I really ought not to get involved in these religious debates. I had to leave the last one (Some might say due to an act of the gods), and I don't really have the time to devote to another, but I'd like to raise just one question relating to the above:
What evidence do we have that many people didn't live to a (currently) acceptable standard of morality before the creation of the ten commandments, the bible, or any other religious text for that matter?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If people were living an acceptable standard of morality, why would there be a need for the ten commandments to be written? To rain on their parade? How can you know what is acceptable morally if htere is nothing to measure acceptable against? Suddenly everything is ok because there is nothing to say it is not ok. Which might work for some things, but it would slide out of control very quickly. That is just human nature. You remove the lines and suddenly people want to see just how far they can go before it is a problem...
<strong>If people were living an acceptable standard of morality, why would there be a need for the ten commandments to be written?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've always quite enjoyed our discussions on this stuff, NoahJ. You offer reasoned and intelligent discussion, even in the face of my crass hectoring. However - and please, if anyone else wants to point out my ignorance here, feel free - this is one of the most naïve views I've ever heard.
Okay, let me try again: Given what we know about early-ish history (I think Moses is thought to have lived around the 12th or 13th century BCE?), what evidence do we have that people weren't living to some currently acceptable moral standard, whether by design or nature?
So no religion. No holy texts. Where does your morality come from then? After all, teh ten commandments are not there anymore so all the thou shalt not's are gone. Where do you start? Who decides what is right and wrong? What is to say that they aare not basing it off of a religious belief and that they should be listened to? That would be illegal right? You cannot simply remove it. It is too deeply ingrained. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You know I'm not being serious.
I think people should step back and ask themselves the questions you just asked me. I can answer them. My morality comes from myself. Do I think it would be particularly nice to kill someone? No. Am I going to go carve that in stone and tell everyone else that isn't nice and kill them if they don't believe me? No.
I think religions attempt to teach morality, and that it is a genuine effort on their part. I respect that, and it's similar to what your parents teach you as a child... morality. I didn't grow up with religion forced upon me, but I'd say I'm a rathe rmoral person, and the ten commandments had nothing to do with it. But it all contradicts itself anyway when people go off on crusades and start killing people because they claim 'God said so', yet God already said we shouldn't kill. George Carlin did a good bit on this, and it went something like...
"Do you believe in God?"
"No."
<Bam, you're dead>
"Do you believe in God?"
"Yes"
"Do you believe in my God?"
"no"
<Bam, you're dead>
Sure, it doesn't happen that much anymore, but it doesn't take a lot of people to ruin a party, and I think this one has been ruined.
Religion is such an objective and opinionated thing that I don't really think it is worth arguing about. The sheer fact that this planet alone invented dozens of religions leads me to the 'ridiculousness' of it all. Surely they're not all true, so who is right? Which religion is the one true religion?
I've taken my share of theology classes, and I've studied more religions than you probably think I have. I still think it is an outdated way of explaining why we exist, and I think people feel a lot more comfortable with living if they can convince themselves that there is a God taking care of them, or that they will go to heaven. I wish I could believe that, because I'd probably feel a lot better about life in the grand scheme of things, but the agnostic side of me says, "Look, no one has presented you with any proof of this..."
In the end, the only real person it has to matter to is yourself. Again, it's such an opinionated conversation that to try and get any real answers out of this kind of discussion is an exercise in futility. You're free to believe in whatever you want, just don't try and make me believe in it if I don't want to.
I've always quite enjoyed our discussions on this stuff, NoahJ. You offer reasoned and intelligent discussion, even in the face of my crass hectoring. However - and please, if anyone else wants to point out my ignorance here, feel free - this is one of the most naïve views I've ever heard.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, so it was a bit simplistic. I was on my way out and decided to spit out a quick answer. I try not to do it, but sometimes they slip out.
[quote]<strong>Okay, let me try again: Given what we know about early-ish history (I think Moses is thought to have lived around the 12th or 13th century BCE?), what evidence do we have that people weren't living to some currently acceptable moral standard, whether by design or nature?</strong><hr></blockquote>
To be a bit more forthright, I don't know if I can answer your question to your satisfaction on this point. First of all, who is to define what was currently acceptable? The ten commandments were God's way of separating his people from the rest of the world. From my study it seems that God intended for all of Israel to be a nation of Priests to him. When they did not take that on like he wanted he then picked one clan (Levi's clan, thus now the Levites) to take on that role. But in answer to the question. The standard that was being lived by was not up to what God wanted, and he wanted them to know what his standard was, thus writing it in stone.
On an interesting side note. When Moses was up on the mountain receiving the commandments the people of Israel got bored and made an idol out of gold in the shape of a calf so they could worship it. So the day they got the rules saying no other gods, they had already broken the rule. Seems they needed that rule a few days sooner.
Never ceases to amaze me when people use George Carlin to make a point about religious topics.
As for the rest of your post. It was within the boundaries of the topic, no need to respond to all of it, unless you want me to. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd never actually responded to one of these religious discussions before. Thought I'd try it out. I don't mean any disrespect to your religious beliefs. They are your own, therefore they are your truth, much like mine are my own, and therefore my truth.... and then again, I guess that is my opinion. It's all so objective and relative...
Anyhow, yeah, you don't need to respond. I know what you'd say anyway, and you know what I would say back. We could probably carry on a direct conversation in our heads speaking accurately on each other's behalf regarding this entire topic based solely upon the limited knowledge we have about each other.
Let's never fight again </strong><hr></blockquote>
Awwww! Isn't that sweet!
You are probably right though, an online forum is not really a place to change peoples minds, it is more of a place to let your opinions be known, and to hear other peoples side of the arguments as well. Even if I were there face to face with you I would not force my opinions on you, but I would lay them out as best I could. Which I hope I am doing now, for the most part...
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>
I'm so glad you can point out things you don't like about my post but how about you try to actually respond to it next time?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I try my best to avoid flamebait. However, sometimes I reply just to try to understand the motives. Maybe I should just ignore them, but I am very curious. You do not answer my questions, and yours are more bashing than actual inquiries, so I see no actual queries to answer here. You have made your opinion, and motive clear here. It seems you wish for me to shut up and go away. I won't and it bothers you, I don't know why. Am I missing something? Can you state a question without calling me stupid, weak minded, intolerant, bigoted,or any other number of hateful words in your vocabulary. If not, lets shake hands and part ways.
You are probably right though, an online forum is not really a place to change peoples minds, it is more of a place to let your opinions be known, and to hear other peoples side of the arguments as well. Even if I were there face to face with you I would not force my opinions on you, but I would lay them out as best I could. Which I hope I am doing now, for the most part...</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are, and you're doing a good job, especially with responding to everyone. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I don't find what you have to say intriguing. I don't look at these threads and think everyone else is dumb because I have the answer to the ultimate question and they don't. I really don't know who is right, but rather than remaining ignorant to it all, I like to hear what other people believe, even if it doesn't always show Religion has actually been one of the driving points of my artwork (drawings and paintings) over the past two years...
I'd just finished watching a George Carlin show on HBO last night, so I was in a bit of a mood
NoahJ, I strongly recommend reading a book called The Geneology Of Morals by that there Nietszche fellow. And then ead all of his other books as well.
A problem with religious discussion (besides religion) is that those who instigate them tend to want merely to have a sense of solidity through opposition; to hear themselves re-affirm their 'belief', . . . there are probably some real psychological factors that are at play and are the same with all of us when we pontificate, such as, we are making an appeal to our own projections of what is wanted of us . . . in other words, we are trying to 'please' the idea of the objective 'other' that we project as our judge. Religious people do this and don't make any pretensions to having that objective judgement come from anything like an idea of Reason, or "common sense" but usually from the easiest of parental metaphors, a 'father' of everthing.
The problem is is that it is a projecton that stems from (as Matsu said) fear, and because it is purported to be essentially about the utmost of all possible utmosts: the most important importance, this makes it easy for the religiouse to dismiss all other perspectives as wrong and trivial. Religious people think that others simply don't see how absolutely vast the issue of their belief is: how all encompasing it is.
But truly, it is most likely that someone's imagination is slave to a black iron prison of limitation . . .one that says: "don't think that doubt , not even that thought, its the utmost importance: more important than all important things that you don't think that thought . . . because I told you so" well, really this book that your parents gave you says so.
Its interesting to note that early christianity thought that the faculty of the imagination was evil. It's not surprising considering the absolute destitute state of imagination in most christianity. . . in fact its anti imaginative.
(also, just a note, anti-christianity, such as luciferianism and satanism and goth etc, is all really the very same thinking and spirit ans christianity . . .we sure wouldn't have those dark brooders without it)
as far as answering your question of where should religion come from: from nowhere, it shouldn't come at all: rather what we should have is a Buddhist like concern for sentients and contemplation, and, a creative questioning of Being coupled with the blissfull acceptance of (not merely acceptance but reveling in) all things... revelling in the awesome wonder that Being is should replace the pale tremblings of fearfull and spasmatic religions: amor fati love your fate, love the gift from itself, of Being.
<strong>Ok, so it was a bit simplistic. I was on my way out and decided to spit out a quick answer. I try not to do it, but sometimes they slip out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well... forgiven, I guess. Kind of glad I didn't write that two-page rant on circular faith, though.
[quote]<strong>First of all, who is to define what was currently acceptable?<hr></blockquote></strong>
Sorry, I meant what evidence do we have that people weren't living to a moral standard acceptable to you. I assume you find the ten commandments acceptable? Ignore the first four, though, they're not moral standards.
[quote]<strong>The ten commandments were God's way of separating his people from the rest of the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I thought the generally perceived notion was that we were all his people?
[quote]<strong>From my study it seems that God intended for all of Israel to be a nation of Priests to him. When they did not take that on like he wanted he then picked one clan (Levi's clan, thus now the Levites) to take on that role. But in answer to the question. The standard that was being lived by was not up to what God wanted, and he wanted them to know what his standard was, thus writing it in stone.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But, ignoring the first four again, we have good evidence that the ancient Egyptians were living to the other standards almost two millennium before Moses' ascent.
[quote]<strong>On an interesting side note. When Moses was up on the mountain receiving the commandments the people of Israel got bored and made an idol out of gold in the shape of a calf so they could worship it. So the day they got the rules saying no other gods, they had already broken the rule. Seems they needed that rule a few days sooner.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
See, this is different. It's a rule, as you say, not a standard of morals. It's a requirement of acceptance.
Since I am not a huge historian i cannot answer many of your questions to your satisfaction. I will however answer a couple of them.
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>I thought the generally perceived notion was that we were all his people?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is the NT notion. Before then God is shown as wholly invested in Israel as "His People". It is not until Jesus comes on the scene that this is opened up to the entire world, Jews and Gentiles alike.
<strong> [quote]See, this is different. It's a rule, as you say, not a standard of morals. It's a requirement of acceptance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see what your point is, and the answer is, I don't have the evidence you seek avaialable to me right now.
I would just like to point out again the obviouse fact that the religiously inclined like to see themselves 'do the right thing' . . . which accounts for the tenacity in their myopia
in other words: why NoahJ likes to respond "as if" he were open minded while really merely having an opportunity to see more of his supposedly 'righteous' words in print
<strong>That is the NT notion. Before then God is shown as wholly invested in Israel as "His People". It is not until Jesus comes on the scene that this is opened up to the entire world, Jews and Gentiles alike.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It does seem more than a little strange that a god should invest solely in one people (Is that semantically correct? ). I can understand people investing in one god, but the reverse seems odd. I don't think I like the thought of an omnipotent entity that acts in such a manner.
Not really the place for the discussion, but if this is the case, he really needs to get his ass back to Israel now.
[quote]<strong>I see what your point is, and the answer is, I don't have the evidence you seek avaialable to me right now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't worry about it. I wasn't really looking for a specific answer, just opening up a line of discussion.
From what I've read of history (Both early and recent), in the context of the ten commandments and what they define, there doesn't seem to have been a huge change in humanity since God accidently dropped that stone tablet on Moses' big toe (Thereby making him almost break the second commandment within seconds of receiving it).
I feel the Bible is nothing more than a book of fables, a guideline as to how man should endeavor to live. What I find so outlandish is how people could believe in a god who purposely, according to myth, bore a son in a virgin woman only to set him on a path that he knowingly would lead to a horrible death and then expects all mankind to exhault his name as a kind and loving god. Is it just me or is somwthing wrong with this picture? Also Thou shalt not kill is a major commandment yet, the Bible is repleat with killing in god's name..like this makes it the ok exception. He also apparently has a bad temper ...Sodom & Gammora (sp), the flooding of the earth, etc. This is not what I choose to believe. I feel that we should respect all living things and work to harmonize man and nature together. Kind of sappy I know, but this is my deep seated feeling about the world. The contradictions in the good book leave a lot open for interprtation and this is where most problems start. What one thinks a particular passage means, could hold a different meaning for someone else.
<strong>I would just like to point out again the obviouse fact that the religiously inclined like to see themselves 'do the right thing' . . . which accounts for the tenacity in their myopia
in other words: why NoahJ likes to respond "as if" he were open minded while really merely having an opportunity to see more of his supposedly 'righteous' words in print</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is a bit of a jaded viewpoint pfflam. I am open-minded to a certain extent. No, i will not buy just any argument thrown at me, but I am also aware that no one is capable of knowing everything, and there are going to be those who have more study that may know more about what I am posting on. My views are a bit myopic as i am limiting the scope of that which I am discussing, but if you see me as anything but willing to discuss different beliefs and such then let me know. I may be unwilling to go down certain paths, but I am usually open as to why that is so, and do not just shut the door with no reasoned explanation. For example, I will not entertain that Jesus Christ never existed. For obvious reasons in your mind and not so obvious reasons in my mind. I am open about it and not trying to hide it.
<strong>I feel the Bible is nothing more than a book of fables, a guideline as to how man should endeavor to live.</strong><hr></blockquote>
OK, so to bring that part on topic, do you feel that people should base their religious beliefs on it, or something else? If something else, what?
[quote]<strong>What I find so outlandish is how people could believe in a god who purposely, according to myth, bore a son in a virgin woman only to set him on a path that he knowingly would lead to a horrible death and then expects all mankind to exhault his name as a kind and loving god.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, you are taking it formt he view that God only wanted to have a son that he could have born thorugh a virgin, so that he could raise him up and kill him. Kinda like a sport or something. Let me put it in the way I see it and you can disagree if you like.
Up until the life, death, and subsequent resurrection of Jesus the only way for mankind to commune with God was through the sacrificial process of atonement. (This has been covered heavily by me already. Read up if you need more than this.) Jesus chose to come to Earth, he was not forced. Jesus chose to die on the cross. He was given multiple chances to not die, even by the Roman Pontius Pilate, who said he could find no fault in him and did not want to kill Jesus. He even tried multiple times to release him. Jesus did not defend himself but instead chose to allow himself to be killed. He chose to die, he chose to be the sacrifice, he was not forced by God or anyone to do it. God, however, accepted the sacrifice offered by Jesus, and form then on allowed for the complete forgiveness of sins for any who merely believed and accepted that the sacrifice was done for them. I am not seeing the bad here...
[quote]<strong>Is it just me or is somwthing wrong with this picture? </strong><hr></blockquote>
What is wrong with it?
[quote]<strong>Also Thou shalt not kill is a major commandment yet, the Bible is repleat with killing in god's name..like this makes it the ok exception. He also apparently has a bad temper ...Sodom & Gammora (sp), the flooding of the earth, etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
God's judgement being passed out. The killing in His name I will not get into as there are many instances and to cover them all would be too much for right now. However, the bad temper part is off base. Way off. Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed only after there could not be found even 10 righteous people in the whole city. Not 10. In whose opinion you may ask? Gods. It does not say exactly what all they were doing that was wrong, but it says specifically:
Genesis 19
13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.
This seems to show that there were terrible things that came out of these cities against all the people inthe surrounding areas and the people were calling for help from God. Eventually he could not ignore the problem any longer and cleaned house. Not even 10 worthy of saving could be found in the entire area.
The flood was a similar situation, only on a much larger scale. He did not arbitrarily decide it one day, it built up over a long period of time. And also, after the flood was done, God was so sad about it that He promised to never destroy the world by water again. So He knew what had to be done, and did it, but still He felt sadness over the deaths caused and made steps to prevent a similar judgement from happening again.
[quote]<strong>This is not what I choose to believe. I feel that we should respect all living things and work to harmonize man and nature together. Kind of sappy I know, but this is my deep seated feeling about the world. The contradictions in the good book leave a lot open for interprtation and this is where most problems start. What one thinks a particular passage means, could hold a different meaning for someone else.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Everyone says there are contradictions, and some provide evidence of their views, but most just spout it and have nothing to back up their claim. I have found nothing that contradicts so far, do you care to provide evidence of your own? In your interpretation it may seem to contradict, but usually I find that this is because you are limiting the scope of your interpretation too much and are not reading the passage in the context of the entire scriptures.
Elain Pagels, "The Origin of Satan" You desperately need to get some scholarly reading on Jesus, G-d, Pilate, the Romans, the Bible, etc etc. These little dogmas of yours are quite disturbing when you think about it. Why don't you just become a Jehova's Witness and be done with it.
Comments
<strong>NoahJ,
perhaps you should change your sig to, "Misery. Looking for company."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why, am I making you miserable?
<strong>
I really ought not to get involved in these religious debates. I had to leave the last one (Some might say due to an act of the gods), and I don't really have the time to devote to another, but I'd like to raise just one question relating to the above:
What evidence do we have that many people didn't live to a (currently) acceptable standard of morality before the creation of the ten commandments, the bible, or any other religious text for that matter?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If people were living an acceptable standard of morality, why would there be a need for the ten commandments to be written? To rain on their parade? How can you know what is acceptable morally if htere is nothing to measure acceptable against? Suddenly everything is ok because there is nothing to say it is not ok. Which might work for some things, but it would slide out of control very quickly. That is just human nature. You remove the lines and suddenly people want to see just how far they can go before it is a problem...
<strong>
A bit judgmental there. Lets pick out the finer points. People who follow the scriptures are:
- a bunch of insecure weak-minded people
- they have a holier than thou attitude
- they have to try to force it on everyone else, regardless if those innocent people wish to be violated in such a manner
- religion by definition breeds intolerance
- It's the most intolerant, bigoted crap on the planet
Do you stay up a night thinking up this stuff? Once more, I am the intolerant one and you are not?I'm so glad you can point out things you don't like about my post but how about you try to actually respond to it next time?
[ 04-30-2002: Message edited by: Exercise in Frivolity ]</p>
<strong>If people were living an acceptable standard of morality, why would there be a need for the ten commandments to be written?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've always quite enjoyed our discussions on this stuff, NoahJ. You offer reasoned and intelligent discussion, even in the face of my crass hectoring. However - and please, if anyone else wants to point out my ignorance here, feel free - this is one of the most naïve views I've ever heard.
Okay, let me try again: Given what we know about early-ish history (I think Moses is thought to have lived around the 12th or 13th century BCE?), what evidence do we have that people weren't living to some currently acceptable moral standard, whether by design or nature?
[ 04-30-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
<strong>
So no religion. No holy texts. Where does your morality come from then? After all, teh ten commandments are not there anymore so all the thou shalt not's are gone. Where do you start? Who decides what is right and wrong? What is to say that they aare not basing it off of a religious belief and that they should be listened to? That would be illegal right? You cannot simply remove it. It is too deeply ingrained. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You know I'm not being serious.
I think people should step back and ask themselves the questions you just asked me. I can answer them. My morality comes from myself. Do I think it would be particularly nice to kill someone? No. Am I going to go carve that in stone and tell everyone else that isn't nice and kill them if they don't believe me? No.
I think religions attempt to teach morality, and that it is a genuine effort on their part. I respect that, and it's similar to what your parents teach you as a child... morality. I didn't grow up with religion forced upon me, but I'd say I'm a rathe rmoral person, and the ten commandments had nothing to do with it. But it all contradicts itself anyway when people go off on crusades and start killing people because they claim 'God said so', yet God already said we shouldn't kill. George Carlin did a good bit on this, and it went something like...
"Do you believe in God?"
"No."
<Bam, you're dead>
"Do you believe in God?"
"Yes"
"Do you believe in my God?"
"no"
<Bam, you're dead>
Sure, it doesn't happen that much anymore, but it doesn't take a lot of people to ruin a party, and I think this one has been ruined.
Religion is such an objective and opinionated thing that I don't really think it is worth arguing about. The sheer fact that this planet alone invented dozens of religions leads me to the 'ridiculousness' of it all. Surely they're not all true, so who is right? Which religion is the one true religion?
I've taken my share of theology classes, and I've studied more religions than you probably think I have. I still think it is an outdated way of explaining why we exist, and I think people feel a lot more comfortable with living if they can convince themselves that there is a God taking care of them, or that they will go to heaven. I wish I could believe that, because I'd probably feel a lot better about life in the grand scheme of things, but the agnostic side of me says, "Look, no one has presented you with any proof of this..."
In the end, the only real person it has to matter to is yourself. Again, it's such an opinionated conversation that to try and get any real answers out of this kind of discussion is an exercise in futility. You're free to believe in whatever you want, just don't try and make me believe in it if I don't want to.
<strong>
I've always quite enjoyed our discussions on this stuff, NoahJ. You offer reasoned and intelligent discussion, even in the face of my crass hectoring. However - and please, if anyone else wants to point out my ignorance here, feel free - this is one of the most naïve views I've ever heard.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, so it was a bit simplistic.
[quote]<strong>Okay, let me try again: Given what we know about early-ish history (I think Moses is thought to have lived around the 12th or 13th century BCE?), what evidence do we have that people weren't living to some currently acceptable moral standard, whether by design or nature?</strong><hr></blockquote>
To be a bit more forthright, I don't know if I can answer your question to your satisfaction on this point. First of all, who is to define what was currently acceptable? The ten commandments were God's way of separating his people from the rest of the world. From my study it seems that God intended for all of Israel to be a nation of Priests to him. When they did not take that on like he wanted he then picked one clan (Levi's clan, thus now the Levites) to take on that role. But in answer to the question. The standard that was being lived by was not up to what God wanted, and he wanted them to know what his standard was, thus writing it in stone.
On an interesting side note. When Moses was up on the mountain receiving the commandments the people of Israel got bored and made an idol out of gold in the shape of a calf so they could worship it. So the day they got the rules saying no other gods, they had already broken the rule. Seems they needed that rule a few days sooner.
<strong>
You know I'm not being serious.
George Carlin did a good bit on this, and it went something like...
"Do you believe in God?"
"No."
<Bam, you're dead>
"Do you believe in God?"
"Yes"
"Do you believe in my God?"
"no"
<Bam, you're dead>
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Never ceases to amaze me when people use George Carlin to make a point about religious topics.
As for the rest of your post. It was within the boundaries of the topic, no need to respond to all of it, unless you want me to.
<strong>
Never ceases to amaze me when people use George Carlin to make a point about religious topics.
As for the rest of your post. It was within the boundaries of the topic, no need to respond to all of it, unless you want me to.
I'd never actually responded to one of these religious discussions before. Thought I'd try it out.
Anyhow, yeah, you don't need to respond. I know what you'd say anyway, and you know what I would say back. We could probably carry on a direct conversation in our heads speaking accurately on each other's behalf regarding this entire topic based solely upon the limited knowledge we have about each other.
*hugs*
Let's never fight again
<strong>*hugs*
Let's never fight again
Awwww! Isn't that sweet!
You are probably right though, an online forum is not really a place to change peoples minds, it is more of a place to let your opinions be known, and to hear other peoples side of the arguments as well. Even if I were there face to face with you I would not force my opinions on you, but I would lay them out as best I could.
<strong>
I'm so glad you can point out things you don't like about my post but how about you try to actually respond to it next time?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I try my best to avoid flamebait. However, sometimes I reply just to try to understand the motives. Maybe I should just ignore them, but I am very curious. You do not answer my questions, and yours are more bashing than actual inquiries, so I see no actual queries to answer here. You have made your opinion, and motive clear here. It seems you wish for me to shut up and go away. I won't and it bothers you, I don't know why. Am I missing something? Can you state a question without calling me stupid, weak minded, intolerant, bigoted,or any other number of hateful words in your vocabulary. If not, lets shake hands and part ways.
<strong>
Awwww! Isn't that sweet!
You are probably right though, an online forum is not really a place to change peoples minds, it is more of a place to let your opinions be known, and to hear other peoples side of the arguments as well. Even if I were there face to face with you I would not force my opinions on you, but I would lay them out as best I could.
You are, and you're doing a good job, especially with responding to everyone. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I don't find what you have to say intriguing. I don't look at these threads and think everyone else is dumb because I have the answer to the ultimate question and they don't. I really don't know who is right, but rather than remaining ignorant to it all, I like to hear what other people believe, even if it doesn't always show
I'd just finished watching a George Carlin show on HBO last night, so I was in a bit of a mood
A problem with religious discussion (besides religion) is that those who instigate them tend to want merely to have a sense of solidity through opposition; to hear themselves re-affirm their 'belief', . . . there are probably some real psychological factors that are at play and are the same with all of us when we pontificate, such as, we are making an appeal to our own projections of what is wanted of us . . . in other words, we are trying to 'please' the idea of the objective 'other' that we project as our judge. Religious people do this and don't make any pretensions to having that objective judgement come from anything like an idea of Reason, or "common sense" but usually from the easiest of parental metaphors, a 'father' of everthing.
The problem is is that it is a projecton that stems from (as Matsu said) fear, and because it is purported to be essentially about the utmost of all possible utmosts: the most important importance, this makes it easy for the religiouse to dismiss all other perspectives as wrong and trivial. Religious people think that others simply don't see how absolutely vast the issue of their belief is: how all encompasing it is.
But truly, it is most likely that someone's imagination is slave to a black iron prison of limitation . . .one that says: "don't think that doubt , not even that thought, its the utmost importance: more important than all important things that you don't think that thought . . . because I told you so" well, really this book that your parents gave you says so.
Its interesting to note that early christianity thought that the faculty of the imagination was evil. It's not surprising considering the absolute destitute state of imagination in most christianity. . . in fact its anti imaginative.
(also, just a note, anti-christianity, such as luciferianism and satanism and goth etc, is all really the very same thinking and spirit ans christianity . . .we sure wouldn't have those dark brooders without it)
as far as answering your question of where should religion come from: from nowhere, it shouldn't come at all: rather what we should have is a Buddhist like concern for sentients and contemplation, and, a creative questioning of Being coupled with the blissfull acceptance of (not merely acceptance but reveling in) all things... revelling in the awesome wonder that Being is should replace the pale tremblings of fearfull and spasmatic religions: amor fati love your fate, love the gift from itself, of Being.
<strong>Ok, so it was a bit simplistic. I was on my way out and decided to spit out a quick answer. I try not to do it, but sometimes they slip out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well... forgiven, I guess. Kind of glad I didn't write that two-page rant on circular faith, though.
[quote]<strong>First of all, who is to define what was currently acceptable?<hr></blockquote></strong>
Sorry, I meant what evidence do we have that people weren't living to a moral standard acceptable to you. I assume you find the ten commandments acceptable? Ignore the first four, though, they're not moral standards.
[quote]<strong>The ten commandments were God's way of separating his people from the rest of the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I thought the generally perceived notion was that we were all his people?
[quote]<strong>From my study it seems that God intended for all of Israel to be a nation of Priests to him. When they did not take that on like he wanted he then picked one clan (Levi's clan, thus now the Levites) to take on that role. But in answer to the question. The standard that was being lived by was not up to what God wanted, and he wanted them to know what his standard was, thus writing it in stone.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But, ignoring the first four again, we have good evidence that the ancient Egyptians were living to the other standards almost two millennium before Moses' ascent.
[quote]<strong>On an interesting side note. When Moses was up on the mountain receiving the commandments the people of Israel got bored and made an idol out of gold in the shape of a calf so they could worship it. So the day they got the rules saying no other gods, they had already broken the rule. Seems they needed that rule a few days sooner.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
See, this is different. It's a rule, as you say, not a standard of morals. It's a requirement of acceptance.
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>I thought the generally perceived notion was that we were all his people?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is the NT notion. Before then God is shown as wholly invested in Israel as "His People". It is not until Jesus comes on the scene that this is opened up to the entire world, Jews and Gentiles alike.
<strong> [quote]See, this is different. It's a rule, as you say, not a standard of morals. It's a requirement of acceptance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see what your point is, and the answer is, I don't have the evidence you seek avaialable to me right now.
in other words: why NoahJ likes to respond "as if" he were open minded while really merely having an opportunity to see more of his supposedly 'righteous' words in print
<strong>That is the NT notion. Before then God is shown as wholly invested in Israel as "His People". It is not until Jesus comes on the scene that this is opened up to the entire world, Jews and Gentiles alike.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It does seem more than a little strange that a god should invest solely in one people (Is that semantically correct?
Not really the place for the discussion, but if this is the case, he really needs to get his ass back to Israel now.
[quote]<strong>I see what your point is, and the answer is, I don't have the evidence you seek avaialable to me right now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't worry about it. I wasn't really looking for a specific answer, just opening up a line of discussion.
From what I've read of history (Both early and recent), in the context of the ten commandments and what they define, there doesn't seem to have been a huge change in humanity since God accidently dropped that stone tablet on Moses' big toe (Thereby making him almost break the second commandment within seconds of receiving it).
[ 05-01-2002: Message edited by: Robertp ][/QB][/QUOTE]
<strong>I would just like to point out again the obviouse fact that the religiously inclined like to see themselves 'do the right thing' . . . which accounts for the tenacity in their myopia
in other words: why NoahJ likes to respond "as if" he were open minded while really merely having an opportunity to see more of his supposedly 'righteous' words in print</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is a bit of a jaded viewpoint pfflam. I am open-minded to a certain extent. No, i will not buy just any argument thrown at me, but I am also aware that no one is capable of knowing everything, and there are going to be those who have more study that may know more about what I am posting on. My views are a bit myopic as i am limiting the scope of that which I am discussing, but if you see me as anything but willing to discuss different beliefs and such then let me know. I may be unwilling to go down certain paths, but I am usually open as to why that is so, and do not just shut the door with no reasoned explanation. For example, I will not entertain that Jesus Christ never existed. For obvious reasons in your mind and not so obvious reasons in my mind. I am open about it and not trying to hide it.
<strong>I feel the Bible is nothing more than a book of fables, a guideline as to how man should endeavor to live.</strong><hr></blockquote>
OK, so to bring that part on topic, do you feel that people should base their religious beliefs on it, or something else? If something else, what?
[quote]<strong>What I find so outlandish is how people could believe in a god who purposely, according to myth, bore a son in a virgin woman only to set him on a path that he knowingly would lead to a horrible death and then expects all mankind to exhault his name as a kind and loving god.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, you are taking it formt he view that God only wanted to have a son that he could have born thorugh a virgin, so that he could raise him up and kill him. Kinda like a sport or something. Let me put it in the way I see it and you can disagree if you like.
Up until the life, death, and subsequent resurrection of Jesus the only way for mankind to commune with God was through the sacrificial process of atonement. (This has been covered heavily by me already. Read up if you need more than this.) Jesus chose to come to Earth, he was not forced. Jesus chose to die on the cross. He was given multiple chances to not die, even by the Roman Pontius Pilate, who said he could find no fault in him and did not want to kill Jesus. He even tried multiple times to release him. Jesus did not defend himself but instead chose to allow himself to be killed. He chose to die, he chose to be the sacrifice, he was not forced by God or anyone to do it. God, however, accepted the sacrifice offered by Jesus, and form then on allowed for the complete forgiveness of sins for any who merely believed and accepted that the sacrifice was done for them. I am not seeing the bad here...
[quote]<strong>Is it just me or is somwthing wrong with this picture? </strong><hr></blockquote>
What is wrong with it?
[quote]<strong>Also Thou shalt not kill is a major commandment yet, the Bible is repleat with killing in god's name..like this makes it the ok exception. He also apparently has a bad temper ...Sodom & Gammora (sp), the flooding of the earth, etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
God's judgement being passed out. The killing in His name I will not get into as there are many instances and to cover them all would be too much for right now. However, the bad temper part is off base. Way off. Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed only after there could not be found even 10 righteous people in the whole city. Not 10. In whose opinion you may ask? Gods. It does not say exactly what all they were doing that was wrong, but it says specifically:
Genesis 19
13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.
This seems to show that there were terrible things that came out of these cities against all the people inthe surrounding areas and the people were calling for help from God. Eventually he could not ignore the problem any longer and cleaned house. Not even 10 worthy of saving could be found in the entire area.
The flood was a similar situation, only on a much larger scale. He did not arbitrarily decide it one day, it built up over a long period of time. And also, after the flood was done, God was so sad about it that He promised to never destroy the world by water again. So He knew what had to be done, and did it, but still He felt sadness over the deaths caused and made steps to prevent a similar judgement from happening again.
[quote]<strong>This is not what I choose to believe. I feel that we should respect all living things and work to harmonize man and nature together. Kind of sappy I know, but this is my deep seated feeling about the world. The contradictions in the good book leave a lot open for interprtation and this is where most problems start. What one thinks a particular passage means, could hold a different meaning for someone else.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Everyone says there are contradictions, and some provide evidence of their views, but most just spout it and have nothing to back up their claim. I have found nothing that contradicts so far, do you care to provide evidence of your own? In your interpretation it may seem to contradict, but usually I find that this is because you are limiting the scope of your interpretation too much and are not reading the passage in the context of the entire scriptures.
Elain Pagels, "The Origin of Satan" You desperately need to get some scholarly reading on Jesus, G-d, Pilate, the Romans, the Bible, etc etc. These little dogmas of yours are quite disturbing when you think about it. Why don't you just become a Jehova's Witness and be done with it.