OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
i don't think the world will ever change. at his core, man is the same now, as man has always been. imo, we are what we are. we are tribal by nature, and while we have a capacity to love, we have a propensity to hate. we have formed a complex social system around us, instilling values and whatnot, but at best, all these do is suppress our natural desires, while never overcoming them. in a way, all they've taught us to do is to hide from them, rather than acknowledge them.

I believe there's been a long-time forming fork in humanity; those who are evolving towards a higher sense of self, and those who simply are primitive as you're describing. I think one of humanity's greatest failures, particularly those on the stagnant side of the fork, is refusing to see each and every human being as unique individuals with their own sense of self - whatever that may be. And in our defining behaviors of others, we're enabling the continuity of this fork I believe in.

OFFLINE

Learning more facts isn't an aspect of evolution; it's merely feeding the human ego.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by David Macleod:

Originally Posted by Argan Johnson:

Originally Posted by David Macleod:
(1)You can't really confine what or who God is to the Biblical sense. One must consider all religions opinions and theories of God to gain a proper base from which to start.

As far as God being the trinity we should remember that the Bible was written using metaphors so the people at the time could understand what they were being told. (2)It's also important to remember that there is no single unified interpretation of the Bible or the Koran so that makes the task of deciphering God all the more difficult.

(3)IMO God is whatever we as individuals choose to make God. Or in the case of atheists and agnostics what we don't make God.

1. Why? Why must one consider all religions? Why are all religions equal?

2. Wait, so the clear intention of the author(s) is irrelevant, but a "unified" interpretation is what is relevant? Unity by the readers is what determines authority? I hate to break your heart but if I write: 2+2 = 4 I do not get unanamous agreement, so why should I expect something so much more complex--like the Bible--to have a unified agreement?

3. Three problems with this: First, how do you know reality really exists? If each person makes their own ultimate creator (aka god) then how do we know reality even exists? This is called the ontological problem. Second, if each person makes their own ultimate creator do we have an ability to know that we know? How can we trust our thoughts and memories? This is called the epistimological problem. Third and final, all you are saying is that defining any characteristics of God is circular logic (i.e. people define their god then their god defines them).

Your argument is Neitzchiean, it is assuming human willpower determines the world because each person makes their god. I.e. there is no powerful supernatural force acting in the world.

(A)Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. I at no point said the 'authors' interpretation was irrelevant. (B)It is however a known fact that anything in the Bible (not including the Old Testament) has been rewritten by the Catholic Church. Also that the Bible was written many years after Christ died so cannot be taken as gospel lol.

(C)Oh don't worry about breaking my heart - it's much stronger than that. Let me explain what I mean by a single interpretation. The Christian Church as with nearly every other religion has splintered into different groups/denominations. Therefore each group interprets the Bible in a different way. So in order to try and understand what this thing we call God you should not only consider it from the point of view of the Protestant Church but from all denominations/ religions points of view. That way you get the fullest picture possible of what God is.

(D) In a way we each define what God is. Our individual relationship with God is just that - individual. Therefore we each interpret God in an individual way. That does not mean that we define who God is and that in turn God defines us. I personally talk to God/the universe on a nearly daily basis. Religious people would call that prayer but I call it talking. I don not have a definition of what God is. I don't even know if God exists. I don't believe in God as a physical being and am not sure if God is a spiritual entity or the universe at large. That is one of the great mysteries of life. I am defined by my actions, opinions and thoughts. These can change from day to day so does that mean that God changes also? I have no idea. I very much doubt that anyone does. I would like to think that when I die I will find out what it's all about.

(E) I don not assume that human willpower makes the world. I also strongly believe in the supernatural. Is it possible for a person to shape their own life using willpower? Each person can make their own interpretation of God just the same as we can interpret a poem differently from one another. It doesn't mean that you are right and I am wrong because God is a very personal thing to us. I know that flies in the face of some of what I have said regarding understanding God but God is perhaps the greatest mystery in the universe and understanding God is perhaps not possible in this life.

(F) God it is said will forgive us if we ask for forgiveness - to forgive is devine - so in order to understand (or at least step closer to understanding) mustn't we also learn to forgive as God forgives?

(A) Your initial argument was about interpretation, and that interpretation trumps the author's intent because we need "consensus" to determine anything. I am not putting words in your mouth but showing what was implied.

(B) The early Catholic Church corrupting the Bible is pretty easy to disprove, here are some basics: we have many Greek manuscripts pre-400 AD, thus pre-Catholic Church (so we can short-circut any Catholic corruption). The Catholic Church said that Jerome's Latin translation of the Bible was the true Word of God, so it did not tinker with the Greek Manuscripts; nor did it tinker with the Latin and that is why Catholic mass was in Latin until the 1960s. Also, the Easter Orthodox church was what kept the Greek manuscripts alive, so you need to go after Eastern Orthodox, not Roman Catholics. On top of that if Catholics rewrote the Bible why did the following happen: There is no real support for Papal Authority; Martin Luther would not have had any grounds for the Reformation; the Woman Who Rides the Beast in Revelation 17 (a whorish and evil character) can be argued to be the Catholic Church, if Catholics rewrote the Bible why didn't they scrub this character? Note, I am not saying the Woman Who Ride the Beast is the Catholic Church.

So I flatly reject that the Old or New Testament were tampered with in any significant deliberate way that limits our understanding today.

(C) Again, why is a pluralistic view better than one? Why is Truth (and it deserves a capital 'T' only found in slivers from different perspectives? And finally, what is our arbitrator for finding Truth in a pluralistic context? I.e. how does a unitarian viewpoint create intellectual authority?

(D) Okay I partially agree with you. Each of use individually choose what our relationship with God is, however that is a far cry from saying there is no God and that it is a figment of our imagination (which you imply by saying each makes our own God). Let me use an analogy, lets say there is a fist-sized rock. You say the rock does not really exist and each person makes their own rock. I would say each person might interact with this rock differently; but it is still a rock and it actually exists in a very specific way.

(E) This is gnosticism and post-modernism. Blah.

(F) The Bible does say that, and it said God forgave us because is One and Only Son took everyone's place (i.e. unlimited attonement althought not everyone is saved) for the punishment each person deserves. I.e. God forgives for a very specific reason (the crucifixion), and that was proven to be enough (the ressurection); and I need to forgive others for that same specific reason (the crucifixion) and the know that was good enough (the ressurection). Again (correct me if I am putting words in your mouth) I think you are using the word "forgive" in the modern emotional way; the Bibilcal meaning for "forgive" is very concrete and a "die to self" way. I think you are encountering the same problem with "forgiveness" that most people do when they hear "love" in the Bible.

--------------------------

I need to add something, your criticisms against having a sola scriptura paradigm are valid if I do not state why I consider the Bible to be the total and accurate Message from God. Basically all of my arguments in this thread are guilty of putting the cart before the horse. Many of the members are holdovers from a similar group in Myspace where I had a long thread on this; so I apologize for making the wrong assumption you saw my thread from before.

OFFLINE

God is based on the pagan god Zeus, as are many elements of the brand of religion called Christianity.

I don't believe in god, not in the sense that he looks like us. I don't think many intelligent people do these days, not even priests. Certainly none I've met anyway (most think the old testament is a load of metaphors rather than word for word truth and that the earth is actually millions of years old, again, I've yet to meet anyone who thinks otherwise outside of the old myspace forum).

In short, taking every word in the bible literally is, in my view, backward.

Miss me everyone?

OFFLINE

Damn right we did Lee.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
as someone who feels that we can't even fully comprehend the exact nature of god, i don't think he/she/it is an old man with a beard chilling out in the clouds. the bible however, says that we are created in his image. this seemingly leads to a paradox. but what if the manner in which we are fashioned after god, is our free will? basically, our ability to choose. it is our sentience which separates us from all the other beasts of this world.

what do you think?

Actually Dod, if God is the all knowing being the Bible says he is, then he knows everything that was, is, and ever will be.

That means that at the beginning of creation he knew that I was gonna be born and he knew everything that I was gonna decide to do. That is the actual definition of fate and fate means there is no true free will.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
as someone who feels that we can't even fully comprehend the exact nature of god, i don't think he/she/it is an old man with a beard chilling out in the clouds. the bible however, says that we are created in his image. this seemingly leads to a paradox. but what if the manner in which we are fashioned after god, is our free will? basically, our ability to choose. it is our sentience which separates us from all the other beasts of this world.

what do you think?

Actually Dod, if God is the all knowing being the Bible says he is, then he knows everything that was, is, and ever will be.

That means that at the beginning of creation he knew that I was gonna be born and he knew everything that I was gonna decide to do. That is the actual definition of fate and fate means there is no true free will.

But since we cannot predict what the fate will be in the future then to us it still sort of feels like free will. I guess it's the feeling that matters to us most.