The Bible (Page 11)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2009-05-30 5:44 PM in reply to: #2183333 |
Pro 4311 Texas | Subject: RE: The Bible generalee2010 - 2009-05-30 3:57 PM i dont see how submitting your own person veiwpoint of the bible is deeming others veiws as incorrect. we have a bible class at my school. we have discussions like this all the time, and a classroom full of hormonal 17 year-olds can have a civilized, respectful discussion about this. i see no reason why we cant. OK, let's take a different example. Say we're watching a basketball game and you see a play that you think was a foul. You say "I believe that was a foul". There's an implicit statement that you believe anyone who thinks it wasn't a foul is wrong. If someone else in the room says "I don't think that was a foul", then they're stating they believe your view is incorrect. You can't have a discussion with two people who are on different sides of a topic without the basis of the discussion being you think the other side is wrong. That's why I think Marma's statement about saying another side is wrong being ban-worthy is an untenable solution because it rules out the very possibility of any substantive debate. I absolutely agree that you can have a civilized, respectful discussion. You can say your piece in a rational, unoffensive manner and discuss the issue in a constructive way. But just because you're being rational & constructive doesn't preclude you from the basic tenet of debate which is stating you believe your side is right and the opposing view is wrong. I'm not trying to say people can't debate on here, I'm saying the exact opposite; people should be allowed to say why they think the opposing viewpoint is wrong without fear of banishment. And I don't have any problem with Marma banning someone who is ramping up a flame war. My point of dispute is simply what he defines as a troll. |
|
2009-05-30 6:09 PM in reply to: #2183284 |
Sneaky Slow 8694 Herndon, VA, | Subject: RE: The Bible marmadaddy - 2009-05-30 4:11 PM ETA: There is a world of difference between "Here is what I believe and why" and "Here is why you are wrong". This is particularly true when the topic is faith. JBrashear - 2009-05-30 6:44 PM And I don't have any problem with Marma banning someone who is ramping up a flame war. My point of dispute is simply what he defines as a troll. I think the "ETA" that Mike added to his post, is the key statement. The fellow that got banned didn't contribute to the discussion other than posting repeatedly, in so many words, "you are wrong," "you are wrong," etc. And he didn't even really attempt to back anything up... seemed to be poking holes just for the sake of poking holes... In a religion thread, I think the only statement that could really be *wrong* is "You are wrong..." eta: and re: Mike saying this thread is not about "debate," when I think of what a debate is, I think of two opposing sides trying to prove their respective viewpoint. The first word that the dictionary uses to define "debate" is "a contention." When you think of debate in that sense, this thread should not be about debate. Edited by newleaf 2009-05-30 6:13 PM |
2009-05-30 7:13 PM in reply to: #2175320 |
Master 1619 Hingham, Ma | Subject: RE: The Bible It's funny how some view this as a debate as I view it as one of the most educational threads I have ever read. Since knowing nothing about this stuff, and most of this is going over my head, I am enjoying reading everyone's viewpoint. Other than a few questionable comments, I think it's been pretty civilized. Then again, I don't have an emotional interest in it. |
2009-05-30 7:40 PM in reply to: #2175320 |
Veteran 298 Rockwall, Texas | Subject: RE: The Bible valid points jbrashear. i enjoy this thread even tho i just entered it. i completely understand your arguement and i see what you're say, and truth be told, i think that is wonderfully simple and concise example that gets the point across clearly. i'm going to say i have to agree with that. thanks for the insight |
2009-05-30 7:43 PM in reply to: #2183488 |
Subject: RE: The Bible newleaf - 2009-05-30 7:09 PM marmadaddy - 2009-05-30 4:11 PM ETA: There is a world of difference between "Here is what I believe and why" and "Here is why you are wrong". This is particularly true when the topic is faith. JBrashear - 2009-05-30 6:44 PM And I don't have any problem with Marma banning someone who is ramping up a flame war. My point of dispute is simply what he defines as a troll. I think the "ETA" that Mike added to his post, is the key statement. The fellow that got banned didn't contribute to the discussion other than posting repeatedly, in so many words, "you are wrong," "you are wrong," etc. And he didn't even really attempt to back anything up... seemed to be poking holes just for the sake of poking holes... In a religion thread, I think the only statement that could really be *wrong* is "You are wrong..." eta: and re: Mike saying this thread is not about "debate," when I think of what a debate is, I think of two opposing sides trying to prove their respective viewpoint. The first word that the dictionary uses to define "debate" is "a contention." When you think of debate in that sense, this thread should not be about debate. But you seemed bristled when I said that the difference between Christianity and the other world religions was that Christianity allowed for a personal relationship with Jesus. That's not a necessarily incorrect statement when you consider the narrative from which that idea originates, nor was I attempting to intentionally offend anyone by that statement. But you said it made me sound superior, for which I apologize. However, an intrinsic part of religious faith is believing that your way is the correct way (at least for most), so in so many words, merely saying that I'm a Christian implies that I think other belief systems are wrong! So should we just ban all religious discussion? Or keep the threads "atheists only" or "Christians only"? And as we know, even between two Christians, you're still going to get "I don't agree with you" (which means "I think you're wrong because..."). The Protestants thing the Catholics are wrong about somethings and vice versa.
|
2009-05-30 7:53 PM in reply to: #2175320 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. Edited by PennState 2009-05-30 7:55 PM |
|
2009-05-30 9:59 PM in reply to: #2175320 |
Expert 715 PA | Subject: RE: The Bible just checking to see if i can still post a msg......???? |
2009-05-31 3:59 PM in reply to: #2175320 |
Champion 5183 Wisconsin | Subject: RE: The Bible awesome thread- lots of great thinking, patience, risk taking.. All Jesus/Christian/Biblical behaviors, I would say! Of course, mnay other cultures and faiths do those things too, I am just being PennState for a minute, y'know, the manners hall monitor... to the OP: I believe Scripture is the inspired Word of God, as understood and communicated in words by man. I don't believe The Bible contains errors, in that I don't believe it is, in its entirety, meant to be full of facts. The Bible is full of teaching stories which are rich in metaphor, and full of culturally relevant and obvious allusions. Why didn't God just inspire the prophets et al to speak more clearly so that we all could be sure? God could have done that. God speaks to us all in language we understand. (and crazy, but true, today is Pentecost!) I would like to give the Church the benefit of the doubt, and suggest that they did not add and delete as they "saw fit." The earliest Christians were, of course, bound by their culture, and I think, discerned the best that they could within their ability/worldview. But there is no question that religion, esp Christianity, was completely tied up in the politics of the day, from its inception (Jesus was absolutely a political activist!) through its codification (Constantine the convert king!) and even today. (Christian Right? Isreal/Palestine?) I don't think this means that we dismiss The Church (es), but I do think we'd all be a lot better off and closer to the Truth of Jesus if we spent more time in prayer and in carrying out the works that he did (feed and love the poor seem to be his #1...) than in attempting to discredit or tear down all that divides. And that would mean, more attention to Scripture too, I guess, to really get at what Jesus was all about.
|
2009-05-31 4:07 PM in reply to: #2184534 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
2009-06-01 1:00 PM in reply to: #2175320 |
Master 3546 Millersville, MD | Subject: RE: The Bible I fear this post may come across as stirring the pot, but in truth it is just my response to some comments that were made several pages back that I missed (I was at church all day ) and then got lost by new discussion. The comments to which I am referring are those about how this God character, if he is all powerful and loving, would create a world in which babies die before they can have faith, or geography causes millions of people not to go to heaven... or let’s just say it... go to hell and suffer an eternity of torment being separated from God and punished for their deeds on Earth (since they were not atoned by the cross-work of Jesus). |
2009-06-01 1:27 PM in reply to: #2186890 |
Extreme Veteran 502 Woodbury, | Subject: RE: The Bible JoshKaptur - 2009-06-01 1:00 PM ... This is where I have the hardest time in my Christian faith. This central theme of my faith seems to intrinsically give God incredible ego/vanity/pride/whatever you want to call it. Essentially, qualities that are generally reprehensible (secular code) or sinful (religious code) when they are present in fellow humans. Of course, it should not surprise me that rules don't apply to God like they apply to people, but knowing that intellectually doesn't seem to help. |
|
2009-06-01 1:48 PM in reply to: #2187000 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
2009-06-01 2:07 PM in reply to: #2187079 |
Pro 4311 Texas | Subject: RE: The Bible wgraves7582 - 2009-06-01 1:48 PM Johnny Bee - 2009-06-01 2:27 PM JoshKaptur - 2009-06-01 1:00 PM ... This is where I have the hardest time in my Christian faith. This central theme of my faith seems to intrinsically give God incredible ego/vanity/pride/whatever you want to call it. Essentially, qualities that are generally reprehensible (secular code) or sinful (religious code) when they are present in fellow humans. Of course, it should not surprise me that rules don't apply to God like they apply to people, but knowing that intellectually doesn't seem to help. To a point I can see what you are thinking but in the end - God sent His Son, Jesus, to die for us on the cross (and His Glory). Not many humans that I know that would allow their children to die for someone else's gain - which is our forgiveness of sin and place in The Book of Life if we so choose. God asks nothing of us that He did not experience - temptation to the fullest - but He resisted it and we generally fail! The Army, Navy, Air Force, & Marines would like a word. Edited by JBrashear 2009-06-01 2:08 PM |
2009-06-01 2:08 PM in reply to: #2186890 |
Extreme Veteran 502 Woodbury, | Subject: RE: The Bible JoshKaptur - 2009-06-01 1:00 PM ...The comments to which I am referring are those about how this God character, if he is all powerful and loving, would create a world in which babies die before they can have faith, or geography causes millions of people not to go to heaven... or let’s just say it... go to hell and suffer an eternity of torment being separated from God and punished for their deeds on Earth (since they were not atoned by the cross-work of Jesus). In the example of people not attaining heaven because their geography has prevented them from learning of how to get there, doesn't God ask something of us that He did not experience - namely lack of knowledge of Him? Edited by Johnny Bee 2009-06-01 2:17 PM |
2009-06-01 2:21 PM in reply to: #2187152 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
2009-06-01 3:42 PM in reply to: #2187193 |
Pro 4311 Texas | Subject: RE: The Bible wgraves7582 - 2009-06-01 2:21 PM JBrashear - 2009-06-01 3:07 PM wgraves7582 - 2009-06-01 1:48 PM The Army, Navy, Air Force, & Marines would like a word.Johnny Bee - 2009-06-01 2:27 PM JoshKaptur - 2009-06-01 1:00 PM ... This is where I have the hardest time in my Christian faith. This central theme of my faith seems to intrinsically give God incredible ego/vanity/pride/whatever you want to call it. Essentially, qualities that are generally reprehensible (secular code) or sinful (religious code) when they are present in fellow humans. Of course, it should not surprise me that rules don't apply to God like they apply to people, but knowing that intellectually doesn't seem to help. To a point I can see what you are thinking but in the end - God sent His Son, Jesus, to die for us on the cross (and His Glory). Not many humans that I know that would allow their children to die for someone else's gain - which is our forgiveness of sin and place in The Book of Life if we so choose. God asks nothing of us that He did not experience - temptation to the fullest - but He resisted it and we generally fail! I will accept that correction since I am a veteran myself. But I would assume you know what I meant by my statement. You were trying to point out his sacrifice as noble, which I don't disagree with. I just don't view it as anything above and beyond what millions of parents do on a daily basis. |
|
2009-06-01 8:23 PM in reply to: #2187000 |
Master 3546 Millersville, MD | Subject: RE: The Bible Johnny Bee - 2009-06-01 2:27 PM JoshKaptur - 2009-06-01 1:00 PM ... This is where I have the hardest time in my Christian faith. This central theme of my faith seems to intrinsically give God incredible ego/vanity/pride/whatever you want to call it. Essentially, qualities that are generally reprehensible (secular code) or sinful (religious code) when they are present in fellow humans. Of course, it should not surprise me that rules don't apply to God like they apply to people, but knowing that intellectually doesn't seem to help. You're barking up this same tree - but the reason those traits are bad in humans is that humans are not God. God can righfully claim to be a jealous God - why shouldn't he be jealous if everything is due to him (like the worship by all of his creation of him) and he doesn't get it? Apparently, God has the nerve to walk around acting like God The beauty of it, however, is that his character as God best exemplified by a reconciling Savior. Sure you need a just and holy God determined to enforce his rules before you need a savior... but I think the clear evidence of the new testament is that he unsurpassed in his love, mercy, and grace towards mankind in general, and Christians in particular. |
2009-06-01 9:25 PM in reply to: #2186890 |
Elite 2608 Denver, Colorado | Subject: RE: The Bible JoshKaptur - 2009-06-01 1:00 PM The comments to which I am referring are those about how this God character, if he is all powerful and loving, would create a world in which babies die before they can have faith, or geography causes millions of people not to go to heaven... or let’s just say it... go to hell and suffer an eternity of torment being separated from God and punished for their deeds on Earth (since they were not atoned by the cross-work of Jesus). While it is PC to couch any religious belief in a "for me" statement, I think this is implicitly relativistic and anti-christian. ... Josh, good thoughts. No religion, not even Christianity, has provided satisfactory answers to these questions for me. Maybe I just haven't read enough; lots of people here seemed to have reconciled the apparent contradictions. At any rate, I simply rejected my Catholic upbringing and created my own beliefs based on using my innate ability to reason and observations of the universe. Is that arrogant? Perhaps. Here is what I've come up with: There probably exists a Supreme Entity/Supreme Being/Prime Mover/God. Why do I believe this? The Big Bang explains how the present universe started. But what came before that? And why is there a universe to begin with? Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking both made references to "God" and I imagine their concept of God was the same as mine. Humans will never comprehend God. Many religions, including Christianity (or perhaps especially Christianity) impute many human characteristics and emotions to God. But why would God need emotions? A Supreme Being wouldn't need emotions. Emotions are needed for humans to survive. An omnipotent being doesn't need to worry about survival. Thus, the Prime Mover is not jealous, get angry, or feel love. The Supreme Entity would not have a son or any other offspring. Again, why? A being that lives eternally has no need to reproduce. The Supreme Entity does not need to be "thanked" on a weekly basis through church ceremonies. If anything can be said of the nature of the Supreme Being, the Supreme Being is logical. That's it - pure logic no emotion. For all I know, the Supreme Being could be the universe itself. The Supreme Being does not intervene in human affairs. Why do I believe this? Because it is the pnly thing that adequately explains the problem of evil. The problem of evil asks why do bad things happen to good people? The Catholic Church explains this by free will. Free will explains why humans do evil things to other humans. However, it fails to explain what I like "random acts of evil." These include such things as little children who die of cancer, natural disasters, and other things that humans cannot control and take the lives of otherwise good people. I suppose Christianity explains this by the idea of Original Sin, i.e., Adam ate the apple and now we're all paying for it. I don't buy that. The idea that one mistake by the very first human condemned billions of people to a life of suffering creates an image of an extremely mean and vengeful being. I just don't understand why an all-powerful being would need to be mean like that. So, we exist on earth, essentially alone, in full control of our own lives. That's not a bad thing. It means I can control my life and not sit there and wonder why some prayers get answered and some don't. When I was a kid I prayed for things and I didn't get them. And I'm not talking about material things like a new bike, either. But this explains it. Rather than wonder why some prayers are unanswered, I now simply believe that ALL prayers go unanswered. |
2009-06-01 9:57 PM in reply to: #2188196 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: The Bible MikeTheBear - 2009-06-01 8:25 PM JoshKaptur - 2009-06-01 1:00 PM The comments to which I am referring are those about how this God character, if he is all powerful and loving, would create a world in which babies die before they can have faith, or geography causes millions of people not to go to heaven... or let’s just say it... go to hell and suffer an eternity of torment being separated from God and punished for their deeds on Earth (since they were not atoned by the cross-work of Jesus). Josh, good thoughts. No religion, not even Christianity, has provided satisfactory answers to these questions for me. Maybe I just haven't read enough; lots of people here seemed to have reconciled the apparent contradictions. At any rate, I simply rejected my Catholic upbringing and created my own beliefs based on using my innate ability to reason and observations of the universe. Is that arrogant? Perhaps. Here is what I've come up with: There probably exists a Supreme Entity/Supreme Being/Prime Mover/God. Why do I believe this? The Big Bang explains how the present universe started. But what came before that? And why is there a universe to begin with? Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking both made references to "God" and I imagine their concept of God was the same as mine. Humans will never comprehend God. Many religions, including Christianity (or perhaps especially Christianity) impute many human characteristics and emotions to God. But why would God need emotions? A Supreme Being wouldn't need emotions. Emotions are needed for humans to survive. An omnipotent being doesn't need to worry about survival. Thus, the Prime Mover is not jealous, get angry, or feel love. The Supreme Entity would not have a son or any other offspring. Again, why? A being that lives eternally has no need to reproduce. The Supreme Entity does not need to be "thanked" on a weekly basis through church ceremonies. If anything can be said of the nature of the Supreme Being, the Supreme Being is logical. That's it - pure logic no emotion. For all I know, the Supreme Being could be the universe itself. The Supreme Being does not intervene in human affairs. Why do I believe this? Because it is the pnly thing that adequately explains the problem of evil. The problem of evil asks why do bad things happen to good people? The Catholic Church explains this by free will. Free will explains why humans do evil things to other humans. However, it fails to explain what I like "random acts of evil." These include such things as little children who die of cancer, natural disasters, and other things that humans cannot control and take the lives of otherwise good people. I suppose Christianity explains this by the idea of Original Sin, i.e., Adam ate the apple and now we're all paying for it. I don't buy that. The idea that one mistake by the very first human condemned billions of people to a life of suffering creates an image of an extremely mean and vengeful being. I just don't understand why an all-powerful being would need to be mean like that. So, we exist on earth, essentially alone, in full control of our own lives. That's not a bad thing. It means I can control my life and not sit there and wonder why some prayers get answered and some don't. When I was a kid I prayed for things and I didn't get them. And I'm not talking about material things like a new bike, either. But this explains it. Rather than wonder why some prayers are unanswered, I now simply believe that ALL prayers go unanswered. While it is PC to couch any religious belief in a "for me" statement, I think this is implicitly relativistic and anti-christian. ... You could ask the very same question of God as well. If someone/something had to start the Big Bang, why does someone/something not have to "start" God? I have always been of the opinion that if God can just exist then the Big Bang can have just happened. |
2009-06-01 10:39 PM in reply to: #2188284 |
Elite 2608 Denver, Colorado | Subject: RE: The Bible JoshR - 2009-06-01 9:57 PM You could ask the very same question of God as well. If someone/something had to start the Big Bang, why does someone/something not have to "start" God? I have always been of the opinion that if God can just exist then the Big Bang can have just happened. You're right. My concept of God is not the anthropomorphic/stereotypical old man with a long white beard and flowing robes. Like I said, God could be the universe itself. Or God could be a force or consciousness that surrounds the universe and brings order to it. |
|