Paz on 29/1/2004 at 02:51
I think we all know what this thread needs.
<a href="http://www.thetruthforyouth.com/images/comics/evolution/evolution.html">Hold it, Gospel Girl! This is a
SCIENCE CLASS not a
CHURCH SERVICE!</a>
Muzman on 29/1/2004 at 03:41
The really disapointing thing is that, once again there are three or four different brands of 'Christianity' present, some of which even going to some lengths to be exclusive and rating who's in and who's out, and still they refuse to fight.
Maybe if the rest of us bugger off we'll get the real show.
Shug on 29/1/2004 at 03:44
It might just be me, but even if there are "holes" in the theory that we have evolved to where we are today from ape-like beings, it still seems entirely more plausible than God creating the world in 7 days. Who recorded that, anyway? Who was THERE to know that God did it, other than He Himself? That's one huge stumbling block for me. The Bible is really no more than a manual of knowledge on life and spirituality written for people of that time. The fact that so many people are still searching for the meaning of life today is what makes it so popular still. That's fine; it's possible that there's a huge entity behind it all but please, don't try and tell me he created everything in 7 days.
I've spoken to some pretty high-level Bible scholars that told me the authors of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) weren't even individual people. Another thing they told me about the Bible: it's like any 'high-powered' text. Just like with a manual on advanced programming, you need some experience and knowledge to digest the information you're getting out of it. That's why when fundamentalists jump in and LITERALLY interpret the stories, they are mis-using the text. Essentially, these fellas said that God creating the world in 7 days was quite a laughable concept; it was simply a story, like the Aboriginal Dream-Time with giant serpents, that simplified things for people.
Think about it... if the Bible was really some kind of direct Word of God, why would it be so confusing and contradictory in places? When people quote passages of the Bible, they're just as likely to be quoting the opinion of a long-dead Bible contributor than some kind of Divine Authority.
Also, Zacc: why is it not possible that the flood of Noah's Ark was just a flood of the "known" world? The story was written by real people, so how could they possibly know that the entire world was underwater? The Bible is certainly no stranger to exaggeration.
Wyclef on 29/1/2004 at 04:03
Quote:
Originally posted by John D. No problem with that. I think the more open and honest scientific inquiry is, the more we'll find out God's account of creation is the true one.
Is that to say it isn't? Generally, or just in this area where your religious beliefs happen to conflict with consensus?
Creation "science" is the Lysenkoism of our time.
fett on 29/1/2004 at 05:10
I too will refrain from wandering into the creation/evolution thing, but I do have a word on the divinity of Jesus.
Assuming you believe the NT accounts of Jesus' teachings and claims, even a remedial understanding of OT Jewish culture and religion will bring you to the conclusion that He did in fact claim to be God, and his contemporaries fully understood that He was making that claim.
In the gospel of John, Jesus refers to Himself as 'I Am' at least 7 times ("I Am the light of the world, I Am the way, truth, life, etc.). Check your Greek and you'll find that the phrase 'I AM' that He's using in those passages is the direct Greek or Aramaic equivilant of the OT Hebrew phrase 'YHWH' (Yahweh/Jehovah) - the covenant name that God used in relation to the nation of Israel. Jesus knew exactly what He was claiming - diety, equality with God in nature, purpose, being, etc.
His enemies understood this full well - they often tore thier clothes and picked up rocks to stone Him - the classic response to blasphemy among 1st century Jews.
The idea of a 'God-man' isn't something 'made up' by Paul - Micah looked forward to such a union centuries earlier when he said, "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.”
Though there were many theories during the first century concerning the identity of the Messiah (i.e. two separate individuals, an angel, etc.) many in the sect of the Pharisees promoted the idea of a 'God-man' who would act as a proto-typical 'Kinsman Redeemer.' If Mesheach was to be a Kinsman, he'd have to be human, if we were to fully redeem, he'd have to be divine and sinless - hence the theory of a 'God-man.' Unfortunately, many who held that theory expected a polictical-military leader, and conveniently forgot about the prophecies concerning the suffering and death of the Messiah. The 'two-messiah' idea was partly right - except it was to be one Messiah, two seperate appearances (1st as the suffering servant, 2nd as the conquering king).
Shug: no offense, but this statement:
Quote:
if the Bible was really some kind of direct Word of God, why would it be so confusing and contradictory in places?
is a little broad. I've spent most of the last six years of my life studying this book - as a believer and as a skeptic - and it's not confusing in the least to anyone willing to spend the time getting a grip on the languages and cultures. Architectural blueprints are difficult to understand unless you learn how to read them.
The arguement that God should have made it easy to understand is fair - and I think it's
very easy to understand the essential elements of the big ideas - sin, grace, judgement, forgiveness, etc. The other stuff is there for diligent students. That's what makes it such an interesting book - a child can understand the basic concepts, yet scholars can spend a lifetime trying to peel back all the layers and never exhaust the text. Jesus was purposely vague at times to disuade those who were seeking another religious fad - the ones who were serious kept digging.
Most of the 'popular' contradictions turn out to be simple misunderstanding of context, but I've found the
actual contradictions to be a disturbing testament to the validity of the idea that the book is somehow supernaturally engineered or designed. I've followed a few of the contradictions to thier conclusion and most seem almost purposeful, because they lead to larger paradoxial truths.
I'm not trying to convince anyone that they should take anything at face value, but I used to be a skeptic until I started digging around - and I
do know that there is much more to the Bible than meets the eye. Unfortunately, most people don't have the interest or time to really dig in and see what I'm talking about. But believe me if you do - whether you're a 'spiritual' person or not, there's quite a few things that will disturb your pre-conceived notions about the book.
-ô_ô- on 29/1/2004 at 05:21
Not having read the bible, all I can do is speculate. Nevertheless, here is my halfassed theory.
Creation myth says God created everything but not how. The lack of an explanation gives literal minded followers the simple and easy idea of a magical event. *Poof* and there's Adam. The human authors of the bible are defended by the notion that God would not have allowed them to make mistakes, which makes sense. But there's no reason to think they were given the whole story, only what collective human knowledge could understand at the time. If God's message had been about the big bang, quarks, DNA and so on the apostles wouldn't have understood a fucking word of it.
Creationism irritates me because it looks at the bible as the final word of God. If there actually is a second coming of Christ I have no doubt he'd tell you guys to stop being so damn thickheaded.
Jenesis on 29/1/2004 at 08:37
Quote:
Originally posted by *Zaccheus* Jenesis, I always took "must be more righteous than the Pharisees" to mean that we will
never be good enough to get to heaven on our own merrit, hence the cross.
I may post more when I have time to read through the thread. However...
Jesus can't be talking about the cross here, because He hasn't mentioned it yet. He's only just started preaching and gathering disciples in Chapter 4. The cross doesn't show up, even in the context of Jesus speaking about it, for some time. What the disciples would have got out of this would have been about living their lives. Jesus then contrasts the Pharisees, who had so many rules for living that they looked righteous, but in fact were merely exploiting every loophole going, with how the disciples were to live. The Pharisees were trying to reduce the Law as far as possible, but we are to maximise its implications. The Pharisees were seeing how close to the line they could get before they sinned, Jesus taught that there is
no line. The following verses, (
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Matthew+5&version=NIV) 21 and onwards, are all about how to go about being more righteous than the Pharisees - don't just think in terms of killing being evil, but of hating someone and wanting to kill them. Or hating them at all. And so on.
Otherwise you end up with this tiny bit of text about the cross, and then Jesus diving off to talk about murder and adultery. But if Jesus really
is talking about living more righteously than the Pharisees, then the passage is a lot more coherent and flowing.
scumble on 29/1/2004 at 08:55
See, it's simple really!
;)
Seriously, it seems more simple to me to view the Bible as a book which contains various thoughts about life, stories written down that reflect the culture of Palestine 2000 years ago. That's why it makes some sense if you get the hang of the ancient style, but stories like Genesis, that appear to claim snakes eat dust, plants grew before there was sunlight, just point to the fact that they knew a lot less than we do.
Without a given faith in God, that's all you've got. The faith bit guarantees the arguments over the finer points of the Bible get nowhere between believers and non-believers. All of the rationalisation in theology just looks like a comfort for people for whom faith isn't really enough, and need to feel like they are not entirely irrational, and there's enough good stuff in the Bible to explain why intelligent people are so attached to it.
This is the way it looks like to me. Maybe that's a general thing that atheists see, but anyway, many of the faithful (not necessarily everyone here) seem to have trouble understanding atheists, and even try to reason atheists out of existence, trying to make out we've "turned our back on God".
Essentially, understanding the fundamental mental difference between the two camps is more valuable that arguing about the Bible, as far as I'm concerned. Especially when you start to consider why persecution happens for religious reasons, or otherwise. At base, religion appears to have little to do with it. It's just been a readily available excuse for the assholes of history.
this ramble was brought to you by a bored atheist at work
SD on 29/1/2004 at 13:00
Quote:
Originally posted by *Zaccheus* Becoming a Christian fundamentally involves God saying "Hey - guess what ... it's true!"
God talks to me too... last time he told me to take my cock out and shove it in a blender, he has a sick sense of humour...
But you know, you can get (
http://pharma-help.com/antipsychotic-and-neuroleptic-drugs) medication for that sort of thing these days
StD
fett on 29/1/2004 at 14:23
Quote:
All of the rationalisation in theology just looks like a comfort for people for whom faith isn't really enough, and need to feel like they are not entirely irrational
I don't know scumble - I've been studying it as an honest skeptic for six years now, and most of time I'm finding that when understood in context, it takes very little pre-supposed theology or rationalization to make sense of it.
Most people approach Genesis without considering that it could have any relation to quantum. Most physicists today have no problem with the idea that the same series of events can take place over two completely different lengths of time, depending on your angle of observation (i.e. there's no problem with millions of years and 7 days - they are probably both true, when viewed from a quantum point of view). I'm just trying to point out that I've yet to have to 'twist' the Bible or theology to make sense out of the book - my misunderstandings typically have to do with my tendency to divorce the Bible from modern science, philosophy, and it's own context.
For me, the jury is still out, but so far, I've been very surprised, and not a little disturbed at some of what I've found there. Faith has almost nothing to do with this for me, because I've been that route and I couldn't do it. On the other hand, it's hard
not to believe when you start discovering things that simply can't be coincidence or conspiracy.
For instance, there's no question the Jews as a whole rejected the idea of Jesus as thier prophesied Messiah, and were the primary authors of the OT. So far I have found in the OT:
- over 200 prophesies that specifically spell out the events of Jesus life - everything from birthplace, to method of questioning at his trial, amount of money paid to his betrayer (to the penny), the
exact day of his recognition as king in Jerusalem, etc.
Sure - some of these things could have been orchestrated on his end - but not the time and place of his birth, the method of his execution (described in detail centuries before the Romans or the invention of death by a cross).
- over 20 figurative models of his death, burial, resurrection, ascension, relationship between the Jews and the Gentile church, the 'rapture,' a tribulation period, the 'Holy Spirit' etc. All in the Jewish OT - why would Rabbi's insert these into thier venerated Torah if they didn't believe he was the Messiah? These models absolutely conform to the life and teaching of Christ -even down to the place names and time periods.
- 6 genealogies whose names translate to outline the core message of Jesus' teaching - again - why in the Jewish scripture, hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus?
The point being that by all appearances, the book, though obviously written by over 30 people in three different languages, over thousands of years, seems to be integrated and 'engineered' in such a way as to present a singlular message. To find that many authors agreeing on such wide varieties of subjects is almost impossible without some type of supernatural explaination.
I could go on and on, but these things have certainly given me pause - I can no longer reject the book out of hand as a collection of fables and quasi-historic anecdotes. It's making me look harder at the parts that seem ridiculous at first glance because there's obviously something more sophisticated going on under the surface.
