OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)

[lch]

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

God alone has the power to forgive sins. Without that power, Jesus wouldn't be much good as a Savior.

Exactly, only God can forgive the sins. Jesus is the proxy.

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

Jesus (God the Son) is not the same entity as God the Father. They are both members of the Godhead, but they are different from each other. Three persons, one God.

I don't like the word "Godhead", but I don't like "Trinity", either. Yes, there exist all three, and they share something, but they are not one.

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

Without a clear understanding of the Trinity (as much as humans can ever understand it), we would be forever confused about God.

Only with that all-are-one-are-not-the-same definition, it seems. I am not confused with my model.

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

If you don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, what do you believe about it? Are some parts true and other parts false? How do you know which are which?

Well, I'm sorry if my belief system doesn't match yours and we disagree about things. But I don't have to accept yours, in the same way as you don't have to accept mine. My belief in God and Jesus Christ works for me, and I don't regard yours as any "truer than mine" just because you managed to fit more of the bible into it. I am not one for dogmas. I can't believe in the inerrancy of scripture as, first, words are hardly capable to contain what happened concerning what you refer to as "divine", and second, if the scripture was without error, then we wouldn't need four gospels which disagree in parts with each other, then we'd only need one. The bible is a book written by human hands and you have to interpret it, which automatically happens and starts already when you read the words in it that are written down. One may hope to understand some things in it, I chose to decide what I can say I have understood and accept it and I decide to discard what doesn't fit in for me. Those parts are not canonic for me in order to save the whole. It may either be that the source got it wrong, or the written word is presenting it in a bad way, or my interpretation and decision is false. I do understand that a lot of things got into the mix from other religions, like Hell and the Devil. And I decide that parts in the bible, which is a work of many authors, are not valid, in the same vain like I decide that the Quran is not valid for me. And if I'm the only one with my belief system that matters little for me, as I do believe in "my" God.

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

Back to the doctrine of the Trinity. God the Son (Jesus) became sin on our behalf. As He hung on the Cross, He became the sins of the entire human race. As God is holy, He cannot be in communion with sin. For those agonizing moments, the eternal unity between the Father and the Son was interrupted, and the Father turned His back on the Son. When it was finished, Jesus said so [John 19:30], and then He surrendered His spirit to the Father's care [Luke 23:46]. The Father and the Son were in unity once more, never to be separated again.

It's strange for me because I'm jumping between "in principle we agree" and "no, that's not it" every odd second. It probably has to do with language as well, but I guess that my simple and working model disagrees with yours after all. I'd probably have to start going cross-eyed before I attempt to understand this in the way that it is meant to be understood. As I already said, I do not agree with dogmas like those that you state.

I don't want to convert anybody to my belief system, though, so let's just give it a rest. If I wanted to battle the dark ages, I'd be playing Dom3 some more.

[HoneyBadger]

This is the kind of thing that always bothers me about religious debates-everybody's always trying to convince everybody else that they're wrong. Here's a thought: You're right. They're *also* right. Nobody's wrong. You're both right *at the same time*

That's why it's called a "belief system" instead of a "fact system".

Just shut the **** up and deal with it.

If you must insist your ways are *more* right than everyone else's, if yours is truly the One True Path, then simply trust that by the time this Universe ends, everything will have worked itself out to your satisfaction. It's called *FAITH* for a reason! And the reason religions have caused so many problems over the years isn't because of flaws within the religions themselves-it's because of peoples' insecurities and doubts about their beliefs.

I'm not a Christian, but I was raised Christian, and I've taken certain values from that upbringing. I admire some of the things Jesus said and did and represents (whether or not those things are factual doesn't really matter. They are good messages, and that's the important thing). I also admire many Christians. They can be good, kind, generous, intelligent folk--worldly and earthy.

I still look upon Christianity fondly. I have read the Bible, some parts more than once, and continue to study the lives of various saints, as well as Christian history, mysticism/occultism, and apocrypha.

At one time, I considered becoming a Christian preacher of whatever denomination. I think there's a lot of beauty and truth to the religion, and that it often speaks with a powerful message of love. Being Christian, to me, means finding compassion for those who are different than you are, and helping them, if they need it, to improve their lives, and to be better people--But only if they actually *need* that help.

The whole Christian Missionary thing really ticks me off, though. If you really want to convince people that your beliefs and your way of living is better than theirs, then be their friend. Help them improve their lives. Show them compassion and strength of character.

Don't destroy their culture and way of life that they've spent hundreds and thousands of years to develope, just because you can. That's not being a Christian, that's being an arrogant, unfeeling, uncaring bastard, and spreading the very Word of God like it was an infectious disease. I don't care if their kids are starving and they can't grow food and don't wear a lot of clothing. Don't rely on God to feed them someday in Heaven, after they've already starved to death, God's name on their dying lips. Just feed the kids, teach the parents how to farm, deal with the fact that cultural differences aren't the same as moral deficiencies, and shut up about it.

If you want to introduce them to Christianity, wait until they come to you, personally, and ask you about it. If you do enough to show them you care, and represent yourself and your religion well, chances are they'll want to know more about you and what you stand for. If they don't, then consider it a test of your faith. Do more, give more, and shut up about it.

And don't make the Bible the first book they ever read in English. That's just pathetic propagandaism--and it colors their view of our *entire* culture, not just your precious religion. I'm an American, and I don't want to be identified with certain aspects of the Bible, or Christian fundamentalism. I'm not comfortable with that, or with the integration of religion and government which often acts as a motivation for missionary work (if you deny this, go ask an Aztec). So please respect the wishes of a fellow tax-payer. I may not attend your churches, but I helped build them.

And please, please, respect other cultures. If nothing else, they keep our restaurants interesting.

If you want a good book to introduce people to the English language, teach them to read the Complete Works of Shakespeare. From Inuit to Bushmen to Japanese to Peruvians to New Yorkers, I guarantee that everyone can identify with Shakespeare *atleast* as much as they can identify with the Bible. Feel free to make the Bible the *second* book they read, if you so choose. I have no issues with that, as long as you get through all of Shakespeare *first*--and Shakespeare will make a fine introduction to the Bible for them, thus allowing them to better appreciate your wonderful religious scripture.

And I have a real problem with Christians going around saying "God is in control. God is in complete charge of my life". Step in front of a speeding bus sometime, and then you can tell me all about how God has got a really dark sense of irony. God is in charge of angels. Your god gave you free will. That makes you *better* than angels, and closer to God. To believe that God is in control of you is to be in agreement with Satan, not God. It's your belief system, not mine.

As a human, you've been entrusted with the ability to make decisions for yourself, and to affect and attempt to control your life. If you have a problem with living your life responsibly and assertively, then take it up with your faith. Maybe you can convince God to make you an angel, and then you can go around burning cities and murdering babies without a second thought.

And going around and actually *telling* people that God is in complete charge of your life and everything that happens to you, is both moronic and sad. I'm sorry, but that's *my* belief, and I don't mean it personally. I've heard that message over and over from many Christians, and it never fails to irritate.

People who say that God is in complete control of their lives never seem to realize that it makes God sound like an insecure prick, since he's making you go around telling everyone what a badass bigshot god he is. People that go around telling other people how big and strong and great and in control they are (even by proxy), I just don't associate myself with, because they're intensely annoying, and often belligerant, erratic, and dangerous. Your self-conscious control freak god does not impress or awe me, as he speaks-like some divine ventriloquist-through your fleshdummy lips. You represent your god and your faith in such a way that I wouldn't want to be anywhere nearer your horrifying Cthulhu-god, for fear *It* would suck out my soul, scramble my brains, and work me like a zombie puppet on it's invisible tentacles, like you're telling me that *It* did to you.

I am, to some degree, in charge of my life-imperfect though I am. I accept that some things are out of my control, and that their are greater powers in this world than myself. But I take responsibility for my own actions, and I affect my surroundings and circumstances with determination, and without reliance on anyone but family and friends-and only total reliance on myself, and my ability to survive and prosper.

That said, I understand that it may be difficult to act as a true representative of such a potent entity, that it may be impossible for you to discribe the true beauty of your faith in terms which don't make my guts turn to jelly, and I've led a hard enough life, so if the higher power you've put in charge of your life can make my life better and easier, I'm willing to accept all the help I can get, but I'm going to need proof--in the form of cash. After all, Christianity already had 1 shot at my soul, and it blew it.

So if you're willing to take a *real* leap of faith in God and Humanity, and send me $50,000 in U.S. currency to prove to me God's generosity to His faithful(what's money, compared to the strength of your religion? Small bills, please-and no consecutive serial numbers.), then I'm prepaired to consider your arguments, and to accept your money, and to spend it, verily.

Understand that I must take payment because, while I refuse to be a slave to your god, I *am* willing to consider an exciting employment opportunity.

Once I have the cash safely deposited in the bank, and have retreated to a secure, undisclosed location, I'm willing to give you 1 hour of my time (in IMs) to convince me that I can be led back into the fold. I promise it'll be me on the other side of the IMs, that I'll be as open to it as I can be, and that I'll give you the full 60 minutes, but I make no promises of reconversion. Convincing me is up to you and God. God being infinite and omnipotent, I consider an hour to be a generous amount of time, and the $50,000 a mere-but very necessary-formality.

I'll be splitting the money with JimMorrison, by the way, so maybe you'll make 2 converts for the price of 1?

Obviously, not all Christians are missionaries, not all missionaries are poisonous, and the Christian message isn't always "You Will Be Assimilated".

The thing that bothers me about Atheists, is when you do your best to attack, dismantle, and destroy anyone who *has* found religion. Stop acting like you're on some sort of Atheist Jihad. If someone has a relationship with God (in whatever form), and that relationship has improved their lives and made them better people, that's a good thing for them, and it's probably a good thing for you. Now if someone gets in your face about religion, and you react to that, I completely understand. But just because you don't believe in a spiritual and eternal element to your life, doesn't give you the right to seek out and assault the faith (and personality, and culture, and background) of someone who does, just because they do.

And just because you do it intellectually, with the weapons of science and reason, doesn't erase your blame for furthering hatred and fear and misery. Stop acting like you're no longer a citizen of this planet, or that you're better and smarter than everyone else who does believe in something.

And stop making Atheism *your* religion. You're missing the whole point of being an Atheist.
"I'm not going anywhere when I die. Nobody does. There's no God and nothing more to life than this one. You're all just deluding yourselves-hahaha!" Sound familiar? Well **** you. You don't know what happens when we die, any more than anybody else does.

Again, this only applies to some Atheists-and you know who you are.

Rejecting spirituality is in itself a belief and a choice, whether you like it or not. Many people who have religion weren't given that choice, and with that choice comes the responsibility to act with compassion and understanding (if also with skepticism), and to create a moral code that you, yourself, live by.

I could find some fault with the nature and/or practices of any other belief-system on the planet,
I promise you, but there's a 25000 character limit that I'm fast approaching, and my rant is not yet complete. None of them embody or achieve perfection more than any of the others, though, not even yours (Yes you! I've studied and sought out more of them than the average bunny, and if I'd hit upon a perfect system, I'd be here spouting off cheerfully about how we can all someday find ourselves in the midst of a big sloppy orgy in my version of Eternal Paradise.).

The point to all this is that *all* of our belief systems, or just our experiences of life, have given us all values that can compliment one another. There's no reason for us to argue about who's god or gods or lack therof, has the bigger dick.

We're all adults here, and it's behaviour that we should have left behind with the 3rd grade--and good riddance! We're just putting a new spin on "My dad can beat up your dad", using bigger words and concepts, and pretending that it somehow makes it all so luminous and deep. It's a bull**** argument that we continue to beat like the well and truly dead horse that it is, because it's easier to sit here and argue about than it is to identify real problems that face all of us, work together openly and respectfully to find a solution, and to then take that solution and act on it. It's fear and distrust, and lack of real hope and faith in ourselves and our abilities, and we let those things separate us.

Whether you're Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Atheist, Wiccan, Gnostic, Agnostic, Hindu, Buddhist, Jainist, Hari-Krishna, Norse, Animist, Satanist, Rastafarian, Pastafarian, whatever the hell I am-because I really don't know-or none of the above-we *ALL* have something to bring to the table, and we all can sit and eat together and be satisfied.

I recognise most of you on this thread, atleast as well as one can recognise another human being, when glimpsed through a computer screen. I consider many of you friends, and I'm writing this out of friendship to all of you, in the hope that maybe, in this one tiny little corner of the world, we can actually come together as different people-recognising and accepting that it's those differences that can make us stronger!-and talk together and work together to make our lives and the lives of those close to us-and maybe even the world itself, just a tiny bit better, by setting aside as irrelevant to the conversation, those fears and hatreds that were handed down to us from long-dead history, and that we hold so dear to our hearts. If we just try to understand each other simply as peers.

We have enough reasons to argue and fight and hate and resent one another, as human beings.
We don't need our spiritual sides and nobler natures-and arguably those things which are the *best* parts of us-to give us yet another reason for antagonism.

It's a very lonely world out there, no matter who you are or what you believe in. It's lonely, but it's also full of endless variety and freshness, richness and wonder, and we can do better for ourselves and each other than trying to make everybody into the same person. We're all humans, we're all the same species, and that applies to gender and nationalism and sexual orientation, and even religion.

We're all on this world together, at the same time, and we'd be smarter and stronger and better, if we just helped one another out, without also asking that they become more like us.

[JimMorrison]

Oh boy, now look, you've made the Badger 'splode.


Oh and FYI - my god's dick es mue gigante!

[HoneyBadger]

Well,

I 'splode,

but I 'splode with love.

[Agema]

I might make a minor correction to HoneyBadger.

When atheists and Christians argue, actually one side is right. It's a belief system because none of them have the facts to adequately prove they're right on several important issues.

[thejeff]

I might make a minor correction to Agema.

When atheists and Christians argue, at least one side is wrong. It's a belief system because none of them have the facts to adequately prove they're right on several important issues.

It's quite possible both are wrong. It's possible Mongo Bongo, God of the Congo is the only real divinity. More likely, the actual truth is something none of us have even thought of.

[Agema]

Hey, I did say "at least" one side was wrong.

* * *

I thought I might also share a humorous modern parable about putting your trust in God. (It's an old one so apologies if you have heard it.)

A man decides to be a missionary in Africa. He prays to God for guidance as he is worried, and God answers his prayer saying to the man "As you spread my word in my name, I will look after you."

So he becomes a missionary, and sets out preaching. Whilst walking along a road on a mountain, the path crumbles underneath his feet and he slips down a steep cliff. He grabs an outcrop to prevent his fall, and thinks about how to get to safety. He realises the cliff is too hard to climb up and he won't make it. He looks down and there's a river beneath him, but it's full of crocodiles. Then he remembers his prayer, and with his faith rejoices in the knowledge that God will save him.

A few minutes later, a 4x4 drives above him on the road. A man gets out having seen him, and shouts "I've got a winch, I can pull you up." The missionary shouts back "No, I have put my faith in God, he will save me". The driver replies "Well, okay then, your choice." He gets back in his car and drives on.

Five minutes later a another man in a boat comes down the river. He shouts to the missionary "Hey, if you drop into the river, I'll quickly pull you in before the crocodiles get you." The missonary replies "No, I have put my faith in God, he will save me". The man in the boat shrugs and continues downstream.

Five minutes later a helicopter passes. It pulls close to the man, and the passenger holds out a rope ladder and shouts (very loudly) "I'll throw you this!". The missionary shouts back "No, I have put my faith in God, he will save me." She looks incredulous, but tells the pilot, and the helicopter flies on.

Eventually, with no-one else coming, the missionary becomes too tired to hold on. He drops into the river, and the crocodiles move in and eat him. The missionary goes to heaven, and enters. There, he finds God, and says "I thought you said you would save me if I got in trouble. Where were you?" God looks at the man and frowns, then replies, "I sent you a car, a boat and a helicopter. What more do you expect me to do?"

[HoneyBadger]

None of you have the facts to adequately prove anything, except that *I'm* right, and that arguing about religion is meaningless.

And you're wrong in thinking that neither side can be correct, because you're limiting your thinking to a single dimension, which proves again the meaninglessness of arguing about religion.

None of us are capable, as human beings, of precieving or understanding anything as complex as God must be, if God exists. I seem to be the only one who gets that. Reality and existence are just too big of concepts for us to make any statements about it's nature, beyond what iota of information our tiny brains and meager sciences can process.

If I told you about the popular artwork of an alien species who's technology is three billion years beyond ours, you'd think I was either lying, or crazy, or just making it up-and I would be. And yet, you want to argue about the nature and existence of a being well beyond that. A being that would be beyond Time itself, as we can understand the concept.

And it's entirely possible, and imminently debatable, that we all exist in separated realities. We only suppose that we all exist in the same one, but if we don't, then what is right from one perspective may be wrong from another. From my perspective, the Universe began when I began. As I learned and grew older, the Universe expanded around me. God came into being the moment I heard about Him, and became a woman, when I made that choice, and ceased to be-or atleast retired-when I stopped being a Christian.

As far as I'm concerned, the rest of you only exist as words on a screen, and in my imagination-that's the entirety of your existence. That's all you are, unless I give you more. And there's very little you can do to prove to me that you're more than a complex hallucination. When I dream, I've dreamt people realer to me than you are. I could see them, touch them, taste them. I could percieve their emotions, and they could surprise me. They had their own motivations, and they affected my emotions. I could care about them-I yearned to know them better, and felt certain that they must somewhere exist. You fail to compete with a vision from a dream that I failed to remember particularly well, and yet you want to argue about God's existence, and demand that one viewpoint must be right, and one must be wrong?

Even insane, I can't concieve that I've conjured such arrogance.

Nobody knows anything. That's the only truth and the only beauty, and the only wisdom to be had.

Goodnight and good morning. I'm going to go dream a world, with such people in it.

[Agema]

Solipsism is in my view the greatest intellectual dead-end in philosophy. Why say anything? Think anything? Do anything at all? It undermines everything as utterly pointless.


I also strongly disagree with the pessimistic view of humanity you've expounded. We might not be able to fully understand the universe (or God if he exists). But we know a more than we did 50 years ago, a lot more than we did 500 years ago, and a vast whopping great deal more than we did 5000 years ago. Humanity is not a series of weak, ignorant, isolated units. We have a population knowledge. I might not understand Kantian metaphysics, motorcycle maintenance or the literature of Kobo Abe, but other people do, and if I need I can access their knowledge.

I'd also suggest that even if by looking at a tree we only see an iota, the basics of what it does, not knowing the chemistry and biochemistry and physics within, we have actually seen a very significant part of what a tree is. We should enjoy, appreciate and use that, not quail at the thought of how much we don't know about it.

[lch]

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

... [[stuff]] ...

I don't reject the idea that I'm just a delirious whelk who imagines everything around it. But I won't start to go around and state it as a fact. It's nothing more than a funny alternative and a thought experiment.