[Pilgrim]

Unfortunately, Biblical literalism in an all too common vice in the US, and is a major contributor to mental illness among those already pre-disposed to such. I'm not trying to say that those who belive in a literal interpretation of the Bible are "crazy," but ravings about angels or voices from God are quite a common occurance among people who wind up in psychiatric hospitals. Although, who knows, they may be prophets, and we may be all the stupid people who didn't listen...

[Gem Windcaster]

Pilgrim, on 27 March 2010 - 03:34 AM, said:

Unfortunately, Biblical literalism in an all too common vice in the US, and is a major contributor to mental illness among those already pre-disposed to such. I'm not trying to say that those who belive in a literal interpretation of the Bible are "crazy," but ravings about angels or voices from God are quite a common occurance among people who wind up in psychiatric hospitals. Although, who knows, they may be prophets, and we may be all the stupid people who didn't listen...

What you refer to is not actually literalism, it's illiteracy. Meaning those people probably haven't studied the bible to any serious extent and/or are not applying theological criticism to what they hear. From what I gather, that is pretty common in the US, but I could be wrong.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 27 March 2010 - 08:23 PM

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Man, I screwed that pooch, 18.

For the record, though, there were a lot of really obscure questions...

[Powder]

/10 foot pole
Nope, not gonna do it terez! You can not make me!
/10 foot pole

-Powder

[Terez]

I would never try to make you, Powder. Nor will I tell you that your chances at eternal life depend on it.

[Thelomen Toblerone]

16 points.

Which I think isn't too bad considering I've only ever been to church about twice in my life, was never taught any of it at school (our compulsary lessons were spent for for whole years watching Independence Day, Ghost, and Father Ted. Over and over), and never christened to there was noone who would really teach me.

Some of them surprised me massively though. Especially the goat one. The women half the price of men etc ones are good to know, for I shall use them later to a catholic friend who's abit religious, just to piss her off and make her get me tea.

[Aptorian]

Thelomen Toblerone, on 28 March 2010 - 12:49 PM, said:

was never taught any of it at school (our compulsary lessons were spent for for whole years watching Independence Day, Ghost, and Father Ted. Over and over),

While that does sound fun, that is pretty disappointing. You don't have to believe in it to benefit from a religious education. After all western society is built up around Christian values, I would say it is important that the teachers educate the students in the how and why of these things.

If I was a parent I would not be impressed at all with the school.

[Tiste Simeon]

Pilgrim, on 27 March 2010 - 02:29 AM, said:

As does most every idea in the Bible, Koran, Torah...

Hmmm...

Can I just add that I believe the Bible in its entirety, and as the literal word of God handed down to mankind. And yes I might be a bit crazy, but not enough to land me in a mental home. Yes there are bits that don't make sense, but I would say all the very important bits are very clear...

This post has been edited by Tiste Simeon: 28 March 2010 - 03:45 PM

[Illuyankas]

Really? Even the points where wearing polyester clothing is as bad as being gay? Or where pi equals three? Not to mention all the behavioural things, or the women being worth half of a man, or etc. And which Bible? The original in Arabic or the later translations? And which books? The ones that were edited by that council of whatever it was again? I'm curious.

[Aptorian]

Illuyankas, on 28 March 2010 - 04:28 PM, said:

The original in Arabic or the later translations? And which books? The ones that were edited by that council of whatever it was again? I'm curious.

This is also the thing that bothers me the most about the confidence believers have in the bible they know.

A lot of political and philosophical rethinking and simplification took place in the early centuries. The Bible is a pretty heavily edited compilation of often contradictory accounts of real and mythological events. Knowing that a lot of people who were "Not there" and who were not chosen by any divine power, had a hand in deciding the look and message of the popularly known bible makes it hard to put any trust in the Bible for me. How do you know that bad translations and downright petty or greedy motives have not compromised and corrupted the book?

As a guy educated in historical scrutiny I'd certainly not call the Bible a trustworthy source on anything but what the church wants the reader to think and believe about Christian ideas and history.

[Tiste Simeon]

I believe that men were inspired to bring us the Bible we have today. I don't think that God would allow something like mis-translations to get in the way of getting His Word to His people. I don't understand a lot of the Old Testament law, and I have been reading a lot of it recently... As for the other books that "should have been in the bible" or whatever, They aren't in there because they weren't meant to be. Simple as.

[Bauchelain the Evil]

I see. So you don't believe that there were political reasons for the exclusion of the now apocriphal gospels and the refutation of Arius's theories in the council of Nicea? Also, don't you think that it's a bit strange that God would permit a pagan like Constantin(yes, as shocking as this can be Constantin was not Christian) to have so much say in the council and practically bully the bishops in choosing a religius doctrine that would not destabilize the already weakened Roman Empire?

This post has been edited by Bauchelain the Evil: 28 March 2010 - 05:50 PM

[Aptorian]

Tiste Simeon, on 28 March 2010 - 05:20 PM, said:

I believe that men were inspired to bring us the Bible we have today. I don't think that God would allow something like mis-translations to get in the way of getting His Word to His people. I don't understand a lot of the Old Testament law, and I have been reading a lot of it recently... As for the other books that "should have been in the bible" or whatever, They aren't in there because they weren't meant to be. Simple as.

But, if the "opinions" in the Bible are in there because God condones them, that would mean that God does in fact not "love" the homesexuals, that he does not value women, that he believes that unbelievers can be killed in good faith, that women can be stoned for disobeying their man, etc.

What if you had been born a woman? Or crippled? Or gay Tiste?

What kind of God is that? The Old Testament kind? Or the New Testament kind? I do not believe that the Old Testament kind would be as lenient with the human race if he really existed.

This post has been edited by Aptorian: 28 March 2010 - 05:49 PM

[MTS]

Bauchelain the Evil, on 28 March 2010 - 05:32 PM, said:

I see. So you don't believe that there were political reasons for the exclusion of the now apocriphal gospels and the refutation of Arius's theories in the council of Nicea? Also, don't you think that it's a bit strange that God would permit a pagan like Constantin(yes, as shocking as this can be Constantin was not Christian) to have so much say in the council and practically bully the bishops in choosing a religious doctrine that would not destabilize the already weakened Roman Empire?

This.

Now Tiste, you can believe in 'inspiration' for the Bible all you want, but pretending in any way that the Bible constitutes 'the Word of God' is, in my opinion, rather silly. The fact that the Bible has been edited into oblivion by human men and that (IIRC) most of the New Testament is second- or third-hand retellings of the life of Jesus and such by a boatload of different people (the Old would be similar, I imagine) means that it is not God's Word at all, merely a glorified compendium of condoned religious thought, since many early Christian works on Jesus and other subjects were considered heretical. The only crime by some of them was that didn't deem Jesus fully divine (even those that credited him with partial divinity were omitted). Now, unless the authors of the books have some form of higher credibility that gives them a greater ability to understand God's Word (nevermind the contradictions in the Bible) than those who were banned, it seems to me that the Bible is really only a book of what a certain portion believe God thinks, and as for those who disagree, well they're just plain wrong.

[Tiste Simeon]

Bauchelain the Evil, on 28 March 2010 - 05:32 PM, said:

I see. So you don't believe that there were political reasons for the exclusion of the now apocriphal gospels and the refutation of Arius's theories in the council of Nicea? Also, don't you think that it's a bit strange that God would permit a pagan like Constantin(yes, as shocking as this can be Constantin was not Christian) to have so much say in the council and practically bully the bishops in choosing a religius doctrine that would not destabilize the already weakened Roman Empire?

Aptorian, on 28 March 2010 - 05:48 PM, said:

But, if the "opinions" in the Bible are in there because God condones them, that would mean that God does in fact not "love" the homesexuals, that he does not value women, that he believes that unbelievers can be killed in good faith, that women can be stoned for disobeying their man, etc.

What if you had been born a woman? Or crippled? Or gay Tiste?

What kind of God is that? The Old Testament kind? Or the New Testament kind? I do not believe that the Old Testament kind would be as lenient with the human race if he really existed.

MTS, on 28 March 2010 - 06:08 PM, said:

Now Tiste, you can believe in 'inspiration' for the Bible all you want, but pretending in any way that the Bible constitutes 'the Word of God' is, in my opinion, rather silly. The fact that the Bible has been edited into oblivion by human men and that (IIRC) most of the New Testament is second- or third-hand retellings of the life of Jesus and such by a boatload of different people (the Old would be similar, I imagine) means that it is not God's Word at all, merely a glorified compendium of condoned religious thought, since many early Christian works on Jesus and other subjects were considered heretical. The only crime by some of them was that didn't deem Jesus fully divine (even those that credited him with partial divinity were omitted). Now, unless the authors of the books have some form of higher credibility that gives them a greater ability to understand God's Word (nevermind the contradictions in the Bible) than those who were banned, it seems to me that the Bible is really only a book of what a certain portion believe God thinks, and as for those who disagree, well they're just plain wrong.

Nah, just kidding, though I am beginning to remember why I stopped posting in the DB...

Listen, I don't have all the answers to your questions. I'm not afraid (as so many people, including a lot of you guys, seem to be) of admitting that I don't know... All I know is that I have met God on a very personal level, and when I read the bible, it comes alive. I can't argue from a logical position because faith, by its very nature is not logical. Sometimes, you just need to shrug off what your brain is telling you and go with what you know is true. The reason none of you can do this is because you are all taking a look at it from a very rational and, might I add, cynical point of view.

OK, so I don't get why a lot of the laws were in the Old Testament, except that many of them were written to distinguish Gods people from all the Canaanite nations around them. I can't intellectually explain why God sometimes appears far off. I can't give you all the rational explanations you guys are looking for, and no doubt this isn't satisfactory to you. I will try to go into some of them though.

@Bauchelain the Evil - Yes, I know Constantine was not a Christian, and it was a clever move politically to marry the church and the state, which is why he did it... Also I cannot claim to know the mind of God, and therefore the only answer I can give as to why it happened is that if God did intervene in every thing that was going on, you lot would be complaining at him that we have no choice in anything...

@Apt - I understand that it seems odd that the God of the OT and the NT apparently contradict themselves, but Jesus changed EVERYTHING... He came to open up Gods love to everyone, not just the Jews. He fulfilled a lot of the laws in the OT thus rendering them complete. There are many places throughout the NT where the writer refers back to OT law and shows how Jesus has changed it, to form the new covenant between God and everyone, everywhere.

@MTS - The Gospels were all written by people who knew Jesus, as was the book of Acts (in which the author, Luke, is present for much of it, and written from a first person perspective.) The rest of the NT is a bunch of letters, explaining to early churches across Asia and Europe about how to live in this new exciting life, that for many was a radical change from the norm. Sure, many teachers in this day have twisted the word, or dulled it down into boringness, but there is still power in the word of God, for those who truly want to find it...

Disclaimer: I'm not expecting anyone to agree with me on any of these points, but I have to say what I believe. You don't find many people these days with such conviction.

[Cold Iron]

Tiste Simeon, on 28 March 2010 - 07:01 PM, said:

Sometimes, you just need to shrug off what your brain is telling you and go with what you know is true.

Truly insightful. This is the mind of the human being unashamedly laid bare. Not even the most skeptical amongst us can deny this statement. Not only is the subconsciousness capable of perceiving and interpreting entirely independently from the consciousness, it is faster and more accurate. Consider the analogy of communication: we can only say one thing at a time, but we can convey a lot of meaning in other ways; this is like the conscious mind, having one thought at a time, and the subconscious mind flavouring this thought with a multitude of meanings, weighted by our memories and desires. Truth can be a cold, sterile, stainless steal surgical table, or it can be a lush forest glade, full of damp smells and dappled light.

I suddenly see a strong correlation between the left/right political divide and the protestant/catholic christian divide. A central authority with too much power will inevitably abuse it and be toppled, but dilute this power too far and the ultimate goal or message is lost.

I do love this place.

[Powder]

Came on to tease Terez and thought I would have to post something in rebuttal to several points, but after reading I would rather let Tiste keep cutting his teeth in here.

-Powder

[MTS]

Tiste Simeon, on 28 March 2010 - 07:01 PM, said:

@MTS - The Gospels were all written by people who knew Jesus, as was the book of Acts (in which the author, Luke, is present for much of it, and written from a first person perspective.) The rest of the NT is a bunch of letters, explaining to early churches across Asia and Europe about how to live in this new exciting life, that for many was a radical change from the norm. Sure, many teachers in this day have twisted the word, or dulled it down into boringness, but there is still power in the word of God, for those who truly want to find it...

Reading up on it, it seems the only works that scholars agree on who wrote them are seven out of thirteen epistles that were supposedly written by Paul, but even so, a lot of them were written thirty or forty years after Jesus' death. I'm reading that most of the Gospels were probably written by followers of the traditional writers, rather than the apostles themselves, but it doesn't really matter though, since my point was that it is such a disparate work that claiming that every author's word echoes God's is, in my opinion, drawing too long a bow.

In spite of it though, the Bible contains great ideas on how we should live and contains a lot that we can learn from. However, I am unwilling to tout it as 'the Word of God' when I can see so much wrong with it. But perhaps that's my failing as a Christian, and not Christianity itself. Who knows. (see, I admitted it )

[Cougar]

Cold Iron, on 30 March 2010 - 03:03 AM, said:

Tiste Simeon, on 28 March 2010 - 07:01 PM, said:

Sometimes, you just need to shrug off what your brain is telling you and go with what you know is true.

Truly insightful. This is the mind of the human being unashamedly laid bare. Not even the most sceptical amongst us can deny this statement.

Au contraire dear CI. I do not want to derail this into some epistemological dead end, but I disagree. The key word is 'know', you can't know anything and you certainly can't know something is true. I think a better word might have been believe or feel.

Nevertheless, quiz done, 33 out of 50. Not bad, some I remembered, some I guessed. It's an interesting bit of fun, but it makes no bones about what it's doing, so I'm not sure why it's getting a negative reaction.

[Cold Iron]

Cougar, on 30 March 2010 - 11:16 AM, said:

Au contraire dear CI. I do not want to derail this into some epistemological dead end, but I disagree. The key word is 'know', you can't know anything and you certainly can't know something is true. I think a better word might have been believe or feel.

I need to do more reading, I fear I'm still stuck at Plato in a world that has long moved past. Still, I'm not sure that your distinction has any meaning to the subjective individual - the feeling that Tiste describes is not dependant on others agreement, indeed he is ignoring his own conscious reasoning to "know" this "truth". My point is that we are all not only capable of this type of irrational response but we need it, we depend on it, we make a million decisions a day with it. Try if you want to deny it but you are drawing a false line in the sand, there is no real difference between a theist and an atheist, just social identity.