** OFFICIAL: "Do You Believe in God and an Afterlife?" Thread**

[Mr. Kotter]

Simple question.

I'm just curious how representative this place is, compared with mainstream America on the question. A few threads of late, just got me wondering....

Please feel free to discuss.

[C-Mac]

Originally Posted by Logical

The Bible literally has dozens of versions you cannot possibly say it has not been rewritten in 4000 years.

Agreed there were errors in some versions that were not translated from the original manuscripts. I stated that it hasnt changed, meaning basically that from the accepted oldest of bible manuscripts to todays modern accurately translated bibles, it's still unchanged.

[Logical]

Originally Posted by C-Mac

Agreed there were errors in some versions that were not translated from the original manuscripts. I stated that it hasnt changed, meaning basically that from the accepted oldest of bible manuscripts to todays modern accurately translated bibles, it's still unchanged.

There is no way for you to know this as the languages the Bible were written in are basically or completely dead languages. As such the very concept of a perfect translation that is identical is impossible. Sorry that is a completely illogical argument and relies on the circular reasoning that the current translation matches the original version so therefore it must be perfectly unchanged.

[C-Mac]

Originally Posted by Logical

Actually the idea that God has a sex is amusing in and of itself.

I was just refering to the God of the bible in which that God is represented as a "he".

[noa]

Originally Posted by C-Mac

Agreed there were errors in some versions that were not translated from the original manuscripts. I stated that it hasnt changed, meaning basically that from the accepted oldest of bible manuscripts to todays modern accurately translated bibles, it's still unchanged.

I think what's more relevant is whether the interpretations of the Bible have changed over the past 4,000 years. The words of the Bible are important, but what is even more important is how people incorporate those words into their lives. It is undeniable that interpretations of the Bible have changed over time to adapt to or react to societal changes. Thus, the meaning of the Bible (as it is relevant to its audience) has changed, and I think that is what people are referring to when they say that Biblical lessons, like evolutionary theories, are somewhat fungible.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by C-Mac

Thank you for expounding, nothing you need to apologize about.
Interesting point that struck a chord with me, when a follower had asked Jesus if he would show him the Father(God), he replied "He that has seen me has seen the Father also"-John 14:9. Jesus represented his father in every aspect so well that he could state this. When I actually read the OT stories, I could see a God that still showed much patience and love toward many unappreciative undeserving people. So the OT God is is still the same loving NT God that still requires exclusive devotion. Albeit he was much more active and more detail orientated prior to Jesus arrival, then he enacted the latest, less complicated arrangement based mostly on principles. Still, in the New Testament it clearly states that he will eventually destroy the same type of faithless habitually sinful people that he had destroyed in the past. He hasn't waivered in any way on his high moral standards just because todays religions have and thankfully he still does allow time for repentance. Even though God has done away with such things such as the need to sacrifice animals and abstinence from certain foods, he still requires more than just faith or just believing. He requires action too. He expects us to try earnestly to live our lives accordingly and in harmony with his principles. The reward for doing so is still the same as it was from the very beginning, doing so he rewards us with life and if we choose not, death.
Not sure if this perked up any kind of a different thought for you but what you feel is a common (mis)understanding that I too used to think until I finally opened the book, read it for myself and unbiasly researched it.

PS If God were a woman wonder why she would have made men physically superior to women?

So much to respond to...but, it's getting late and I need to sleep....to get up early tomorrow....here's my quick response, and I'll check back tomorrow....

I've read the Old and New Testament stories; more than once.....and I don't agree that they represent the same God. Now, in fairness, maybe you have read them more prayerfully and thoughtfully than I (I mean that---no sarcasm intended.) So maybe I just need to RE-read them, I guess. However, the OT and NT Gods....to my way of thinking are like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

FWIW, I do agree that perhaps it's the church that has wavered, rather than God...but, then, I struggle with what a benevolent God would think of/do with that...given the complexities of modern life and the reasonable "misinterpretation" of believers in such circumstances. Would He simply say, "they should know better and do better?" or would he be more forgiving?

As for the changes you have conceded....I still haven't found NT basis for some of those....only that they make sense, really (no sacrifice, forbidden foods now okay, etc.)

As for common misunderstandings.....I guess I'd ask what do you think of the conscientious and diligent and scholarly types who would disagree with your interpretation? Are they just not earnestly seeking enlightenment, or are they just not yet enlightened? I'm not implying you are casting aspersions or making a judgement....but somebody is right, and somebody is wrong.

Finally, male physical superiority? Maybe it has something to do with the hunting and gathering function of males in earlier Western societies....because, frankly, women have strengths in other areas over men....which, in the long run, prove more important.

[C-Mac]

Originally Posted by Logical

There is no way for you to know this as the languages the Bible were written in are basically or completely dead languages. As such the very concept of a perfect translation that is identical is impossible. Sorry that is a completely illogical argument and relies on the circular reasoning that the current translation matches the original version so therefore it must be perfectly unchanged.

Since when did the Hebrew and the Greek language die out? Why couldnt someone still learn those languages when they still offer the classes right here at the local community college? Isnt it amazing how many different manuscripts, written at different times, have been found in so many different places and yet they still mirror each other when compared. Yet you say this is impossible. Why do you feel is it so difficult to copy words? Your argument appears illogical too.

[C-Mac]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

So much to respond to...but, it's getting late and I need to sleep....to get up early tomorrow....here's my quick response, and I'll check back tomorrow....

I've read the Old and New Testament stories; more than once.....and I don't agree that they represent the same God. Now, in fairness, maybe you have read them more prayerfully and thoughtfully than I (I mean that---no sarcasm intended.) So maybe I just need to RE-read them, I guess. However, the OT and NT Gods....to my way of thinking are like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

FWIW, I do agree that perhaps it's the church that has wavered, rather than God...but, then, I struggle with what a benevolent God would think of/do with that...given the complexities of modern life and the reasonable "misinterpretation" of believers in such circumstances. Would He simply say, "they should know better and do better?" or would he be more forgiving?

As for the changes you have conceded....I still haven't found NT basis for some of those....only that they make sense, really (no sacrifice, forbidden foods now okay, etc.)

As for common misunderstandings.....I guess I'd ask what do you think of the conscientious and diligent and scholarly types who would disagree with your interpretation? Are they just not earnestly seeking enlightenment, or are they just not yet enlightened? I'm not implying you are casting aspersions or making a judgement....but somebody is right, and somebody is wrong.

Finally, male physical superiority? Maybe it has something to do with the hunting and gathering function of males in earlier Western societies....because, frankly, women have strengths in other areas over men....which, in the long run, prove more important.

Go to bed and we'll chew on it tommorrow.

[thepascalblaze]

Churches smurches, monks schmonks, rabbis schmabbis, faith schmaith, Science schmience...


Experience is individual and seemingly sharable with others linguistically. Rules of logic and rationality, nec. inclusive in language provide the first layer of filtration in experiences that can be shared, and at the same time filter out actual experiences that cannot be described by the subject within such constraints. Life is beyond description. Death certainly occurs, but what is it? Does the subject pass through? Even if a subject could pass through and get back, could the experience be described in a noncontradictory way? This is the burden of Science. In reality,life and, if one projects it so, death, may be considered through its lens.

Capital "S" science is burdened not only by this principal of noncontradiction, but the requirement of repeatability and demonstration to others with said principal. It is a leap of FAITH to think that reality exists in such a state.

Small "s" science, I take to mean simply, "knowledge." It is what is expereienced by any subject. It may or may not be communicable. "Communicable" may or may not adhere to the constraints of liguisic requirements, such as the principal of noncontradiction. An example on communication without said principal would be layered music or metaphorical poetry with double entendre, ie, saying two seemingly opposite things simulteneiously to convey a singular feeling or message... it may not be a rationally defendable message, but the correct one, nonetheless...

There are a wide variety of experiences that are unprovable and potentially deathlike that have the characteristic of being scientifically unprovable, that is small "s"'cientifically' unprovable, and yet are individually repeatable and passed out like a small piece of bread.

Do you really think you know what will happen at death?


Do you want to think you do, when deep down, you really know you don't?

I think being good is best for the living and potentially very self-serving at death.

What, exactly, is good, however, is a debatable in potentially entirely different parameters, and likely best made the subject of another, yet wholey related thread.

The fact that this is a topic in any forum is a testament to the curiosity of humanity. The fact that people take up camps and kill other people over their conclusions in this mystery of life is a testament to the insecurity of the human condition of uncertainty. Even vehement name calling and raised blood pressure defending any faith, Science included, is a detrament, and at least an annoyance while potentially being a landmine for those who have found the mystery of life, and chose to live the individual path that they were born into.

So take a deep breath and chill, and admit you don't know what the fuck is going on while realizing how much you think you know was shaped or even created by the words of another person.

And please, don't hurt anyone defending your faith.

[Logical]

Originally Posted by C-Mac

Since when did the Hebrew and the Greek language die out? Why couldnt someone still learn those languages when they still offer the classes right here at the local community college? Isnt it amazing how many different manuscripts, written at different times, have been found in so many different places and yet they still mirror each other when compared. Yet you say this is impossible. Why do you feel is it so difficult to copy words? Your argument appears illogical too.

First most of the Bible is written in Ancient GreeK (not the same) or Aramaic (completely dead), the portion that is written in the Hebrew is not todays Hebrew but admittedly much closer than Ancient Greek is to current Greek, finally you forgot Latin another dead language.

[thepascalblaze]

I always thought Arameic was completely dead as well, but I recently read or heard something about a contemporary decendent of Aramaic. I believe it was in a series called 'The Origins of Christianity", a DVD boxed set with a bunch of talking heads with various credentials concerning the subject matter alluded to in the title. It was well worth the hours spent watching it, holding in awareness the fact it was mereley opinions of people with many types of letters abreviating ranks in "expertise" from different veins of authority, be it a church, temple, oracademic institution (secular or otherwise)... all of whom were immenently more qualified than I in discussing the potential factuality or mythos surrounding the life of Jesus and the rise of his following>church.

[tiptap]

It states in the OT that "let US make man in OUR image." The plurality of the gods is in evidence. However to state that god is a he without implying there is a she seems stupid. Why have he if no she or sex. After all life of this planet for procraryotic life (bacteria and such) is cloning. There are no sexes. Sexes is all about a more robust movement of evolution.

Yes I know most Christians talk about the trinity when referring to the verse in Genesis. For me it is just a statement that monotheism was not the push of the OT. It was simply that Yahweh wanted to be the head god (no other god before me) and He was more a War God who accepted battle sacrifices like killing every man, women and child or even occasionally female Israelites.

As such forgiveness for Israelites didn't translate to forgiveness universally for men. There was no fatherly involvement with the Israelites either if Yahweh didn't like you.

Mr. Kotter is right. The division in the understanding of god taught by Jesus is abrupt. And only hand waving over the details of the OT make it seem connected.

[stevieray]

I'm always amazed at how people who don't believe spend so much time trying to debunk God and the Bible.

In fact. I'd say it's irony at it's finest...if believers spent this much time attempting to spread the Word, they would be lambasted for "pushing their views" on non believers.

Man has always been trying to put himself in the throne before God.

[djrcmay]

Of course, open your eyes!

[tiptap]

Originally Posted by stevieray

I'm always amazed at how people who don't believe spend so much time trying to debunk God and the Bible.

In fact. I'd say it's irony at it's finest...if believers spent this much time attempting to spread the Word, they would be lambasted for "pushing their views" on non believers.

Man has always been trying to put himself in the throne before God.

stevieray, we both know there are actions and choices resulting from one's beliefs. I do try to allow for those who choose religions. I remember the succor offered by my religious beliefs when I was all so much younger. I do not want to remove that. Many people act morally because they do have such beliefs. And I am better off for it.

I also know that religious beliefs can quickly move to action that is harmful. That is what I point to as wrong whether it is Koran, Bible or whatever. If you think you have god on your side and you also think god says it is ok to kill unbelievers (Catholics killed heretics, Protestants likewise as well as Muslims) then the universal message degrades to clan against clan.

It is only to put our understanding on human scale and remove the tendency to think I know what god wants that I point out the vagrancies in the Bible. It is a poor science book. Jesus' teachings are a grand moral teaching. Everything else is mixed accounts of history and sometimes quite petty.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by tiptap

stevieray, we both know there are actions and choices resulting from one's beliefs. I do try to allow for those who choose religions. I remember the succor offered by my religious beliefs when I was all so much younger. I do not want to remove that. Many people act morally because they do have such beliefs. And I am better off for it.

I also know that religious beliefs can quickly move to action that is harmful. That is what I point to as wrong whether it is Koran, Bible or whatever. If you think you have god on your side and you also think god says it is ok to kill unbelievers (Catholics killed heretics, Protestants likewise as well as Muslims) then the universal message degrades to clan against clan.

It is only to put our understanding on human scale and remove the tendency to think I know what god wants that I point out the vagrancies in the Bible. It is a poor science book. Jesus' teachings are a grand moral teaching. Everything else is mixed accounts of history and sometimes quite petty.

I'm out the door...discuss later. thanks for replying.