God and Stuff

[Wolf Boy]

Originally Posted by Vendetta

How do you square your claimed belief in the modern concept of the Christian God with the scriptural validity of the entire Old Testament, and the Pauline doctrine of sexism and repression of women?

Even in my most religious moments, I never considered Paul's statements to be canon (rather, just his own opinion). The Old Testament laws were only for the Jews, and never applied to the rest of humanity. Any Rabbi will tell you that.

When I say "the Christian God", I am referring to the Contemporary Evangelical Christian concept of God (that really merciful guy who loves everyone and hasn't smited anyone in several thousand years).

I've come to have issues with the OT God, becuase some of his leadership seems just plain bad. It's kind of like Optimus Prime in the original Transformers: he's supposed to be this great leader who gave his life for mankind, but half of his decisions and actions are boneheaded. People talk about Optimus Prime being this great icon ... but I just don't see it. He was a cool character, but an idiot also.

Not to mention that the Bible is full of retcons, like the fact that the Devil isn't mentioned until halfway through the OT and isn't a main character until the NT (but Revelation retcons him into the Adam and Eve story, even though Genesis claims it was a normal snake in the garden). These things trouble me, though they aren't entirely dealbreakers.

There's also the fact that I was born in the Southeastern USA, and Christianity is the primary accepted religion here. We have other religions, but they're outside my native Dixie culture. Culture is a HUGE factor. If I were Oriental, I might very well be Bhuddist.

Originally Posted by Vendetta

Even the afterlife is a bit of a raw deal. If you're a person good and moral enough to get into heaven, the fact that many so people are undergoing eternal and unrelenting torture must by necessity be in itself a torment beyond imagining, and if you're enough of a petty person to enjoy or disregard the schadenfreude involved in enjoying the pleasures of heaven whilst knowing that others are in hell, you're not the kind of person who would get to heaven in the first place.

Well, the Bible is absurdly vague about Heaven and Hell. This is all cultural teachings. The Bible teaches physical resurrection of the dead on Earth (Heaven is never actualy promised). Also the Greek word used for "eternal" punishment is "aeon" which literally translates as "an eon of punishment" or "eons and eons." Long, but not permanent. And given that it's talking about the Antichrist, many eons seems appropriate (though not even he would deserve ETERNAL punishment, IMO).

[njyoder]

Originally Posted by Vendetta

Even the afterlife is a bit of a raw deal. If you're a person good and moral enough to get into heaven, the fact that many so people are undergoing eternal and unrelenting torture must by necessity be in itself a torment beyond imagining, and if you're enough of a petty person to enjoy or disregard the schadenfreude involved in enjoying the pleasures of heaven whilst knowing that others are in hell, you're not the kind of person who would get to heaven in the first place.

In what religion? Orthodox Catholicism? Because protestants don't require you be a good and moral person, just someone who asks Jesus for forgiveness. How much have you actually studied the Christian beliefs (or any others) in the afterlife?

I'm not sure how you get from being a good and moral person to this being a "torment beyond imagining," because no one is like that except people who are so obsessed with such a concept that they are mentally ill.

Heaven is filled with heaven vapors, anyway. They make you feel happy regardless of what happened to the other people.

Even in my most religious moments, I never considered Paul's statements to be canon (rather, just his own opinion). The Old Testament laws were only for the Jews, and never applied to the rest of humanity. Any Rabbi will tell you that.

What has been classified as "OT law" is pretty arbitrary. It's not as if the"ten" commandments were eliminated in Christianity, quite the contrary.

Not to mention that the Bible is full of retcons, like the fact that the Devil isn't mentioned until halfway through the OT and isn't a main character until the NT

Not mentioning something isn't a retcon. It's just not mentioning it. It's only a retcon if it contradicts some information given earlier.

The Bible teaches physical resurrection of the dead on Earth (Heaven is never actualy promised).

There's a lot of crap in the NT about getting into the kingdom of heaven. Just search the bible for "kingdom of heaven" and you'll get a million hits. Matthew 7:21-23, for example. I think it's also generally understood tha the promise of eternal life in John 3:16 refers to heaven.

While there is some period of time on Earth where people are supposed to live, according to revelation, after that people are supposed to get beamed into heaven, IIRC.

[Tasermon's Teammate]

Originally Posted by njyoder

Heaven is filled with heaven vapors, anyway. They make you feel happy regardless of what happened to the other people.

Oi, we have those here on Earth too! In California, they're legal for medicinal use.

Seriously though, don't do drugs. God doesn't like it. (Joking)

[Undercover Noid]

Originally Posted by Vendetta

Even the afterlife is a bit of a raw deal. If you're a person good and moral enough to get into heaven, the fact that many so people are undergoing eternal and unrelenting torture must by necessity be in itself a torment beyond imagining, and if you're enough of a petty person to enjoy or disregard the schadenfreude involved in enjoying the pleasures of heaven whilst knowing that others are in hell, you're not the kind of person who would get to heaven in the first place.

I'm not a religious person, but it is my understanding or "belief" (in a very, very loose sense of the word) that you're only condemned to hell if you deserve it, and even then, the punishment fits the crime, what with Dante's nine circles of hell and what-have-you (a particular Far Side cartoon comes to mind, but now is neither the time nor the place). Also, I never thought enjoying or disregarding the idea of the wicked being punished in hell as being something that marks those unworthy of heaven, since they're getting whatever they deserve and... well, that's justice. Alternately, heaven is supposed to make you forget all your eathly preoccupations and just live in bliss for all eternity... but that makes God seem pretty evil and to a certain degree Orwellian.

I dunno.

[Wolf Boy]

Originally Posted by njyoder

What has been classified as "OT law" is pretty arbitrary. It's not as if the"ten" commandments were eliminated in Christianity, quite the contrary.

Technically, nine. The commandment to observe the Sabbath is never re-quoted in the NT, and even struck down by Paul (though Seventh-Day Adventists try to ignore that fact).

Even Jews admit that the OT was for a specific time and place. Paul also suggests that it's not a literal law to follow but an extreme example of how no one can justify themselves without God's mercy.

Originally Posted by njyoder

Not mentioning something isn't a retcon. It's just not mentioning it. It's only a retcon if it contradicts some information given earlier.

It contradicts the assertion in Genesis that the snake was anything else than your standard, everyday talking snake. God cursed ALL snakes to henceforth crawl on their bellies ... odd thing to do if it was actually a fallen angel in the form of a snake. If so, why not curse all fallen angels to crawl on their bellies?

Originally Posted by njyoder

There's a lot of crap in the NT about getting into the kingdom of heaven. Just search the bible for "kingdom of heaven" and you'll get a million hits. Matthew 7:21-23, for example. I think it's also generally understood tha the promise of eternal life in John 3:16 refers to heaven.

It's understood, because Christianity is heavily influenced by Greek concepts. The OT never mentions Heaven and Hell, but physical resurrections are a recurring theme in the Prophets. The Psalms and Ecclesiastes also say that the dead are completely dead and inanimate. But most Christians consider this idea heresy, since it contradicts the more familiar Hellenistic influences they are accustomed to.

Also Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is among us, and that it is coming to Earth. Furthermore, there are 4 different versions of his statements and we can't really be sure exactly how he said it. Especially not when he spoke in Aramaic, but it was recorded in Greek and translated into English. Which makes the Gospels effectively worthless for establishing doctrine.

Originally Posted by njyoder

While there is some period of time on Earth where people are supposed to live, according to revelation, after that people are supposed to get beamed into heaven, IIRC.

Close, but no cigar. You're thinking of Premillennialism, one of 6 interpretations of Revelation. After the return of Christ, the saints live with him on this Earth for 1,000 years. At the end of this Millennium, Satan escapes from his prison and leads a revolt. Satan looses, and the Final Judgement occurs. Now all the evil men are resurrected and judged, being sent to the Lake of Fire (the literal Hell). After which, the Earth is destroyed and recreated (with no sun and no sea, go figure) and all the Saints live for eternity on this recreated Earth.

There is a problem with Revelation, since it blatantly implies that no one goes to Hell until the Final Judgement. Therefore, Protestant Bible scholars interpret Sheol (Greek, "Hades") as a separate, interim Hell until the real judgement happens (Catholics use Purgatory for the same purpose). But this implies a preliminary judgement that happens when one dies. However, God seems deaf to appeals at the Final Judgement. Thus, an apparent Double Jeopardy -- and you get damned twice.

Confused? Me too.

Therefore Christians stick to the mindlessly simple "accept Christ and go to Heaven" concept, ignoring the vast majority of the Bible that contradicts it. The Bible's actual message is more cynical, that one dies and rots -- being effectively dead forever unless God is merciful and physically resurrects them.

Also, some Christians don't believe in Hell. The Bible also says that "EVERY knee shall bow", and in regards to the Jews, it says "ALL Israel shall be saved" implying that Salvation will eventually come to everyone, even if they have to endure a finite punishment first. Other Christians interpret Hell as total annihilation from existence -- ie, physical death.

It's confusing as hell ... and there isn't a clear-cut "correct" answer. This is where I take a more agnostic approach and just admit that I don't and can't know which of them is correct.

[njyoder]

Originally Posted by Wolf Boy

Technically, nine. The commandment to observe the Sabbath is never re-quoted in the NT, and even struck down by Paul (though Seventh-Day Adventists try to ignore that fact).

Technically, you can get more or less than 10 depending on how you group them. It's arbitrary. Catholics and protestants don't even agree how how to group them. The Bible doesn't say that there are 10, either, let alone specify how to group them.

Even Jews admit that the OT was for a specific time and place. Paul also suggests that it's not a literal law to follow but an extreme example of how no one can justify themselves without God's mercy.

No, they definitely don't, hence why they have followed many laws for a long, long time. The Bible doesn't specify which specific laws were invalidated and which weren't (as noted above, obviously ones like the "ten" commandments were kept).

God cursed ALL snakes to henceforth crawl on their bellies ... odd thing to do if it was actually a fallen angel in the form of a snake. If so, why not curse all fallen angels to crawl on their bellies?

Not if all snakes were under Lucifer's domain. Or you could just use a non-literal interpretation--with the curse on snakes being part of a larger metaphor. Besides, since when is it a good idea to try to rationalize the Bible in such a way? Because if you're going to start questioning the concept of satan, you should probably start with "why is he even allowed to influence people in the first place" (i.e. the Problem of Evil)?

The OT never mentions Heaven and Hell, but physical resurrections are a recurring theme in the Prophets.

Heaven definitely comes up in the OT. It's in the very first verse of the OT!

The Psalms and Ecclesiastes also say that the dead are completely dead and inanimate. But most Christians consider this idea heresy, since it contradicts the more familiar Hellenistic influences they are accustomed to.

Where? Because the concept of heaven is explicitly mentioned a bunch of times in the OT and especially NT. Furthermore, the NT explicitly mentions concepts of eternal life for followers (e.g. John 3:16, that famous verse that people always put up on signs during sports games).

Even the OT has the concept of purgatory and prophets living within Abraham's Bosom.

In no way, shape, or form does either the OT or NT deny the concept of afterlife. I don't even know where you got that idea, as it's in direct contradiction to the text and every held belief of all Abrahamic religions that I know of.

Also Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is among us, and that it is coming to Earth. Furthermore, there are 4 different versions of his statements and we can't really be sure exactly how he said it. Especially not when he spoke in Aramaic, but it was recorded in Greek and translated into English. Which makes the Gospels effectively worthless for establishing doctrine.

...so the Bible is not to be trusted, according to their own religion?! If you're not going to believe the seminal text of your religion, then you're not really a follower. If you want to go by ambiguities and vagueries, there are certainly much worse ones, including the OT.

With the huge emphasis on eternal life and salvation, it's pretty clear that some people are getting into heaven, regardless of whether or not you agree on what the specific criteria to get in is. None of the statements can be taken to mean "no one goes to heaven."

Obviously, we're talking about real followers, who believe this is actually the word of god. There's no way that, in even non-literal interpretations, God would be seen as allowing a widely translation that completely warped the meaning of a major tenant of the religion. It's like suggesting that because we don't have the original text, Jesus may have not said/been the actual savior, just some prophet.

Close, but no cigar. You're thinking of Premillennialism, one of 6 interpretations of Revelation.

How do I not get a cigar if you're admitting that it's one of the major interpretations? Regardless of how it manifests, there will be heaven and people will get into it according to all of the text, OT and NT.

Therefore, Protestant Bible scholars interpret Sheol (Greek, "Hades") as a separate, interim Hell until the real judgement happens (Catholics use Purgatory for the same purpose). But this implies a preliminary judgement that happens when one dies. However, God seems deaf to appeals at the Final Judgement. Thus, an apparent Double Jeopardy -- and you get damned twice.

Even under this interpretation, I don't see the problem. It just means that the currently living people are judged then and the others have already been judged in the past, without enforcing the "verdict."

Where does it suggest that, literally, you are judged twice with no appeal?

Therefore Christians stick to the mindlessly simple "accept Christ and go to Heaven" concept, ignoring the vast majority of the Bible that contradicts it.

There are parts of the Bible which say that people can't go to Heaven? That's news to me. I'd like to know some verses. There simply is no contradiction at all. At most, the Bible simply doesn't bring up the issue beforehand, which doesn't constitute a contradiction.

Also, some Christians don't believe in Hell. The Bible also says that "EVERY knee shall bow", and in regards to the Jews, it says "ALL Israel shall be saved" implying that Salvation will eventually come to everyone, even if they have to endure a finite punishment first. Other Christians interpret Hell as total annihilation from existence -- ie, physical death.

That are fringe groups that will take all kinds of nonsensical interpretations. That's why you ask scholars who understand the language and history well about the meaning. However, even under this interpretation, you still get punishment, like you said. So it's a hell, just not hell for a literal eternity.

I think it would be pretty obvious that "Israel" is referring to contemporary followers, anyway.

[Tasermon's Teammate]

Originally Posted by njyoder

...so the Bible is not to be trusted, according to their own religion?! If you're not going to believe the seminal text of your religion, then you're not really a follower.

Watch it there. God would probably rather the people believe in him than believe in the Bible.
God has never given the Bible his "seal of approval", and I'm pretty sure that God would still accept a person as a follower even if that person didn't believe in the Bible, but just believed in God and tried to live a virtuous life.

But that's just my perspective. I'm not God, so who knows?

[Wolf Boy]

Originally Posted by njyoder

No, they definitely don't, hence why they have followed many laws for a long, long time. The Bible doesn't specify which specific laws were invalidated and which weren't (as noted above, obviously ones like the "ten" commandments were kept).

The entire law is invalid for saving people. This is the most important fact of the New Testament. Following the law won't save anyone, no matter how well they follow it. It's only purpose is to show what sin is, and what God doesn't want us to do. This is where the whole debate about "grace vs. legalism" comes from.

Originally Posted by njyoder

Heaven definitely comes up in the OT. It's in the very first verse of the OT!

I meant that the OT never says that people go to Heaven when they die (except for special cases like Enoch and Elijah who were taken up ALIVE). Also "Heaven" and "the Heavens" sometimes refer to plain old sky and outer space. But the doctrine that you "die and go to Heaven" just isn't in the OT anywhere.

Instead, the OT gives us quotes like this (Psalm 115:17):

16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’s;
But the earth He has given to the children of men.
17 The dead do not praise the LORD,
Nor any who go down into silence.
18 But we will bless the LORD
From this time forth and forevermore.

It also says that a "live dog is better than a dead lion" and that the dead have no thoughts. "Eternal life" is only used in refference to a ressurection.

Originally Posted by njyoder

Even the OT has the concept of purgatory and prophets living within Abraham's Bosom.

"Abraham's Bosom" comes from a parable in the NT (Luke 17). Parables are, by their nature, fictional. Futhermore, the parable isn't repeated in any other gospels.

Originally Posted by njyoder

In no way, shape, or form does either the OT or NT deny the concept of afterlife. I don't even know where you got that idea, as it's in direct contradiction to the text and every held belief of all Abrahamic religions that I know of.

Held beliefs aren't nesscessarily based on the Biblical text. Salvation, damnation and eternal life all require a physical ressurection of the body (in the literal words of the text).

As a matter of fact, the verse in 2 Thessalonians that supports the Rapture specify that the "dead in Christ shall rise first" before being taken to Heaven ... odd thing to do if they're already up there.

Even the most Fundamentalist Southern Baptist doesn't deny that a bodily ressurection is coming ... they just believe we only go to Heaven temporarily, until Jesus comes back and recreates Earth.

Originally Posted by njyoder

...so the Bible is not to be trusted, according to their own religion?! If you're not going to believe the seminal text of your religion, then you're not really a follower. If you want to go by ambiguities and vagueries, there are certainly much worse ones, including the OT.

It's not heresy, just logic. The 4 Gospels have significant errors, especially in their account of his trial (the quotes and order of events are all different). We can extract the basic facts from the conflicting accounts, but exact quotes are simply impossible to discern.

If following a religion means overlooking obvious facts, than of course I wouldn't be a follower of that religion. Modern, rational people can't just deny facts ... or they are no longer modern, rational people.

Originally Posted by njyoder

How do I not get a cigar if you're admitting that it's one of the major interpretations? Regardless of how it manifests, there will be heaven and people will get into it according to all of the text, OT and NT.

None of the 6 interpretations of Revelation deny the recreating of Earth. The interpretations only deal with whether the "Millenium" is coming or past, and when (and if) the Rapture occurs.

Also I never meant to deny that Heaven exists in the Bible. I only denied the doctrine that people go immediately to Heaven upon dying.

Originally Posted by njyoder

Where does it suggest that, literally, you are judged twice with no appeal?

I was mocking the interpretation that one dies, gets sent to hell, then gets ressurected later and sent to hell again. Also, the Bible is pretty clear that judgement is final -- it doesn't say that you can escape it.

Originally Posted by njyoder

I think it would be pretty obvious that "Israel" is referring to contemporary followers, anyway.

It's in Romans 11. The context of the chapter clearly states that it's the literal Jews.

What I see is a glaring contradiction between standard Christian teaching and the actual words of their own book. Which means either the teaching, the book or both are in error.

[njyoder]

Originally Posted by Tasermon's Teammate

Watch it there. God would probably rather the people believe in him than believe in the Bible.
God has never given the Bible his "seal of approval", and I'm pretty sure that God would still accept a person as a follower even if that person didn't believe in the Bible, but just believed in God and tried to live a virtuous life.

That's called the "make it up as you go along" approach to religion. It has obvious problems. Without a reliable holy text, you can just make up any **** and claim it's the way god intended. There is no way of supporting one belief over another.

Originally Posted by Wolf Boy

The entire law is invalid for saving people. This is the most important fact of the New Testament. Following the law won't save anyone, no matter how well they follow it. It's only purpose is to show what sin is, and what God doesn't want us to do. This is where the whole debate about "grace vs. legalism" comes from.

That's different than what you were saying before; you should be more clear. The laws still apply, they just aren't strictly necessary for salvation.

There also is the argument that, without true repentance, you can't get into heaven. In other words, if you ask for forgiveness, but just continue the same bad practice without trying to quit, you aren't considered sincere in your request for forgiveness. So in other words, you have to attempt to follow the laws.

I meant that the OT never says that people go to Heaven when they die (except for special cases like Enoch and Elijah who were taken up ALIVE).

No, but it does say that people's souls return to God (Ecclesiastes 12:17). Given that some people have explicitly been taken, it's silly to deny this possibility.

The distinction between an eternal spirit and eternal body is fairly grey, so I don't see a use in focusing much on it. It's only an issue of whether or not the person is in a state of suspended animation or not and where their non-corporeal self gets placed.

A body simply means you have a certain interface to interact with the world, as opposed to some other interface. Angels, being non-corporeal beings, clearly can talk and interact, they just do it differently. In some instances, you might as well consider their non-corporeal interactions to be bodily interactions, which is why there is a grey area.

Instead, the OT gives us quotes like this (Psalm 115:17)

You need to read the earlier part of that chapter. It is clearly metaphorical, referring to non-believers. The ones who have throats, but can't speak and have feet, but can't walk. I did some searching and that seems to be the consensus in interpretation.

It also says that a "live dog is better than a dead lion" and that the dead have no thoughts. "Eternal life" is only used in refference to a ressurection.

Everything written about the soul suggests that it is eternal. The concept of active, thinking souls has been around long before then and the Bible includes various descriptions of people's immortal souls and their actions, so this is a big stretch. At the most, we simply don't know what the souls are capable of doing as per Biblical text.

Held beliefs aren't nesscessarily based on the Biblical text. Salvation, damnation and eternal life all require a physical ressurection of the body (in the literal words of the text).

But in this case they are and you're using an interpretation that is not only very unorthodox, but denies the truth of the entire religion. What says that a physical resurrection is required for anything? The soul is immortal according to the OT and NT as it already exists, in its current state. I would like to see the verses that, interpreted literally, suggest that.

As a matter of fact, the verse in 2 Thessalonians that supports the Rapture specify that the "dead in Christ shall rise first" before being taken to Heaven ... odd thing to do if they're already up there.

II Thessalonians 2? Where does it say that? It covers salvation of one's soul, but not dead bodies rising. It's not even a consensus that this refers to the rapture.

Even the most Fundamentalist Southern Baptist doesn't deny that a bodily ressurection is coming ... they just believe we only go to Heaven temporarily, until Jesus comes back and recreates Earth.

What was that about beliefs in interpretations not indicating truth?

It's not heresy, just logic. The 4 Gospels have significant errors, especially in their account of his trial (the quotes and order of events are all different). We can extract the basic facts from the conflicting accounts, but exact quotes are simply impossible to discern.

So not believing in your own religion is not heresy?! If you consider the Bible an unreliable source, especially considering both contradictions and the fact that huge portions aren't in their original language, then NOTHING you've learned from it can be trusted (i.e. it renders your entire argument moot). You can find all kinds of contradictions regarding all kinds of things in the OT and NT, so you might as well throw it in the trash. None of this even addresses the fact that the OT and NT are written in a completely different way, with different values, writing styles, and everything else.

And what, among all the quotes from Jesus, suggests that he is saying anything other than people's souls being saved by believing in him? You don't need exact quotes to discern that.

What's funny is that a direct consequence of quotes of Jesus being unreliable is that you can't trust that he has even said that he's the son of god in any way, shape, or form.

How are you deciding what verses are reliable and what aren't? Because it seems fairly arbitrary.

If following a religion means overlooking obvious facts, than of course I wouldn't be a follower of that religion. Modern, rational people can't just deny facts ... or they are no longer modern, rational people.

What an ironic statement...

If you're going to go the facts route, then you're forced to deny the existence of the religion, because there is no factual information confirming any of the supernatural happenings of the bible. And then you have to deal with the fact that there are a myriad of religions, so you can't be a "modern, rational" person by just choosing one based on what makes you feel the most comfortable. You even admitted that you believe in your own religion because you're uncomfortable with the idea of it NOT being true.

You just can't have it both ways. You can't suggest that "lets be rational in interpreting this, but not everything else."

Also I never meant to deny that Heaven exists in the Bible. I only denied the doctrine that people go immediately to Heaven upon dying.

Please be more clear next time, because your statements were pretty explicit.

I was mocking the interpretation that one dies, gets sent to hell, then gets ressurected later and sent to hell again.

Who actually holds that interpretation? It seems like you're re-interpreting other people's interpretations for them to make them look silly.

It's in Romans 11. The context of the chapter clearly states that it's the literal Jews.

Contemporary Jews are not "everyone" and there is nothing at all implied about them being saved that they go to hell first. There could be sent to purgatory or be put in some kind of stasis.

What I see is a glaring contradiction between standard Christian teaching and the actual words of their own book. Which means either the teaching, the book or both are in error.

That's what every Christian sect says about the other Christian sects. The problem is that the Bible, Old & New Testament, has far too many ambiguities and contradictions for anyone to legitimately claim "I have the correct interpretation, listen to me!" I don't think there can be reasonably said to be "one correct interpretation," even of the literal portions, any more than there can be one correct interpretation of Shakespeare or other poetic works.

I haven't seen any interpretation that isn't in some way self-serving. Any interpretation that takes all of it, except the obvious (not just "obvious only to me") metaphors and parables, creates all sorts of problems, like condoning reproduction through incest, drugging your relatives to rape them, slavery, all kinds of archaic, bigoted beliefs, etc... So out of convenience, people find some way to rationalize that stuff out of the bible.

[Tasermon's Teammate]

Originally Posted by njyoder

That's called the "make it up as you go along" approach to religion. It has obvious problems.

The bible was written over a period of 1,500 years and underwent thousands of revisions.

That's making it up as you go along.

Without a reliable holy text, you can just make up any **** and claim it's the way god intended. There is no way of supporting one belief over another.

I would normally agree with this, if it weren't for the fact that even with the Bible, people have made up some pretty ridiculous **** and have claimed it's the way God intended.

Sometimes they even use the Bible to support their shitze, even though it had never been used against/for such a practice or idea/belief before.

Religious texts in general, and the Bible 'specially, should, in my personal opinion, be used as a form of guidelines and stories of moral lessons only. Taken with a grain of salt as far as some forms of literal interpretation.

[njyoder]

Originally Posted by Tasermon's Teammate

The bible was written over a period of 1,500 years and underwent thousands of revisions.

That's making it up as you go along.

The difference is that with a holy text, you can't go back on it once it's done, at least not nearly as easily as when you have nothing at all to rely on. Without a holy text, you can just keep coming up with ad hoc explanation on top of ad hoc explanation whenever you want, without even putting any effort into it.

I would normally agree with this, if it weren't for the fact that even with the Bible, people have made up some pretty ridiculous **** and have claimed it's the way God intended.

Sometimes they even use the Bible to support their shitze, even though it had never been used against/for such a practice or idea/belief before.

Normally, it requires a good deal of scholarships. Theologians don't just go "oh wow I want this new interpretation to hold, and so it is done!" If you follow seminaries and religious universities, they actually do publish quite a bit of religious scholarship in journals and other sources. Their interpretations may be crap, but there is normally at least some scholarship behind it and they are limited to certain approaches. Then it takes a while for some consensus to be reached.

Some fringe religious groups don't do this, but they are fringe for that reason; people don't generally want to follow such crazies.

On the other hand, without a religious text, you can just say whatever you want and there is zero basis to challenge it. There is no evidence as a basis, valid or invalid.. Furthermore, even people sincerely trying to follow a literal interpretation have nothing to go on without a holy text, so there is no organization--it's a disorganized religion. People in general herd together in organized groups and really, in order for a religion to reach a certain size, it must have a good degree of formal organization.

[Tasermon's Teammate]

Originally Posted by njyoder

People in general herd together in organized groups and really, in order for a religion to reach a certain size, it must have a good degree of formal organization.

Unfortunately, that's often the problem with religions. An organization is only as good as it's leaders. And the leaders often use the organization for their own agendas.

At least in politics they don't try to disguise it...er...not very well anyways.

[Wolf Boy]

Originally Posted by njyoder

So not believing in your own religion is not heresy?! If you consider the Bible an unreliable source, especially considering both contradictions and the fact that huge portions aren't in their original language, then NOTHING you've learned from it can be trusted (i.e. it renders your entire argument moot). You can find all kinds of contradictions regarding all kinds of things in the OT and NT, so you might as well throw it in the trash. None of this even addresses the fact that the OT and NT are written in a completely different way, with different values, writing styles, and everything else.

See, I don't think questioning the accuracy of the gospels constitutes a disbelief in the Religion. If anything, the differences in the gospels show that all 4 were written independantly and have not been edited (or they would have been rewritten for uniformity). To me, the contradictions affirm the Gospel nareative rather than debunking it.

Oh, and I was dead wrong about II Thessalonians 2. The verse I was thinking of was actually I Thessalonians 4:15-16:

For the Lord himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

The Latin word for "caught up" is rapere (sp?), which is the root word of "rapture" (and where the term comes from). Again, I'm sorry I gave you the wrong verse. I was typing from distant memory.

My Bible quotations are a bit rusty as of late. Biblical study was a big passion of mine in high school, and at the time I had read the whole thing several times over. But memory lapses over time, and exact chapter/verse quotations get lost in the shuffle.

Originally Posted by njyoder

What an ironic statement...

If you're going to go the facts route, then you're forced to deny the existence of the religion, because there is no factual information confirming any of the supernatural happenings of the bible. And then you have to deal with the fact that there are a myriad of religions, so you can't be a "modern, rational" person by just choosing one based on what makes you feel the most comfortable. You even admitted that you believe in your own religion because you're uncomfortable with the idea of it NOT being true.

You just can't have it both ways. You can't suggest that "lets be rational in interpreting this, but not everything else."

Well, I think religion is a balance between logic and blind faith. At the end of the day, religion is fundamentally an illogical persuit of something "more" that you cannot see or detect. So yes, one does have to sacrifice some of their 20th Century rationalism to pursue a religion.

But at the same time, some beliefs can be rejected for their sheer absurdity. For example, no educated person in 2009 can believe that thunderstorms are caused by Zeus throwing lightning bolts from Mount Olympus. In ancient Greece, this may have been a totally acceptable belief; but not anymore.

Religion is a sort of relationship with the divine (or in my case, a longing for a relationship that I haven't really found yet). When are relationships ever based on rational thought? By all rational logic, Romeo and Juliet should have stayed far away from each other. Relationships are emotional. People search for a spouse because they need one in their life, regardless of whether they've even met the person yet.

However, nitpicking over Scriptural interpretations has nothing to do with emotion. That's where the logic and rationale enter the picture. Scriptural study is an intellectual pursuit, not a spiritual one. As I well know, you can read the whole Bible and still not feel connected to the Divine.

I hope that makes sense.

[njyoder]

Originally Posted by Wolf Boy

See, I don't think questioning the accuracy of the gospels constitutes a disbelief in the Religion. If anything, the differences in the gospels show that all 4 were written independantly and have not been edited (or they would have been rewritten for uniformity). To me, the contradictions affirm the Gospel nareative rather than debunking it.

That just means that the only surviving copies of those were ones that didn't appear to have been edited together to correct all incongruities. By a certain time, if they tried passing around an edited version of one for which copies were already widely available, it would be seen as an obvious revision and thus heresy. From textual analysis and various dating, it's pretty clear though that some sources borrowed from others (lending to the idea that they're even less credible) and it's highly suspect if any of the surviving texts are contemporary at all.

Any obvious revisions (that would be seen as damaging to The Church) passed around would have long since been destroyed in favor of the preferred versions. It's long since been known that this is a practice with holy texts (not just Christian ones) that revisions that the people in power didn't like were destroyed. Early Christian monks had to secretly preserve apocrypha and other texts that The Church didn't approve of and we have no idea how many different versions were destroyed. The fact that the only accounts of all of this stuff in the NT were from Christian sources and the same ones, approved by the early church at that, only helps reinforce that these are hand picked, revised versions of history.

Anything seriously damaging, such as a revision attempting to correct so many details, would be destroyed. And even if they were truly written "independently" (all current analysis suggests it's quite the opposite), it would just mean that they were different versions passed down by word of mouth, as is often the case before religious texts and other writings (like The Iliad) get written down, which obviously makes them unreliable.

Besides, if you're going the contradiction route, you end up having to apply the same approach to the rest of the NT and the OT. You can find plenty of contradictions there, as well as some very obvious different writing styles, meaning that they'd have to be human written accounts, rather than the direct word of god accounts. So then you're stuck with the same "we have no idea what's true in these, either" problem.

So from an independent, objective standpoint, these texts are no more reliable than any other holy text from other religions or even from within the same religion. I fully support your right to worship whichever religion you choose, but in all honestly, I think you're only showing favor toward Christianity because that's how you were raised, not because "logic and rationality" apply any more to it than other religions.

Oh, and I was dead wrong about II Thessalonians 2. The verse I was thinking of was actually I Thessalonians 4:15-16:

For the Lord himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

According to some translations it's "asleep" and others it's "dead." I don't know the source language, so I couldn't say which is more accurate, but I do know that some words in such languages will have dual, sometimes contextually unclear meanings. I suppose this could mean that the person isn't in the final heaven (whatever that is), but the person may still be stuck in some sort of Earthly purgatory (or as ghosts ~wooooOOOOOoooOO~) while in a death/asleep type state.

According to verse 14 (NIV): "We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him."

So what does it mean to be asleep or dead "in Jesus"? I think the lack of clarity in the chapter and the Bible's frequent use of metaphor makes any certain interpretation impossible. It could mean some sort of hibernation, some sort of purgatory within Jesus (in his boobies), or something else entirely. This type of uncertainty exists within all major religions, which is why you can never really come to the One, True Interpretation(TM). It's a lost cause.

Well, I think religion is a balance between logic and blind faith. At the end of the day, religion is fundamentally an illogical persuit of something "more" that you cannot see or detect. So yes, one does have to sacrifice some of their 20th Century rationalism to pursue a religion.

Did we stop being rational in the 21st? ;-P

The problem is that if you take this approach, it's kind of hard to criticize others for doing the same, when they happen to choose more faith than rationality than you do. The best you can do is take an approach that avoids harm to others, although even that's hard to do because of indirect harm by promoting the general religion.

So basically, you're sort of left at a very unorthodox and, yes, heretical place, where you say "the ideas are mostly right, but some basic ideas and most of the details are wrong." You're really starting a new religion where the only correct, consistent beliefs become basics like God creating the universe, Jesus coming and dying to save people, and God is omnipotent and benevolent, watching over people. Sort of a very barebones version of Christianity.

There's nothing wrong with using a very barebones version of Christianity, but you should be willing to admit to yourself and others that this is the case, and that it doesn't represent any other current interpretations and is one the most liberal interpretations of the Bible you can make (I've heard a few more extreme involving Jesus himself being metaphorical).

Religion is a sort of relationship with the divine (or in my case, a longing for a relationship that I haven't really found yet). When are relationships ever based on rational thought? By all rational logic, Romeo and Juliet should have stayed far away from each other. Relationships are emotional. People search for a spouse because they need one in their life, regardless of whether they've even met the person yet.

That would imply that God is being an ******* and you should probably break up, since he's not using his omnipotence to do anything to help you. When was the last time he called you?!?! Point proven... I don't think you can compare that to a romantic relationship.

Besides, there's nothing inherently irrational about a romantic relationship. You can pursue one without doing it at the cost of seriously ****ing up your life, like Romeo and Juliet did.

However, nitpicking over Scriptural interpretations has nothing to do with emotion. That's where the logic and rationale enter the picture. Scriptural study is an intellectual pursuit, not a spiritual one.

It does have to do with emotion when you're favoring one interpretation over another, in spite of the obvious lack of evidence supporting a specific interpretation of much of the Bible's chapters. Even more so when favoring one religion's text over another's. There's too much ambiguity, for a variety of reasons, to support more than a smaller minority of them having knowable, correct interpretations, especially given the liberal use of metaphor. If someone had tried applying this amount of conclusions based on such lack of evidence for non-religious, ancient historical texts, they'd be discredited as a historian.

[DarkWraith007]

\filler\

The 'other thread' dealing with this very topic was first created in 2006 and last posted in 2008. While posting in there *may* have been quite relevant, the general rules on MOST forum are against digging up 'old' threads.

While I'm posting here about a month after the post before this, I'm pretty sure its the 60-day rule for a thread to be considered 'old'. But on these forums I doubt that its limited to that timeframe, probably more like 90 days, meh. I checked the 'official forum rules' via that handy link in the blue bar at the top. It says nothing about posting in old threads.

However I found this interesting:

It is not recommended that any user post information that is personal to his or her life and it is not recommended that a user post seeking advice or aid for emotional scarring. A good web page for helping individuals with a troubling personal life is SelfGrowth.com.

I note that it says its not 'recommended' but not that its specifically disallowed. However being as this thread already exists, so be it.

/filler/

For my own personal views, I guess you could say they are a bit 'not quite mainstream', to put it mildly.

A person exists in their current physical form, so when they die (medically pronounced dead) then they have one of two fates.

If they were a good person then they are granted admission into Heaven and such.

Otherwise, they are stripped naked and given only a plain long white gown (like a hospital gown) and then unceremoniously pushed into a 'rift' in space/time which consists of a very large and dark 'endless hole' about 66 meters across.
You fall down, and as you fall down this hole you suffer searing pain and other such unpleasant business that I won't go into here.
By the time you reach the bottom you are a broken shell of yourself and your physical form is a mutated and twisted shadow of what it once was.
Now you are made to be bound to a demon and serve them as a slave for eternity.

Yeah, the particular part I was interested in was the 'long white gown' bit which seemed surprising to me when I had heard about that. My beliefs are a mishmash of various things, here and there. Not particular to any specific religion or such.

I do believe in one supreme being, your 'God' that you may be familiar with from the Bible/Quran/Torah, and they are indeed as all powerful and benevolent as they have been described and perhaps even moreso then we can possibly hope to realize. I find it a futile endeavor to even attempt to explain the actions or inactions of 'God' for we have no way of knowing all that 'God' knows about the infinite strands of space and time, all the dimensions and utter possibilities and impossibilities of the entirety of existence existing simultaneously within dozens of time periods....yeah. 'God' knows all, and for a good reason. We should just sit back and enjoy the ride. ^^;

Fin.