Topic awaiting preservation: Genesis Explained/Debated (Page 3 of 5)

quote:

---

In the mean time, I'm still waiting for a counter to my post.

---

Because you haven't posted anything that is outside of the "normal" xian answer. This is what you post :

quote:

---

That the "requirement" list the Jews go by is crap because the the Messiah is supposed to be an ordinary man from the line of David, yet they say he is going to do all these things that GOD said he'd do himself, NOT "through" an earthly man from the line of David. It would be one thing to say God was going to do all that "through" someone on earth if ALL the passages said that, and there was no mention of a MAN whatsoever. But it's not like that.

---

Blocks are mine. The requirements were handed to the Jews by God himself, through the Prophets. If you call this crap, then everything else in the Old Testament, is also crap.

The Jews say that their sources are from Prophets - as are all the writings of the Old Testament. If you (as xian) believe that one is true, then they all must be - otherwise, throw the Old Testament out the window, and just stick with the New Testament.

This is what the Jews are basically saying.

I could personally care less.

I just find it fascinating, to see how some can believe in something based after the fact, in the light of evidence (if you will) to the contrary, based on before the fact.

Especially considering how the New Testament came to being, and under what conditions.

What I don't really understand, is how you can call one thing coming from the Prophets as "crap", but you are more than quite willing to believe others (like Genesis). In essence, you are picking and choosing whatever you don't consider to be "crap", and just discarding other parts.

(Edited by WebShaman on 07-19-2005 21:56)

DL--fair enough. I can totally dig your view of things. And you are right. Christianity does have one of the most violent and bloody passages through history, if not THE most. It has had the unfortunate aspect of making itself look bad. So I can understand. And I'm glad to hear that you know there are exceptions. (being the exceptions are so few)

WebShaman--Uh, I think you misread my entire post. I never said, nor implied, that I thought the prophets were crap. What I said was, the Jews screwed up their interpretation. Anyone with half a brain can read the Old Testament and see that the coming of the Messiah and the "end times" are two separate events. Forget about the passages that the New Testament could have been constructed around, and just looking at the very passages the Jews point to to create their "list", clearly shows they combined the Messiah and the "end". Isaiah chapter 11 says it all. I'm not even a student of theology, and figured out what that chapter meant before I ever read or heard any other Christian interpretation of it. Hell, before I even knew the Jews HAD a list of requirements they say prooved Jesus wasn't the Messiah!

What I find facinating is that people just go right along with what the Jews say regarding the list, as if only the Jews can read and figure out what it's saying, as if they have a monopoly on interpretation and are infallable.

Oh well, since it doesn't matter one way or the other to you, there's no point in discussing this.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 07-21-2005 12:52)

Odd how some can deflate their own argument.

BD sez:

quote:

---

What I find facinating is that people just go right along with what the Jews say regarding the list, as if only the Jews can read and figure out what it's saying, as if they have a monopoly on interpretation and are infallable.

---

Substitute the word "Jews" with the word 'Xian" and you may see what I mean.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Bd, you are quite frankly "conviently forgetting" who wrote the present-day Bible, and who decided what would be included into it.

The Jews have Holy Writings which didn't get included into the Bible by Xians...I mentioned this before.

quote:

---

What I said was, the Jews screwed up their interpretation. Anyone with half a brain can read the Old Testament and see that the coming of the Messiah and the "end times" are two separate events. Forget about the passages that the New Testament could have been constructed around, and just looking at the very passages the Jews point to to create their "list", clearly shows they combined the Messiah and the "end". Isaiah chapter 11 says it all. I'm not even a student of theology, and figured out what that chapter meant before I ever read or heard any other Christian interpretation of it. Hell, before I even knew the Jews HAD a list of requirements they say prooved Jesus wasn't the Messiah!

---

Blocks are mine. According to...you?

Of course

Interpretation of WHAT is here the question.

Obviously, the Jews didn't "screw up" the interpretation of Genesis, or all the other writings in the Old Testament (they made it in) - just that other stuff, like that which proves that Jesus is not the Messiah, conviently gets left out (must be screwed up...hehe - it contradicts what the xians believe, after the events).

*shrugs*

Believe what you wish.

Thats what I said.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

The Jews have Holy Writings which didn't get included into the Bible by Xians...I mentioned this before.

---

Whatever WS. If you are talking about the talmud, the midrash, or kabbalah, these works, from all accounts--even Jewish sources--, are no more than human interpretation and search of "hidden meaning" of the actual inspired written words of the tanakh. And I can find no evidence of any written work that the Jews included in the tanakh that was left out of the Old Testament.

In other words:
JEWISH: tanakh------->(interpretation-based on "hidden meanings"or "what God was REALLY saying here.." using kabbalah as a means of interpretation)----->Talmud, midrash

Christian: tanakh------>(interpretation-based on a person who lived)----->New Testament

So in essence, the interpretations of the Jews and the interpretations of the Christians cancel each other out, leaving only a common denominator of the Tanakh. Called by Christians the Old Testament, but the very same words nonetheless.

If you know of any actual jewish writings that the Jews included in the WRITTEN tanakh, that christians left out of the old testament, please tell me, because I certainly can't find them. They would be of utmost importance, and I'd wish to read them. If not, then there is really no point in continuing patronizing me.

EDIT: And as a side note, I understand that the very thing I have a problem with the "List of Requirements" about-- the fact that the Jews attribute works God said He would do to a mortal man--are based on Kabbalah, that God himself cannot "interact" directly with the things of the world, and must interact "through" other things--in the case of the messiah, he does these works at the "end" through the mortal man somehow. But, to believe the Kabbalah, one must believe that the Jews actually figured out and know the very nature of God. And I'm sorry, but I can't buy that. The problem with the Kabbalah view of God is, that it discredits the whole Mt. Sianai scene, where the entire Jewish nation saw and heard God speak. If God is unable to interact with the world in a direct manner, then how did that take place at the Mountain? The whole Jewish religion is based "as fact" to the Jews because the entire nation saw and heard God himself.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 07-22-2005 01:39)

(Edited by Belladonna on 07-22-2005 03:06)

quote:

---

JEWISH: tanakh------->(interpretation-based on "hidden meanings"or "what God was REALLY saying here.." using kabbalah as a means of interpretation)----->Talmud, midrash

Christian: tanakh------>(interpretation-based on a person who lived)----->New Testament

So in essence, the interpretations of the Jews and the interpretations of the Christians cancel each other out, leaving only a common denominator of the Tanakh. Called by Christians the Old Testament, but the very same words nonetheless.

---

I'm not going to go into the Kabbalah here, as it is very, very complex. I am also by no means an expert in its teachings.

The main point is, that one has the Old Testament - which is basically the Tanakh. This the xians (well, most of them - some have only excepted the New Testament) accept that the books of the Old Testament (the Tanakh) are true and accurate.

And according the the rules that the Jews use (they say handed down by god, through Moses) the Old Testament is also true and accurate. These SAME rules also say who is and is not, a Messiah.

Thus, if you say that the rules are not correct (that Jesus is the Messiah), then the entire Old Testament is also incorrect. If you say that the rules are correct (the Old Testament is true and accurate), then Jesus is not the Messiah.

Mixing the two according to personal opinion and whim is not a logical, reasoned approach.

Obviously, the xians CANNOT accept that Jesus was not the Messiah. So, they have to try to bend, skip, break, and discredit the rules that govern how to determine what information is really from god (that the Jews say they received).

This is the point that I am raising. It is not solvable, and contradicts one another. There is no solution to it - otherwise, the Jews would have found one. When it comes to all things related to the Bible, I have more trust in the reliability of the Jews (especially in the area of preserving information), then I do in the xians (who have without a doubt bent, skipped, cut, etc things to fit their own view of things). ZThe Jews have proven that they stick to their rules, that their information is preserved in a pretty reliable form, down through the ages.

The xians, on the other hand...they can't even decide among themselves, exactly what they believe, what is true and accurate, and what is not.

One more thing -

quote:

---

The problem with the Kabbalah view of God is, that it discredits the whole Mt. Sianai scene, where the entire Jewish nation saw and heard God speak. If God is unable to interact with the world in a direct manner, then how did that take place at the Mountain? The whole Jewish religion is based "as fact" to the Jews because the entire nation saw and heard God himself.

---

I suggest you take that up with a Rabbi. I could probably hazard a guess - but you wouldn't accept that, would you? Best to discuss this with one more knowledgable than I am in such things. The Kabbalah view of God doesn't discredit the whole Mt. Sainai scene as far as I know.

Now, if I am understanding your postion correctly, you believe that Jesus was the Messiah, is that correct? Thus, the rules that the Jews follow to determine that which has come from god, you are dismissing, is that also correct?

*Sorry in advance for the long post*

quote:

---

Now, if I am understanding your postion correctly, you believe that Jesus was the Messiah, is that correct? Thus, the rules that the Jews follow to determine that which has come from god, you are dismissing, is that also correct?

---

Yes and No respectively. I understand what you are saying, that looking at it in black and white like that, that if I believe that Jesus is the Messiah, then I would have to dismiss the Jewish "rules" therfore negating the Old Testament. But to me this is not so. And it is very difficult for me to explain why, because my thoughts are in concepts and not in words.

For one thing, reading my quote back to myself in your post, I realize that I misplaced kaballah in my equasion. I will explain. Kaballah, from my understanding of what I have read so far, is basically no different from any other form of mysticism. From the Native Americans to the Hindus and everything in between. And mysticism, by definition, is the "pursuit or discovery of what is believed to be the direct experience of union with divinity, God, or Ultimate Reality or the belief that such experience is a genuine and important source of knowledge."

So my equasion should have been:

Jews: Tanakh (received through kabbalah)--->interpretation---->talmud, etc.

This equasion obviously makes much more sense.The word Kabbalah itself means to "receive".

Kabbalah was not handed down by God through Moses. Moses was the greatest master of Kabbalah so far in the eyes of the Jews, this is how he was able to communicate directly with God, rather than through the aspects of God, and receive the torah. Abraham is considered to be the (probably) first Jew to use Kabbalah, because he is the first Jew (monotheistic) and he did communicate with God. Although the Jews say both of the statements that I just wrote, they also say that the Oral Law was given to Moses also on the mountain. Then in another place they will say that the oral law is the kabbalah.

It makes much more sense that Moses first LEARNED kabbalah before he used it to receive the torah. And the truth is,I think everybody has a bit of mysticism in their soul. I know I have always felt that all things had a sense of balance. I see patterns within patterns when I look at the world,or think deeply about the universe, and I see continuums in all things. Some feel it more than others, and some almost shut it out completely, but I believe we all feel it to some degree. I'm not going to get into that, but my point is that the Jews were not given Kabbalah at Mt. Sianai, this I can guarantee.

Mysticism, if you believe in it, and learn it, can give you the keys to receiving visions and instructions. But the interpretation of said visions and instructions are entirely up to the individual reading them. I could have a vision and write it down, then you may interpret it a whole different way than I do, and the "rules" have nothing to do with that part of it. That part is entirely human, and subject to being wrong. The Jews got their "requirements" for the messiah by interpreting the tanakh, which they received through Kabbalah. Interpretation is entirely up for grabs. They may have used some Kabbalahic principles to come up with those interpretations, but that is not the same thing at all as kabballah itself and its rules of how it works. Any mysticism is really wide open for interpretation itself. That is why there are so many kinds, but they are all BASICALLY the same.

I'm not going to get into it here of how I think Jesus was not only greater than Moses, but LIVED and PERSONIFIED the very ideas. You have to realize that the first Christians were Jews, and I'm sure they knew Kabbalah teachings too. Yet they believed he was the Messiah. I think the fact that Christianity doesn't study mysticism (other than like, fasting or the Holy Ghost, but they really dont' teach you how to USE it properly) is why it has had such a bloody and violent past. It is why people can't find what they are truly looking for and branch out in so many different denominations. That's my opinion anyway. One of the basic principles of Kabbalah that I HAVE grasped so far is that everything turns out the opposite of how it is first perceived.(That's the story of my LIFE ) And this has certainly been the case with Christianity, from peace to violence. And Jesus said it would happen.

That principle can also explain how the messiah turned out to be the LAST thing the Jews expected. If one believes that Jesus is the messiah, that is. I'm not going to argue that point with you anymore, it is my belief, and I intend to keep it, and looking at all these new things I have looked at over the past week only confirms it in my mind even more. I plan to keep looking into these mystic beliefs of the Jews, and if I change my mind about the messiah, I'll let you know. But I'm not expecting that at all.

quote:

---

I could probably hazard a guess - but you wouldn't accept that, would you? Best to discuss this with one more knowledgable than I am in such things. The Kabbalah view of God doesn't discredit the whole Mt. Sainai scene as far as I know.

---

As I don't know any Rabbis, I WOULD like to hear your guess. That is unless you were just messing with me. Can't guarantee I'll agree with your guess, but I might, and even one I don't agree with is better than none at all.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

You have to realize that the first Christians were Jews, and I'm sure they knew Kabbalah teachings too.

---

But this was also a very small number of Jews. A very definite minority, a splinter group.
There were many such splinter groups, many people claiming to be the messiah, many groups with alternate views, etc.

The group that we call Jews today are the Rabbinical Jews - just one of many of the major groups of Jews at the time of Jesus.

There were also, as we have discussed here in the past, a rather large (in comparison) number of such groups, all claiming different things about jesus, all with different gospels, all with different claims in regard to what jessu was, what his message was, and what path you needed to follow to 'right' with Jesus.

What *we* know as christianity today is but one of these groups, and the views that they hold were not solidified (if they can even be called solidified to day) until after the 4th century.

So bringing modern christian beleifs out, and using the ciricumstances of the first christians as a basis for those beliefs, or as explanation or support of those beliefs just doesn't work.

FWIW



(Edited by DL-44 on 07-22-2005 20:45)

I find this a pretty knowledgable source - as far as I can tell, anyway Kabbalah and Jewish Mysticism from Judaism 101.

Most of what I know about Judaism stems from one of my Ex-stepfathers (who was Jewish) - my mother delved heavily into Jewish faith and tradition in those days.

Start with this part - Ein Sof and the Ten Sefirot

quote:

---

According to Kabbalah, the true essence of G-d is so transcendent that it cannot be described, except with reference to what it is not. This true essence of G-d is known as Ein Sof, which literally means "without end," which encompasses the idea of His lack of boundaries in both time and space. In this truest form, the Ein Sof is so transcendent that It cannot have any direct interaction with the universe. The Ein Sof interacts with the universe through ten emanations from this essence, known as the Ten Sefirot.

---

This part clearly explains (well, clearly is a subjective matter in this sense) this

quote:

---

The problem with the Kabbalah view of God is, that it discredits the whole Mt. Sianai scene, where the entire Jewish nation saw and heard God speak. If God is unable to interact with the world in a direct manner, then how did that take place at the Mountain? The whole Jewish religion is based "as fact" to the Jews because the entire nation saw and heard God himself.

---

At least, it does for me.

But, perhaps I am missing the intent here, but...but...everything posted here(save by me) is conjecture based upon conjecture and fundamentalism, confused by mis-intepretation, theory, fallacy, linguistic errors and sheer wishful hope...plus a desperate, unrealizable desire for it all to be true.

While I appreciate the theory and fun of debate, I am unable to take seriously any discussion which is predicated upon a myth.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/m/m0514300.html

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Simple solution: Then don't.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

Ram,

Can you provide any rational and reasoned excuse for any of you to continue the discussion?

Bearing in mind that religion has no basis in either rationality, reason or reality?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Can you provide any rational and reasoned excuse for any of you to continue the discussion?

---

Since when do we need a rational or reasoned excuse to discuss something?

quote:

---

Bearing in mind that religion has no basis in either rationality, reason or reality?

---

Reality is in the eye of the beholder. Rationality and reason are subjective.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

I s'pose one does not require a rational and reasoned excuse to have an irrational and unreasoned discussion.

Reality however is another issue.

If I burn your hand with a hot object and then burn mine I rather suspect the reality is the same for both of us.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

But, perhaps I am missing the intent here, but...but...everything posted here(save by me) is conjecture based upon conjecture and fundamentalism, confused by mis-intepretation, theory, fallacy, linguistic errors and sheer wishful hope...plus a desperate, unrealizable desire for it all to be true.

---

Blocks are mine.

Uhhh...I beg your pardon?
Are you suggesting that what I post here is conjecture?! I am comparing two different (and incompatible) views with one another, to determine which one is logically and reasonably more sound, Irregardless of what they may be based on.

Are you also suggesting that what DL has posted in this thread is also conjecture?

For example, I may say "The Moon is made of green cheese". Ok, but someone else might say "No it isn't. It is made of Blue Cheese!". Irregardless of whether the Moon is really made of cheese or not, examining the process(es) that lead to the conclusion that it is either green or blue cheese is what I am doing here, to see which one makes the better argument.

Climb back down from your pedast.

(Edited by WebShaman on 07-24-2005 00:19)

Dio -

As I said before - there's no need for you to be in the conversation if you don't feel it worthy of you.

~shrug~

The green cheese discussion would make more sense than arguing endlessly about 5000-10000 year old stories which have been endlessly re-written, re-invented, re-interpreted, adjusted to reflect the views of various church leaders and monarchs. mis-interpreted both accidentally and intentionally, to the point no one living has any idea what they originally intended or said.

As well argue angels on the head of a pin as they don't exist either.

Not demeaning either of your arguments, merely questioning what possible use there is in them.

DL, this is my contribution, if you don't mind.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Not demeaning either of your arguments, merely questioning what possible use there is in them.

---

Bullshit.

You can turn it any which way you wish, but I am calling you on what you actually posted

quote:

---

everything posted here(save by me) is conjecture based upon conjecture and fundamentalism, confused by mis-intepretation, theory, fallacy, linguistic errors and sheer wishful hope...plus a desperate, unrealizable desire for it all to be true.

---

I stand by that.

I meant I was not demeaning the fact you are arguing it and doing it well. In fact on the points side you and DL do a scholarly job of it and far exceed the other posters on the topic.

My point is, aside from the academic excercise, it is a total waste of time, as the subject matter is entirely in the realm of mythology. Might as well be arguing green cheese, Sinter Klaus and the tooth fairy.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

My point is, aside from the academic excercise, it is a total waste of time

---

What is considered a waste of time to you might not be a waste of time to others, another subjective thingy. I am sure there are members in the Asylum who think this entire sub-forum is a waste of time, and rather than pop in and criticize people for doing so, they simply don't take part. Are you that much of a control freak? Are you the new Phillosilly Czar who deems what is a "waste of time"? The new self-appointed dictator of worth?

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

Gee Ram! I am terribly sorry.

I thought this was a forum where folk were encouraged to speak their mind.

It seems to me, you are far more interested in 'control' than I might even imagine since you appear to be trying to control my view on this issue.

A view, thought less scholerly and informed than yours or DL's, is in my view equally valid.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Gee Ram! I am terribly sorry.

---

Apology accepted.

I'm not trying to control you BTW, just giving you a hard time. Hence the () and the () faces.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 07-24-2005 07:41)

I stand by that.

Ok.

Why don't you go somewhere else, where everyone only talks about things that make sense to you?

Obviously, this thread is below your niveau.

DL posted (among other things) this :

quote:

---

But this was also a very small number of Jews. A very definite minority, a splinter group.
There were many such splinter groups, many people claiming to be the messiah, many groups with alternate views, etc.

The group that we call Jews today are the Rabbinical Jews - just one of many of the major groups of Jews at the time of Jesus.

---

I see nothing in that, that can be considered

quote:

---

everything posted here(save by me) is conjecture based upon conjecture and fundamentalism, confused by mis-intepretation, theory, fallacy, linguistic errors and sheer wishful hope...plus a desperate, unrealizable desire for it all to be true.

---

I see WS, dissenting voices are not welcome?

The cold hard light of reality is not permitted?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

get

over

your

self.


"cold hard light of reality" ???




Ok, can we move on now here?
There was at one point an actual conversation going on....

(Edited by DL-44 on 07-25-2005 03:09)

quote:

---

I see WS, dissenting voices are not welcome?

The cold hard light of reality is not permitted?

---

That has nothing to do with what you posted here

quote:

---

everything posted here(save by me) is conjecture based upon conjecture and fundamentalism, confused by mis-intepretation, theory, fallacy, linguistic errors and sheer wishful hope...plus a desperate, unrealizable desire for it all to be true.

---

Blocks are mine.

In fact, the above post is the opposite of the cold, hard light of reality, as shown.

Dissenting voices not welcome? I find that a strange statement/question. Different views are more than welcome here.

That still has nothing to do with what you posted.

Had you posted "most of what is posted here is...blah,blah", well, that would be your opinion, your view, whatever.

But that is not what you posted. You posted "everything posted here (save by me) is...blah blah" - maybe a small, but deciding, difference.

And yes, I would like to move on, as well.

quote:

---

My point is, aside from the academic excercise, it is a total waste of time, as the subject matter is entirely in the realm of mythology. Might as well be arguing green cheese, Sinter Klaus and the tooth fairy.

---

That is the point of the argument. The subject matter is entirely in the realm of mythology, but many people still believe in it! The goal is to try and get these people to see the light!

Careful, you will have them seeing only Lucifer.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

That is the point of the argument. The subject matter is entirely in the realm of mythology, but many people still believe in it! The goal is to try and get these people to see the light!

---

Out of curiosity, why is it so important, in your opinion, to get people to 'see the light' on this issue?

How do you go about helping someone 'see the light' on a personal belief? Religion aside, what is wrong with belief and why is it so important that everyone conform to one set thereof, even if you think it foolish? Why set out to kill diversity and difference in a manner much like those who try to get others to convert to religion? (For clarification, the last question is referring to the intolerance of the few who seemingly deem themselves intellectually superior, and is not directed at any specific individual here)

Don't try to change belief, just try to change dangerous ideology which has grown from man-made institutions, because it is that which is truly dangerous.


Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 07-25-2005 23:00)

Getting back to the Genesis debate here. Sorry Gideon, I have been on vacation. But wanted to also note that when you ponder about the first fall from grace, if you relate it to our modern times, it will make you wonder. For example, in my family unit, if my husband robbed a bank and did't tell me and kept the money and spent it, would I be an accessory to the crime? Or if he told me, and gave me some of the money and I spend it, I would be an thief too. Right? Now the way the Genesis story is explained is that we are all guilty for the sin of two persons we didn't even know and were long dead before we were born thousands of years ago. So why should their sin be our sin? Why are we contaminated with evil for their will to go against God. We had nothing to do with it. In the robbery, me and my husband partook of, my children, immediate family and friends and relatives would be guilty too of the crime we did and by the law should be punished too. This doesn't seem fair, yet it is the literal meaning of the story of Adam and Eve. The story has a deeper theological lesson. I believe the story is timeless and refers to us today in that when we go against God's love, we hurt each other.
My sinful act affects all by degree. The more evil in the world measured, the more power evil has in the world. I believe its not measured by one person, but as it is a whole human race. Does this make sense? That's why we are told by the bible to be our brothers keeper, because what he or I does affects humanity. And that I believe is what the writers of the story of the fall are trying to convey.

Ramasax, I don?t think it really has to do with changing peoples beliefs but rather understanding of what exactly mythology is. Good example would be Joseph Campbell, it is something people don?t want to look at. Understanding myth is juts as important as understanding everything about this world and humanities. We cant let blind ideologies justify unjust actions. Look at National Socialism in Germany, as a political buff you are I think you would agree that High Ideals without sense and acknowledgement of history and humanities leads to an absolute disaster.

If we can at least convince political world on understanding the concepts of mythology and it's myth, maybe we wouldn?t have this bullshit like Intelligent Design pushing silly crap in science classrooms.

Sure we see Greek Paganism as interesting and wise source of Literature, but Jewish myth isn?t that different.

The trouble is not whether you chose to believe or whatever your neighbor goes to church to worship JC. The trouble is the refuse of understanding of nature and using Jewish myth to justify it politically.


P.S. ohh and nice to see you making a progress with your web design, keep up a good work.

quote:

---

Understanding myth is juts as important as understanding everything about this world and humanities. We cant let blind ideologies justify unjust actions. Look at National Socialism in Germany, as a political buff you are I think you would agree that High Ideals without sense and acknowledgement of history and humanities leads to an absolute disaster.

---

For sure, blind ideology, as I said above, is probably one of the most dangerous things to a collective of human beings.

I simply disagree that myth, or belief in myth (which I do not think JC falls under, but for arguments sake, and to not create yet another side discussion which I have no intention of taking part in, I'll use the word) is a large factor in that.

Am I not proof of that? I am able to hold my beliefs, but also able to be a realist with regard to the nature of science and the world around me. Now granted, I was not always like that, but my drive for truth, and hunger for knowledge, led me there. I do not see science as a threat to my belief -- in contrast I simply accept science as part of the created world. Obviously can't prove it, but I believe it and it won't change. As I said before earlier on, if I am wrong, I lose nothing (or at least never realize it ), but gain a personal philosophy which is a part of who I am and helps me deal with life on that level. That might make me seem weak to some, to need something like that as a 'comfort blanket', but oh well. It is a reassurance that there is meaning to life. Without it, I see no meaning. My faith is self-induced, and I have no problem admitting it, and feel that should have any impact on the way I am viewed.

The problem is always the institutions and the politicians who use the myth to manipulate. Instead of trying to tell people that they are wrong in their belief, simply help them realize that they are being led to manipulation, being taken advantage of through their belief. I have had a great success rate as of late among many of my family and friends of the Christian persuasion, by simply showing them and helping them understand that they are being led like sheep. It was not always easy, actually had one relative accuse me of giving up on God because I turned on Bush, but with enough persistence, you can make even the most ignorant person come around, if they choose to be receptive of course.

When people believe in something so deeply, down to their core, they are not going to give it up. By directly opposing them and telling them they are dumb or stupid, you lose more ground than you gain and also widen the division. But, if you show them that their belief is not threatened by new ideas, only their religious institutions are, and help them realize the distinction between the two, you can get a lot further than by using the Diogenes approach (no offense intended D ).

I really don't know enough about intelligent design, but since it involves God, who's existence cannot and will not be proven by men, it has no place in the science classroom where fact or what is percieved as fact at this given time is the curricula. Perhaps a solution would be to offer an elective course on theological belief, but that would open another can of worms of course. God forbid the course covers belief A and not belief B, or even covers both A and B.

I can be honest in saying that although I do believe Christ is the messiah of Jewish "myth", I see the world's religions as spokes on a wheel, all falling back to one point. Thre is a lot I do not understand, a lot I do not know, and a lot I am skeptical of with regard for the penchant of men to reorganize ideas to suit agendas.

quote:

---

The trouble is not whether you chose to believe or whatever your neighbor goes to church to worship JC. The trouble is the refuse of understanding of nature and using Jewish myth to justify it politically.

---

Exactly the point I was trying to make. This is the equation I see, rather simplistic, and try to stay away from (belief + politics = religion --> trouble)

If you looked at my site, you probably noticed it is political, yet I do not touch on belief. I do rant about degradation/excess/lack of a moral code and its causes/effects on modern society, but that in itself is not necessarily on the spectrum of belief or religion, but more along the lines of a common human moral code (pedophelia, beastiality, murder, etc.) I try to keep them separate, in both my inner thoughts and outer writings and words.

Hopefully some of this makes sense. Too tired to try and make it any clearer right now.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 07-26-2005 05:38)

quote:

---

I can be honest in saying that although I do believe Christ is the messiah of Jewish "myth"

---

I don't know how you can say or believe this, when the Jews do not hold that to be true - rather, they hold the opposite to be true. Xians believe that it is true.

I think that has been pretty much shown, in this thread. Or do I need to post more about this?

Miswording on my part. Strike Jewish, add xian.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

Ramasax my comments were not directed at you, I am aware of your capability to discuss politics and scientific issues and not trip over the small shit. But just because you can, doest mean majority in this world can. Keeping politics stricly secular in terms of decision making is what I wish to happen in the near future.

Also I have never treated mythical theologies as stupid, in fact I look at them that as a core of development of humanities. Diogenes is simply an example of another extreme side of bashing. But eye for an eye wont get you no where. I would recomend you to check out some of the Joseph Campbell materials, the videos are pretty good and so are the books. He talk about the idea of how important is myth to humanities...

(Edited by Ruski on 07-26-2005 17:17)

The enemy is at the door...YOUR door!

From: The NY Times


Bible Course Becomes a Test for Public Schools in Texas

By RALPH BLUMENTHAL and BARBARA NOVOVITCH
Published: August 1, 2005

HOUSTON, July 31 - When the school board in Odessa, the West Texas oil town, voted unanimously in April to add an elective Bible study course to the 2006 high school curriculum, some parents dropped to their knees in prayerful thanks that God would be returned to the classroom, while others assailed it as an effort to instill religious training in the public schools.
Hundreds of miles away, leaders of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools notched another victory. A religious advocacy group based in Greensboro, N.C., the council has been pressing a 12-year campaign to get school boards across the country to accept its Bible curriculum.

The council calls its course a nonsectarian historical and literary survey class within constitutional guidelines requiring the separation of church and state.

But a growing chorus of critics says the course, taught by local teachers trained by the council, conceals a religious agenda. The critics say it ignores evolution in favor of creationism and gives credence to dubious assertions that the Constitution is based on the Scriptures, and that "documented research through NASA" backs the biblical account of the sun standing still.

In the latest salvo, the Texas Freedom Network, an advocacy group for religious freedom, has called a news conference for Monday to release a study that finds the national council's course to be "an error-riddled Bible curriculum that attempts to persuade students and teachers to adopt views that are held primarily within conservative Protestant circles."

The dispute has made the curriculum, which the national council says is used by more than 175,000 students in 312 school districts in 37 states, the latest flashpoint in the continuing culture wars over religious influences in the public domain.

The national council says its course is the only one offered nationwide. Another organization, the Bible Literacy Project, supported by a broad range of religious groups, expects to release its own textbook in September.

According to Charles Haynes of the Freedom Forum, which published "The Bible and Public Schools: A First Amendment Guide" five years ago, "The distinction is between teaching the Bible and teaching about the Bible - it has to be taught academically, not devotionally."

The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools says its course "is concerned with education rather than indoctrination of students."

"The central approach of the class is simply to study the Bible as a foundation document of society, and that approach is altogether appropriate in a comprehensive program of secular education," it says.

Elizabeth Ridenour, a commercial real estate broker who said she formed the nonprofit organization in 1993 after deciding that she had long been "duped" into believing the Bible could not be taught in public schools, said the course has stayed within legal limits. "Our teachers are not to say, 'This is the truth,' or that the Bible is infallible," she said. "They are to say, 'This is what the Bible says; draw your own conclusions.' "

But in Odessa, where the school board has not decided on a curriculum, a parent said he found the course's syllabus unacceptably sectarian. He has been waging his own campaign for additional information on where it is being taught.

"Someone is being disingenuous; I'd like to know who," said the parent, David Newman, an associate professor of English at Odessa College who has made a page-by-page analysis of the 270-page syllabus and sent e-mail messages to nearly all 1,034 school districts in Texas.

The Texas Freedom Network, which commissioned its study after the vote in Odessa, is sharp in its criticism. "As many as 52 Texas public school districts and 1,000 high schools across the country are using an aggressively marketed, blatantly sectarian Bible curriculum that interferes with the freedom of all families to pass on their own religious values to their children," it said.

In one teaching unit, students are told, "Throughout most of the last 2,000 years, the majority of men living in the Western world have accepted the statements of the Scriptures as genuine." The words are taken from the Web site of Grant R. Jeffrey Ministries' Prophecy on Line.

The national council's efforts are endorsed by the Center for Reclaiming America, Phyllis Schlafly's group the Eagle Forum, Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council, among others.

But Americans United for Separation of Church and State and other groups have warned school districts against using the curriculum because of constitutional concerns.

Mike Johnson, a lawyer for the national council, cited a 1999 legal opinion by four lawyers calling the course permissible under constitutional guidelines.

Apart from a showcase school in Brady, Tex., the national council does not disclose the schools using its course because it wants to spare them the disruption of news media inquiries, Ms. Ridenour said.

Only a summary of the course is available on the Internet, and printed copies cost $150.

A highly critical article in The Journal of Law and Education in 2003 said the course "suffers from a number of constitutional infirmities" and "fails to present the Bible in the objective manner required."

The journal said that even supplementary materials were heavily slanted toward sectarian organizations; 83 percent of the books and articles recommended had strong ties to sectarian organizations, 60 percent had ties to Protestant organizations, and 53 percent had ties to conservative Protestant organizations, it said.

Among those included are books by David Barton, on the council's advisory board and the vice chairman of the Texas Republican Party, who favors "biblical inerrancy," said William Martin, a Rice University historian and the author of the book "With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America."

Ms. Ridenour said the course was revised six months ago. But the freedom network's study concludes that the curriculum's section on science teaches creationism with no mention of evolution.

The course's broad statements about the Bible being the blueprint for the nation are askew, said Mr. Haynes of the Freedom Forum, part of a nonpartisan ecumenical group promoting the Bible Literacy Project textbook. "If the Bible is a blueprint for the Constitution," he said, "I guess they haven't read it," referring to the Constitution.

Some of the claims made in the national council's curriculum are laughable, said Mark A. Chancey, professor of religious studies at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, who spent seven weeks studying the syllabus for the freedom network. Mr. Chancey said he found it "riddled with errors" of facts, dates, definitions and incorrect spellings. It cites supposed NASA findings to suggest that the earth stopped twice in its orbit, in support of the literal truth of the biblical text that the sun stood still in Joshua and II Kings.

"When the type of urban legend that normally circulates by e-mail ends up in a textbook, that's a problem," Mr. Chancey said.

Tracey Kiesling, the national council's national teacher trainer, said the course offered "scientific documentation" on the flood and cites as a scientific authority Carl Baugh, described by Mrs. Kiesling as "an internationally known creation scientist who founded the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Tex."

The battle of the Bible course is not over in Odessa, where John Waggoner, a real estate appraiser, presented petitions with 6,000 signatures in support of the Bible class - many of them on printed forms of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools - to the school board of Ector County at its April meeting.

The assistant superintendent, Raymond Starnes, said he wanted to examine the Bible Literacy Project's textbook before recommending one for the 2006 school year.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

(Edited by WarMage on 08-02-2005 16:48)

I am fine with the offering an elective course on bible studies. I have absolutely no problem with this. However, they must then also offer an elective courses on the Torah, the Koran and all of the other religious books that are available.

I would even say that it would be fine if you limitted this to religions that are currently being practiced. You might only have to offer a couple thousand additional electives.

Dan @ Code Town

I'm not fine with it.

Religion simply does not belong in the Public School System, because

quote:

---

they must then also offer an elective courses on the Torah, the Koran and all of the other religious books that are available.

---

is not realistic.

This is the entire idea behind the seperation of Church and State - to avoid such problems.

Let us be perfectly clear here.

We KNOW, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that when people feel that their religious beliefs are threatened, or that the ability to teach their children (and pass on) their religious beliefs are threatened, that it inevitably leads to violence.

Because without another choice, or way, it is the only option they can see, that is open (or going to a place where on CAN practice ones beliefs).

The seperation of Church and State allows government and religions to co-exist peacefully.

Allowing the teaching of xian beliefs in Public Schools, especially as a national curriculum, goes against this principle.

quote:

---

I would even say that it would be fine if you limitted this to religions that are currently being practiced. You might only have to offer a couple thousand additional electives.

---

Why, WarMage, is that a hint of sarcasm I am detecting?

Thanks for the laugh. You also touch on the impossibility which ensues from such activity; you cannot offer one elective without then catering to everyone else and someone else and someone else, ad infinitum. Even the flying spaghetti monster worshippers with their parrots and eye patches must be represented for sake of equality.

I've done a lot of thinking about this specific topic. As much as I personally dislike the notion of a Godless nation, which is the eventual outcome of our public schools combined with adults who are too busy "making ends meet" to hand down teachings on their own, I think the key word here is public. Public, at least in this instance, means government controlled and funded.

Being that government controls and funds the public school system with taxpayer dollars, not only would it be unfair for the non-religious to fund such practices (or any other combination; Muslim/Jewish, Jewish/Christian, Christian/Wiccans), it would be a direct violation of Constitutional separation. Indeed, it is dangerous to lay religion in the hands of any arm of government. I think we can definitely take a lesson from the past, and even the present -- in certain parts of the world -- on that.

I would go further to say, though, that in my interpretation the founders never intended the government to be in control of any educational institutions in the first place. It not only leads to conformity and detracts from true individual thought, it is also in government's interest to keep a populace content and supportive of its whims. They keep that in mind while shaping young minds.

Our school system in America is rampant with underachievers who will never reach their true potential because they are not taught essential skills like critical thinking. Rather, skepticism and curiosity are obliterated in exchange for memorization of "fact" which is crafted by the insitution. They are taught only as potential future drones for the workforce. Freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength, etc?

This is why I'm a big supporter of government tax credits so that anyone can send his/her child to any school of their choice. The government should never be allowed to run an educational-industrial complex. Permitting such is just as dangerous as mixing religion and government, as it leads to an eventual totalitarian state.

Unfortunately, now that the control is there, being the idealist that I am, the Constitution must be followed.

To remove public control of the school system in its current form would mean a total restructuring of society. A restructuring that would be impossible for even the most intelligent social engineer to handle. The only way to go back to simple and basic logic is to tear everything down and start anew, which is inevitable, as all societies crumble and are born anew eventually, and I think ours is coming to a crux.

quote:

---

Whenever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state education. It has been discovered that the best way to ensure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.
-- Benjamin Disraeli, 1874

The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all, it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality.
-- H L. Mencken

To entrust the government with the power of determining the education which our children receive is entrusting our servant with the power to be our master.
-- David Nasaw

Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.
-- Joseph Stalin

He alone, who owns the youth, gains the Future!
-- Adolf Hitler, speech at the Reichsparteitag, 1935

---

bleh

edit: I'm sure this one will rile you guys.
Bush endorses teaching 'intelligent design'

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 08-03-2005 06:12)