Topic awaiting preservation: Let us talk about Prayer. II (Page 1 of 3)

Continued form http://www.ozoneasylum.com/25419

It left off here

quote:

---

So......because they accepted his story, it's true?

They would be exceedingly eager for someone in Paul's position to take up their cause. Suspicious, certainly, and most likely concerned over his strong-headedness....but still...
I was also under the impression that they *didn't* really buy it...

It was as big a boon as to christianity as Constantine's conversion. Do you buy his story about his vision of christ?

-DL

---

Dan @ Code Town

Come all ye faithful, click on "the Bible" then "contradictions".

http://www.cygnus-study.com/

This guys views and opinions are every bit as valid as yours, especially considering the subject matter and he does raise some interesting questions.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

An interesting source, and an interesting read.

Thanks for posting the link.

YW

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Perhaps some will also find this one of interest; again pretty straight forward, but considering the subject matter as valid as anything we 'hear' from jade or gid.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

I thought you could only read posts, not hear them...
Do you have a program that puts on the speaker that which we type? If so, please send it to me. It sounds like it can increase laziness by a factor of about 5.47.

Hey, Warmage, good thought, and I like it. I think that this principal would be a little late to apply to the evolution thread, though...

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

oops, forgot the link http://www.evilbible.com/

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Wow, that guy must really not like God very much. It looks like a really interesting website, Ehtheist, thanks. I bookmarked it for further reading. Unfortunately his comment about how most Christians don't read the Bible can be true. Many if not all pesudo-Christians don't read the Bible. I don't know of too many Christians who don't read it, though.

You guys do realize that a Christian is "one who follows Christ," and not just someone who goes to church, right?

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

'christian', like any other name for a group of people, eventually becomes defined by that group of people regardless of original intent.

FWIW

And, as there is no god (in my and that site's author opnions), it has nothing to do with liking or not liking 'god'.

Of course not, how can one have affection or disaffection for that which does not exist?

Another interesting site;
http://quinnell.us/religion/bad/criminal.html

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

Wow, that guy must really not like God very much.

---

Hehe...excuse me, I'm going to go into a laughing fit...

quote:

---

Many if not all pesudo-Christians don't read the Bible.

---

What the hell is a "pseudo-Christian"?

quote:

---

I know that most Christians believe that God is a good and loving god, and wants people to do good things. I believe that most people want to do good things and behave morally. I also believe that many Christians haven?t really read the Bible, or just read certain passages in church. This is understandable, as the Bible is hard to read due to its archaic language and obscure references. Also many priests and preachers don?t like to read certain passages in the Bible because they present a message of hate not love.

---

The blocks are mine. That is an interesting viewpoint. I think Bugs would disagree with that.

All in all, an interesting site - thanks for posting the link.

(Edited by WebShaman on 04-27-2005 06:47)

I don't think he could. A large portion of those who practice do so with and through thier church only. The bible is only used in those places. And in other parts of the world there are a large number of illiterate people who can not read the bible.

Dan @ Code Town

True Warmage.

There are a great number of people who are bible readers only and who don't practice a specific faith following, leaving scripture interpretation to their own understanding thus eliminating a need for a organized structured religion. I see there can be false and misleading and in addition, deception in many of these cases. Lack of prior history in the history of Chrisitanity in reference to earlier teachings doesn't give a clear view and right view of the actual message of scripture(s) passages. I don't believe man was meant to "live in their own little island" in regard to scripture".

Do any of you agree with this?

but past interpretation does not equal correct interpretation.

in order to understand things properly, you need to understand the context - you need to study history.

you need to understand the socio-political circumstance under which the texts were written, the circumstances surrounding their translation, the propensity for alteration, etc.

you nede to understand the agenda that those writing the texts would have had. you need to understand the agenda the people including the texts in a collection of 'scripture' would have had.

You can't really get these perspectives from an organization who's very existence depends on people agreeing with its own interpretation of things...

(Edited by DL-44 on 04-27-2005 20:24)

Some interesting other points of view on Gids fav book.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.html

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

I agree totally with DL. If you are to approach the bible in a scientific fashion, or in a logical fashion, when taking the book and your faith critically you have to do all that which DL mentions and probably a whole lot more.

However, as faith and religion tend not to be things that are taken critically or scientifically it doesn't matter how you wish to use your holy book. If you have your faith, and you are happy with how you are living your faith you are most likely on the right track.

My mother is a religious person. She doesn't go to church, she doesn't read the bible. She definately does not want to think about the reason behind god asking for the murder and rapes of countless individuals. She doesn't even want to know that those things exist or are in the bible. She is very happy with her rosey picture of the god that she believes in, and she doesn't want or need anything to interfere with that.

Like you have said before Jade about being a servant and not needing to question. Some people don't need that at all. Some people are happy and content being ignorant.

This is again a difference in beliefs. There are those with faith that feel they need structure, and there are some that don't. I know some people who say they believe in god, and have never been to church and have never read a bible. Everything seems to come in all shapes and sizes.

Dan @ Code Town

It's not just about approaching it in a scientific manner.

If you want to know what things mean, you have to understand how, when, where, and why they were said.

It is very easy to take biblical passages and interpret them in all kinds of colorful ways, ranging from peacefully delusional to sadistically horrific.

And it has been done throughout history by groups large and small.

Understanding the context in which the things were said is essential if you want to go after the actual meaning of them...

But, aside from academic interest and possibly spiking the cannons of the terminally religious, what is your...OHH! I get it!

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

In my faith belief it was by the apostolic tradition that the church compiled which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books. This divine revelation to compile these sacred writings, we have to believe was thur and for divine reason. Guided thur the holy spirit, we believe no mistakes were made since the divine author is the omnipotent architect of life. God cannot err. To believe there are many ways to interpret scripture is to say God was and is out to confuse. God in the knowing, sets us up, gives us a learning tool and we are still looking at divine scripture in 100 different ways by saying this is what scripture is telling me. Does this make sense? Why? Because there is no guide? Or is it that persons want to be their own guide to scripture. Considering they do not have knowledge of the necessary background info or theological study how can they come to their individual visions of Christianity to the fullest? Yes. Christ comes to the simple minded.
But when more is given, more is expected. Some are meant to hear and some meant to be heard.

For us, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book only." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written mute word, but the word incarnate and living, given to us by the Holy Spirit. In the book of John, God assumes human flesh in the living. In OT writings, the faith had to rely on the written Torah to know of God and to prepare us in prophecy for the coming of the word made flesh. God does use written words to reveal who he is, and he also uses the living spirit who uses no words. But in order for Christians to get a clearer understanding of the faith, its is useful to study scripture to make the faith become more alive and they thus become more knowledgeable in their faith walk since they are called to evangelize. The gospels are the heart of all the scriptures because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of our Lord & Savior. So, access to sacred scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful and considered as a necessary tool of our church.
Its true DL for us to interpret the bible scriptures correctly, we must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm what God wanted to reveal to us by their words. In order for us to understand the authors intention, we must definitely take into account the conditions of authors time, historical culture and the literary word usage used at that time. Sacred scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same holy spirit by whom it was written or it remains "dead letters" that are of no value to the human soul. There are those who yearn for the love of study of scripture and those who do not. Even in its limited use the sacred scriptures when applied correclty give grace and peace.

Per my bible study guide:
According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church. The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal. The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction". The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.
Constantly in our tradition, the church has use the unity of the divine plan in the OT/NT through typology, which connects in God's works of the old covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his Son. The church says we must read the OT in the light of Christ crucified and risen. For us the NT has to be read in the light of the OT. The early Christian catechesis made constant use of the OT, because the NT lies hidden in the OT the OT is unveiled in the NT. Typology indicates for us the a movement toward the fulfillment of the divine plan when "God is be everything to everyone".

We can use typology to in reference to: the "Flight from Egypt- Exodus, Story of Moses, Abraham's sacrifice of his son, Story of Genesis to refer to NT fulfillment in the risen Christ. But it would be a more longer post. But it would give a spiritual version of the OT stories when applied to in the NT fulfillment.

quote:

---

To believe there are many ways to interpret scripture is to say God was and is out to confuse.

---

No, it means that god had nothing to do with it in the first place.

And once again, I must point out that there were countless boks of 'scripture' around in early christianity. It was not until the fourth century that there was any one definitive collection, and even that collection which we now call the bible was not affrimed in doctrine by the church as the definitive colelction until the 16th century or so.

It was also, for the record, first referred to in such form by the bishop of alexandria, and not rome.

It is also worth noting that many aspects of it were hotly contested then, and for quite some time afterward. We have large groups, part of the catholic church, still using the gospel of thomas in the 7th century in europe.

The revelation of John came very close to being excluded - many significant groups among the proto-orthodox thought it purely fraudulent, for what should be obvious reasons.

The 4 gospels themeselves present very different views of the basic things, like "is jesus god" and the like. You'd think something that is *that* important to what your religion has become would be spelled out very clearly right from the get-go - but it wasn't.
John, beleived by most scholars to have been brought into its final form around the turn of the 1st -> 2nd century, is the first clear mention we have of Jesus = god.

As for the text from your bible study guide...
If that is supposed help make things clearer, you have my sympathy. What a load of garbled nonsense!

Yeah the bible study stuff, just made my head spin. Maybe that was the point.

DL's first line sums it up for me.

There are so many contridictions in the bible. There are so many places where a single event is described happening in so many different ways. How is one supposed to recocile those things?

You can come up with many very fantastic reason for such things to occur. I am a bit different I tend to accept the obvious reasons instead of coming up with something fantastic.

If it were that important it should be spelled out. But it is not. The fact that we can even have an arguement of this type makes it very apparent that it is not spelled out clearly. There this is room for debate and interpretation, as clearly we are doing that right now.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

If it were that important it should be spelled out. But it is not. The fact that we can even have an arguement of this type makes it very apparent that it is not spelled out clearly.

---

Very well said! Assuming such information was direct from a god, you would think that it would be perfectly understandable, and not subject to any misconceptions or needing interpretation.

It could have put the information in mathematical form, for example.

The fact that it is not perfectly understandable, the fact that it is subject to nisconceptions and needs interpretation (and is subject to) only shows that it is a man-made construct.

quote:

---

The fact that it is not perfectly understandable, the fact that it is subject to nisconceptions and needs interpretation (and is subject to) only shows that it is a man-made construct.

---

You miss my point. Scripture is comprehendalble in light of the translation regarding the original intent of scripture. You can go to where you want to go with your own meaning if its up to you outside of the realms of where its meaning was intented. Meaning outside the church, the translation loses its foundation of truth. Its text wasn't meant to be be understood loosly.

(Edited by jade on 04-28-2005 21:37)

I think I almost get your point Jade.

Could you point out how this might be effected with a couple of examples. Say how someone outside the church might misunderstand, but how based on the churches teaching it actually retains its foundation of truth?

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

You can go to where you want to go with your own meaning if its up to you outside of the realms of where its meaning was intented.

---

The point is, the "meaning that was intended" is at best hard to say.

The catholic church has their opinion, other churches have theirs, and plenty of individuals have theirs.

The church being old does not make them right.

There are plenty of imiportant points in my previous post regarding this issue.

Bottom line is that things are simply not spelled out clearly, and very basic issues, such as the nature of jesus, are represented in different ways both in scripture and throughout the evolution of church doctrine. Many proto-orthodox doctrines were later proclaimed heretical as more complex views on the nautre of jesus evolved, as the theology was created by the followers of jesus, over the course of centuries.

Furthermore, the 'meaning which was intended' has doubtless changed countless times over the millenia.

So much so, that we can likely say with confidence today the the 'meaning which was intended' is whatever the current interpretor wants it to be.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

You can go to where you want to go with your own meaning if its up to you outside of the realms of where its meaning was intented.

---

NO.

It could have been done in mathematical form (or another, that is even more "perfect" - after all, it is supposed to be a god here). That way the information, meaning, and intention can not be misinterpreted!

Language mostly has no great error checking functions. There are a few, like articles that have certain endings, according to gender, number, and specific/general. With time and translation, information gets lost, misrepresented, and skewed.

Some methods of presenting information, however, do have redundency checking, error checking, etc. Math is one of them. I'm sure a perfect being like a god could create a language capable of doing the same.

Now, WHY would this perfect being put its message in a form that it knows will turn out incredibly difficult to understand, is subject to error, and will be translated multiple times?

Again, one begins to follow what WarMage posted

quote:

---

You can come up with many very fantastic reason for such things to occur. I am a bit different I tend to accept the obvious reasons instead of coming up with something fantastic.

---

However, in this case, it is obvious that a god didn't have a hand in these things (either that, or the god in question is not all powerful, omnescient, etc).

Perhaps DL and WS' cogent points have in fact been considerd by the religious manipulators? This would certainly explain why tele-evangelists thrive so. The complimentary explanation to that phenomenon, is provided by jade in particular, who exemplifies the gullibility of the masses.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

Could you point out how this might be effected with a couple of examples. Say how someone outside the church might misunderstand, but how based on the churches teaching it actually retains its foundation of truth?

---

Ok. I will give some examples. But it will have to be later. I am going out of town. Will do is as soon as I can.

quote:

---

Now, WHY would this perfect being put its message in a form that it knows will turn out incredibly difficult to understand, is subject to error, and will be translated multiple times

---

The difficulty to understand scripture depends on who or what institution you ask what it means or reveals. Protestants say "this is what scripture reveals to me" or "this is what I see" or they tell others "let me tell you what it means". This shows the concept of "bible only" faith has no foundation. The bible cannot stand alone. And it was not meant to stand alone as a "sole" basis of faith. Thru tranaslations, depending on which bible version you read you could get a different revelation per somebody. This is not how the sacred scriptures were meant to be taken.

(Edited by jade on 04-29-2005 23:09)

quote:

---

This is not how the sacred scriptures were meant to be taken.

---

But again Jade... you are saying 'we the catholics have got it right.' And all the other xian sects are saying... 'no... we've got it right.' Neither can prove the other wrong. Ever.

They are all wrong.

There, it is settled.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

(Of note, I am not longer a "believer.")

This proposed "diffuculty" in understanding scripture stems not from "revelation" to any specific institution, but a personal agenda of such an institution or person. Also: superstition and tradition. For example, Catholic belief in transubstantiation, papal infalliability, etcetera, are unsupported biblically. They are the result of some augmentation to scripture, and the Catholic church itself sways largely from the scriptural and early church. (I think specifically of Paul).

However NoJive is incorrect as well: you can prove others wrong, and have. If only scripture - even apocrypha - is accepted, transubstatiation, the priesthood, a centralized church, the papacy, confession, or the myriad other number of Catholic traditions, should be discarded. Luther saw a direct contradiction in the selling of Indulgences, however the Protestant tradition has always been a scriptural "roots" movement. The Bible was meant to be taken alone, as Jesus' teachings (supposedly) gave direct instruction on living life on this earth; of course, Jewish culture must be considered, but the general idea was to provide a template (of sorts) which would apply to any culture, in any time period. I see not problem with viewing the Bible as the only "world of God," if God does exist. There is no indication of any addition within the Bible, and it would appear that most additions from the Catholic church are meant, in some form, to amplify either spiritual or political power of an already hegemonious institution.

WS: The Bible is fairly clear; or at least, the commands and parables are made clear. Obviously, a mathematical approach (or some more specific approach) isn't appropriate when the audience is considered. Parables are easily understandable, as are commands. I think the actual question is: "Why would this "perfect being" put its message in an easily understandable form to be interpreted by falliable and corruptable humans."

And even though I agree with you on many points, Etheist, you have about as much tact and demure as an elephant. =p

In any case, it's late. If I'm full of shit, ignore me.

(Edited by cfb on 04-30-2005 09:07)

quote:

---

WS: The Bible is fairly clear; or at least, the commands and parables are made clear. Obviously, a mathematical approach (or some more specific approach) isn't appropriate when the audience is considered. Parables are easily understandable, as are commands. I think the actual question is: "Why would this "perfect being" put its message in an easily understandable form to be interpreted by falliable and corruptable humans."

---

I disagree vehemenently. I said either mathematically or another type of form that has perfect error correction built in.

quote:

---

Parables are easily understandable, as are commands.

---

That is simply not true. They also suffer from the same flaws - translation and interpretation.

Look : 1+1=2

A pretty straightforward mathematical statement. It includes error correction and the ability to test for errors.

Doesn't anyone on this board study languages and error correction?

Pick up the trilogy from David Brin - the Uplift trilogy Brightness Reef, Infinity's Shore and Heaven's Reach. He does a very good job of explaining languages and error correction systems (among other things).

quote:

---

I think the actual question is: "Why would this "perfect being" put its message in an easily understandable form to be interpreted by falliable and corruptable humans."

---

the answer is pretty simple; God is God and he will have mercy on whom he chooses. Jesus spoke in parables for the very reason that some should NOT understand.

quote:

---

The Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all has become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he sayeth, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he sayeth, I am not learned.

---

quote:

---

They have not known nor understood; for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts that they cannot understand

---

cfb: sorry to hear that you no longer believe -maybe you are just doubting - it's understandable.

quote:

---

God is God and he will have mercy on whom he chooses. Jesus spoke in parables for the very reason that some should NOT understand.

---

That is the stupidest explanation that I have ever heard.

Your god supposedly wants us to have a choice. That has nothing to do with garbling the message into supposition, misinterpretation, and mistranslation.

You are saying that some, irregardless of choice, are doomed to be damned.

Like you know what Jesus personally meant - you met him, right?

Out, that is some of the lamest self-justification I have ever read and remember both god and jade post here.


CFB I seldom use tact and am never demure.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

you want to hear stupid?

of course there's choice, but what about dead babies or retarded people or other people with not enough intelligence to understand and make a choice? maybe some of them already chose before they were born.

and what about all the people through the ages who never heard of God or a bible?

could it be that some people are blinded so they will not make the wrong choice?

then there's the elect, who were chosen beforehand to be servants of God.

why restrict yourself to the choice of having to choose?

Yup, you were right, that was about a stupid as stupid gets.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

cfb said:

(Of note, I am not longer a "believer.")

---

Why, did something bad happen?

quote:

---

NoJive said:

Neither can prove the other wrong. Ever.

---

Why not?

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

both god and jade post here.

---

Watch it E-man. Some one might take your antics against believers as antics against the god they believe in. Do you know much about Lucretius or did you just like his quote?

WS, I don't know if mathematics could be used in interpretation of the Bible, but if it could, that would be preferable to everyone running around with heads cut off.

One thing I believe is that aside from big things like the Resurrection, the life and beliefs of a believer are extremely personal. Jesus said that He sent the Holy Spirit down to us. If that is true, then the Holy Spirit is working with each one individually. That might account for why there are so many interpretations.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

Care to explain how the Holy Spirit working with each of us accounts for these varied interpretations? I don't get that one at all.

Dan @ Code Town