Some thoughts on Easter Sunday

[Ghel]

Great. Do they have evidence for God outside the Bible?

[Hobbs]

Well, my priests are knowledgeable.

[Ghel]

When I started reading the Bible in earnest, I was very disappointed by my priest's lack of biblical knowledge. He had no explanation for the contradictions and atrocities that I brought to his attention. Instead, he simply told me to pray, and God would give me the answer. You can guess how well that worked out.

[Hobbs]

On the contrary, Ghel stated "...from what they were told by preachers, friends, and relatives, who probably didn't read the Bible themselves."

Meaning the statement was about the clergy. I've taken philosophy and Scripture classes, so I have read it. And the explanations the priest gives during the Liturgy seems pretty spot-on to me.

[AdminAssistant]

Ghel's statement wasn't about the clergy reading the Bible, but about all believers. And many, if not most, Christians I know have read very little of the Bible on their own time. They only know what the priest/preacher explains to them on Sunday morning.

[Hobbs]

I'm pretty sure my priest has read the Bible, as have the priests before him. And I know the Church does extensive research into old documents to come up with the best translation possible.

[Ghel]

If you ask 100 different Christians what the core tenets of Christianity are, you'll likely get 100 different answers. The reason is that the answers aren't in the Bible. The answers are in the morals and worldview that the individual has developed over the course of his or her life. If they read the Bible, they emphasize passages they agree with and de-emphasize or reinterpret passages that they don't agree with. That's why many non-believers call it the Big Book of Multiple Choice.

But many (probably most) Christians don't read the Bible. What they believe about God and Jesus, about the origin of the universe and about the afterlife comes from what they were told by preachers, friends, and relatives, who probably didn't read the Bible themselves.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Actually Ghel there's a big difference between using the Bible as a guideline and making up one's morals independently. The Bible, like any other text should be critically analyzed and interpreted by it's readers same as any other text, that's not the problem. The problem stems from people who aren't interpreting or analyzing but instead quoting one-liners here and there as absolute law to back up their predisposed ideals.

Especially since so much of the bible is nothing more than jaw-wobbling by random people to say nothing of the disciples about what they think and not really what God told them, any reasonable person should compare said yakking with the core tenets of their religion and decide whether or not there's a conflict. That's not nitpicking, that's critical reading.

[HYHYBT]

Technically, blaspheme of the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin, so you're even.

Yeah, but what exactly that means isn't so clear. Or, rather, many people think it IS clear, but they don't agree.

[Ghel]

We don't know everything. When it comes to the universe as a whole, we don't know much of anything, to be honest.

And the more we learn, the more we realize how much we don't know. Amazing, wonderful, and scary, isn't it?

Show me scientific fact that everything that I'm reading here and everything else that goes on in my life isn't just a figment of my imagination. How do I know that you exist and you;re not an "imaginary friend" my mind, or some other being, has created? It can't be proven 100% either way. Nothing in this world can.

But you can't go through life assuming that nothing is real. You have to trust your senses, to a certain degree, to give you information about the world around you. Otherwise, it leads to paranoia and schizophrenia.

...the chicken vs egg question...

I rather like the answer that evolution has given us: creatures were laying eggs long before chickens evolved.

What's a jot and/or tittle?

www.dictionary.com is a wonderful resource.

Blech, I can't believe you're using KJV.

It's free. If you know where I can get a copy of the NIV for free, I'll use it.

...a rule of thumb isn't necessarily concrete. It's just a good starting point.

My point was that you're making an appeal to the Bible as a source of your beliefs and morals. But then you're the one who's deciding which passages are literal and which are symbolic. That's not any different from developing your own set of beliefs and morals.

Blaspheme means to reject.

Actually, to blaspheme is to speak irreverently or impiously about a subject. I suppose that amounts to the same thing.

[Hobbs]

I don't know if this is directed at me, but since I answered your earlier post...

Science is the best tool we have to understand the universe. It is self-correcting, but I would never say that it is perfect. Nor would I say that we should base our morals off science. Even Richard Dawkins said that evolution tells us what is, not what should be.


I don't see how this applies. According to the passage, God specifically told David that it was Saul's fault that there was a famine. So David offered up all of Saul's male descendants to be killed, which God rewarded by ending the famine. It may have happened in wartime, but the reasoning had nothing to do with war.

You didn't respond to the other two depictions of human sacrifice that were mentioned.


But you said...

If you're just going to say that everything that Jesus said that you don't agree with is symbolic, then why use the Bible as an authority at all? Why not use your own moral compass, which I consider to be vastly superior to the morals of the Bible, even if we don't always agree.


Jesus also said "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Which just goes to show that you can find a verse to support any position.


How can I blaspheme something that, as far as I can tell, doesn't exist?

What's a jot and/or tittle?

Blech, I can't believe you're using KJV.

My morals come from my religion. Plus, a rule of thumb isn't necessarily concrete. It's just a good starting point. You're being nit-picky. That's annoying.

Blaspheme means to reject.

[crashhelmet]

I don't know if this is directed at me, but since I answered your earlier post...

Science is the best tool we have to understand the universe. It is self-correcting, but I would never say that it is perfect. Nor would I say that we should base our morals off science. Even Richard Dawkins said that evolution tells us what is, not what should be.

It's not necessarily directed at you, but to many people that will sit there and argue things based on the existence or lack of "scientific fact." They treat science as the trump card for everything much as some Christians treat the Bible as one.

We don't know everything. When it comes to the universe as a whole, we don't know much of anything, to be honest.

Renee Des Cartes studied, researched, thought, pondered, etc etc etc whatever you wanna call it in his search to find absolute certainty. His Demon Conjecture may have been right all along. Show me scientific fact that everything that I'm reading here and everything else that goes on in my life isn't just a figment of my imagination. How do I know that you exist and you;re not an "imaginary friend" my mind, or some other being, has created? It can't be proven 100% either way. Nothing in this world can.

I have elected to place my belief and Faith in God and Christianity. From what I've experienced in my "life," I see no better alternative. If science can answer the chicken vs egg question, I may change my view points.

CH

[Ghel]

Science isn't bad. It just can't be considered as "perfect" or indisputable as many make it out to be.

I don't know if this is directed at me, but since I answered your earlier post...

Science is the best tool we have to understand the universe. It is self-correcting, but I would never say that it is perfect. Nor would I say that we should base our morals off science. Even Richard Dawkins said that evolution tells us what is, not what should be.

...David's ruthlessness in war.

I don't see how this applies. According to the passage, God specifically told David that it was Saul's fault that there was a famine. So David offered up all of Saul's male descendants to be killed, which God rewarded by ending the famine. It may have happened in wartime, but the reasoning had nothing to do with war.

You didn't respond to the other two depictions of human sacrifice that were mentioned.

Again, Jesus is using symbolic use of fire to describe the consumation of someone's soul in Hell.

But you said...

The rule of thumb (my point of view, not the Church) is that, if it's not quoted (ie. what Jesus/God said) than it's not meant to be taken literally.

If you're just going to say that everything that Jesus said that you don't agree with is symbolic, then why use the Bible as an authority at all? Why not use your own moral compass, which I consider to be vastly superior to the morals of the Bible, even if we don't always agree.

As for the actions of the OT, Jesus even said, "I am the way of the New and everlasting covenant..."

Jesus also said "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Which just goes to show that you can find a verse to support any position.

Technically, blaspheme of the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin, so you're even.

How can I blaspheme something that, as far as I can tell, doesn't exist?

[crashhelmet]

Wait, lemme get this:

Science is bad because some people try and abuse it?

Science isn't bad. It just can't be considered as "perfect" or indisputable as many make it out to be.

CH

[HYHYBT]

But there's no scientific explanation for faith.
---End Quote---
That's pretty much the point. There's no good reason to believe

This here is a basic problem: for some people, these two statements are equivalent in all cases, and for others they are not.

Really, science and religion are opposite sides to the same coin. Both are systems by which people define their beliefs and what compromises right and wrong.

Since when did science start lining off right from wrong? Science is essentially amoral. And no, that's not remotely the same thing as saying that religion is necessary for morality, only that science, as such, does not provide it.