Paz on 30/1/2004 at 06:51
When I was listening to my spangly new Cure b-sides box-set last night, I was pretty sure I heard God. I think it was during Mr. Pink Eyes.
Does my claim have any more or less validity than others of this nature?
If not, why not?
Convict on 30/1/2004 at 08:18
Udasai I think that the 'intolerance' of which you speak is due to the monotheistic nature of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These 3 religions will be *intolerant* for as long as they exist precisely because of their doctrine.
PS I may be wrong here but I think I've heard something about how the pagans hated the Christians because they thought they were atheists because they refused to worship other gods.
Retischal on 30/1/2004 at 08:45
Quote:
Originally posted by Paz When I was listening to my spangly new Cure b-sides box-set last night, I was pretty sure I heard God. I think it was during
Mr. Pink Eyes.
Does my claim have any more or less validity than others of this nature?
If not, why not?
How can a man decide if he has heard God? Imagine if you saw a 'real-live' angel tomorrow, who came with a message, what would your response be?
How would you be able to tell that it was not just a hallucination or an extreme symptom of mental illness or a single moment of brain malfunction?
If you CHOOSE to believe how can you tell it is from God, and not the devil trying to mislead you?
In the end, it is YOUR CHOICE to decide how to interpret it. And there would be absolutely NO way of determining that it was a real godly message. Some of you would argue that you could see if it tied in with the Bible, but that is a chicken and the egg situation. You would need to believe that the contents of the Bible are the result of Divine Inspiration, but the people who wrote the Bible were human too, and had to make their own decision. There is no way to escape this burden of responsibility to decide.
scumble on 30/1/2004 at 09:21
Bloody hell.
A note for
fett:
There was no need to overreact, I may not have expressed my thoughts terribly well. I was trying to summarise what (
http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/vitae/thomas_l_thompson.htm) Thomas L. Thompson thought about the whole thing.
The Bible in History, for which there is a review (
http://dannyreviews.com/h/Bible_History.html) here, outlines his research into the Bible's connection with history.
It was him who said that the Dead Sea Scrolls represent the first whole incarnation of the OT. He didn't leave out the fact that other texts confirm the text of the Bible, a lot of them very old.
The key argument, which I try to get people to understand, I think
Agent Monkeysee knows where I'm coming from, is that when texts are confirmed by other texts, all it confirms is a literary tradition, not actual history. Only a small amount of the Bible can be said to be partly reflecting actual history, as far as I know. Archaeology doesn't help in confirming dailogue though. Just because real places are referred to, it doesn't mean that the people in the stories actually existed.
Until you understand the problem with texts, we won't be on the same page (oh dear).
*Zaccheus* on 30/1/2004 at 12:13
Retischal, Paul had a face-to-face encounter with Jesus on the Damascus road (recorded in the 'book of acts' in the bible - btw Paul was still called Saul back then). Paul instantly knew he was talking to a person of authority, and once that person had identified himself, Paul had no doubt that it was indeed Jesus. It's not something you can explain. You just 'know'. Once you 'know', it's your choice if you want to 'join the party' or not. For me it was not a difficult choice to make.
Paz, your claim has just as much validity as others of this nature. Paul claimed to have heard from God while he was still on his way to Damascus planing to kill christians. If that claim was valid, I see no reason why your's should not be.
As I said above, I would judge it on what was actually said and what the impact on your life is.
scumble, I think what you are saying is that there is a difference between finding out what a text originally said, and finding out if those statememts are true.
GayleSaver, it's not my fault if orthodox jews despise and reject messianic jews. I guess it's understandable, but I think it's a shame, because it makes it slightly more difficult for the messianic jews to maintain their jewish culture. To me it's as if irish catholics said you can't be an irish protestant.
Retischal on 30/1/2004 at 12:42
Quote:
Originally posted by *Zaccheus* . It's not something you can explain. You just 'know'. Once you 'know', it's your choice if you want to 'join the party' or not. For me it was not a difficult choice to make.
I can see that you speak from a position of unshakeable faith. BTW I'm not trying to convince you that God doesn't exist, just point out that people CHOOSE to believe that they 'know'. Ie. Having faith.
Personally I see that an interest in the general Christian ethic as being seperate from Belief in Jesus and God. Many Christians proclaim that BELIEVING in Jesus is what seperates 'the saved' from everyone else. That is crazy, since it excludes people who can't believe is such a thing even if they accept that the moral creed is worthwhile. If there were a just God, why would he reject the skeptical. However, this suits the means of almost all religions, which is to assimilate as many people as possible into their creed. And an emphasis on faith promotes belief in the religion, otherwise it would be merely the teachings of a wiseman.
*Zaccheus* on 30/1/2004 at 13:11
You don't 'choose' to know something. That's not 'knowing'.
Regarding the need for faith: Like I've said before, becoming a christian is a bit like heading for the life boats when you are on a sinking ship. You first need to know that the ship is sinking, you then need to choose to make your way to the life boats, and you also have to trust that those life boats are safe enough to make getting into them worth while.
God does not reject the sceptical. Anyone who is seriously interested can be given whatever 'sign' they need to understand that the bible is true. For Thomans (who was very sceptical) it was seeing Jesus' wounds after the resurrection. For me it was something else. And boy I was sceptical.
fett on 30/1/2004 at 13:44
Quote:
when texts are confirmed by other texts, all it confirms is a literary tradition, not actual history.
Sorry scumble - you're exactly right about this - I misunderstood your point. Still and yet, the Septuagint pre-dates the DS Scrolls in terms of an OT cannon. The OT as we know it today was pretty much said and done before the Essenes left Jerusalem and started thier commune at Quamram, so I'm not sure what Thompson is getting at.
I'm not personally so concerned with the validation of the text from external sources, because, as you say, even that can't verify dialouge. My concern is for the mocking attitutde toward the Bible as a choronological history of Israel and reliable source for acrchaeology and ancient culture. The Bible has been proven true in those areas repeatedly without any other confirming texts, but by actual finds in the dirt.
Regardless of whether I sound like a conspiracy nut or not, I will continue to insist that the Bible is held in much lower regard than similiar documents whose track record is less reliable. Anyone who hasn't recognized that bias in every aspect of acadamia from the classroom to the archaeologist's spade is simply not paying attention. I'm not insisting it from the position of trying to convert anyone, or because I feel put upon. I knew it was true when I was an atheist, I knew it when I practiced Taoism, and it's no less true now that I've come to believe other aspects of the book. For me to pretend otherwise would be dishonest.
screech on 30/1/2004 at 14:23
Quote:
Originally posted by the_grip i should disclaimer that i surely can't define righteous anger absolutely since it would discredit what i'm said previously that we don't experience it. So this does contain some speculation, but i would say that it is possible to be angry without hating someone (at least a little bit for a few seconds, if not more).
simple. your kid drops food on an expensive rug. you could say that one is righteously angry. the problem in defining god's emotions along with him as ineffiable is that then discussion about god totally useless.
Quote:
But let's steer away from that because i think we're moving away from your original question. Consider God to be holy and perfect for argument's sake, 100% through and through. If someone violated that holiness or went against God in an evil manner, then would he not be just in being angry about it? However, it would be righteous because it would be right for him to defend that holiness. Does that make sense?
not to me. what does god need to defend? why be angry over the limitations of your own creation? take buddhism. the buddha had infinite compassion or so the text goes. he got beyond anger/passion etc, the general suasion of emotion. but the christian god got plenty petty in comparison and from the buddhist perspective is still subject to dukkha (dissatisfaction/suffering) and the wheel of existence (samsara). god has a ways to go.
but as far as your complaints about the bible goes. it's probably true that academia is biased.
the_grip on 30/1/2004 at 15:15
Quote:
One major thesis of his is that religious intolerance was essentially invented by the Jews, and subsequently spread and institutionalized by the Christians. The pagans usually respected other peoples' gods because, hey, a god is a god.
On an interesting side note, the persecution of early Christians initially was against "Hellenized" Jews who became Christians. If you look at the names, those with distinctly Hebrew names were left alone and ignored, but those with Greek names were killed (i.e. Stephen). There was a huge thing at the time about Hellenized Jews giving into the Roman rule, etc., and i think it's a pretty interesting point. Of course, after awhile it grew to include orthodox Jews who became Christians.
As to the whole "I heard God talk to me", Mel Gibson actually became a Christian this way. His new movie
The Passion (which comes out on Ash Wednesday) is essentially his testimony to the world, however, it's not done up in the cheesy traditional US Christian movie style (i.e. it's written for everyone). His only appearance in the movie is as one of the Roman centurions who nails Jesus to the cross. Anyways, he was headed up to the top of the Sears tower in Chicago to jump off about ten years ago, and he was converted on the way up. No one was there to talk to him, rather (if i understand it right), his heart was changed.
Anyways, just interesting side notes.
