|
Another biblical theory…
|
Posted By:
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Apr 29, 2005
|
http://www.theindychannel.com/weather/4429774/detail.html
Entertaining theory, but this guy offers NO proof or even hypothetical means... he just states it and seems to think that the bible should be considered "justification."
It will be interesting to see if he ever tries to prove this theory in some way...
|
Comments
|
Page 3 of 6 pages < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last › |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 05:36 AM
My mother was raised Catholic. She stopped practising as a teen. When she joined the military she was exposed to a lot of other religions...from other military personnel, to the people where she was stationed. In the end my mother CHOSE to be a Christian. I was a Christian about a year and a half before my mother. I was going with a friend to her church...and my mother followed along a few times to be sure I wasn't joining some cult.
I made the decision to be a Christian WITHOUT my parents. So your reasoning is off.
What is interesting is that while my parents embraced every point of Christianity (yes they questioned a lot at first - and had a really great study teacher) I fell off after a few years. I came back around though (maybe not where I <i>should</i> be)...when I saw what life was like away from God. |
Mort
in Just left of centre
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 05:55 AM
Sorry to go back a few pages but all the stuff about witchcraft etc? In effect witchcraft was just a later form of Paganism. PAganism was given a very bad name in Europe in the dark ages because many people didn't like the thought of a practising religion that was older than Christianity. And Pure paganism wasn't based on dancing about naked and sacraficing virgins, but was actually worshipping the natural world for it's creation. I believe that all religeons are only what they are to themselves, who are we to judge what or how other people believe?
I myself have no religeous beliefs, as by my own admittion, i believe in science as an explanation for all, but who's to say there aren't many higher powers responsible for the things we see today. Sometimes you see patterns (Such as the internal angles of a Nautilus shell & Pythagorus)that are just too convenient to be just science chance! Maybe i'm too sceptical even for a scientist! Discuss. |
Mort
in Just left of centre
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 06:27 AM
Oh, and i think that Religeon should be left well alone on discussion boards! It's one area that is going to cause very big arguments. Take a look at history. There have been many wars started due to oppposition of belief, (WW1, Crusades, Korean War, Vietnam, WW2, Napoleonic/peninsular war...etc..etc..) |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 07:18 AM
Umm...Wasn't WWI started over an assasination??? |
Mort
in Just left of centre
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 07:41 AM
Yes Maegen it was, but the cause of the assination was a dispute between Serbia and it's neibours, which was rather ironic given the civil war which started again in the ninties, for the same reason, muslims against other faiths. (By the way i lay the blame equally with all sides, i'm not singling out Muslims because they actually suffered a great deal in the croatian war). |
Mort
in Just left of centre
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 07:45 AM
Sorry ,misspelt your name there! It's quite quiet today on the forum, has this discussion thread caused everyone to fall out? |
David B.
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 08:59 AM
Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sofia were assassinated by Gavrilo Princip, a member of the 'Narodna Odbrana' movement. This was essentially nationalist in character, and grew from Austria, Russia and Serbia competing for influence in the Balkans.
The conspirators only wanted self-determination for Bosnia and had no religious axe to grind. Their actions could not have come at a worse time.
Britain and Germany were in an arms race and also, along with other European countries, engaged in an extended land-grab for African colonies. France and Germany were still facing off over the war of 1870 in which Germany annexed the Alsace region. With such heated competition between countries, innumerable treaties of support or protection were signed in a grand European game of 'mergers and acquisitions'. A policy of "you fight one, you fight us all!" sounds great, until someone starts a fight.
When a Bosnian backed by Serbians killed the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Germany weighed in on the side of their allies, Russia on the side of theirs. Within days the two countries were at war. And then all their 'friends' joined in.
In order, France, Belgium, Britain, Japan(?), Turkey, Italy, Bulgaria, Portugal, Romania, the US, Greece, China and Brazil took sides.
God never really entered into it. |
Mort
in Just left of centre
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 09:26 AM
I'm not necessarily talking about "God" but the general beliefs of people. Nazi Germany was founded on Christianity, but their nationalist ideals were pretty fu**ed up! Like I said I don't really believe in a God, but that doesn'y mean i have no beliefs. It's more about faith really. I have a lot of faith in myself and science so I don't need to rely on a higher force to explain the hurt, suffering and general bad shit that happens to me and others.
But i also won't slate others for believing in one (or more) Gods. |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 10:11 AM
Mark-N-Jen: Technically, you'd be correct. We are told to love not just our friends and families, but our enemies as well. Everyone in the world. And you are correct, in my belief, God is perfect and flawless and only He has the right to judge anyone. Therefore, I do not. However, also according to my faith, the Bible is the word of God, given to man by God (You could say he wrote every book, yet the words were scribed by man). By that logic, since that verse is something God said, then they are already judged by God, not us.
I'm starting to think more about that verse... Witches (and sorcerers or any other person that used/uses magik) use magik. Magik (very different from magic, which is a term used to describe slight of hand tricks) is described in the Bible (i don't remember where though) as the act of using and summoning demons to accomplish a task. The problem with messing with demons, however, is that it's always a double-edged sword, meaning posessions or scars or disease or great pain (maybe all of them) to the spellcaster. At that time, humans didn't have a way to banish demons (remember, this is all based on my faith). A lot of the things of the old testament are outdated, but we as Christians can still learn a lot from them. I'm assuming, since there was no way at the time to save the person from suffering (because they always did) to put them out of their misery. Now, since Jesus has come, we can use his name in faith to accomlish anything, including banish demons. Therefore, outdated verse, but we can still learn from it. Of course, I could also take it in many other ways, including some that I can't quite put into words right now. Right now, I don't know the correct way to take it. The part that confuses me the most though, is that many verses can have different meanings for a person depending on what's going on in their lives. I can talk to someone that knows a lot more than me about verses like this one and get back to you.
CP: I'm not entirely sure about my dad. He grew up Christian. He doesn't go to church, or read the bible at all. I have no idea whether he's accepted Jesus or not, because every time I ask him he gives me a completely ambiguous answer. The clearest answer i've ever gotten is "Yes, I am a Chrsitian, but not in the sense you may think." And what does he know what I think? How does he not know we are thinking the same? Its always hard to get a direct answer from him. If he ever gives me a straight answer to that question, then I can know for sure. Until then, i don't know.
The way I view it, it would be very hard on me for something like that to happen, I end up in heaven but my friends and family in hell. The question is, however, as they are rejected and I am allowed in, could I look them in the eye and tell them I did everything I could for them, or would I have to look away and walk on in shame? It wouldn't be good either way, but I can either feel like I tried as best I could, or feel ashamed that I didn't try at all. I still have plenty of time with my dad (I hope, at least), so I can find out for sure and if necessary send him on the right path. |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 10:11 AM
Mart: Yes, discussions like this in most cases cause arguments. However, in this case, everyone seems willing to discuss, and as soon as I stopped being an a-hole this became very very pleasant.
Based on your statements, yes, science can explain a lot. In my view, if it weren't for God scientists wouldn't have any questions to try and answer. I used to believe (at one point in my life) that science could explain everything. When I realized that there are many many things that it can't, then I started looking for something more. Here I am today.
Not all forms of withcraft are based on Paganism (very few are, in fact). Satanists have witches (and warlocks, and sorcerers, etc.), yet they know exactly where they get their magik from. Wiccans use spells, but I think they have some sort of goddess that I THINK might be completely unrelated to spellcasting (please correct me if I'm wrong on that). Back in OT times, it's not too specific in what I've read (I think it might be somewhere else, cuz I have a horrible memory) on what specifically witches and other spellcasters believed, but it is specific on what their magik really is (see above). |
Mort
in Just left of centre
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 10:16 AM
You know I never really took "modern" wich-craft into account? Sorry, but theoretically even "evil" beliefs are beliefs none-the-less. My only problem with things like satanism is that they don't use it to explain stuff, but more as an excuse to cause things to happen. |
skepticality
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 10:58 AM
Yes, science can't explain everything. But, 1,000 years ago it couldn't explain quantum phenomena either. And for that matter, they didn't even have proof of Atoms, so they weren't even thinking about the sub-atomic level of the universe.
Gravity, up until 110 years ago, was only thought to be an oppressing force, the 'law' of gravity. Now it has been shifted to the 'theory of relativity'. Science no longer labels any explanations 'laws' anymore because they are constantly discovering new answers to questions.
We can take the example of the God 'Pele' on the 'big island' of Hawai'i. For centuries the 'natives' of Hawai'i thought it was a god that created the flow of Lava. Now, we know how lava is generated, and why. So, what now for the Pele worshippers?
My opinion is that blindly attributing all unknowns to 'well its some funky thing God does' is a huge block to the power of the human intellect. Science forges forward to discover how the universe works, and just assuming that since we don't know the answer NOW and then toss your hands up and use that as an axiom for faith is blocking out your potential as a human.
That's how I tell people to reconcile God with Science. If you must have faith in your God, or Gods, then do them justice and use the tools given to you by them. Nothing in this universe is un-explainable, we just don't know the answer to that question yet, that's all. |
Shawn
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 11:40 AM
Maybe I am getting off on the wrong foot, being that I am adding nothing to the conversation and especially for my first post on this forum, but I have to say it is quie humorious reading a religious post in a forum of Skeptics.
With that said I have been lurking the forums for a short time now (a few weeks) and have to say I admire how MOSt of you think. |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 11:56 AM
I would refer you all to Velkovsky's theories regarding cyclical cataclysms. Boiled down, he postulates that the Earth is thrown into cataclysmic intercourse with other planetary bodies, such as asteroids, large comets, rogue planets, etc., every several hundred thousand years. The Earth is "reborn", with the geography altered, and whatever remaining life (Humans included) starting over, as it were. That would explain shipwrecks on mountain tops, and sea shells in the Midwest, according to Mr. V. Personally, I blame all the confusion on a program of disinformation fostered by a Worldwide Elite in cooperation with Extraterrestrial Humanoids, but that's me. I've said too much. |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 11:58 AM
I'm sorry- I left the "I" out of Velikovsky's name in my above post. "I" screwed up. |
skepticality
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 12:02 PM
Those damn aliens... |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 02:11 PM
Mart says...
"Oh, and i think that Religeon should be left well alone on discussion boards! It's one area that is going to cause very big arguments. Take a look at history. There have been many wars started due to oppposition of belief, (WW1, Crusades, Korean War, Vietnam, WW2, Napoleonic/peninsular war...etc..etc..)"
So instead of discussion on a forum would you rather see the same earlier results? i.e. - War? It seems to me that these discussions, inflammatory or not, are a much better way of communicating our thoughts and opinions to each other than the launching of a crusade! How do you know that "open discussion" isn't actually helping to stem the tide of war? Just a thought... but do you always avoid discussion of things you fear might upset someone else? If so, you must lead a VERY quiet life. |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 03:52 PM
Mart: You are correct. They are belifs. I am entitled to mine, you are entitled to yours. We both believe ours to be true, am I correct? So, which one will stand up to that test?
skepticality: when I talk about gods other than my own, I spell it with a lowercase g because I do not view them as God. That said, I do not view said hawaiian god as a deity. In my faith, any other gods of this sort are demons that are worshipped by people inadvertantly who have not been exposed to the true God. Either way, science can explain a lot. In fact, the proof of what causes lava and volcanoes as a natural phenomenon and not the act of a god, if taken from my faith's point of view, proves to us Christians that demons truly cannot control lava, just as it says in our holy texts. It's a long jump for a lot of us to reach that conclusion, but for me it makes sense.
I do not view faith as a blinder to science. If it were not for science, we would not have medicines that cure deadly diseases. We would never have had a vaccine for smallpox, polio, or the flu. We would not have nuclear power, or video games, or space exploration. No cars, no computers, no internet. No understanding of how the human body works. In my view, our advances in science say to me not that things are funky things that God does, but AMAZING things that God does.
Scientists still do designate things as law. I do not believe that gravity was ever a law at all. We just gave this phenominon a name and accepted it as fact (correct me if i'm wrong). It takes a lot to make something a law, because you have to be 100% certain that these things will ALWAYS turn out that way. And then, when we make new advances, these laws must be put to the test to see if they still provide the same results with newer variables. |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 04:06 PM
Shawn: Without discussion like this, then we would never understand each other's beliefs completely. I'm not here to try and tell these people that I am right and they are wrong. I'm not here to try and win people over to my faith, either. I simply want to answer questions and maybe ask some of my own. If I convince someone that my faith is correct through this, great. If they convince me that I'm horribly wrong, then that's great too. I don't think it's that big of a deal. My goal is for every party to get something out of this discussion, whether it be new knowledge or something else.
Don't just come into a forum and assault other people for what they are posting. I made that mistake on my first few posts... earlier in this discussion. Didn't turn out too well.
What *I* find humorous about it, is that unlike many Christain forums where topics like this occur, this discussion is happening in a civil and respectful manner from every side.
Hairy Houdini: That is an interesting theory. A very interesting theory. However, it is still a theory.
Until something can be proven by science, then it will always be just a theory. My faith has been examined by science many times. On some cases they had proven it was true. In others they proved it was wrong. Without any solid absolute proof, it will always remain just a theory to most people. That is where faith comes in. I have faith that I am correct. If I am proven that I am not, then I will have no more reason to belive, but until then, I will continue to have faith.
Mark-N-Jen: I'm with you on this one. Open discussion could avert many pointless wars. When people aren't willing to discuss their differences, then it usually ends up with people killing each other for no good reason. |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 04:41 PM
1 The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.
2
a. The practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or control events in nature.
b. The charms, spells, and rituals so used.
3 The exercise of sleight of hand or conjuring for entertainment.
I don't know when the term "magik" came about, but it's not proper nomenclature.
Anyways Eric, are in less than 100 years, you're going to be eating Philidelphia Cream Cheese and I'm going to have my head in a bucket of poop and venemous snakes. Are you really, really comfortable with that? I just don't understand how people carry these thoughts in their heads. |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 04:45 PM
that definition was of 'magic' by the way. |
Razela
in Chicago, IL
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 05:54 PM
Eric says, "What *I* find humorous about it, is that unlike many Christain forums where topics like this occur, this discussion is happening in a civil and respectful manner from every side."
And I too would like to thank everyone in here for this as well. No one learns from arguing, only from debate.
Eric also says, "My faith has been examined by science many times. On some cases they had proven it was true. In others they proved it was wrong. Without any solid absolute proof, it will always remain just a theory to most people."
Nicely said Eric. I have no problem with people and their religion until it either (1)starts countering common sense, or (2)hurts other people (for example, cults, or nazi's, etc.)
There is nothing wrong with religion in itself. Although science makes incredable strides every day in terms of knowledge, there will always be some things that we don't know. Believing in a sort of God or other higher power(s) that cause these things to happen is perfectly normal and can be very healthy. The problem is when people begin ignoring science to hold onto their beliefs.
Science and religion can easily go hand in hand, as long as you are always willing to "update" your understanding of your religion to new scientific descoveries. I'm not saying that you even have to take all science at face value, but you need to be able to sort out the proven in science and then rework your belief system to coincide.
In other words, before science knew anything about evolution, a person may believe literally in creationism. Many many years after evolution has not only been descovered, but undeniable evidence has been found, it makes sense to instead of ignoring all scientific evidence and hanging onto your archaic beliefs, to find a way to make your beliefs of creationism and evolution go together. (i.e. believing that God's hand may have been at work in shaping evolution).
The problem happens when people ignore new evidence, and instead just deny science. On the extreme, you end up with those crazy's who let their children die of ear infections because they believe it's God's will. Their children die so they can prove their faith. Why is it so hard for some people to just change their beliefs a little to fit science? Why can't these people just believe it was God's will to provide medication for their children?
Faith is all good until someone gets hurt. Problems arise when people confuse having faith with ignoring facts and being stupid. |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 06:01 PM
Sometimes I wish I had one of those big, wooden sets of clamps that furniture makers use- you know, like the kind that Uncle Fester used to put on his head in the Addams family TV show... When I read these MyGodIsn'tYourGodButWeCanShareButHellIsForIndividualSouls Threads I just wanna clamp that big, wooden baby on my head and TWIST and TWIST until all my brains pop out... then I can join in the conversation, and fit right in. |
The Yankee Clipper
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 10:32 PM
I think that we have terminology problems here.
Many of the pagan (which simply mans "country" or "rural", vis. the French word "Pays" which means country, or the Italian, "paisan"; fellow countryman) beliefs centered around male and female creative/generative deities. "Mother Earth", "Mother Nature", yes, even "God the Father" are echoes of these ancient beliefs.
As Christianity spread further into the countryside (Remember that, once it left the middle east, it was predominantly an urban religion, spreading from the center at Rome to the Roman Empire's other urban centers. Think about that fact that Paul's epistles were all to groups in then-major cities - Ephesis, Corinth, etc. - and only after establishing itself in the urbes did it spread into the country), it found itself contending with the older pagan/rural beliefs. Suddenly, and near-miraculously, the Devil stopped being "the beautiful", "the Light Giver" (Lucifer), and came to resemble Pan, the horned, goat-footed male generative forest deity in southern Europe. Later, in Celtic Britain, where Pan was less known, the devil was occasionally depicted as having a deer's antlers - oddly, making him resemble Hern (sp?), the Celtic forest spirit.
In some cases it was possible to co-opt the less outre-looking pagan deities such as Brigid, the Gaelic goddess of the hearth ("Oh! You mean SAINT Brigid!??! Oh, yeah; she's one of ours!"), and the nascent church did so, calling them saints, so that the people could "ease into" the new regime. In a much later extension of this, consider Michelangelo's depiction of the creation of Adam in the Sistine Chapel. Compare the image of God to classical images of Zeus or Jupiter. (And, as a side note, Christianity wasn't alone in this habit of co-opting other religious symbols - consider the Roman god, Jove. When the Romans overran Greece and its colonies, his name changed to Jupiter; oddly resembling the Greek Zeus Pitar (Father Zeus). Remember, also, that while I don't believe that the Bible ever actually sets Jesus' birthday, it just happened to end up (in the fourth century) falling at the time of Saturnalia, a Roman festival honoring Saturn (the Father of the Gods, according to them) and marked by feasting and the giving of gifts!
In short, it is hard to separate the "Real" devil from the Christian... well... propaganda designed to turn the populace from their older beliefs. Now, I assume that the argument is going to be made that, "Well, yes; because these beliefs weren't Christian, and so WERE devil-worship, whatever the people thought!"
I guess my problem is that in Christian teaching, particularly (and probably the Qu'ran, as well, although I haven't read much in that), the argumenta usually come down to using the Bible to prove its own validity or, at most, "proving" its assertions by reference to another authority who bases HIS authority on the Bible. This is called "circular reasoning" in logical debate, and is generally frowned upon in logical discourse.
I'm sorry; I'm a little bit tired and cranky tonight. I guess that I just wish that every religious/philosiphical group on Earth would get together one day and say, "Okay, we'll enforce OUR rules amongst OURselves, and you enforce YOUR rules amongst YOURselves, and - as long as none of us actually draws blood - we'll all just agree to put up with our differences!" Never happen, I know... but I can HOPE, can't I? The problem with it is that, by definition, any group which claims to have The One True Truth (tm) CAN'T admit to the possibility that anyone else with a contradictory belief could possibly be right, because then there would be Two True Truths, and that's just wrong.
Sorry; as I said - tired and cranky.
The Yankee Clipper |
The Yankee Clipper
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 11:07 PM
Oh, and I wanted to mention some of the Biblical verses that seemed to be causing some confusion...
"Thou shalt not kill (murder)."
vs.
"Thou shalt not suffer (permit) a witch (poisoner) (potion-maker) (herbalist) to live."
I guess I don't see where the problem is. In its simplest form: If you kill one of OUR kind it's murder. If you kill one of THEM it's Doing God's Work. Where's the contradiction?
Look; during the time that these laws were formulated, the people writing them down had Faith (and, yes, I capitalized that on purpose). If you got sick and God wanted you to live, then you would live. If He wanted you to die, then you would die.
Period.
In either case, doing anything to try to CHANGE what God had already ordained was to contend against God's Will, and a Sin. You were allowed to pray to God but always remember "Not as my will, but as Thine".
Now, we have the country folks who have their odd folk-superstitions like - oh, say - drinking an infusoin of willow bark to reduce a fever (salycilic acid - aspirin). This pagan belief was a sin since, if you got sick, etc., etc. (see above). Thus, if you DID get better, it was God's will and any claims that the potion had anything to do with your recovery was a blasphemy. Therefore, any potion-brewers, herbalists, etc., were sinful, hence acolytes of the devil, hence were unequivocally THEM and fair game.
As a side-benefit, large numbers of these herbalists were women (since they spent the most time cooking and caring for the infirm, they were the most likely ones to note correlations between particular concoctions and their results - fortunate and otherwise) and, from the days of the Old Testament, the Bible was a paternalistic belief system. (The cult of Mary came several hundred years into the growth of the church.) Therefore, by getting rid of these people as sinful blasphemers, it removed the threat that their superstitions might just possibly result in more cures than the prayers of the faithful did, and that women might ask for more respect and better treatment based on their higher skills at keeping you and your family alive.
Or am I just being silly and cynical?
The Yankee Clipper |
skepticality
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 12:26 AM
It's late, but for reference to the science questions...
Gravity is/was a 'law': Newton's Law of Gravity
It was drawn into question by Einstein which had some problems with the concept of the speed of light in relation to the force of gravity. Since his calculations stated that no force, object or particle could travel faster than the speed of light. Then gravity had to also fit into that restriction as well.
After some research and calculations he came up with the theory of relativity. Which changed the concept of gravity quite a bit. It didn't really 'change' Newton's law, but it did add and modify some aspects.
Ever since it was realized that such 'hard' laws could even have more discovery behind them, there hasn't been another significant discovery made a 'law'.
One of the common issues that I have today is how 'casual' people think theory is. "It's just a theory." In science a Theory is pretty darn close to fact by the time it's an accepted theory. |
Mort
in Just left of centre
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 03:57 AM
Sorry, just came back in,
Mark n' Jen: You missed the point of what i was saying. I completly agree that it is good to openly discuss the differences of peoples beliefs (Otherwise i wouldn't have been discussing mine so cut that quiet life crap) I also admire most peoples' ability to discuss this topic in a sensible manner, it's just that a few comments made in the first Couple o' pages were a bit dodgy. (Nt by you by the way)
I also wasn't referring to War as a way of wanting to bring it up in subject. My brother is in the forces and I hate war because it could bring about his (and many others)death. |
David B.
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 04:07 AM
Ever since it was realized that such 'hard' laws could even have more discovery behind them, there hasn't been another significant discovery made a 'law'.
Not that ol' chestnut! For the record, physical laws are not 'one-up' from theories on some philosophical ladder of rightness.
A law is a principal taken from observations of nature. It proposes no mechanism but merely generalizes the set of observed data. It provides prediction without explanation.
A theory is an explanation of the observations (sometimes even of the law) that provides a testable mechanism that might generate them. A good theory is one that is 'proved' (meaning tested, from the Latin 'probare'). The more tested a theory is, the better scientists like it.
Gravity is a good example. Newton's laws say what will happen (in a non-relativistic domain) but not why. Einstein not only says why (the geometry of spacetime) but points out that a logical consequence of his theory is X (take your pick). Someone can now go and test X, and plenty of people have. Ergo general relativity is considered a good theory.
The law/theory confusion is a 'category error', they are different things and you don't promote one to the other. Actually it's so common an error that even a pedant like myself just goes along with it. Unless someone specifically mentions abuses the law/theory distinction, that is. |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 09:04 AM
CP: I'd greatly appreciate if you wouldn't go after that one little detail. Not right now at least. Lets just leave it as, it's very difficult. It's fair, it's harsh, and it's hard for each and every one of us that believes what I do. That's all I'm going to say about that for now.
Although, whether or not it's improper nomenclature or whatever you said, older versions of the bible (namely, those still in the old/middle english stage) made a distinct difference between the two magics, even spelling them differently. We use "magic" nowadays to describe both. When the bible is retranslated, the meaning remains the same but they have to use words that normal people understand.
Razela: Although I do not believe evolution to be able to work on its own, new scientific advances DO shape our understanding of our own faith. Because of the scientific knowledge out there we humans have discovered, my faith is a lot easier to understand, yet it is still the same. No meanings in my bible have changed because of science, we just understand them better. Because of the solid proof of some (not all) evolutionary principals, it's logical to say for me that God would have a hand in such things. This doesn't change anything in the Bible.
Hairy: That is not very nice. We're all being decent here. I don't think anyone in this discussion has no brain, and I hope that everyone else thinks the same about me. You don't have to join this discussion if you think we're all stupid, but you also don't have to make an effort to let us know your opinion. |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 09:23 AM
Yankee: Actually, we don't get God the Father from pagan beliefs at all. We get it from the early jewish beliefs. The OT is the same thing as their Torah. They originated as a monotheistic religion, believing in ONE God who created everything. Jesus was born in line with ALL of the prophecies related to the messiah, preached nothing but scripture even though he had never read it, was the only person that actually CLAIMED to be the Son of God (at that time, at least, and for a while afterward), predicted his own death, and then in line with the scripture was put to death brutally. Everything that Jesus did was documented outside of the Bible by a roman scribe assigned to the task, the bible is completely fact (at least the four gospels are) at the very least in the sense of history because of that. We as Christians take THAT, along with the OT and the rest of the NT, as our faith.
As for satan (devil, lucifer, the accuser, etc.), he was portrayed in that fashion (as a goat demon thingy) back in the old days just to scare people into thinking it was bad. Much early Christianity (namely during the middle ages) was very corrupt, not all, but a lot. In the bible, even after his fall and far into the NT, satan is described as an angel of light. In Job (OT), we learn that he is still free to walk before the throne of God, and that even after rebelling still does not have free will. He has to ask permission before doing anything, including torture us, and God has complete say over what he does. Either way, the depiction as a goat is very flawed. The portrayal in, say, the movie Passion of the Christ, is much more accurate. Still freaky, but still beautiful as an angel of light. And we didn't get that from pagan beliefs either. Most of their beliefs, they got from us, even if they didn't quite realise it at the time (I said before that any other god besides the one True God, in my faith at least, is a demon that people worship inadvertantly. Zeus, for instance, is not a god, but the greeks worshipped him as one).
I've already been over that verse. The exact wording says murder, not kill. Never has, never will, not in ANY translation. The two are different. And also, I said that I still do not fully understand that verse. I will get with someone that does and get back to you.
I have free will. It's not necessary to pray for God's will over my own. I do it most of the time. If I am asking for something, I don't directly beg for it. I make sure that it's what God wants for my life first out of respect for the one who created me. But God does want us to be happy, and asking for things in his will over our own is not necessary at all.
Getting rid of said blasphemers, to my knowledge, was only in OT times. At the time, no one but the jews could be God's chosen people. When Jesus came and preached to EVERYONE, even the ones the jews considered blasphemers and unclean, and began making disciples out of them, many verses became obsolete. As I said, even though they are obsolete, we can still get a geck of a lot from them. |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 09:27 AM
skep: Thanks for clarifying that gravity was a law. Science was not my best subject in school (actually, only music was but that's beside the point).
Mart: We're all quite well aware of what happened in the earlier parts of the post. I came in expecting to be attacked. I judged everyone prematurely. I saw my error, apologized, and now we have a very very good discussion going on. Can we please forget about that? Thank you.
David B: Thanks for clarifying that even further. I'm learning a lot from this, I hope everyone else is, too. |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 09:39 AM
One more thing I forgot, Yankee: A LOT of early churches, and even some that call themselves churches, are not Christian churches. They may say they are, but they are not. Case in point, mormons, jehovahs witnesses. Church is also used in many different faiths as a place to worship. Also, some true christian churches follow things other than biblical principals (namely the catholic church, which uses more tradition than actual biblical procedures. Like confession for instance. A useless step, but it still works.)
Any protestant churches (in fact, any churches that ARE christian but NOT catholin) do not use saints for anything. It's not viable, biblical, useful, or does it make any sense to do so. Therefore, we don't. If other faiths/denominations want to go making saints of demon gods, have fun, just don't try to tell me it's biblical. There's nothing wrong with it, but not even the catholic church says it's biblical (except maybe in their apocrypha, which I haven't read because it is NOT scripture no matter what they say so I really don't know in that sense. I'm guessing it doesn't, because I know people that HAVE read them).
That's all I ask. I'm fine with other people's faiths. I actually get along better with muslims, jews, buddhists, even satanists, than I do with 'christians' who pervert the Bible. Why? To do something wrong and COMPLETELY unbiblical and then to try to justify it with the bible is a contradiction in itself and highly annoying. I'd rather have someone be my enemy on the battlefield than by my ally and do nothing. It's more honorable to be fighting even on the opposing side than to be trying to say that YOUR side discourages fighting the battle. It's a rough analogy, but just work with me here. |
Mort
in Just left of centre
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 10:31 AM
Eric: Aplogies, Didn't want to raise the dead, was away for a while and was bit surprised by Mark n Jen's reply.
Am liking the thread at the mo though. |
skepticality
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 11:08 AM
The law/theory confusion is a 'category error', they are different things and you don't promote one to the other. Actually it's so common an error that even a pedant like myself just goes along with it. Unless someone specifically mentions abuses the law/theory distinction, that is.</em>
You do have to admit something though. A room full of scientists even quibble about that statement. I sat in a room and listened to Brian Greene and Edward Witten discuss this same issue in regards to the theory of evolution. It was a question from the audience, of course, about the Law/theory issue that always comes up.
(Why that came up in a discussion about string theory, I'll never know. Well, I do know but that's just me being annoyed by the ever-vigilent Intelligent Design folks.) |
Sharruma
in capable of finishing a coherent
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 11:42 AM
Eric you keep referring to Catholics as the only true christian religion
Catholics aren't christians
The definition of a christian is someone that follows christ and catholics follow Mary.
Catholics are also idologists, which I believe is expressly warned against in the bible. They follow statues and shrouds and symbols of the cross all of which are idols.
Before you accuse other religions of not being really christian look to your own.
Shall we have a look at some of these religions you are dissing so easily?
Protestants are effectively Catholics, its the same religion except they broke away from the original church so a certain King could get a divorce. The main difference is they speak English while Catholics speak latin
Jehovah witnesses, perhaps they aren't christian, from there name it would suggest they follow Jehovah, the god head.
Mormons, the mormons have tried to set their church up the same way Jesus set his up, with one at the top and twelve immediately below him. From this alone we can see they are christians. But the name 'The church of Jesus Christ' makes it very hard for them to not be real christians
One final point, when a new pope was being chosen recently we were informed that the cardinals voting needed a two thirds majority. Why?
I mean seriously, if the appointment of a new pope is in god's hands as Catholics believe then surely the vote shuld be unaniomous and should only take one attempt to make. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 01:03 PM
Umm...I don't know if you were paying attention Sharruma...but that's not what Eric has said at all. I also think you are missing his point about what makes someone Christian. THEIR NAME does not make them any more Christian than someone else. If I named my child Jesus, Yahwah, Jehovah...would he/she be more righteous than another child??
There are cults (which use some teachings of Jesus, but do not require belief in the sin & sacrifice), and there are occults (which never mention Jesus in the teachings whatsoever). Christian churches follow ONE thing. Eric explained it quite a few pages back (page 4/5 maybe??), my attempt didn't quite do it, but I'll make it again. A CHRISTIAN is one who believes that we have sinned, and the only way to atone is through sacrifice. Jesus bridges the gap between man and God.
The Catholics DO believe in this. They are a Christian church, their rules & regulations are of their own making. Mormans and Jehovah's Witnesses (regardless of what their name implies) are not TRUE Christian churches.
Citizen, it's not can I stomach the fact that you'll be burning in a lake of flames...can YOU stomach it? My God has given you the criteria to enter Heaven...if you reject it...it's your own doing and no one elses. It might sound a little harsh, but think of it this way: You're 16, your parents have told you that curfew is 11:30pm. Night after night you come in at midnight. At first they sit you down and tell you how important boundries are. Why it's dangerous to be out late...all the reasons a parent can give you. Finally, you come home late for the last time. You parents are going to punish you. No going out, you're going to be doing a lot more chores too. Laundry, mowing, cleaning, no driving your new car to school, and you're in bed every night by 9! It was the last straw...your parents couldn't take your disobediance anymore. After all the chances they gave you, you still disobeyed. You HAD to be punished.
I won't be around for a few days...so if you've got something really scathing to say...go on and e-mail me! |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 01:28 PM
Mart: Don't fret. Things happen.
skep: A room full of just about anyone will probably experience some quibbling, even churches. It's just the way we humans work, sadly enough.
Sharruma: Wow. I've never said that catholicism is the one true Christian denomination. Ever. If I was catholic, I might. But, honestly, I do not belong to any denomination. I go to a methodist church, however, we are probably the most un-methodist environment you will ever see. Many of us there think we should do away with denominations altogether and just say we're all Christians, myself included. In a perfect world, that would be possible. Just the same, I never said that catholics were not Christians. Some are not, but most are. In fact, from what I understand, being saved and being baptised are not requirements for membership in that church.
Mary is worshipped almost as much as a deity in the catholic church (quite messed up). Also, saints are mentioned nowhere in the bible yet they do it anyway.
Also, the pope is usually a very good person. JP was a great man who did many wonderful things. Benedict, the new guy, also seems to be a great man. The thing is, the pope is little more than a figurehead, kinda like the queen of england. He really doesn't have that much power. The real power lies in the "congress", such as the cardinals and the others.
So I never said they were the only christians. What I said was that most of them are. Although being christian is not a requirement for being catholic, they still are a christian church. Remember that.
Maegan: THANK YOU! I could not have answered CP better myself. I think I'm going to remember that for next time someone asks me that one. |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 01:40 PM
Is bleeding from the ears a form of Stigmata? God, if you are listening, Smoteth This Threadeth and the Idioth that keep posting this DRIVEL. Thankths, Hairyeth |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 01:41 PM
OH YEAH! Umm, Yankee. One thing I didn't notice about your post. Making medicines is not a sin. It all depends on the medicine itself. Any medicine that is helpful to mankind, such as tylenol, flu vaccines, sudafed, ritalin, etc. would be something that God would have wanted us to make. For all you know, he could have put such an invention in its creator's head. Harmful drugs, on the other hand, such as cigarettes, marijuana, crack, speed, and others like that, are products of satan's influence.
If the herbal remedy was produced to help people out of love for them and faith in God, then it was not a sin. If it was produced as a magic potion, then it is a sin.
I keep overlooking some things in your post there, sorry bout that Yankee. |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 01:51 PM
Eric, in the name of all that's holy, go covet thy neighbor's ass, okey dokey? |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 02:38 PM
Hairy: I'm not here to make enemies. I'm asking that you do not attack me. I haven't done anything to you, yet you seem to find it appropriate to tell me that I'm an idiot. While yes, you are entitled to your opinion, I'd appreciate if you wouldn't share such an opinion. Everyone else seems to be enjoying this discussion. You, however, seem to want to insult me, and I'm assuming, insult everyone that is taking the time to read what I have to say.
I personally think you do not have any right to judge anyone. I don't have the right to that, either. None of us do. Yet, here you are, judging me for voicing my opinion in a civil matter and engaging in a discussion that you apparently find too controversial.
Therefore, because we are both voicing our opinions, I leave it up to you to decide to keep posting them or not. If you do not like this topic of discussion, please feel free not to contribute.
You can say whatever you want about me. I really don't care. I've taken worse. They are your opinions, so because of freedom of speech, feel free to hurt whoever you want. |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 02:58 PM
Oh Great and Wise Eric: Wilt thou give me thine everlasting forgiveness? Wilt thou show me the way of the light, and avoid Satan's influence? Wilt thou float across the great void, filled with the Hot Air of Holiness? Wilt thou get a frickin' grip? You are, as they say in The Church of The Poisoned Mind, a pontificating bunghole, yea verily. Satan' influence...Christ on a bike... |
Sharruma
in capable of finishing a coherent
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 04:37 PM
Eric:
If I misinterpretted what you were saying
Then I apologise. |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 06:07 PM
Mart,
I don't see why you would be so "surprised" by my response... as you put it. I also don't think I misunderstood what you said in any way.
We are obviously both English speaking people and your words are still there to be read...
"Oh, and i think that Religeon should be left well alone on discussion boards! It's one area that is going to cause very big arguments. Take a look at history. There have been many wars started due to oppposition of belief, (WW1, Crusades, Korean War, Vietnam, WW2, Napoleonic/peninsular war...etc..etc..)"
How exactly can one misunderstand that statement? The sentence, "Oh, and i think that Religeon should be left well alone on discussion boards!" can only be interpreted in the way it has been. That, in your opinion, this subject should be avoided lest it lead to, "wars started due to oppposition of belief." These are your words in quotations with NO alteration by me or anyone else. So if you intended for that statement to mean something other than what it was taken as, then by all means tell us. But instead of trying to lay the blame on me misunderstanding, why not instead just admit that you said something that was incorrect? Or that you incorrectly stated a thought on the subject and that you meant something else. (and your true intent with this statement is still unknown)
Even if a few comments in the first couple of pages were a bit "dodgy" I ask... SO WHAT? Dodgy statements and flared tempers in a debate are still better than the way these differences of opinion were previously settled in our history. Are they not? I welcome "dodgy" statements over bullets anyday, and I think you would too. So I will not lay off the "quiet life" jab I took at you. It served it's purpose, which was to get you to re-think your position. (as stated by your post) The only thing I'm left wondering about now is the matter of you trying to convince me that it was my mistake, as opposed to yours. I didn't misunderstand your statement. It was in very plain English and easily understood by all, so don't blame me because you said something that was incorrect / ignorant.
Again, as all have noted this thread has had some interesting discussion (with a little drivel here and there) but it was merely my opinion that to avoid discussion because it was too inflammatory was wrong. And brother, no matter how much you may want to change what you said... that is indeed what you said.
:cheese: |
The Yankee Clipper
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 06:35 PM
"For all you know, he could have put such an invention in its creator's head. Harmful drugs, on the other hand, such as cigarettes, marijuana, crack, speed, and others like that, are products of satan's influence."
Okay, now this is the sort of hair-splitting that I sometimes have difficulty with. As a fairly current debate might go on; anecdotal evidence SEEMS to indicate that marijuana can help cancer and AIDS patients tolerate the toxic effects of chemotherapy better than not using it. There is also (again, limited) evidence that it may reduce intra-ocular pressure in Glaucoma patients. Should further research determine that these are, in fact, true results, paving the way for general medicinal use, will marijuana STILL be a creation of the devil, or will it have been God's work after all, and William Randolph Hearst and Henry Anslinger will have now have been the tools of the devil?
In short, I have never seen ANY prefessed Christian's concordance of which parts of the Bible (Old and New Testaments) are to be taken as the LITERAL word of God, which are to be taken allegorically, and which can be ignored altogether. In fact you, Eric, have made that distinction in this thread:
"... the most obscure laws imaginable and holding to every last detail), just as taking a verse like that one too literally results in the salem witch trials. I personally think, since I'm a Christian, not a historian (I have no earthly idea whether they killed witches or not way back then), that many of the things in the Bible are to be taken more as a metaphor when read by themselves. Reading one of the books front to back gives you a story, a lesson in the history of the time, things all these important people said. However, when reading individual verses, you can get deeper meanings, sometimes they make sense, sometimes they are confusing as crap, such as that one. Contradictions that people claim to have found result from people misunderstanding the meaning of the specific verses in question (that's at least all the contradictions I've been presented with)."
And THAT'S where my problem lies. When saying one thing, the Bible is "God's Word", but when asked about another verse - often in the same book, or describing the same thing - then it's no longer valid, or to be take allegorcally. But if that's the case, can ANYONE tell me DEFINITIVELY which parts are which? And WHICH currently-available edition of the Bible (again, OT & NT) IS the literal Word of God and NOTHING ELSE? THAT one, I'd like to read; it might make the arguments disappear if we could all sit down with the same text and say, "Now THIS is the TRUTH, the WHOLE Truth, and nothing BUT the Truth!"
The Yankee Clipper |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 06:55 PM
Also, since marijuana is a "naturally-occurring" plant that has to be altered in NO way, refined in NO way, added to in NO way in order to be "enjoyed" then how can it be a creation of Satan? Isn't MJ so blatantly a creation of God that even you can't argue that it's not Eric? Nevermind the bias that has been bred into you by a government panel and their subsequent laws... it is most clearly one of Gods' creations. (If such a category does indeed exist)
Perhaps he gave it to man to be enjoyed much as he did wine? They and their effects are quite similar... the only difference being that alcohol can have a much more severe effect that MJ ever could. The only reason you think it such an "evil" drug as opposed to alcohol is because that's what the government wants you to think, and only because they can't tax it. |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 07:16 PM
Yankee: I admit that I forgot about medicinal uses of pot. If I was offered such a thing for my pain, I'd decline it. The way it is used normally, nonmedicinally, is to screw up your brain for entertainment. Regardless of whether it is used for fun or a medical sense, it still does mess up your brain. Prolonged use can cause permanent damage. I still think, because of what it does to the brain (one of God's creations), that no matter how it is used, it is still the devil's work.
Also, I tend to get really confusing. Sometimes I can't seem to put what I'm trying to say in the right words. The more I try, the more I mess my original thought up. It's odd. Any edition of the bible (except for a Catholic bible) can be taken as nothing but the truth. Everything in it is accepted as fact by Christains such as myself. The Law of Moses includes the verse about killing witches. It incorporates everything from ordaining priests to sacrificial offerings.
An example of what I am trying to say: In OT times, a sacrifice of something valuable to yourself was required to atone for sin. You would have had to burn rice on the altar, or a sac a few sheep, or some goats, or give money, etc. This was made obsolete because Jesus, the Son of God, came as the perfect sacrifice for our sins. No more sacrifices are necessary (nor do they even work) because believing what Jesus did was for you and accepting him as your savior instantly atones for your sins, past present and future. See how that works? It's still truth because it is historically accurate, we just don't take part in that action anymore because the NEW covenant replaced the OLD one. OLD testament/OLD covenant, NEW testament/NEW convenant.
So I hope that clarifies. I'm sorry, I just tend to make things more confusing than they need to be. This is why I don't write the helpfiles for the software I write, or books for that matter...
Oh, and here's a notion to ignore Hairy for the remainder of this discussion. Anyone care to second? |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 07:28 PM
Mark-N-Jen: Good point. You may be right in that sense. I'm not entirely sure. I do know that both pot and alcohol can have similar effects. Why do I consider pot to be wrong yet alcohol okay? Well, first of all. There is no verse in the Bible ANYWHERE that stated that anyone used marijuana. It says that even Jesus drank wine, though.
Marijuana can have an instant effect on you. It will mess with your head almost instantly as you start using it. It can cause permanent damage.
Alcohol is meant to be used in moderation. For it to cause permanent damage, you must drink enough to become drunk. Because it is meant to be used in moderation, becoming drunk is considered to be an abuse of the substance. Therefore, the drinking of wine or beer is not a sin, but the more you drink, the worse your perception of right and wrong becomes, and when not used in moderation may cause you to sin.
I hope that clears it up. |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 07:44 PM
Eric the Lumberhead: oh, I get it... I'm not a product of God, I'm of product of Satanic Influence, so I should be ignored...I spoke to Satan today, and he sent he to set you straight: Yer a loon... It's called conscience and reason... whatever force brought us to this point doesn't influence us in an intelligent manner any more than numbers... numbers exist because we use them as a form of measurement, but that doesn't mean that the things we assign numbers to were created by the numbers, get it? When people use God as a point of reference, it is to measure the desirable in actions and thoughts... it's an effort toward perfection, okay? Not a Cosmic Being, sitting around, waiting for us to whine, but a state of mind we can achieve, to better attain the desirable in our thoughts and actions... To assign an anthropic, human personality to a concept of perfection, diminishes the concept... Grab the Godhead, but leave God outta this... |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 07:56 PM
I swear to Nature, we are going back into The Dark Ages... It's like watching De-Evolution, which I KNOW, is JUST A THEORY... I thought this is the 21st Century... when, in the name of Algebra, are we going to toss our superstitious, amulet-rubbing citizens in the Nut Hut? Holy Cow, if people in your office said "Leonardo Da Vinci speaks to me", you'd lock 'em up, no arguement... but they say "Jesus/God/Allah/Yaweh speaks to me", we say "Hey, you could be in the White House- you're all right", when in reality, REALITY, people who speak to etheral entities, or believe they speak to them, are, clinically, truly: INSANE. Leo taught me that |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 08:10 PM
Can I just ask, mister Houdini, why you are attacking me? Is there a specific reason to this? Or do you just feel the need to be superior to me?
Maybe when YOU use God as a point of reference, that's what you think. And that's fine by me. If that's what you want to think, then by all means go ahead. But do not generalize and say that I'm mistaken in my beliefs. Why? Because you do not know. For all you know, God very well could exist as a perfect 'Cosmic Being'. For all I know, he couldn't. What does this mean? It means that I BELIEVE he exists, and you BELIEVE that he's imaginary. In fact, it's not just me who believes this. Everyone at my church believes what I do. Every true Christian believes that God exists as a Divine Being. So do satanists, otherwise they wouldn't make such an effort to insult my God, say he sucks, and then do all these nasty rituals to kill and curse his followers.
I suggested you be ignored simply because while everyone else is contributing something to the discussion in a peaceful and civil manner with the goal of maybe learning something, you seem to find it necessary to be nothing but argumentative and assault my BELIEFS. Because I believe something does not make it wrong. It doesn't necessarily mean that it is true, but because it is my BELIEF, I BELIEVE it to be true.
I am going to ask you nicely now. If you wish to join this discussion so that maybe you can learn something about what other people BELIEVE, then please feel free to do so in a CIVIL and PEACEFUL manner, without deliberately trying to insult or offend anyone. If you cannot do this, then you do not belong in this discussion. Is that so wrong to ask? Am I not just as deserving of respect as everyone else is here even though I believe something different?
I want to be able to show YOU respect as well, just as I respect every person in this discussion regardless of their belief. I appreciate that you are coming in here and voicing your opinion. That is an important right that each and every one of us has. The important thing to remember is, I have that right too. If I am offending you in any way with my BELIEFS and OPINIONS, you do not have to post here. It's that simple. |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 08:22 PM
Gosh, I'm sorry, Eric- it's just that I feel it somewhat appropriate on a website dedicated to examining HOAXES, that people claiming that Ritalin is from God, but Heroin comes from Satan, should be singled out, and exposed for the irrational, deluded/deludING creatures that have plagued Humankind since we climbed out of the swamp...dar...Heroin's from Afghanistan |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 08:33 PM
Tell ya what, Mister Limberjack: I'll step off and let you do your thing. I like a good fantasy-land bedtime story. During a break in your Words From On High, which I would suggest, tell me about which cleaning products are approved by God, and which are sent by Satan. I've got some work to do tomorrow, and I wouldn't want to be swayed by a ficticious product of a deranged psyche. All yours, spud |
The Yankee Clipper
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 09:05 PM
Eric -
No apologies necessary; we are all (I assume) pretty much ad-libbing these postings, so one can expect some stumbling from all of us, as we jump from premise to (for each of us) self-obvious conclusion, without necessarily showing all of the intervening steps.
But, I'm still confused over the Literal Truth thing. David B. posted an example a while back:
"It didn |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 09:24 PM
Eric, I'm not intending to attack your faith, I'm just curious to know your reasoning (and that of any other strongly Christian people on here) behind something: how do you consider the Bible you've read to be the actual Word of God? Even assuming that Matthew and Luke and others were inspired by God, I think we can all be reasonably sure that they didn't write anything in modern English. Any manuscripts that they did write personally no longer exist. Anything you read now is the result of 2000 years of copying and translations. If you say that every copy and translation was also divinely guided, then how do you account for all the typos that any Bible has in it? And why have different translations resulted in different meanings of the same verses? Were only some translations divinely inspired, while others weren't? If so, then how can you tell which is which? |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 10:23 PM
Eric, why is it that you can't ask God to help you articulate--isn't He supposed to answer your questions, since you are of pure faith? Can't He help you to be as clear as possible?
And why is it that you shrug off discussion of Hell? Is it not a crucial part of Christian philosophy? Shouldn't you be able to agree with God that sinners deserve to burn for all eternity? |
The Yankee Clipper
|
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 10:13 AM
Oh, and Eric (and other Believers) - while I suppose that I'm asking provocative (some might say: smart-assed) questions, I hope you'll understand that I'm genuinely trying to figure the whole thing out. Admittedly, partly I want to understand so that I can better refute those people in RL who insist that because they have "The Truth" that they are entitled to tell everyone - especially those who do NOT believe their "Truth" - how they MUST behave. So, in point of fact you, as one of the most vociferous defenders of the "believer" position here, are forced to take the heat for all of the ones that don't seem able even to admit that there's something in their belief system that confuses them.
But I genuinely DO want to understand.
See, as I've said before; I don't have enough faith to be either a Theist or an Atheist. So the best that I can do is treat people as welll as I can, following those precepts (from the Bible, from my readings in Zen and any other philosophies about which I find myself getting curious, and with my own observations and beliefs) that seem to make this world - the only one of which we have any direct knowledge - a kinder place for as many people as possible.
On the other hand, sometimes I think that it would be nice to have some certainty in my life; and at those time I envy people who can believe without proof. But it just ain't who I am - and calling a pig a horse ain't gonna make it one!
Actually, what surprises me about this group is how, generally, civil the discourse is. The main exception seems to be Hairy - and it strikes me as terribly funny that "Hairy Houdini" is Trolling so strenuously after having adapted the name of a man who seems to have spent much of his life debunking fake spiritualists only because they weren't the TRUE spiritual experience that he desperately sought. Through all of his searches, he apparently kept an open mind to the possibility that spiritualism and the afterlife were real. Is "Hairy" perhaps revealing more with that name than s/he thought? Or did s/he just never actually READ anything but the Cliff's Notes version of Houdini's biography?
Take care, y'all!
The Yankee Clipper |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 01:15 PM
Yankee: Thanks for your understanding. I can address David B's (and now your) inquiry if you can provide me with the reference numbers of the verses in question. I may know the scriptures fairly well, but I literally cannot remember where a lot of them located. If I can't find em, I can't read em, and then I can't give answers to em. As for any inquiries about contradictions, I will need the verses in question in the form of (Book Ch:Vs), otherwise there isn't a way I can answer it.
I have not read all four gospels. I am intending to, but so far I've only tackled John and Matthew. They're long, you must understand, and I'd rather read some other things like Revelation than read roughly the same story again. It may sound a bit odd for me, a christian, to say that, but trust me, I have a very short attention span.
Inquiry on passover: Luke 2:41-42 "Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast." So, how does that make a contradiction? It is stating his family's tradition at the time. It doesn't say specifically that they did that through his entire life, or during the time that they hid from herod. It says that this was the family's tradition. I don't see a contradiction here.
Leveticus 18:22- This is a verse against homosexuality. The translation in the NIV bible (my favorite translation, btw) reads "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, that is detestable." The entire chapter 18 speaks against incest and homosexuality.
Leveticus 19:19- NIV: "Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals..." How can one breed a cat and a dog? It's fine to crossbreed between the same species, because different kinds refers to different species. But, to mix something say, a cow and a fish, is not only wrong, but impossible. And what about a human with something like, say, a sheep? Isn't that wrong, as well?
"...Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed..." Wouldn't it make sense, if you are farming, to keep the section for radishes seperate from your section for corn?
"...Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material..." This is very obscure. I haven't read leveticus before this, so I had no idea this existed. I don't exactly know what to say about this part. Can I get back to you on it? |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 01:36 PM
Accipiter: You are correct. The bible was originally written in Hebrew. The second translation was Greek, and then Latin. No change in meaning occurred from these retranslations. It's the same words, just different languages. When Martin Luther, a monk back in the middle ages in Germany, became fed up with the corruption in the church (catholic was the only church at the time), he translated the Bible from Latin (which was used by the priests and was the ONLY translation at the time, which normal, uneducated peasants who really needed it couldn't read) into the vernacular of his nation, German. No loss of meaning in the translation, either. Since then, the Bible has been translated into many different languages, including russian, french, english, even klingon (I'm not kidding), in most cases by people who have taken courses to read Hebrew (which is necessary for a seminary degree) so they can translate it directly from that, while taking existing translations as guidance for how to format it. Three current english versions, The King James, New Living Translation, and New International Version, all say the same thing using different words. I know German, and I have read a German bible and compared it to NIV, and it still says the same thing, just in a different language. Some are easier to understand than others, like any using Old/Middle english words like Thou and Thine are much more difficult to understand for us than those using more plain english that we are used to today. I know Old English pretty well (I was an english major before I dropped out to pursue music) and can assuredly say, altough the text is difficult for me to read, it still says the same thing. A lot of original documents of these do still exist, such as the ones found in the dead sea scrolls. Hope that helps.
CP: I really don't understand your question that well. If you are asking what I think you are asking, then yes, I could easily ask God for the words to say. But then it is still up to me to write them down for you. As for discussions of hell, you were not asking me about Hell. You were asking me about my feelings of people that are sent there. In my opinion, it's more than fair. It's just difficult to express that, and God can't tell me what my opinions and feelings are. Free will applies to that.
Yankee (again): I am pretty good at deciphering who's genuinly trying to learn and who's just here to tick me off. You've been asking some very intelligent questions and I thank you for that. I'm not here trying to convert anyone. If something like that happens, then heck that's great. If it doesn't fine by me as well. I'm here so that maybe some people (including myself) can learn something about each other's beliefs. I appreciate that you understand that. Knowledge is one of the most valuable things we can have, that along with wisdom. Understanding each other and talking about things can prevent useless fighting.
And thanks, also, for agreeing with me on Hairy. |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 01:38 PM
Accipiter: correction. Left a word out. Latin was the only USED translation at the time in the church. It was used because the priests didn't think it was necessary for common people to read the bible. That thought is unbiblical, since the Bible states that it was given to ALL man. |
|
Page 3 of 6 pages < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last › |
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
