Originally posted by telerionI cannot answer all of your comments. I do not claim to be a bible scholar. But if you expect me to believe all your claims, such as God ordering the massacre of innocents, then I can see you have not accepted God as a reality. And more importantly you do not have any more than superficial biblical knowledge. The claims you make here about slavery and creation being messed up, shows me you do not understand spiritual matters from a biblical point of view.
[b]God did not approve of many things, including slavery. But He does not void free will.
So if God blesses us while we enslave millions of his creation, but when the educated begin to doubt him, he pulls the plug? Can you see why I might think that you do not have your priorities straight?
Jefferson rewrote his own version of the bible, omitt ...[text shortened]... e contrary, his own articles of faith are for him sure and certain principles a priori."
I know you think it is all silly, and from your point of view I might say the same thing. In fact at one time, I did say likewise. And I do not feel justified because you disagree. I am saddened.
As far as Schopenhaur, yes, I may be that person...except I have seen the side you are on....I want to move on to the next post.
Originally posted by telerionCome on. This is an insult to our intelligence. You have no right, given your poor defense, to insist that you have reverance for God and TJ did not. I ensure you TJ thought he was reverant. You think your reverant. You don't have anything on TJ.
[b]A reverance for God.
Come on. This is an insult to our intelligence. You have no right, given your poor defense, to insist that you have reverance for God and TJ did not. I ensure you TJ thought he was reverant. You think your reverant. You don't have anything on TJ.
What kind of church do you go to? It wouldn't surprise me if your ...[text shortened]... were put there by Satan to mislead humanity.) "
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/myss.htm
I am not here to judge TJ..What I know(at least from history) is that he was very much enamoured with the "Age of Reason" and other French theology/philosophy...He may have been a sincere Christian, I really don't know...you got me here, I was presumptuous, I apologize. But I do know he had a problem with the bible, probably as you and others.
I used to identify as "non-denominational." I lay you 100 to 1 that the tenets of the church (or type of church) you frequent had it's beginnings in the American fundamentalism movement of the early 1900's.
Any of this sound familiar?
"Those Christians who clung to the old belief that every word of the Bible was literally true -- called biblical inerrancy -- came together and formulated their beliefs at a series of revival meetings and Bible study conferences that took place across North America from Ontario to Southern California between 1875 and 1915. These groups agreed on five "fundamentals" of Christian belief that were enumerated in a series of 12 paperback volumes containing scholarly essays on the Bible that appeared between 1910 and 1915, entitled The Fundamentals. Those fundamentals included:
Biblical inerrancy
The divinity of Jesus
The Virgin Birth
The belief that Jesus died to redeem humankind
An expectation of the Second Coming, or physical return, of Jesus Christ to initiate his thousand-year rule of the Earth, which came to be known as the Millennium.
By definition, fundamentalists also believe in some form of creationism, the doctrine that the universe was created only a few thousand years ago, rather than the billions claimed by modern science, and that God created man and woman and all the species outright, rather than by a process of evolution. (Creationists differ over how to explain fossil records that "appear" to be millions of years old. Some believe God created them that way on purpose, others, that they were put there by Satan to mislead humanity.) "
I believe some of this, but not all.
Biblical inerrancy....not as it sits today.
The divinity of Jesus...I believe this in part, except the notion that He is God.
The rest I agree with, but this does not mean that it was tampered with on the dates indicated. I think it was tampered with well before this time. Hundreds of years before.
I don't agree the fossils were put there by God nor satan. I think it has more to do with the dating method.
To simplify my answer to you and Bbarr, I will say this. I am not "special". I am an ordinary Christian. What has convinced me about God is very personal. You might say I have "burned bridges". I have seen with my own eyes, many "supernatural things" that I cannot discuss here. I also do not expect you to believe me, because you don't know me. The article that started this thread is interesting to me. Why? As I stated earlier, I was where you are. I was skeptical, even ridiculed Christians. But I decided to jump in and abandon all reasoning. I do not regret one moment of that decision. My quest now is to articulate what I have learned to present it in a proper way. This requires me to start from scratch.....and that is about where I am at this point.
I am sorry if I have not satisfactorily answered all of your questions/comments but that is the best I can do for now....I am sure we will discuss more as time permits. But I am finding I have less and less time on this forum.....Peace
I don't know why it came out all bold....sorry
Originally posted by vistesdThank you ...I don't know anything about Taoism...at my old age, I think it's time I started. Do you have any good sites to recommend?
I think people overlook the facts that—
(a) people use the word “God” in diverse ways, and many times it has nothing to do with a being (anthropomorphic, or personal, or not), but Ground-of-Being, Power-of-Being, and Being-Itself (to use Paul Tillich’s terms);
(b) people who do not use the word at all, and so consider themselves to be non-th ...[text shortened]... e realizing that it is undoubtedly my own projection onto the “relationship” (another metaphor).
Originally posted by checkbaiterDon't have any sites. I'd suggest starting with a good translation of the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu. Ursula LeGuinn has a very good one to start with. Stephen Mitchell's is very readable, but highly interpretive (from a Zen perspective). Stephen Addiss and Stanley Lombardo have one that (so they claim) strives for a minimum of interpretive bias, but it is a bit more difficult to read at the start. I do not like the one by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English, but some do.
Thank you ...I don't know anything about Taoism...at my old age, I think it's time I started. Do you have any good sites to recommend?
For a light-hearted approach, you might also read Raymond Smullyan's The Tao is Silent.
Here, for a taste is the first "chapter," my own rendering based on Addiss and Lombardo:
Tao that you can call "Tao" is not the true Tao*
Names you can name are not reality.
Nameless: the origin of heaven and earth.
Naming: the mother of ten thousand things.
Empty of desire, perceive the mystery.
Filled with desire, perceive the manifestations.
These have the same source, but different names.
Call them both deep--
deep and again deep.
The gateway to all mystery.
*Tao is almost universally translated as "Way."
Originally posted by checkbaiterThere is a great introduction to Taoism by Kristofer Schipper, called The Taoist Body, published in 1993 by the University of California Press. You may want to try searching for Chuang-tzu on the web, there are free translations of his work all over the place.
Thank you ...I don't know anything about Taoism...at my old age, I think it's time I started. Do you have any good sites to recommend?
Originally posted by bbarrChuang-tzu is a wonderful scamp! Haven't read the Schipper book--I'm off to Amazon.com!
There is a great introduction to Taoism by Kristofer Schipper, called The Taoist Body, published in 1993 by the University of California Press. You may want to try searching for Chuang-tzu on the web, there are free translations of his work all over the place.
Originally posted by bbarrThank you both. I have already started looking.
There is a great introduction to Taoism by Kristofer Schipper, called The Taoist Body, published in 1993 by the University of California Press. You may want to try searching for Chuang-tzu on the web, there are free translations of his work all over the place.
"Taoism currently has about 20 million followers, and is primarily centered in Taiwan. About 30,000 Taoists live in North America; 1,720 in Canada (1991 census). Taoism has had a significant impact on North American culture in areas of "acupuncture, herbalism, holistic medicine, meditation and martial arts..."
My wife has been purchasing herbal medicine for many years. Some work some don't. But I did not know it was related to Tao. Now I have to find a way to balance my bible studies with Tao! Life is too short!
I do not claim to be a bible scholar. But if you expect me to believe all your claims, such as God ordering the massacre of innocents, then I can see you have not accepted God as a reality. And more importantly you do not have any more than superficial biblical knowledge.
Really? Ever read the Old Testament? I have. I am no Bible scholar either, but I'm guessing that between you and I the only difference in our knowledge of this book is that I don't wear a pair of rose-colored glasses when I read it.
Let's begin in Exodus. I'm sure it does not tax your memory to recall that the final plague upon Egypt. God hardens Pharoah's heart so that He can complete his handiwork of torture (and God never violates free will! ha! ) (Exodus 11:9-10); and so, God sends the angel of death to slay the firstborn of every Egyptian as well as the cattle (Exodus 12:29-30). Now you may argue that some of the first born were older and thus may have been guilty of all manner of crimes. But surely among this first born cohort were some babies and young toddlers as well. How can these wee babes not be considered innocent? Why should your God slaughter these innocents for their parents crimes (another thing God promises not to do) simply so that his "wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt." (Exodus 11:9).
No need to discuss the needless slaughter of the cattle as God is repeatedly butchering animals.
Turning to Numbers 21, we find the familiar story of the Amorites. After the Israelites capture them Moses acting as the agent of God has every last one killed. Once again this must include wee babes. Surely, the youngsters must be described as innocent if anyone can be.
Of course we all are familiar with Numbers 31, where the Israelites defeat the Midianites. They've already killed all the males (presumably adults only), and they bring back the Midianite women and their "little ones" (v.9). An angry Moses makes it very clear what God meant by "avenge the LORD of Midian" (v.3):
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. " (v.17-18).
Ok, so the women who have had sex before are probably old enough in xian's minds to be worthy of butchery, but only the most heinous fundy can claim that the wee Midianite male babes deserve to be butchered. We'll overlook the overt sexual motivations in sparing the virgin females.
Well, that's Numbers, Deuteronomy will be better right? Not likely.
Only two chapters in an already God has the Israelites on a ethnic cleansing campaign. God tells them to pass by some of the tribes that they encounter, but then we find another detailed account of what God commanded the Israelites do to the Amorites. God hardens their leader's heart so that he won't let the Israelites pass (Where have we heard that before? Free will? Ha!) (Deut. 2:30). Now why would God ruin every apologists number one alibi by violating free will? The only reason given is so that the Israelites could have the land. So just to be thorough the Bible goes on to describe exactly what God does to the Amorites.
"And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
Only the cattle we took for a prey unto ourselves, and the spoil of the cities which we took. " (Deut. 2:33-35)
Once again wee babes being massacred, all so that God can give his special people some real estate.
But hey, that's the same people as before so they don't count! Ok. Let's turn the page to chapter 3. Here we encouter the sad story of the people of Og. In verses 3-6 that God has the Israelites kill every single person. In verse 6, the Bible says that they "utterly destroyed them, as [they] did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city."
Oh the wee little babes.
Looking at Deut. 20, God gives his prescription for the genocidal campaign. Some cities (the far off ones) shall only have the males killed. The women and babes are spared to be slaves (v.13-14).
However, the cities of the nations close by shall suffer a worse fate.
"But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: " (v.16-17)
More babes being dissected. Oh praise Jesus!
Surely I've amassed enough but let's go for one more.
I Samuel 15:2-3
"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."
So anyway Saul does it (well he does save some nice livestock, but this pisses God off big time). There are many more examples of where God commands some pretty heinous things. He encourages slavery, injustice to women, and injustice to deformed people, but I figured that a xian will try to say that these people are evil and thus worthy of their suffering. The examples I gave then were chosen specifically because they involved the slaughter of little children.
Finally, I must ask you to check your arrogance. That I no longer believe this stuff is no reason to assume that I have not studied the Bible. In fact, reading the entire Bible carefully is probably one of the best ways to rid oneself of worship of this god.
Ok. You've heard my piece (listening does not mean you that you aren't behaving as Schopenhauer describes). You are free to ignore me.
Originally posted by telerionQ.E.D.
[b] I do not claim to be a bible scholar. But if you expect me to believe all your claims, such as God ordering the massacre of innocents, then I can see you have not accepted God as a reality. And more importantly you do not have any more than superficial biblical knowledge.
Really? Ever read the Old Testament? I have. I am no Bible scholar either ...[text shortened]... s not mean you that you aren't behaving as Schopenhauer describes). You are free to ignore me.[/b]
Originally posted by telerionHello Tel...for my short answer I will refer you here...
[b] I do not claim to be a bible scholar. But if you expect me to believe all your claims, such as God ordering the massacre of innocents, then I can see you have not accepted God as a reality. And more importantly you do not have any more than superficial biblical knowledge.
Really? Ever read the Old Testament? I have. I am no Bible scholar either ...[text shortened]... s not mean you that you aren't behaving as Schopenhauer describes). You are free to ignore me.[/b]
http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=349
It sure beats typing...I am guessing that you will find these answers "silly".
But they are not. There are figures of speech in the bible, and "metonomy" is particularly interesting. This does not deal with your comments on the slaughtering of "woman and children". That is a separate issue. But I am guessing again that you will not like the answers.
I did not say you had not read the bible did I? I said you have not understood some of these issues. Anyway, if I did I apologize.
I also considered how a God who is "all good" could command some of what you mention.
Now don't forget, since you brought it up, that the bible has been corrupted. I believe, with Greek Mythology and people with a bias. But that is another discussion for some other time.
2 Timothy 2:15 says study to show...text shortened...rightly dividing the word of truth. The greek is orthotomounta, which means right "cutting". You probably already know this, but I don't know, so here goes.
The original scrolls were written thus...FORGODSOLOVEDTHEWORLD....these are Uncials, and you can see where "cutting" comes into play. We are to separate the words. There was no punctuation. That has also been added, and sometimes by a scribe with a bias (one who believed Jesus is God, the dead aren't really dead, but in "heaven", etc.). There are words that have been added as well.
This, including figures, play a role in the differences between the seemingly "harsh" God of the OT and the "loving" God of the NT.
But this still has nothing to do with the massacres. I said you will find the answer to that silly. But again, here goes....
You did not see any of these "massacres" until after Genesis chapter 6.
The study is extensive, so I would suggest a search on "The Sons of God of Genesis 6" .
I am guessing that you heard this before as well, but it is a logical explanation for the destruction of these people throughout the OT.
I think the last ones were finished off by King David. There is much biblical reference that is rarely brought up on this topic. But I have also heard of historical accounts of "a people who came from nowhere" and built the great pyramids, etc.
Now, again you will tell me about my fantasies, etc. but consider this...
at every turn, satan was there to thwart God's plans...or at least try.
There are verses such as Abraham or Isreal went here and there but the Caananites, or some other "ites" were already there. As in waiting for them. What was the promise of Genesis 3:15? Do you suppose satan was listening? It is only logical that he would try everything within his power, which he had, to thwart God, to stop this Redeemer from coming.
That's why Herod killed all those babies under 2 years old.
But let us also remember that 1/3 of the angels were cast down and are here with us.....but you see, as I write this, I am thinking you want evidence which I cannot supply. I have the "watered down" bible, and my own search. I am not trying to change anyones thinking or belief. I am also not trying to defend God. I am not one who thinks He needs defending. But I am on a quest to get back to the original scriptures, rightly divided. Am I there yet? No way, and I'll probably die trying. But what else is there? I enjoy life, I love people, I will listen to anything reasonable, and now I believe I have a "hope"...Jesus Christ. I have nothing to lose by being patient, continue to learn, study other religions/philosophy and see how it measures up.
The bottom line is...where is the profit? Will it enhance my life? So far the bible has.
of course god is real. any theologian with half a brain still working can prove it to you in ten or fifteen minutes. the problem is that the non believers think that god is just up there in the clouds watching us start wars and live in poverty and every other awful thing and not doing anything about it seems to prove to the non believer that he musn't exist if all this carnage is allowed to go on under his watch... well, the fact of the matter is that he actually has alot on his plate and quite frankly probably set this whole show up a few million years ago and is letting it takes it's course. i am sure that if he is so almighty and powerful that he is off performing something really great somewhere else far far awayfor the future benefit of others, goodness never stops spreading it's wings. . don't worry christians, he's always an instant from being right at your front door when you really need him.take care all, bern
of course god is real. any theologian with half a brain still working can prove it to you in ten or fifteen minutes.
Mind offering one? Theologians have been concocting to find "proofs" of God for over a thousand years. Nobody has come up with anything solid. They have some arguments, but the "proofs" they have are all hogwash.
the problem is that the non believers think that god is just up there in the clouds watching us start wars and live in poverty and every other awful thing and not doing anything about it seems to prove to the non believer that he musn't exist if all this carnage is allowed to go on under his watch...
The argument from evil and the argument from unnecessary pain and suffering are very strong counters to claims that a single all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent god exists. If you want to talk about a different sort of god, then these arguments may be less pertinent.
well, the fact of the matter is that he actually has alot on his plate and quite frankly probably set this whole show up a few million years ago and is letting it takes it's course.
Are you implying that your god is constrained? When some one says that they have a "a lot on their plate" it usually means that they have much work and little time in which to do it. Is this what you meant?
Also, you seem to be describing a deity that gets his rocks off by watching people butcher each other and starve. Is this what you meant to write?
i am sure that if he is so almighty and powerful that he is off performing something really great somewhere else far far awayfor the future benefit of others, goodness never stops spreading it's wings.
Why are you so sure? Are you now adopting the view that your god is benevolent? Is your god also omnipotent and omniscient? If so, then you should give the argument from evil and the argument from needless pain and suffering some more attention.
don't worry christians, he's always an instant from being right at your front door when you really need him.take care all, bern
Rub, rub, poof! A genii. Does the above mean that this god is not omnipresent? Tell me this is all a parody and that you really don't think this nonsense.
i need to read the article, shollo4993@aol.com will hold comments til then. private comment welcome. open or closed minded persons.