely man-made - as in the example of the Catholic church and the Lutheran church- but the planks stayed intact.
Here's the trap, right???? So how can the Holy books be real and the God be real, if religion is man-made?
I have the history of the Bible in the Jewish scrolls. Yes, it is possible that some aspiring writer, or two dozen, sat around on a fine sunny day somewhere out in the desert and made up the scrolls from a vivid imagination. But, that doesn't really seem logical. We know that the Jews had an oral history and that at some point in time that oral history was written down; and that the Jews had scribes and historians once written language was developed that did record events. So, I'm pretty sure that the basic information was in these two sources (but then, I'm not needing convincing ).
Now, comes man's grubby little fingers. It would seem that the scrolls and even the oral history could well have be edited here and there before it was assembled into the Holy book. Then comes the translations, which, intentionally or not, did some more editing. Then the Catholics assembled their translation into a different Holy book from the Jew's Holy book.
So, I have to accept the possibility that there is some editing, omitting, tampering with, and mis-translation in both Holy books. However, the core - the message - is intact.
As long as these "man-made" organized Christian religions keep the Holy book and keep the planks of the Religion and somewhere in their doctrine and dogma continue to promote "choose good over "bad" (the message in the text), then each person must choose whether that denomination is the right path. Unfortunately, OCR just complicates the matter and sadly, run off too many seeking a path.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I'll await your comments on that for now as you may be getting palpitations or alternatively, you may say - well of course! Isn't that what I've been saying? Again thanks and i don't know when I've enjoyed a discussion more.
I, too, have really enjoyed this conversation. I'll await your comments now. Do I need to put on my asbestos underwear???
Firstly "I hope I didn't just blow a really amicable relationship here. But, I have believed this since just a few posts into our conversation. I need the connection I have with God, because I need the "therapy" that it gives me. I need the guide book because of the comfort it gives me."
You may rest assured that when I said I was fine with your brand of Christianity I meant it. If you have a need for it, I am not going to take umbridge (whatever that is, but it sounds like one needs to add sugar) to that.
Now as to your argument, which is that Religion(s) is/are a means of bringing us on spiritually and I believe you are arguing that this is through (or at least linked with) the 'God -given moral compass'. And I can assure you that we thrice-accursed apologists of Nihilism have come across the point before.
Let me pick out three salient points
(1) re. religions, "To the best of my knowledge, all these are based on good vs evil with good as the thing to strive for."
In fact I define religion as 'faith - based belief in an entity, and the method of relating to that entity in order to gain an advantage in one's life.' Succinctly, belief in a god (or quasi - god such as Karma or Thetans) and the way of 'pleasing' it so as to be 'saved'. However...
(2) "Here's the trap, right???? So how can the Holy books be real and the God be real, if religion is man-made?...I have to accept the possibility that there is some editing, omitting, tampering with, and mis-translation in both Holy books. However, the core - the message - is intact."
The core plank/message being "choose good over "bad" (the message in the text)," Which is
(3) "So, I hope you are sitting down, my friend, because: If you have a moral compass and you strive to live by that moral compass and you keep your base tiger-self in check then: You may be an agnostic/atheist in your mind, but you are being "Godly" in your heart."
Your definition of religion is what I would call moral philosophy. This isn't trying to get a tactical advantage with semantics, but making the point that trying to find the right and good way to live is not limited to religion.
So the rationale for religion of any kind (and I repeat the point that you use Christianity because it is suitable for you, not - I gather - because it is better or more true than the others) is because it teaches us moral behaviour and morality; codes of conduct, the understanding of good and bad,is evidence of God and cannot have been simply worked out by humankind by themselves.
As I said, I am not concealing the bear - trap. Move your chair to the cold shower and keep the pills handy, because the 'morality without God' and 'atheists have no morals' is far from unfamiliar to us.
Now, I am sure you wouldn't say that atheists have no morals because they have no relationship with God, but would argue that we have the same God -given morality as you, (1) Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons and Scientologists. We just don't recognize that it had to have been given to us by God, who uses religion(s) to educate us 'spiritually' and bring us on in this understanding of the right and good way to live. Ok so far?
(tick..tick...tick...)
Would you suppose or deny that, as well as religion, moral philosophy and ethical studies and indeed the complilation of Law codes is also God's method of bringing us on the understanding of His sense of good and bad behaviour?
(tick..tick..tick...)
Just say the word, dear lady, and I'll switch it off.
(1) Infact you say as much here: If you have a moral compass and you strive to live by that moral compass and you keep your base tiger-self in check then: You may be an agnostic/atheist in your mind, but you are being "Godly" in your heart."
Firstly "I hope I didn't just blow a really amicable relationship here. But, I have believed this since just a few posts into our conversation. I need the connection I have with God, because I need the "therapy" that it gives me. I need the guide book because of the comfort it gives me."
You may rest assured that when I said I was fine with your brand of Christianity I meant it. If you have a need for it, I am not going to take umbridge (whatever that is, but it sounds like one needs to add sugar) to that.
'
Thanks!
When I said, "I hope I didn't just blow a really amicable relationship here", I meant because I called you...er, uh, ... well, ... oh, my ... <gasp!>... Godly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Now as to your argument, which is that Religion(s) is/are a means of bringing us on spiritually and I believe you are arguing that this is through (or at least linked with) the 'God -given moral compass'. And I can assure you that we thrice-accursed apologists of Nihilism have come across the point before.
Let me pick out three salient points
(1) re. religions, "To the best of my knowledge, all these are based on good vs evil with good as the thing to strive for."
In fact I define religion as 'faith - based belief in an entity, and the method of relating to that entity in order to gain an advantage in one's life.' Succinctly, belief in a god (or quasi - god such as Karma or Thetans) and the way of 'pleasing' it so as to be 'saved'. However...
(2) "Here's the trap, right???? So how can the Holy books be real and the God be real, if religion is man-made?...I have to accept the possibility that there is some editing, omitting, tampering with, and mis-translation in both Holy books. However, the core - the message - is intact."
The core plank/message being "choose good over "bad" (the message in the text)," Which is
(3) "So, I hope you are sitting down, my friend, because: If you have a moral compass and you strive to live by that moral compass and you keep your base tiger-self in check then: You may be an agnostic/atheist in your mind, but you are being "Godly" in your heart."
Ok. I'm cool with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Your definition of religion is what I would call moral philosophy. This isn't trying to get a tactical advantage with semantics, but making the point that trying to find the right and good way to live is not limited to religion.
Exactly!! Now, we are firing on all our cylinders.
It is, precisely, a matter of semantics. You say, "ta MOT toe" and I say, "ta MAY toe" (in this case, literally! ha ha ha! That example has never been "literal" for me before [it comes from an old song]), but we are talking about the exact same thing here. The only thing we are haggling over now is the "source" of the moral compass, and neither of us can prove or disprove our belief. [This is that point where I said I wouldn't debate the existence of God because it just cannot be proven one way or the other]
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
So the rationale for religion of any kind (and I repeat the point that you use Christianity because it is suitable for you, not - I gather - because it is better or more true than the others) is because it teaches us moral behaviour and morality; codes of conduct, the understanding of good and bad,is evidence of God and cannot have been simply worked out by humankind by themselves.
Yeah, that's about the long and the short of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
As I said, I am not concealing the bear - trap. Move your chair to the cold shower and keep the pills handy, because the 'morality without God' and 'atheists have no morals' is far from unfamiliar to us.
Now, I am sure you wouldn't say that atheists have no morals because they have no relationship with God, but would argue that we have the same God -given morality as you, (1) Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons and Scientologists.
You are correct in how I see this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
We just don't recognize that it had to have been given to us by God, who uses religion(s) to educate us 'spiritually' and bring us on in this understanding of the right and good way to live. Ok so far?
So far, so good. Ok.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
(tick..tick...tick...)
Tee hee hee. Are you expecting me to explode all over you or implode into a pile of ash?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Would you suppose or deny that, as well as religion, moral philosophy and ethical studies and indeed the complilation of Law codes is also God's method of bringing us on the understanding of His sense of good and bad behaviour?
Overall, I would deny this statement. I think "God's method" is what "we" (humans) call religion(s). I don't really know that I even believe that God had/has anything to do with religion. I don't believe that God designed religion(s). My belief is basically: God revealed himself to the Jews (and to others, but I have no "connection" with them); the Jews wrote some stuff down (that I hope is somewhat accurate on some level); there was a message that God was love, forgiveness, and redemption and if the Jews sought after these lofty ideals, they could have everlasting life. Then, Jesus, the Christ, came into the picture and everyone had this opportunity God gave to the Jews. That's it, basically, for God's part in it all. After that, everything is man-touched, man-made, man-designed, man-interpreted, and/or man-manipulated - by man, of man, for man - and all of it is for better or worse, right or wrong, good or evil, etc. depending on the existence of, degree of, level of, etc. this internal moral compass within each man (mankind, male and female, he "them") at the time he did whatever he did in the long and changing process of all these things you have mentioned.
I think all of what you mentioned above is man's "method" of representing the attributes of love, forgiveness, redemption, good, right, acceptable, better choice, etc. which are the attributes of God (rightly or wrongly).
I really don't think we disagree on this. I think we disagree on "origin" of it all and on semantics. The "origin" is where I draw the line, because (according to Dr. Carl Sagan, Scientist and Atheist; and one of my favorite scholars) "there are some things that cannot be proven. So, we must start with what can be".
I have been the bear before and in fact the both of us (bear or hunter, we shall see) seem to be approaching the central point of this (but not necessarily all kinds) discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ella Parr
...
Overall, I would deny this statement. I think "God's method" is what "we" (humans) call religion(s). I don't really know that I even believe that God had/has anything to do with religion. I don't believe that God designed religion(s). My belief is basically: God revealed himself to the Jews (and to others, but I have no "connection" with them); the Jews wrote some stuff down (that I hope is somewhat accurate on some level); there was a message that God was love, forgiveness, and redemption and if the Jews sought after these lofty ideals, they could have everlasting life. Then, Jesus, the Christ, came into the picture and everyone had this opportunity God gave to the Jews. That's it, basically, for God's part in it all. After that, everything is man-touched, man-made, man-designed, man-interpreted, and/or man-manipulated - by man, of man, for man - and all of it is for better or worse, right or wrong, good or evil, etc. depending on the existence of, degree of, level of, etc. this internal moral compass within each man (mankind, male and female, he "them") at the time he did whatever he did in the long and changing process of all these things you have mentioned.
I think all of what you mentioned above is man's "method" of representing the attributes of love, forgiveness, redemption, good, right, acceptable, better choice, etc. which are the attributes of God (rightly or wrongly).
I really don't think we disagree on this. I think we disagree on "origin" of it all and on semantics. The "origin" is where I draw the line, because (according to Dr. Carl Sagan, Scientist and Atheist; and one of my favorite scholars) "there are some things that cannot be proven. So, we must start with what can be".
We should agree our terms. meanings and view of these matters since it is coming down to (and this is not ticking) whether the moral compass and the codes etc. that go with it, the aspirations to do better or to identify and pursue the good have to be god -given or should attributed more to our evolved instincts or capabilities.
So I want to consider everything you put here and there are a few things I need to get straight.
You seemed to agree that the religions were tailor -made to suit the people who have them, that the purpose of those religions was to spiritually educate the people towards a better moral life. Also religions were supplanted because they had served their purpose.
I believe we also agreed that no one religion was better than another, but here: "Jesus, the Christ, came into the picture and everyone had this opportunity God gave to the Jews". This seems to be saying that Christianity, having Jesus in it, offers an opportunity.
(a) does that mean that Christianity is offering a way of taking advantage of this opportunity in a way that other religions cannot, if they don't have a Jesus in it, in which case that is making it a 'better' vehicle for maximizing the potential of God's implanted moral compass (I rather like that -does that sit ok with you?) or
(b) does it not make it any better? Perhaps Jesus having turned up (either as sacrifice, teacher of just being there) somehow extended the 'opportunity offered to the Jews' to all the other peoples through their own tailor -made religions? Just what was that opportunity? Does one need to know about, follow and have a religion that centralizes, Jesus or is that not necessary? Please can you clarify?
Sorry if you already have, but I may need to read a couple of times so, clarification might be helpful. Of course, you can just say that you have no idea,but you are sure that God has his plan for bringing human kind on morally and Jesus was sent as part of that and i would simply return to our muttons,
which is whether the moral compass is evidence for God, really, or whether humans could have worked that all out without a god implanting it.
If you could perhaps clarify those points, I'll just go and get on with the wiring on the detonator and read your post in a bit more depth.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-31-2013 at 12:03 PM..
Sorry I haven't replied sooner. I don't seem to be very good at keeping up with multiple conversations in multiple threads. Work, family, and pets seem to think they own me! The nerve!
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Just checking, but you are aware that Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic Church's teachings and dogmas and began a little something called the Reformation, where Protestantism arose from? Luther was never fully indoctrinated in Catholic doctrine and dogma - he rejected it. Kind of important...
Truthfully, only cursory. I know that he was a Catholic priest that left the church. Some say he left; some say he was excommunicated for being a heretic. All of this was during the reformation when the Protestants (the protesters against the Catholics) were forming new organized religions differing from the Catholics. His beliefs and his writings became the foundations for the Lutheran denomination. I know very little about the Lutherans, as that was not one of the organized Christian religions (OCR) in which I participated. I did have some contact with a Lutheran and we talked briefly about the religion. With all due respect to any and all Lutherans who may read this, the Lutherans seem to be a lot like the Catholics, just a bit watered down, if you will. Many of the basic tenants of the Catholic church were carried into the Lutheran church. If memory serves, Martin Luther, then a Catholic priest, found out that the Catholic church was selling "insurance policies", if you will, against penance for sin (Indulgences, I think they were called). Basically, the church collected real money for a paper that technically said, "You are paying your penance now, up front and in cash, for when you sin next. Turn this paper into your priest at the time of confession". This "get out of hell free [this time]" card and the "pass "Go" [because] we collected your 200 dollars" paper were prompted by the Catholic church's need for money. Martin Luther was outraged. Then he wrote papers (95 theses ???) outlining this and other practices of the Catholic church he disagreed with.
Is that somewhere in the ballpark?
To the best of my knowledge (which is real skimpy), Martin Luther didn't really leave the basic God beliefs that the Catholics had decided were "true". His "beef" was with church practices, organization, management, etc. This was true of most of the reformers and protesters. Each kept a great deal of the doctrine and dogma of the Catholic church. That is true today in many of the denominations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
You may have misunderstood me when I used the term "the Priestly Author". I am referring to one of the writers of Genesis - not some later priest that came "after the fact". As I pointed out in a previous post, Mosese did not write the entire Pentateuch or even a large amount of it, but it was compiled by different authors and editors and only later was it attributed via Jewish tradition to Moses. The Priestly Author (or Writer) is the term given to what's known as the P Source in Genesis - just one of several other sources. Check out some information on the Documentary Hypothesis that has been undergirding biblical scholarship for over a hundred years when you have time, as this isn't the time or place for a discussion of it.
Am I correct in assuming that you have misunderstood that aspect? If so - you might want to consider that the book you are choosing to read for yourself had an author, and one of those authors was what is commonly known as the Priestly Author (P for short).
Here I really don't know if I misunderstood you or if I just don't have enough knowledge about the situation. I (think I ) know that this is from the Jewish side of the coin and that at least part of the Torah's information is attributed to the Priestly Author as the writer. As I understand it, there is a thing called the Priestly Source (P). Supposedly, it was written by priests of the day of David (???) who recorded the things that had to do with the priests, roles of the priests, etc. These priests were Zadokites (again, ????), who, at some point, were taken away by an enemy or conquerer or something leaving only the Levites. Then they came back and they were in opposition or competition with the Levites, hence 2 accounts of many of the things, like creation (one from the Zadokites and one from the Levites). The (P) stuff is Zadokite written offerings while there are offerings from others.
Is that anywhere close to anything???
If the (P) is indeed the written offerings of the Zadokites, then they still had no "first-hand" knowledge of creation. They were recording what had been passed down for generations.
I apologize because I did think you were saying that the Priestly Author was physically at creation, therefore, he was recording the event as it happened, therefore, he was the supreme authority on what happened on those "days".
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Fair enough - but bear I mind that you are ascribing divine authority to an English translation, made by translators working with the original languages at a time when they were not as well understood as today, and the Bible you are allowing to stand on it's own is not really.... the Bible. It's a translation. But I understood the allure the KJV has to many. I, myself, was raised on it alone, and told that it was the best translation out there. Not just a translation, it was THE Bible. As if God waited all those years to unveil his "Bible" to English readers, and all those before had been mistaken. This dogma that was drilled into my head passed eventually and I searched out better translations, and then searched out the orignal languages. But to each their own - as long as they know it for what it is.
Thank you for taking the time for making these points. I do understand. I know that the Bible is the English translation and that each and every translations goes through some transformation simple because of translation. Then there are the humans who translate it and edit it and no telling what else. So I do allow for problems.
What I was trying to convey was that all organized Christian religious denominations (estimated at 4,000) use this one text. They have made interpretations and dogmas and doctrines, rules, regulations, etc., etc. all based on this one book. They are all different. For me, that is highly suspect. So, I decided to cut out the middle man (organized Christian religion) and go right to *their* source, the Bible, and read it for myself and draw my own conclusions. Whether or not my conclusions are right or wrong, I've got just as good a shot as being right as I have of picking out the one (if it is out there) that is right out of the 4,000 I have to choose from. If one "believes" as I do, then I'd rather trust myself with my understanding of the text book than to gamble on which of the 4,000 is right. What are the odds of my picking the right one? My totally unscientific research with a very small sample size of a dozen or so did not inspire confidence in me. I could go to Vegas and put all I own on black 13. I'd have better odds.
So, not being indoctrinated in anything, my dad encouraged me to read the Bible for myself. I developed an unconventional view of the Bible. Whether that is right or wrong, it works for me.
Again, thank you for your time and the information you gave. If I made mistakes regarding Martin Luther or (P), please let me know.
Ella
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). Maybe that is all there is too it - the pursuit of good for good's sake.
