| Archive for langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Come in and have your daily cup of languages! |
| Loic |
Reading the ScripturesI noticed that quite a number of us here are well versed with the Bible. I yearn to have such a knowledge at my fingertips; I skimmed through the Old Testament in my youth while cherry-picking the books that made up the New Testament.I have never regarded the Bible as the ultimate authority in truth. Indeed, I feel that is dangerous to interprete it literally. The Bible is riddled with contradictions, and may I have the temerity to add, addled with nonsense in some parts. The Bible is not inerrant. To me, it serves as an example on how we should lead our lives. It serves by direct instruction such as the Ten Commandments or the famous Sermon on the Mount. That is what the Scriptures excel at doing: giving us an absolute moral standad by which we should all strive to achieve. We should not be studying geology or history through the prejudiced and chaotic filters of the Bible. Let's take what the more sophisticated theologians call 'flood geology' and what the rest of the world refer to as Noah's Ark. A Gallup poll revealed that close to 50% of Americans take this story seriously. The fact that so many rational right-thinking people are able to swallow the story hook, line and sinker tells me that education has comprehensively failed them. Squeezing two animals of each species into an ark is simply untenable. Wouldn't Noah and his family have caught an early primitive form of bird flu whilst living in close proximity with their livestock? The story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, on the other hand, never ceases to amuse me. As you would all probably know, Abraham's nephew, Lot, was the latter-day equivaent of Noah whom God had taken a liking to for being one of the few honest and righteous men in increasingly corrupted and depraved world. So two male angels were sent to the abode of Lot in order to warn him of the impending dangers. Lot hospitably welcomed the angels into his house where he probably served them cups of tea, like a good host he was, whereupon a male crowd of the city of Sodom gathered outside and demanded that Lot should hand over the angels so that they could (what else?) sodomise them. (Genesis 19: 5 - Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them). Of course, the sensitive translators who made possible the King James Authorised Bible had quite a sense of humour with their euphemistic definition of 'know'. Lot gallantly refused, naturally. God must have been on to something when He rightly singled him out as the only good man left in Sodom. But his halo is tarnishd, in my view, by the terms of his refusal: 'I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof' (Genesis 19: 7 -8) When I first read this years ago, I was appalled. I still am, today. This brings to mind the famous Arabic hospitality, an excuse which was invoked in 2001 when Osama bin Laden was hiding in some tent in Afghanistan. The Talban's refusal to hand him over despite being cognisant of the consequences was held up as an example of hospitality a la Lot. This is not the end of the story. We would all have known that happily for Lot's daughters, the crowd did not so much as lay a finger on them. The angels grew annoyed and dispersed the crowd away. Lot and his family decamped that very night with the explicit warnings by the angels to not look back at the almighty firework displays of fire and brimstone that would rain upon Sodom. Of course, somebody had to defy the script which was written for her. Lot's unfortunate wife could not resist a peek and committed the transgression - a very minor one, in my opinion - of turning her back and was promptly turned into a pillar of salt. The story does not end here. Lot's two daughters make an appearance towards the end. Bereft of their mother and of male company, they decided to make their father drunk and copulate with him. Lot was beyod the realm of reason when his oldest daughter arrived at his bedchambers, but he was apparenty sober enough to impregnate her. The next night, the youngest daughter pulled the same stunt and Lot, being a recidivist, impregnated her as well. Now, if this dysfunctional family was the best Sodom had to offer by way of morals and good values, some might begin to feel a certain sympathy with the capricious and cruel God of the Old Testament as well as His judicial brimstone. The point I am trying to make is that those who take the Scriptures at face value do so at their own peril. When I was younger, I vastly preferred the Old Testament to the New because of its entertainment value whereas the New Testament has more in the way of educational value. It is obvious from previous interactions with me that I am not an atheist who goes around like a raving madman, shrilly denouncing the evils of Christianity or of organised religions in general. To me, the Bible is an important cultural or literary reference even if the atheists vehemently disagree. Many examples have been cited and there is overwhelming agreement by teachers of English literature that biblical literarcy is essential to full appreciation of the subject. It is like Wagner: one cannot fully appreciate his masterpieces without a sound knowledge of the various Norse gods. Think of the various list of cliches, proverbs, idioms, similes and phrases that spontaneosly spring to mind. We are indebted to the Bible and indeed, we'd be culturally impoverished for it without its contributions to the richness and vitality of our language: 1. Be fruitful and multiply 2. Am I my brother's keeper? 3. As old as Methuselah 4. To sell his birthright (as Ishmael did to Isaac) 5. Stranger in a strange land 6. land flowing with milk and honey 7. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth 8. the apple of his eye 9. speaking Shibboleth 10. a Philistine 11. How are the mighty fallen 12. Wisdom of Solomon 13. The patience of Job 14. Spare the rod and spoil the child 15. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid (my favourite) 16. Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die 17. to see things eye to eye 18. can the leopard change its spots? 19. Man shall not live by bread alone 20. Get thee behind me, Satan! 21. to go the extra mile 22. a law unto himself 23. to fight the good fight 24. The Good Samaritan 25. Grapes of Wrath The list is endles. It goes on and on. For this reason, and for it alone, religious education should be a part of every schoolboy's curriculum. Every loyal reader of PG Wodehouse would realise, to his delight, that the great master of comedic farce is an expert in weaving in biblical allusions into his plot. By examining the Bertie Wooster and Jeeves canon alone, the reader would never fail to smile whenever the woolly-headed Bertie bragged about winning a prize in Scripture Knowledge back at Eton, plausibly his sole scholastic achievement in his entire life. Listen to Bertie Wooster's evocation of what it is like to wake up with a bad hangover: "I had been dreaming that some blighter was driving spikes through my head - not just ordinary spikes as used by Yael the wife of Heber, but red-hot ones'. The enjoyment of this ingenuiously funny allusion would be muted if you had failed to realise that Yael killed Sisera by means of a tent peg. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I basically agree with what Loic has said.
Haha — I know, it's ridiculous. Interpreted literally, it also suggests that all animals today are descended from those few animals which went in the ark somewhere in the Middle East about 5,000 years ago, which is totally unrealistic. Moreover, the story is self-contradictory: at one point, it says that two of every animal were saved, whilst at another, it says that seven of every animal were saved, suggesting that two slightly different myths were assimilated together. Interpreting stories like this literally comes from a mentality which thinks in terms of true=literal. This sort of mentality is prevalent (at least in the West) today, and has led many people to either interpret these stories as literal historical events (especially in the United States, apparently) or simply dismiss them off-hand as fundamentally meaningless. I think it also comes from a misunderstanding of the concept of 'religious faith'. So often, 'faith' seems to be presented as a kind of virtue, whereby the more 'faith' you have, the better person you are because of it. The more irrational and improbable the beliefs, the stronger the 'faith'; and if you manage to hold on to your beliefs even when contradictory evidence is continuously presented to you, then you must be a very very holy person indeed. I've often seen people on the internet claim that if any stories of the Bible are not literally true, then the writers of those stories must have been 'liars'. I don't understand how anyone could reach that conclusion, but it seems to be a fairly common view amongst at least some Evangelical Christians. I like the Noah's Ark story though. Noah found favour with God by standing out from the crowd. He claimed that there would be a great flood, but everybody else just laughed at him. In the story, he built a huge boat, which must have led to him receiving extreme amounts of mockery and ridicule. But in the end, Noah and his family survived, whilst all the others were killed. I think the story advises us to listen to the 'lunatic' occasionally, because they might just be right. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
I agree. Just because some stories aren't *literally* true doesn't necessarily mean the authors are liars. Most of these stories are parables and should be read and interpreted accordingly.
That's a very very common preconception. However, some people know that it's some sort of a misconception, thus vehemently claim that it isn't true, but still, they subconsciously adhere to it. A statement, which I've recently heard from a friend of mine, sums it up succintly and perfectly: "It doesn't depend on faith that someone is a good or a bad person, but generally, religious people are more virtous, benevolent, hard-working and conscientious." It seems to be a bit of an argumentational fallacy. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tiorthan |
I would never call a storyteller a liar. And storyteller is what the authors were. I assume there have been various variants of the same story around when the Bible was set in stone. One should never forget that sometimes there were literally thousands of years between the time the events took place and the day they were written down.
I would get further and say it is not religious people that are more whatever but people that have a vision, an intension or purpose in life. For me, who does not believe in God or any other overnatural power, the Bible is a testament of history and of the peoples minds and mentality over the centuries of that time. It is but one viewpoint though but one well documented. And it contains the experience of more than a mans life. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Benjamin:
One of the rare moments we see eye to eye on a subject. I appreciate this rare convergence in our point of view. I think there are moments in life when every educated person of faith is plagued with doubts as to the validity of the existence of God. Supporters of religion sometimes argue that there are scientific links between belief in God as well as his mental and physical well-being. This may be so, but it does not detract from the fact that God could still be as real as fairies at the bottom of the garden. We must hence be able to distinguish between what is true and what we want to be true. I am reminded of a question posed to the famous atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell. When asked what if he was wrong and there was God after all, Russell supposedly replied: "Not enough evidence, God. Not enough evidence at all". I do not want to go into the details on why I happen to be on the side of the believers. For one, religion allows me to express my love for tradition as well as my hatred of injustice. What saddens me is how atheists are often cut off from the traditions and cultural practices of their forefathers. Let me not belabour the point: I feel that even an atheist worldview provides no justification for cutting the Bible, as well as other sacred books, out of our education. We can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literal traditions of say, Roman Catholicism or Buddhism and participate in religious rituals such as marriage and funerals without buying into the superstitious beliefs that historically accompany these traditions. In short, we can, as Golda Meir famously said, believe in people while people believe in God. PS: I am very impressed with the likes of Porthos, Benjamim and ddog for their familiarity with the Bible. The only kind of Bible I am most acquainted with is a sort of illustrated children's Bible with plenty of cute pictures of a bearded Noah and adorable pigs, horses and other animals all packed cheek to jowl in a tiny ark with a rainbow in the background. There were no references of incestuous behaviour between Lot and his daughters. I suppose it was a very sanitised Bible. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Re: Reading the Scriptures
Not to mention, that the bodies of the only men in the ark must have served as a shelter for all strictly human pathogens, which do not have animal reservoirs, like Salmonella typhi or smallpox. But seriously, if you type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology) you will find a lot of interesting about Great Floods in various myths. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Ksa:
I have no doubts about the existence of such a flood. It is very possible. It probably happened. It probably caused widespread misery and devastation. It most definitely left an indelible imprint in the memories of the affected population and the story of the disaster was passed down from generation to generation. Actually, who wrote the Book of Genesis? The writers probably heard a distorted version of it and duly immortalised their version of the story in print. The story of Noah's Ark, after all, is part of the Abrahamic tradition that is also common to Judaeism and Islam. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
I understand your concerns, but not all atheists deny the importance of the Bible and other sacred books. Not being a religious person myself, I completely agree with you when you say that we shouldn't cut off from the cultural heritage of our forefathers and that the Bible shouldn't be cut out from our education. I'm sad, too, that many atheists simply play down the importance of these things. But at the same time, I'm sick and tired of those who are self-righteous about their own faith, who take the liberty of making blanket statements about atheists and keep saying that all the people who don't belive in God or have another religion have no values whatsoever. I feel the same way about atheists, too, who look down on religious people.
I agree that we have to respect and keep our cultural and literal traditions alive, however, I don't think that an atheists couple is advised to get married in the framework of a traditional Roman Catholic wedding ceremony or that a religious funeral should be organised for an atheist person who didn't find his way to God even in the last minutes of his agony. That's just wouldn't be an honest thing to do. If you don't belive in God, you cannot *honestly* make an oath to God. It's not just sheer formality - it's the question of faith or the lack of it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Haha, it's only because I did A-Level Religious Studies!  And have only just finished it, so I still remember a lot of it. Actually, the Religious Studies course taught at my school for A-Level is unusual these days in that it was mainly focussed on the Bible — which in some ways was rather surprising, considering that most people in the Religious Studies class were actually Muslims.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
The Pentateuch, which includes Genesis, is usually attributed to four sources by modern scholars: J — the Yahwist — probably written in 9th century BCE in the Southern Kingdom (Judah); God is called 'Yahweh' and is anthropomorphic E — the Elohist — probably written in 8th century BCE in Northern Kingdom (Israel); God is called 'Elohim' and uses angels D — the Deuteronomist — probably written in 7th century BCE; includes the whole of Deuteronomy P — the Priestly source — probably written around the time of the exile into Babylonia in 6th century BCE; focuses on laws This explains why the various stories are often somewhat self-contradictory (e.g. the creation, the flood etc.), because they are probably derived from different sources. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
Benjamin:
I also learnt it at school about the Pentateuch and that makes the versatility (and the ocassional discrepancies and logical twists) of the script a lot easier to understand. Actually, the funny thing is that it's called the Pentateuch and is attributed to four different sources. I know that penta- refers to the number of books it consists of, still, I find it interesting that those five books are from only four different sources. The most well-known and probably the most widely accepted hypothesis with regards to the origins of the Pentateuch is without a doubt this one, having been proposed by Julius Wellhausen. Are there other newer hypotheses/theories about the origin of the script? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Liz:
I sympathise with you when you complained about those sanctimonious and self-righteous radicals who jump to all sorts of conclusions about atheists in general. I am quite sad that some of the nastiest comments I have heard which are directed against atheists, are almost invariably motivated by religion. Such unchristian abuse makes a mockery of the teachings of Jesus. What happened to the gallant code of Christian chivalry? In my opinion, there is no need for these bunch of monkeys to go foaming at the mouth whenever they encounter an atheist, who is after all, still a fellow human being. God doesn't need such ferocious defence. One might have supposed Him to be amply capable of taking care of Himself. I suppose this unfortunate misunderstanding of atheism stems from a misconception that atheists are inherently immoral. Is atheism all about nihilistic negativity? I don't know; I am not qualified enough to speak about it. I suppose atheists would think it insulting if they are accused of being immoral. But this begs the question: whence do atheists get their moral values and their cultural Zeigeist? Would we ever see an atheist follow the example of Abbe Pierre or Mother Teresa and dedicate his life to helping the oppressed, the unfortunate, the weak, the disenfranchised and the needy? Not to be presumptious, but I think the answer is very likely not. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Benjamin:
Wow. Did you also follow in Bertie Wooster's example and win a prize for Scripture Knowledge at school? I have never formally studied the Bible. It is commonly said that the Catholics do not put much stock in the Bible and this is unfortunately a very common perception of the Roman Catholics' attitude towards the Bible in general. After all, truth is not solely derived from the Scriptures, but also from traditions. PS: Thanks for enlightening me on the provenance of the Book of Genesis. That explains its melodramatic flair - the writers were probably trying too hard to put the fear of God in the nascent tribes of Israel. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Again, in the abscence of an omnipotent divine being's intervention, this could very well have happened. But you can't apply the same scientific laws to a religious book, whose central character is an almighty God, creator of the universe. If the bible is to make any sense at all, one must first believe in God, and recognize that he is all-powerful, and capable of performing supernatural feats and imparting the power of miracles to key figures like Moses and Jesus. Matthew 19:26 - "With God all things are possible." I believe there is a God simply because all of nature around me is too awe-inspiring and wonderous and complex for it to have come about by mere chance. The odds of the present universe around us coming about by chance are so astronomically unlikely, that in any other theatre of science, it would be deemed unrealistic, and an unworthy hypothesis. The human brain in all its facets is so stunningly complex that there is no way it could not be a product of intelligent design. Much of the bible is not literal, but symbolic. The bible uses a lot of aritistic depiction which symbolize literal things, a lot of foreshadowing, symbolism, and numerical symbolism. The bible is largely a book of prophecy. Books like the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation are almost entirely prophetic, and symbolic. It's just a matter of unlocking the messages within the symbolism, by means of holy spirit and intense investigation of the scriptures. We are instructed to search for the deep things of God "like buried treasure". The deeper matters of the bible would not be revealed to just anyone. They would only be revealed to sincere-hearted ones. That being said, much of the bible is literal, and if the miraculous works mentioned in the bible were being performed only by the power of men, then yes, they would be impossible, and mere fantasy. But not if an all-powerful God was behind them. If one believes that God created the infinite universe, then why can't one believe that he was capable of parting the Red Sea, or healing the sick? I don't understand, and I think I never will, how so many claim to be Christians, but disregard the very foundation, origin, and source of Christianity, namely the Bible. I can't remember the scripture off the top of my head, but it says something to the affect that "You should keep examining the scriptures, and see that is in harmony with the teachings/doctrines/traditions of men The point of that scripture is that the bible was meant as a standard by which to compare to the teachings or doctrines of the churches. If the teachings or practices were not in harmony with the words of the bible, then they were false teachings, or "traditions of men" as Jesus called it. Many of these false teachings, not found in the bible have become the central tenets of the majority of Christian denominations today, such as the Trinity, Hellfire, the immortality of the soul, and the adoption of pagan holidays as major Christian festivals. Also, many modern denominations paint this rosy picture of "once saved, always saved" teaching, whereby all you have to do is believe in Jesus "and take him into your heart" and be saved, regardless of your actions. You can be a murderer, rapist, drug-addict, child molester, thief, and a habitual liar, and still be saved, so long as you believe in Jesus. This is an example of the "ear-tickling" doctrines Jesus and the apostles spoke of. Many people also believe that there are many paths toward God, and all that really counts is believing in him. Is that true as well? Well notice this passage from Matthew chapter 7: Go in through the narrow gate, because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it. The above clearly indicates that attaining everlasting salvation is not as easy as some make it seem, for if all they had to do was believe in Jesus, nearly everyone would be saved. It continues.... Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to you in sheep's covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will recognize them........... 21 - Not everyone saying to me, "Lord, Lord", will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my father in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?" And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew you. Get away from me you workers of lawlessness. Many people prefer to pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe, according to what suits them, or what they find convinient. If the bible clearly condemns a practice they're guilty of, then they choose to disregard it. But notice what is said in 1st Corinthians: What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom. Clearly, those things are not acceptable to God. So, what is actually needed for ones to "inherit God's kingdom"? John 17:3 - This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Porthos:
You said that everything in the world is too awe-inspiring to have come by mere chance. Do you then subscribe to the notion of intelligent design? For me, I think intelligent design is just Creationism marketed as something sophisticated and vaguely scientific in order to gain an air of respectability and hence wider acceptance by the public. Evolution does not come by mere chance; it is an ongoing process that has taken place since the dawn of time. In fact, I would prefer the term 'natural selection' as it more accurately describes the theories underpinning our existence. For example, you might believe the wings of a dragonfly to be too beautiful to have come about by pure chance; I simply believe that it is the end product of a long sequence of non random but purely natural causes. I am not qualified to expound on evolutionary biology as I am not immersed in the natural sciences. Suffice to say, I believe that natural selection and God can co-exist in perfect harmony: God laid the groundwork by creating the Universe aeons ago. He did not go on to meticulously plan the structure of every living organism in the next six days. In this respect, my belief system mirrors that of a deist who sincerely subscribes to the idea that God merely started the engine without necessarily driving the car from point A to B. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
Definitely. And it *is* a misconception. No-one is *inherently* moral or immoral, you become either of the two or both, but it's not that clear-cut. Being moral or immoral is not a question of faith or the lack of it. (Note that "faith" here refers to religious faith. Atheists aren't necessarily faithless.) Faith and your trust in God optimally make you a better person but the lack of it doesn't automatically make you immoral. Being able to be moral and virtuous without knowing that God is watching you is far greater an achivement than acting the same way for fear of getting punished.
If you interpret atheism as the state of not believing in God, then my answer is a definite no. What has it got to do with "nihilism" and "negativity"? I completely fail to see the correlation between nihilism and atheism, nevertheless, there are atheists who are nihilists at the same time. As far as negativity is concerned, I think the only negativity in connection with atheism is the denial of the existence of God. However, "denial" is too strong a word to use in this context - in my opinion, not believing something isn't tantamount to denying it. "Denial" carries some negative connotations, implying that the person in question ex cathedra declares that God doesn't exists and expresses scorn towards other people who believe in God. Back to the original question: what makes you think that atheists are inherently negative?
From the same sources you do...without being aware of Divine Providence.
I'm positive we would and we did. Believe me. They haven't become / might not become that well-known as the ones you mentioned, though.
Now who is being negative? 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Atheists are capable of much good. They are afterall, like the rest of us, still created in God's image, and albeit imperfectly, we mirror God's attributes. Unlike animals, we have a conscience and built-in system of morals, something that I believe science can't answer. Loic, to answer your question, yes I do belive in intelligent design. Just as every house has its maker, so do we, the most marvelous creature of all, have a maker. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
It is in my understanding that atheists believe that life ends with a full stop the moment they draw their lasp gasp of breath. To me, that is nihilistically negative. I would be very depressed if I were to wake up one morning and realise that there is no afterlife. What is the point of living if we all die and totally pass out from living memory in the end? What is the point of it all?
So it is still religion which serves as the fount of your moral values.
Opps. I wouldn't call it being negative; I was just baiting you for an answer, Liz. Porthos: While I can't say I agree with your point of view, I am happy to agree to disagree. After all, such beliefs are built on faith alone and faith can be an unmovable pillar for many people. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
Well, it's not that clear-cut again. I wouldn't say life ends with the very moment of death. You get into the cycle of nature and revive, however, not necessarily the way religious people imagine. Even if it seems so, I'm not talking about reincarnation - that's an entirely different kettle of fish.
No. It's humanity. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Llatai |
Re: Reading the Scriptures
I'm curious about something Loic. If you select from the Bible that which you believe to provide truth and guidance and that which you denounce as nonsense, then what you seem to be doing is selecting passages which already ring true to you, thus reinforcing moral conclusions to which you'd already arrived. How else would you make those distinctions? How then does the Bible provide moral guidance? And if what I'm saying is true, how then would it not be possible for atheists to come to moral conclusions without the aid of a so called moral compass such as religion? Religious moral authority simply provides an outside justification to authenticate one's own personal decisions? If true then it seems to me that you're wondering how atheists are able to do something which you've already done. Atheists are simply rejecting what you're claiming to be your standard, and utilizing what it would seem is your true moral standard; your internal moral compass. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
Re: Reading the Scriptures
You speak my mind!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Haha, no.
Don't worry — Unitarians place far less emphasis on the Bible than Roman Catholics do.
I believe in 'God', but not for this reason. So you've explained why you believe in God; what has led you to conclude that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?
Goddidit fallacy, I'm afraid.
That's view of most Evangelical Christians, yes. However, most modern biblical scholars believe that these books were written largely as a response to persecution. They find that the Book of Daniel has too many historical inaccuracies to have been written in the 6th century BCE, and believe instead that it was written in the 2nd century BCE by someone writing as though they were Daniel writing it in the 6th century BCE — a very common feature of ancient Hebrew literature, actually. The symbolism used was thus probably referring to events happening at the time of writing — the beast who 'spoke arrogantly' being Antiocus Epiphanes IV (his name means 'God made manifest'). The book then goes on to 'prophecise' the death of Antiocus Epiphanes at the end, but gets it wrong.
Incidentally, the 'Red Sea' is probably a mistranslation. It more likely refers to the Reed Sea — the 'parting' of which could be explained rationally. It is very unlikely that the Israelites would have gone all the way down to the Red Sea to escape from Egypt — wouldn't have made any sense at all, because it wasn't near where they lived, and it isn't on the way to Canaan either.
Interesting assertion. I was going to say something else then, but then I remembered that most mainstream Christianity (including yours, it would seem) is arguably as much dependent on Paul/Saul as it is dependent on Jesus. If you don't mind me saying, I find it surprising that someone with what I know about your lifestyle would have these kind of fundamentalist ultra-puritanical sola scriptura Christian beliefs. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Re: Reading the Scriptures
To put it bluntly, the Bible is as dependable as Dick Cheney's shooting skills when it comes to unravelling the origins of existence as well as mysteries of the cosmic universe. It is also a poor history textbook in explaining the events which transpired in the Middle East circa BC. In fact, I look more to the guidance of the social teaching tradition of the Roman Catholic church: papel encyclicals issued by the Popes elucidating the kind of behaviour we should strive to achieve. For example, John XXIII's Pacem in Terris stresses on the need for establishing peace on Earth and how every man, woman and child has an inalienable right to leading a fulfilling life that is free of the ravages of war and the accompanying malaises of starvation, economic deprivation and the forfeit of education. John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae underpins my opposition to abortion, the death penalty, pre-marital sex (which may potentially end in pregnancy) as well as a panoply of other threats which can potentially violate the sacred inviolability and dignity of human life. Without the guiding hand of religion, Man is fully capable of descending into feral savagery. William Golding's Lord of the Flies makes a mockery out of the so-called inner moral compass which every sentient human being is supposed to have; the Stanford Prison Experiment would further attest to the absence of a natural conscience in each and everyone of us. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Walker |
Then what are you talking about? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tiorthan |
I eat my carrots that grow on earth that possibly has been a human body ages ago...
I think this is an interpretation of what Liz wanted to say. (At least it's my personal view of the world.) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Walker |
I'm not sure if I'd call that "reviving", though. More like breaking down and transforming into something else. Life does end with the very moment of death. Your life does, anyway. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Walker |
Why should there be any point of living, except to live your life? We live because we have an inherent will to do so and as such we have fear of death/non-existence, and in order to handle that fear we make up stories about an "afterlife". The idea of an afterlife seems nice but I find it hard to believe in Heaven and Hell. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a God welcoming you to His Heavenly Kingdom? And wouldn't it be pretty cool if there was a smiling baggy-eyed Satan in backslick and a white tuxedo? I suppose it would, but I can't really believe in it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I don't believe in a literal afterlife either — when I die, that'll be the end of it for me. And to be honest, I wouldn't like to think that I'd continue to exist for all eternity anyway — and I don't think that many people would be prepared to put up with me for all eternity either.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Walker |
Yeah, and as if all those family gatherings in life weren't enough! 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Llatai |
Re: Reading the Scriptures
Well I stand corrected. You seem to be more reliant on the guidance of the papacy than the Bible. Yet your statements above do not support anything. The Lord of the Flies was fiction, and the Standford prision experiment was within a closed and confined environment. I'm sorry Loic but religion hardly provides a track record to emulate. It seems to me that religious believers have no more reliable a moral compass upon which to base their presumptions than atheists. They have tradition only, and that tradition is mired with real "sin" and mere assumptions of righteousness, with a few exceptions. In addition, your outline of Pope John XXIII's Pacem in Terris could have just as easily been written by a secular humanist atheist, indeed, its proports the same values as secular statements concerning human rights. So why is it again that religion is required as a basis for moral judgement if secularists have come to quite similar basic conclusions? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
That's exactly what I meant. Tiorthan, you always do a far better job of explaining what I mean than me! 
You are right. It's my English again - I couldn't find a better word.
Welcome to the Atheist Club, Walker! 
Same here. Frankly, it would be pretty annoying for me to live forever. I would certainly get on my nerves and drive others crazy, too - I'd get slowly but surely bored by life. What gives life meaning is the fact that it will come to an end one day.
Without inner strength and moral compass, you certainly would - but it might happen even if you believe in God. There is no one-to-one correspondence between atheism and savagery - whether you are able to descend into squalour, filth and horror is strictly the question of the character of the individual and that of the circumstances as well. As Llatai said, both the Lord of the Flies and the Stanford Prison Experiment were made-up, the former being pure fiction, the latter having been carried out under laboratory conditions. Of course, it doesn't mean that there isn't a modicum of truth in these stories, but they shouldn't automatically be accepted at face value. Furthermore, how can you prove that the reason for their behaviour should only be put down to the lack of religious faith? Wasn't it probably the consequence of something else? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
It reminds me of those politicians with a very specific usually somewhat extreme agenda who started their political career when they were in their 20s, and are still very much around when they're in their 80s. You get the feeling that they've always been there, and can't really imagine them not being there either. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
How so? 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Il n'y a quand même pas équivalence entre la vision athée de la religion et la vision religieuse de l'athéisme. Par définition, la religion n'est pas nécessaire à la vie intellectuelle athée. De même que ni l'entomologie ni l'étude de la mode vestimentaire au cours des âges ne sont nécessaires à la pensée humaine. Certes, la religion, la cuisine et les mathématiques peuvent être des objets d'études, mais aucune des trois n'englobe l'esprit humain. Les trois, pour importantes qu'elles soient, ne sont ontologiquement que des objets de réflexion. En revanche l'athéisme, en tant qu'il nie non seulement la dogmatique religieuse mais aussi la pertinence de toute question religieuse, revêt un caractère central pour l'esprit religieux. Et je ne parle même pas de la laïcité (qui n'est pas l'athéisme) qui contraint la religion à se cantonner aux sphères individuelle et privée. Voilà pourquoi je pense que l'athéisme et la religion ne sauraient être mis sur le même plan d'équivalence. Ce qui ne veut pas dire que se documenter sur le fait religieux est un "crime" contre l'athéisme. Bien au contraire. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
Although it isn't necessary for human thinking per se, it is an indisputable fact that religion has always had a great impact on almost everyone, including atheists - if not religion/religious faith itself but its cultural background.
Certainly, but you can't deny its presence even in a life of an atheist, nevertheless, only formally and culturally. As opposed to you, I think religion does have ontological relevance.
Interesting. I have only ever heard the opposite of your view (from religious people, of course). I have never heard that one but I basically agree. However, it is true the other way round as well. Both atheists and religious people tend not to acknowledge the fact that both ways of thinking have a profound impact on each other. That said, I don't think atheism as such would exist without the concept of religion, either. It would exist, but not as consciously as it does now - you wouldn't have to make a distinction between theism and atheism.
Of course. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Interesting how you all are discussing the afterlife issue using a typical "human-point-of-view" rhetoric. I know that the idea of living for ever may be hard to imagine but according to this concept (providing it is true, of course) we will constitute completely different being. Moreover, I think we will live beyond the time, which is extremely difficult to understand, but I think there will be no past nor future - just present.
I try not to think about it too much. We cannot prove that the afterlife exists as we cannot prove otherwise. Even if there is something like this, thinking about it using human (i.e. limited) terminology is somewhat pointless. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Walker |
Are you telling me there's no beer in the afterlife?
How and when did you come to believe in what you've described here? If you don't mind my asking... You're right about the concept of living beyond time being extremely difficult to understand, though I'd say it's frickin' impossible. Have you yourself any idea of what this state where there's only present would be like? No past to remember and no future to look forward to? If there's no time there then how do you get there in the first place? Perhaps one could think of it as sitting at a remote bus stop that's no longer in use and getting so high you don't know anything anymore. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tiorthan |
And now you have arrived at the point where I would diskuss the definition of life to make something like afterlife ... I will not do this on any forum. If anyone's interested I'll give you my address but please announce your arrival some days in advance, I have to clean up the living room.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Interestingly, the bible does not actually speak of an afterlife per se, but this teaching is a product of the incorporation of pagan religious beliefs. The Bible says From dust you are, and to dust you will return. - Gen 3:19 Eccl 9:5 - The living are conscious that they shall die, but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all." Psalms 146:4 - His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts (all thinking according to NE bible) do perish. We all know our bodies rot in the earth and return to the soil as organic matter, but many people believe that our inner being, or "soul" lives on in the afterlife. Again, not a bible teaching. 
The bible speaks of a "soul" as a person, a being, a man, and not some ghost like figure that resides within us and leaves our body after death. Genesis speak of Adam as becoming a "living soul". Or consider the saying, "Don't tell a single soul", which means, "Don't tell a single person". Ezekiel 18:4 - The sould that is sinning, it itself will die. Eccl 9: 6 - Their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun." Isaiah 26:14 - They are dead; they will not live. Impotent in death, they will not rise up." The teaching of afterlife in a place of eternal torment called "Hell" is of Greco-Roman origin, and later adopted by the Catholic Church as a means of frightening churchgoers. This teaching is not found in the bible. The Hebrew word translated "hell" in the bible is Sheol and the Greek word translated "hell" is Hades, both of which simply mean the grave, or the common grave of mankind. There is no fire-like torment associated with these words. In way of support of this, consider the case of Job, who in the bible was spoken of as being "blameless and upright in the eyes of God". He was spoken of as "God's friend", so obviously he wouldn't be someone deserving of eternal punishment in a place of torment, as according to that teaching, only the wicked go there. But notice this scripture: Job 14:13 - (Job prayed) " Who will grant me this, that thou mayst protect me me in *hell*? According to the principles of justice in the bible, the end-all punishment for sin is death, therefore there would be no need to continue punishing people after death if they already paid the price by dying. Romans 6:23 - The wages sin pays is death. Romans 6:7 - He who has died has been acquited from his sins. So, the bible clearly shows that the dead do not live on in some mythical afterlife, in heaven or hell, such as the ancient non- Judeo-Christians believed, but that you die, and remain dead, in mind and in body. But the bible does speak of a ressurection taking place, whereby all those who died in the past will be "raised up" and live again on earth. According to the scriptures, this is to happen after Christ establishes his kingdom over the earth, and after the wicked have been destroyed in the battle of Armageddon, and the world is restored to the original, paradise condition such as it was before Adam and Eve sinned.
Oh okay, so you mean the same people who instigated widespread genocide, commited the atrocities of the Inquisition, and remained silent during the holocaust, while quietly endorsing Mussolini and Hitler's policies? Yep, they sure provided excellent models of behavior.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Josh Lalonde |
Although there are other examples of the afterlife in the Bible: Saul summoning Samuel's ghost, for example. This is one of my biggest problems with using the Bible as a basis for religious doctrine: it was written by different people over hundreds of years, and they didn't necessarily agree with each other on every point (or even on any points). There are contradictory views on certain subjects, each equally supportable with Biblical references; which one is the "word of God"? It basically comes down to which viewpoint you like better, so why bother with looking to the Bible for doctrine anyway? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Nope. The bible does not contradict itself. It's all a matter of interpretation. True, it was penned by many different men, but that doesn't negate the fact that God was the true author of each and every one of the books. Similar to how a lawyer might dictate a letter to his secretary. The secretary is the one actually typing/writing the letter, but the laywer is still the author. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
Of course, there is - provided you manage to reserve a cosy room in Hotel Inferno. 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Rather eccentric sort of God that you believe in then. Are you intending to become a Jehovah's Witness, assuming you're not one already? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Perhaps. They seem to be the only ones who follow the bible and whose teachings are actually based on the bible. But why would that make him eccentric? Who else could he have used to pen the words of the bible? Monkeys? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
What you mean to say is that the Jehovah's Witnesses are the organisation which most closely share your view of what the Bible is and your interpretation of its contents.
If every word in the Bible was written by God, then I find God very eccentric. I also find this view of God to be very narrow. Basically, it suggests that the main way by which God has revealed herself/himself is through an inerrant text, written between around 200 CE and 800 BCE (or 4000 BCE according to the traditional view) in a limited geographical area and in a very small number of languages. In other words, it is not sufficiently inclusive or accessible for all people in all times, and arguably borders on ethnocentricism. What's more, since this inerrant text is to be read by particularly 'errant' humans, which has resulted in such a wide range of interpretations, it's 'inerrancy' is rendered a bit redundant anyway. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Llatai |
Your dreams are timeless and you "get there"every night without much trouble. Dreams are only differentiated from reality in a titular sense. We choose to call our waking state reality and dreams only dreams, yet in an empirical sense they couldn't be more real when you experience them. People often have dreams so intense that they have physical reactions, they wake up sweating, with heart palpatations or if you happen to be a male of about 14 yrs old or so, other occurances
In fact, how do you know what you call your life isn't a dream? How do you know that when you die someone doesn't ask you "so what did you dream about this time?" |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Kinda like the Matrix.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Porthos, You will never be a Jehovah Witness. I mean, you can of course join them but not for long. You ask too many questions - they don't like it. Especially when they can't find the answer. There is no room for individuals there. Lastly, I can't imagine you going door-to-door and speaking about the Bible. And please bear in mind that this is the preferable way of spending your free time, anything else is a waste of time. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
That's true. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
The Universe is not only queerer than we thought; it is queerer than we can intuitively imagine. I am reminded of this famous speech in Hamlet:
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio Than are dreamt of in your philosophy It stands to reason that an atheist's failure to understand the existence of a Creator does not in anyway disproves His existence. Honestly, I don't understand quantum theory. Neither do I understand the multiverse theory of the Copenhagen interpretation. All of you here probably do not understand it either. The Copenhagen interpretation assaults our common sense: everything is up for speculation. Basically, the multiverse theory postulates that in one universe, I might be a moustachioed chap in a bowler hat a la Thomson and Thompson from Tintin. In another universe, I could have already kicked the bucket and am already lying six feet under. This seems preposterous, but it is a conceivable scenario that is more real than imagined. It is the same for God. It takes a leap of faith to believe in Him, but once you do, everything begins to make sense. PS: I am sure you are being humorous, Porthos. However, I frown upon Catholic bashing and I hope you would refrain from such tactless remarks in future. Such comments do nothing to promote a eucumenical spirit of co-operation at all. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Well, I remember my physics classes some 15 years ago and my attempt to understand infinity. I almost went crazy and decided not to think about it - just take it for granted. You know, no mathematician denies that infinity is something real, even if they are extreme atheists. So I decided that if I couldn't understand certain things from the real world it's useless trying to understand the concept of an afterlife, which consists of infinity+other things that even physic cannot describe.I don't really believe that our souls will raise from the dead embodied. At least not in the form of the body we are wrapped in in the "real" life.I'd rather believe that it will be like the Jesus' body after ressurection. His disciples were confused: it looked like a normal body but it was still different. He could for example go through the walls, walk on the water, it was not vulnerable any more. Sort of "spiritual body". Still, as I said it may turn out completely different. Our limited mind cannot understand many things even from the "real" life. So that's why I try not to bother about the"afterlife" too much. As for beer, I'm afraid we will not have it any more in the afterlife. So let's not waste our time! Cheers!!!!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
I would ! At least because it would mean I too would be eternal ! J'adorerais ne jamais quitter cette Terre (ou du moins ne pas y retourner, littéralement) pourvu que le vieillissement, ou du moins ses conséquences, soit jugulé. 
True. But this influence is declining, at least in France. What may be declining in perhaps slower motion are indeed some die-hard cultural patterns.
I'm cooking & doing maths everyday as I need to eat food & work out my budget on a daily basis. However, I do not practice religion nor have to think about it except when I come across ostensibly (even ostentatiously) religious people. Everything has ontological relevance : your house, your car, your dog, your cat, your coat, your shoes, your job, your loans, your age, your sex, your values, your beliefs, your experience & your thoughts. Since religion is something only speculative, relative, subjective & contingent, it may be studied as such for there is a distance between the object of the study and the subject conducting the study. When the distance is abolished, it is your ontological self that is changing, not the ontological value of religion.
Agree. Enlightment atheism emerged in societies profoundly shaped by religion and temporal authorities (to the extent those were supposed to proceed from religion) and was therefore influenced by what it aimed at overturning. Would be interesting to find out what the views of earliest Antiquity's atheists were. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
In Hungary, they seem to become stronger. After the change of the régime (1989-1990) lots of former fiercely ostentatious atheists have mysteriously become devotedly pious. Well, it isn't too hard to find out why. Atheism is rather fallaciously associated with Marxism and communism here. If you are overtly religious, you certainly aren't a communist, therefore you must be virtuous. Do not even dream about faith being a private matter. 
Don't you ever think about religion? You must have decided somehow to become an atheist - provided you weren't raised as such. As far as ostentatiously religious people are concerned, it's pointless to get into an argument with them. The same applies to ostentatious atheists, too. Faith debates are usually inane discussions as atheists and religious people can't and shouldn't convince each other - you cannot prove either of the theories. Faith is a private matter and not others' business.
I agree.
Me, too. As I metioned above, many people here seem to think that atheism as such hadn't existed before the rise of Marxism and communism. What a misconception.
I can vaguely recall some mammals that are somewhere between God and monkeys in the Great Chain of Being. I assume they are called human beings.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Which is why he chose them.
It was meant to be humorous, but I was making a valid point. Your argument is that you feel it is more beneficial to follow the example or advice given by the modern Roman Catholic clergy than to follow the words of a some 'fictional ancient book' like the bible. And I was merely showing how faulty such a course would be, consideriding how time and time again, the church and its leaders have proved to be corrupt, and have commited some of the greatest atrocities in human history. Wishing to emulate their path would be tantamount to lunacy.
I agree. Such an argument would be pure vanity.
How would you know? Is this based on hearsay?
Which questions can they not find the answer to, that other denominations could?
Incidentally, they're the only ones who adhere to the commision set forth by Jesus to " to preach from house to house, and door to door", other than the mormons.
I don't understand this sentence. What is a preferable way of spending your time? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
I'm obviously not Benjamin and I don't know how he knows, but I do have lots of acquiantances who happen to be Jehova's Witnesses. They have a tendency to to accept everything at face value and, as Benjamin put it quite rightly, they don't want you to ask questions - provided your questions back up their arguments. Most of them are really ostentatious and think that their religion is the only "true" religion and thus other religious ways of thinking are inherently flawed. I can't really stand their way of bashing Jews all the time. Becoming an acknowledged Witness is not an easy-peasy, lemon-squeezy job. You have to prove that you are truly eager to become a member of the congregation, you are able to devote your life to the community and to Jehova of course, and last but least you are impeccable as a person. I know a girl who really wants to become a Jehova's Witness but she isn't accepted by the congregation on account of her alleged "attitude towards boys" (i.e. she loves flirting and having sex with them - based on hearsay, of course). What I find somewhat appalling in their doctrines is this aspect. She would probably be able to become a "better" person with the help of religion, but she isn't given the chance. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Jehovah's Witnesses and other denominations which expect members to give such a high level of commitment to the organisation do not encourage their members to question their established beliefs, because the established beliefs are considered 'correct' whilst anything else is considered 'incorrect'. This is the total opposite of groups such as Unitarians and Quakers. I'm usually happy to talk to Jehovah's Witnesses when they come to my door. When they find that I appear to know more about the Bible than they do, which often seems to be the case, they don't like it. (I never attempt to challenge their beliefs, by the way).
Lot's of questions. The point is that Jehovah's Witnesses are focused on providing clear answers to questions, and when they can't find the answer, they don't like it. I'm not really interested in whether or not they can provide answers, because I'm not so interested in having 'answers anyway; I find questions much more interesting.
He's saying that Jehovah's Witnesses consider going out and trying to persuade people to become Jehovah's Witnesses as the preferable way of spending one's free time. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Liz — it was actually KSa who said that, not me. But I agree with what he's said, so I don't mind. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
Sorry, Ben!
Well, I'm obviously not KSa, either...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
It wasn't Benjamin who wrote those things, but KSA.
I have found it to be quite the contrary. The witnesses seem to be the only ones comfortable with you questioning their beliefs, or asking to prove their beliefs, because they're the only ones who actually can back up what they say with the scriptures. Because of my very inquisitive nature, I would ask questions of priests, and they would become furious if I spoke of the bible, or when they couldn't harmonize their teachings and traditions with scripture.
I don't think ostentatious is the right word, but they are very public about their faith, yes. And once again, this is found in the bible, where the apostles admonish Christians to be "illimunators of light in a world of darkness". This would no doubt require attracting a lot of attention from most people, because they stand out as being so different from the rest of the world.
I don't know what you mean by this. I've never heard them bash Jews, and I know several witnesses who are of Jewish ethnicity.
Well, that's the way it should be. Unlike most so called "Christian" religions today, the early Christian congregation established by Jesus and the apostles was not one tolerant of dissenting lifestyles and immorality. Tolerating such conduct among members would pollute and corrupt the congregation, so in order to keep it clean, they would have to abstain from wrong conduct. Wouldn't it be rather hypocritical if people went around knocking on doors encouraging people to abstain from things condemned in the bible such as sexual immorality, while they themselves were openly practicing it? I wouldn't want to listen to someone like that. What's the alternative? Should they instead tolerate outright hyprocrisy and shameful conduct such as the Catholic church does, and simply ship one child-molesting priest to another church in a remote location, and try to cover up his actions, while doing nothing to reprimand him? As far as "devoting their lives to the community", again, this is something required for true Christians. Jesus said "a slave cannot slave for two masters". In other words, one cannot devote much of his resources and energy in the service of one pursuit (such as excessive recreation or materalism), while still giving God their best. Christians are instructed to "put the kingdom first", and to keep that at the forefront of their lives. This does not mean that they should shun all recreation, and devote all of their free time to preaching 24-7, but maintain a healthy balance, with their primary focus being their worship and ministry. All the witnesses I know go to school, or work, and live normal lives. They just volunteer some of their free time to studying the bible and the ministry work. And unlike many religions who are only "Sunday christians", a Christian way of life pervades their daily actions. For them, their religion is not just part of their life. It is their life. I have found that there are two kinds of people in this world. There are those who are content with the status quo, who believe what is convinient and easy, and would rather live a life and in a world based on lies, so long as it's the easy route. They believe what's pleasant, and ignore the reality behind the facade. The other group is the one interested in truth, even if that truth may be painful, or hard to bear, or in the case of religion, hard to follow. I'm one of the latter. The vast majority of the world belongs to the former group. They value traditions and believe what they want to believe. They like getting their ears tickled. Were they in the Matrix, they would opt for the pill that returns them to the bliss of ignorance, and they would rather live in a dream, so long as it was the route of least resistance. I on the other hand, am only interested in truth, whether it be politics or religion. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I think Jehovah's Witnesses attract a lot of attention because they come to people's doors a lot. I don't see them doing a huge lot of other things though.
Am I to assume that you are planning a drastic change of lifestyle before becoming a Jehovah's Witness?
Their idea of 'devoting their lives to the community' is trying to convert as many people as possible to their religion. This is not my view of what 'devoting your life to the community' is about.
It's all about having the 'correct answer' for you, isn't it? Personally, I cannot accept that any one organisation or religious tradition can have a monopoly on 'truth'. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
Okay, I've noticed it and Benjamin let me know, too.
Of course, there are differences between them. What I wrote in my previous post is only my personal experience. I didn't want to declare it ex cathedra as absolute truth, even though it seems to have come across so.
Probably not, but their agility verges on agression. (Of course, there are exceptions.)
Sorry - my experience again. The reason for that might be the fact that JWs are relatively new in my country. So, the value system of "new" Witnesses is not that well-established yet.
What about Maria Magdalena?
But they should help them find their way to morality (through helping them find their way to God).
I wasn't talking about practising (present continuous) sexual immorality openly. Besides, it raises the question of what you would or should consider "sexual immorality". Do you think your (our) occassional (?) meanderings on the hidden pseudo-pornographic thread (aka For Your Eyes Only) would fit snugly into this category?
On a serious note, homosexuality and pre-marital sex definitely fall into this category according to the Bible, but this is a completely outdated, albeit still widely accepted view.
From (allegedly) slightly promiscuous girls to paedophile priests. Quite an advanced trend of thought.
I might not have expressed myself clearly. I don't have anything against the idea of "devoting your life to the community", it's an important thing and as such can be rewarding. I just felt compelled to list it among the prerequisites as it is essential for anyone who wants to become a member of any congregation. Without devotion the whole thing isn't worth a tuppence.
Fair enough. But how does it come to the picture?
Everyone likes to think so.
Again, the vast majority of people likes to think so.
You are no exception to the rule, either.
Just like everyone - from their own point of view.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Josh Lalonde |
What about Jesus eating with the publicans and sinners in Matthew 9:10-12. "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Walker |
That's true. But then again, our minds don't seem to be very organized when we dream.
I think that's just because our brains go into a different state when we sleep.
But that doesn't make dreams real. Dreams is just some shit that happens in your brain when you sleep. In your waking state things are real; if somebody cuts you you'll bleed. Also, you are conscious and able to make decisions which will have consequences. However, I don't deny that dreams can seem very real and the feeling you sometimes get in a dream, whatever it may be, can last for some time after you've jumped out of the sack.
Yes, some dreams have quite an effect on you!
I can't know that but I assume that my life isn't a dream. For one thing I don't see any monsters coming out of the walls.
Again, I do not and cannot know that. But why should I have any reason to believe that that would happen? When I die my body will soon be gone forever and as such I won't able to do very much, like waking up, for instance. However, if that would happen I'd grab my blanket and say: who the hell are you, man?
I see. I also see why it would be meaningless to think about it too much. For instance, how could one get beyond something that is infinite?
Let's not! Cheers! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
No, almost never, unless my eyes have to see walkers-by wearing kippas, hidjabs or any garment in which they are clad in that unique fashion so caricatural of uptight catholics. Apart from that, learning about religions is certainly a good thing to do if you want to know more about history, civilisations etc. That said, how can one not be aware of what spirituality is ? But you don't need religion to get there.
Yep. The last one who rang my bell certainly does remember our brief encounter...
Since when do the "scriptures" backup anything reasonable ?
This is pure exhibition & hysteria. If they've got the sensation to have been "given" the "light", why don't they just keep it alight for themselves until they are descended to their graves, when the "illumination" will surely be most needed ? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Ya sorry, I didn't see Benjamin's post before I posted mine.
Again, going to the bible, Christians were instructed to be "zealous evangelizers". Christ preached to people from all walks of life, and in under almost any circumstance, time, or place, as did the apostles. If their goal is to "save lives", then yeah, they are going to be rather active. Keep in mind that they're doing it despite opposition, and in many cases, brutal persecution. They devote their own free time for the purpose of helping others.
In your experience, have they spoken abusively of present-day Jews, or are you talking about their condemnation of the Jewish religious leaders who rejected Jesus as the messiah, and had him put to death? They do speak of those men in such a light, but they have nothing against Jewish people in general. Jesus was a Jew himself, as were all of the apostles.
What about her? Unlike the hypocritical, pompous Jewish religious leaders of the time, Jesus showed empathy for those looked down upon by society. He preached to a Samaritan woman, which was taboo for a Jew at the time. He dined with tax collectors and preached to a prostitute, but that does not mean that they were allowed entry into the future Christian congregation while still practicing such immorality. Paul says, "Yet that is what some of you were, but you have been made anew, washed clean........ You have cultivated the new personality".
And that is exactly what the witnesses do. They conduct bible studies with people, for years if need be, until the person feels he/she is capable of getting baptized and commiting to a life of high moral standards set forth in the bible. If they don't feel they're capable of that, they either discontinue the study, or continue studying until they're ready.
Yes, some of it would be yeah. I don't claim to meet these high standards myself. And the bible's view is not outdated. The world's morals may change, but God's morals do not, and just because mainstream society lowers their moral standards, does not mean that true Christians should lower theirs as well.
Yes. I'm only interested in truth, and I refuse to accept lies as fact. You don't really care what the bible says. If the bible says not to do something, you will disregard it if it's inconvinient. You decided for yourself how you wish to worship God, without any consideration for how he might want to be worshipped. The problem I have with most denominations is that they claim their teachings or doctrines or traditions are founded and supported by the bible, except for a few such as the Unitarians. But nearly all mainstream churches claim that their religion is based on the bible, and that the bible is the source of their faith. When their teachings are obviously in conflict with the bible, then their faith is obviously counterfeit Christianity. That's the way I see it.
Greg, you're an atheist, who manifests open disrespect for organized religion, or who at least does not value the bible at all. So, a debate between you and I on a theological matter would be pointless. Honestly, there would be no end to the debate, and it would serve no purpose whatsoever. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Oh no. I very much value the bible insofar it seems to galvanise much of human time & energy. It's also an open window on the times when it was (re)written and a unique source of inspiration for historians. To that extent, it's possibly as interesting as Greco-Roman mythology or the Indian महाभारत (Mahâbhârata). Hermeneutics is one thing ; faith in texts claimed to be the words of an extraterrestrial entity & subsequent proselytism based on the status of such texts are yet different things. None of both deserve any more consideration (let alone "respect") than Comte's positivism or Nitzschean scriptures. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Well, that's definetely a lie: the atrocities of the Cathloic church have not been "the greatest in human history" - look at the Communism and Nazizm. From what I've read on this forum: you are completely different from the Jehovah Witnesses I know. But there is one thing you have definetely in common: a hatred towards Catholic church. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
First off, you may drop the capitals until proven otherwise. La prétendue "incapacité" des athées à saisir le concept de l'existence d'un démiurge quelconque (et a fortiori une créature anthropomorphe arborant une belle barbe blanche fleurie) ne pourrait-elle être entendue, au contraire, comme la conviction qu'une vision aussi simpliste est une injure faite à l'esprit humain et, en particulier, au doute cartésien ? La pire des erreurs consisterait à s'atteler à "démontrer" l'inexistence de l'être suprême insatiablement invoqué par les monothéismes divers et variés dont l'histoire nous a généreusement gratifiés. Ce serait se tromper de cible en faisant trop d'honneur à ce tissu de sottises (à ne surtout jamais prendre au pied de lettre) de facture exclusivement humaine... Non, ce qu'on peut réellement démontrer c'est l'idéologie sous-jacente à chacun des monothéismes et accessoirement à toutes les sectes & hérésies qui en seraient issues ou inspirées. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Greg:
I'd continue to capitalise words like 'God' or 'the Maker' or 'the Creator' for this is a convention in the English language. You'd only drop the capital letter if you wish to make a statement. (I know you are being facetious; so am I) I believe I have mentioned it before, but my loyalty to religion stems more from direct experiences with unexplained phenomena which I'd gingerly ascribe it to be of supernatural origins for the moment. You might scoff these 'experiences' as the product of a supernatural mind that does not befit the educational status of its owner. I would perfectly understand your reaction: I was once like you. I became sceptical of organised faiths in general and the Christian notion of monotheism in particular in my secondary school years. Those were my halcyon days of rebelling against the Establishment. I think my religious beliefs lapsed for a goodish while. Like Karl Marx who famously described religion as the opiate of the proletariat, I thought religion was true to the fools, false to the wise and useful to the rulers. I am not going to describe in detail what I saw or vicariously witnessed. To write it in print would be to do injustice to what had transpired. Besides, it would sound incredulous in the light of day. Suffice to say, it is a longstanding military tradition in many parts of the world to not tempt fate by publicly chortling at the existence of gods or ghouls. Soldiers who did in the past ultimately paid the price. Why do you wish to tempt fate by publicly disavowing the existence of God? Even Blaise Pascal reckoned that, however long the odds might be against God's existence, there is an even larger asymmetry for backing the wrong horse. If you believe in God and turn out to be right, there is a goodish chance that you stand to gain eternal bliss; if you are wrong, it would not make a difference whatsoever. On the other hand, if you don't believe in God and turn out to be wrong, you would not be looked too kindly by Him after you have passed on whereas if you are right, it'd make no difference. This is the famous Pascal's Wager and we can easily derive the conclusion from the reasoning of this most logical of mathematicians. Of course, to believe in God is not something which you can do overnight. It is a vocation. God is omniscient and it is foolish to adopt misleading postures towards religion. I accept that at best, Pascal's Wager is an influential argument on why one should feign a public belief in God. Pascal was a mathematician and he was probably a calculated risk-taker (as all mathematicians worth his weight in salt are wont to be). The entire premise of his argument was based on the belief that the God conforms to the Judaeo-Christian notion of what God actually is. I have sometimes entertained thoughts of such fallacious reasoning. What if the god who ends up confronting me is Zeus or Lord Shiva? Assuming that Zeus or Lord Shiva is as risible and as jealous as the God of the Old Testament, would I not be in hot soup? I admit that thinking about this has given me plenty of sleepless nights. I am aware that I am not advancing a credible argument for the belief in God here. Ultimately, as Liz and others have echoed here, faith is a private matter. It is vulgar to wear God on one's sleeve - just as it is for a Jehovah's Witness to come knocking on my door to ask a really rhetoric question: 'Do you believe in God?' |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Porthos:
You are prejudiced, my friend. You conveniently forget that the Catholic church in Nazi Germany was also actively suppressed by the authoritarian third Reich. It is thus not surprising that the Vatican adopted a policy -which is misguided, I say - of self-preservation by not publicly inveighing against the evils of National Socialism. Besides, I am not so brainless as to treat every word from the pulpit as peals of wisdom. I have brains and I can think. I only subscribe to approved doctrines and their sources are papal declarations, both the Old and the New Testaments and Tradition. Non Catholics misunderstand the Catholic church. Even Roman Catholics are wont to view papal authority with a jaundiced eye. This attitude betrays a lack of understanding of the true nature of papal infallibility and what it really means. Papal infallibility is only invoked when the teachings are issued under the authority of the Magisterium. Otherwise, whatever the Holy Father says is much akin to an obiter dictum of a Common Law judge - a useful observation but nothing more. Read the Catechism, Porthos. You would realise that papal infallibility was only invoked once in the last century and the exercise of this privilege was made on the doctrine that Mary was a virgin for her entire life. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
The leaders of the Catholic Church do disgust me, yes. The Church's leaders have enough blood guilt on their hands to fill an ocean. So I wouldn't want to be affiliated with such an organization. But I don't hate Catholics at all, because that would mean hating just about every person in my family, and hating myself to some extent.
Not anymore prejudiced then you are toward JWs. I didn't conviniently forget anything. Some Church officials like some lowly German priests were probably coerced into quietly siding with Hitler's regime and policies, but many Church officials openly supported him, backed him, and encouraged their followers to back him. They could have taken a stand for what was right, like the JWs did. From the very beginning of Hitler's reign, they were the first ones warning the outside world of the atrocities being commited against Jews and other minorites. When the Church turned a blind eye, and in many cases supported the atrocities, the Witnesses were the ones publishing the warnings to the world. They refused to hail Hitler, or support his regime, on pain of death, and so they were all eventually locked up in horrific concentration camps along with the Jews and Gypsies, and homosexuals and other minorities. Many of them were killed for taking a stand. Why didn't the Catholic leaders take a stand? As far as I'm concerned, they were just as guilty as the Nazis. As a matter of fact, I first came across the JWs when I was as usual, avidly studying American civil liberties and law. I discovered that Witness have been responsible for the preservation of so much of the freedoms we take for granted, because of their repeated trips to the supreme court of the U.S. I found this alone to be worthy of respect. You should see a documentary called "Knocking" that aired on PBS. It's a documentary exposing much of the myths surrounding witnesses, and it's largely about their contributions to American freedoms. Here's a 25 min clip from the movie: http://video.aol.com/video/movies-knocking/1884955
I guess they forgot about all of the other children she had with Joseph.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
 I'm afraid to ask what you've done to him / her...         
I agree.
No, they were castigating present-day Jews in general - the Jewish doctrines, their interpretation of the Bible, the reason why they have JHVH instead of Jahve / Jehovah. And the Roman Catholics, the Protestants, the Buddhists, the Muslims and so on. Yes, Jesus was a Jew himself. So were the Apostles and practically everyone in the Bible.That's what I'm explaining all the time to those Roman Catholics who are furtively right-wing extremists.
That's exactly what I was talking about, even though you seem to present it as some sort of a counter-argument. She does become the follower of Jesus, and in my book it means that she became at least a symbolic member of the congregation. You don't necessarily have to become a priest to belong to the congregation. You need not be impeccable provided you aren't going to preach. Even if you are going to preach, you can prove that sinners can become better with the help of the religion. That can be a pull factor for many, can't it?
In some parts it is. I wouldn't consider homosexuality to be immoral. Under normal circumstances sexuality is the sort of thing that you can't help.
Whom you are talking about? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
I didn't write that. I quoted it from KSA's post.
If you felt you had the power to change someone's life, or to expose misleading false doctrines (such as the popular myth told by most Churches that "God takes people", and that he is responsible for people dying), would you just keep quiet about it? If you had any decency, I would hope you would want to share the news with others. And because Witnesses follow the bible, they obey the command issued by Jesus to preach. That's why.
Oh okay, so they were just speaking of their differing viewpoints on theology, or exposing some of the false doctrines. I thought you meant they were speaking abusively of Jewish people.
Yeah, I haven't noticed much animosity from Roman Catholics here, so much as I have from certain Protestant groups, particularly the infamous southern ones, whose members made up the bulk of the KKK. I never understood how they could reckon a belief in Christ, and the worship of him, with a hatred of Jews, when their "savior" himself was a Jew!
First of all, JWs don't have "priests" or a clergy class. Every baptized member of the congregation is a minister. As for Mary Magdalene, it is logical to infer that she became a follower of Jesus, but before she could be baptized as a Christian, and a fully-fledged, active member of the congregation, she would have to have repented from her former lifestyle. They would not have admitted her while she was still a prostitute. Similarly, there are many people today who wish to become Witnesses, like your friend, but are not allowed to be baptized until they've given up their former way of life, if it were an immoral one. They're still allowed and encouraged to attend the congregation. They're allowed to participate in the congregation bible studies, and they're allowed to associate with the congregation. They're just not allowed to represent the congregation in the public preaching work, or be baptized, until they've proved themselves ready.
No, that does not make the bible outdated. Society's morals or standards may change, but God's standards remain the same. But to a large extent, at the time the New Testament was written in the Greco-Roman world, homosexuality was just as, if not more widely accepted by mainstream society as it is today. So it was written at a time when homosexuality was widely, and openly practiced by society, and not really frowned upon, like it was all the way up until about 20 years ago. So it was written for a society that did not consider it immoral at the time. Would it still be outdated even for them? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
No, I am no more prejudiced against them as I am against the Mormons, the Baptists, the Methodists and numerous other denominations. If they do not harass me, I am fine with them. I am against evangelism of any sort, incidentally. I strongly believe that one's holiness is not contingent upon his faith. As Pope John Paul II observed, the Dalai Lama would also enter heaven even if he does not believe in Christ.
What arrant nonsense! This is first class bullshit. I am not going to dignify it with a response.
Porthos, Porthos, Porthos. In your quest to further your agenda, the sacrificial lamb of truth has had its throat cut at the altar of expediency. Since you come from a Roman Catholic background, you would know better than to peddle blasphemeous falsehoods about the virginity of Mary. Mary's only child was Jesus and she certainly did not have children with a man. We know because it has been corroborated by the Scriptures and Tradition. I'd like to draw your attention to the Protoevangelium of James : Written less than sixty years after the end of Mary's earthly existence after which she was carried bodily to heaven, this piece of historical document attests to the lifelong virginity of Mary. You must remember that St Anne, the mother of the Virgin Mary, basically volunteered her daughter for a life of service to the Lord at her birth. This necessarily means sexual abstinence throughout her entire life. As for Jesus's 'brethren', you would also be aware that the English translators had made a bad job out of conveying its proper meaning. 'Brethren' in the Bible can refer to either Joseph's children, thus making them Jesus's step-siblings; it can also refer to Jesus's cousins. Both interpretations do not contradict the reality of Mary's perpetual virginity in anyway. I'd like to remind you that even the man who was responsible for the largest schism in Christianity, Martin Luther, believed also in the perpetual virginity of Mary. So did other Protestant reformist leaders such as John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli. If you ever pass by a Catholic bookshop, do pop in to read a book called 'True Devotion to Mary' by St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort (incidentally, the founder of my Alma Mater). You would realise that there is no better way to please God than true Marian devotion. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
Sorry, I know it was KSa. I just forgot to change the name.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
What can you say against, let's say, John Paul II? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Oh really? Prove it to be otherwise.
So, never mind the fact that a Christian's main obligation is to evangelize. It's really of no importance, and according to you, it's actually a bad thing, even though the scriptures say to do so, and all of the apostles and first century Christians did, and Jesus himself did. But okay.. whatever you say.
Woah, hold your horses cowboy. Was Mary a virgin at the time of her immaculate conception? Yes. (Although it's interesting that you could believe in this miracle, but not in other miracles of God's power mentioned in the bible, hmm ). Did she remain a virgin her entire life, even after mothering several more children? No. Why would she need to? There's nothing holy or superior about remaining a virgin once one is yoked in holy matrimony. God created people with a sex drive for a reason. According to his instructions to the first human pair, they were to "fill the earth (with offspring) and subdue it". The purpose of her being a vrigin prior to the conception of Jesus, was to legitimize Jesus' position as being the son of God, and thus, not an earthly son of a human man like Joseph. But once Jesus was brought into the world, it made no difference whether or not Mary, a married woman, remained a virgin or not.
And you can't use the scriptures to support your argument, because you've already plainly stated that the bible is nonsense, and is not a realiable source of accurate information. If some stories or characters in the bible are made up by writers with alterior motives, then who is to say that other characters or stories were not invented too? If Adam and Eve didn't exist, then perhaps the woman we know as Mary didn't exist either. Therein lies the problem. If you don't beleive the bible is the word of God, and that some of it or much of it is fiction, then where do you draw the line? How do you know what, if any of it, is true, or historical fact? All we know about Mary and Jesus is largely recorded in the bibical books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In all of those books, they trace the ancestry of Jesus through the maternal line of Mary all the way back to Adam and Eve. But if you yourself have said that Adam and Eve were mythical figures, then you in essence, are admitting that the Gospel account is thus also not reliable. You hold a double standard, and apply rules to one apsect of the bible, but not to another. You refuse to believe in some miracles based on the premise that they're unscientific, and yet you will believe in other miracles, even though within the confines of science, these are just as unlikely. Your reasoning is perplexing.
Again, going to the bible, which you in the above thread have cited as a source. Do the scriptures venerate Mary, and did Jesus disciples worship her? No. The apostle Peter makes no mention of her at all in his inspired writings. The apostle Paul did not use her name in his inspired letters to the congregations but spoke of her only as "a woman". What example did Jesus Christ himself set in referring to his mother? Luke 11:27, 28 - "Now as he (Jesus) was speaking, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said, 'Happy the womb that bore you and the breasts you sucked!'. But he replied, 'Still happier those who hear the word of God and keep it!'" ...... This certainly would have been a perfect opportunity for Jesus to pay special honor to his mother, or instruct others to venerate her if that had been appropriate. But he did not do so. I was always told, and especially my female relatives, to address prayers to Mary as intercessor, but the scriptures say that Jesus is the one and only mediator between God and man. But was Mary the mother of God? Uh, again, no. The angel who informed her of the coming miraculous birth did not say that her son would be God. He said: You are to concieve and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High.... The child will be holy and will be called the Son of God. Back to the question of Mary's virginity, after the birth of Jesus, her firstborn. Matthew 13:53-56 --- "When Jesus had finished these parables he left the district; and, coming to his home town, he taught the people their synagougue in such a way that they were astonished and said: 'Where did the man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? This is the carpenter's son, surely? Is not his mother the woman called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? His sisters too, are they not all here with us?'' It's interesting when you consider the Greek word translated "brother" and "sister" in English. The Greek word used was adelphoi for brother and adelphai for sister. The New Catholic Encyclopedia says regarding the Greek words adelphoi used in Matthew, that "these have the meaning of full blood brother and sister in the Greek speaking world of the time, and would naturally be taken by his Greek reader in this sense." Another caption from the scriptures concerning Jesus' brothers and sisters: Mark 3:31-35 --- "His mother and brothers now arrived and, standing outside, sennt in a message asking for him. A crowd was sitting around him at the time the message was passed to him, 'Your mother and brothers and sisters are outside asking for you'. He replied, 'Who are my mother and my brothers?' And looking round at those sitting in a circle about him, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers. Anyone who does the will of God, that person is my brother and sister and mother.'" (Here a clear distinction is drawn between Jesus' natural brothers and mother and his spiritual brothers, his disciples. No one claims that the reference to Jesus' mother means anything different from what it says. Is it consistent then, to reason that his natural brothers were not that, but perhaps his cousins? When what is meant is not brothers but relatives, a different Greek word is used, - Syggenon) You mentioned that his multiple siblings need not be Mary's children, but simply Joseph's children, and therefore, Jesus' step-siblings. Yet, consider this. Jesus was the eldest child of the household. Before his birth, Mary and Joseph had no children. Both Mary and Joseph never divorced, and so remained married to each other. So, if they were Joseph's children, they would also have to be Mary's. So, we're left with one of two possibilities. Either they were not Mary's children, or they were her children, but were immaculately concieved like Jesus, and would thus not have required intercourse to have been produced. Yet, this would mean that they too were sons of God, like Jesus. Yet the bible clearly states that Jesus is God's only begotten son. So, the scriptural evidence is clear. Mary was a virgin when she concieved Jesus, and went on to live a normal, married life and had other children by the traditional means. You should research the origin of the worship and divination of Mary as taught by the Church. It only came into practice hundreds of years after the death of Jesus, and has its roots in pagan mother worship, such as the Greco-Roman worship of the cult of Diana. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Llatai |
One wonders why God would need to be pleased. Omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, infinite eternal powers of creation aren't enough? God is needy and codependent??? Say it isn't so!! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
It is like asking why one's parents need to be honoured and be pleased. Are you saying your mummy and daddy are needy and co-dependent if you, as a filial son, genuinely wishes to please them? Porthos: I am sorry for getting back to you so late. It is not for a want of effort, but rather from the realisation that both of us are firmly entrenched in our respective positions. You'd scalpe me if I were to even stick my head out of the trench and vice versa. This is the Battle of the Somme transplanted to an internet forum and I have no wish to needlessly shed blood over a theological debate. Besides, my knowledge of religion is superficial and I readily admit to having never read the Bible in its entirety before. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Llatai |
Maybe, maybe not. One would have to address specific situations. But we're not talking about "mommy & daddy". Besides, my comment referred to a desire by God to be pleased and yours to a need by oneself to please God. They're not the same. An unconditional love, which is another quality attributed to God, is incompatible with the need to be pleased, that need being a condition. One's desire to please is distinct from God's need to be so. To envision a "relationship" with God to begin with would arise from a belief in one's personal separation from such a reality. Personal exclusion from omnipresence is a theoretical impossibility. Supplications to what may be an aggrandized version of one's self surely arise from a fabricated need. At any rate, you will be the only one to judge yourself pleased/displeased with your efforts, since you are the only one involved in the "relationship" to begin with. Whatever floats your boat. . |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Ah ! Le fameux Pari de Pascal... C'est une façon de voir les choses. En voici une autre : je propose aux dieux, s'ils existent, de parier sur ma propre existence. Même s'ils daignaient accepter une telle insolence de la part d'un simple mortel, ce ne serait pas un pari car l'issue est certaine : cogito ergo sum. Dans ces conditions, pourquoi m'abaisser à perdre mon temps à parier sur l'existence de créatures qui, bien qu'omniscientes & omnipotentes, ne pourraient être confrontées à la grandeur du défi lancé à tous les Êtres humains...
Well, let's say it was... brief ! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Pascal's Wager doesn't work, because at least according to some religions (e.g. many conservative forms of Christianity), generally believing in a sort of genetic supreme being is not sufficient — according to the teachings of that religion, one must believe in their God.
It also assumes that one can choose one's beliefs on a whim — i.e. that a person can wake up one morning and 'choose' whether or not to believe in God. This isn't really possibly though, because a person cannot wake up one morning and say sincerely 'today I will be a devout Buddhist', and then wake up the next and say 'today I will have faith in Christianity' etc. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
It's pure speculation and the worst kind of opportunism. If you adhere to these principles, it proves that your faith is not strong and sincere enough. If you truly believe in God, you are not speculating that way. And if you are speculating, and God really exists, then you'll be less welcomed in Heaven than fierce atheists. I agree with what Benjamin said - you cannot choose your beliefs on a whim. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
With respect to Pascal's Wager, I have been quoted off context. I also wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Ha, any theological debate is like the Battle of the Somme. It's because it centers around belief systems, and not something that can be quantified. If two persons believe in the bible, then one can prove his argument correct over the other other, but if the two participants don't share a full belief in the bible, then using the bible proves pointless. How can a Hindu prove a Christian wrong, and vice versa? That's why it's all vanity. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Llatai |
Well if God is omniscient wouldn't "He" know that you were feigning belief in the first place? Are you suggesting God doesn't have enough integrity to care about your sincerity? Or do you think "He", in his omniscience, is duped by public posturing? I agree that Liz and Benjamin have a point here, even in light of your contextualizing of your previous post. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
I was being a bit sarky here, Lltai. I wasn't using Pascal's Wager in anyway at all to make my point - it has a very porous defence and is extremely vulnerable to counter-attack arguments which have been raised by you, Liz and Benjamin. I am very well aware of that.
I was actually trying to inject a bit of balance there by essentially saying that religion is a vocation and that it is not possible to suddenly wake up and believe in God. Maybe my sense of irony isn't unambiguous enough. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||