The Christian Thread - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

rushfan4

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66931

Posted: October 09 2013 at 08:38

I'm listening to Stryper today.

Epignosis

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32595

Posted: October 09 2013 at 08:33

My comment was a tongue-in-cheek use of your own (irresponsible) hermeneutical practices. The Bible is not some textbook which one may use to pick out verses to support a cause. It isn't to be used as a pissing match on who can find more Bible verses. The biblical texts must be respected regarding cultural, historical, and linguistic contexts.

And how am I violently opposed to anything? I've never injured anyone! Shocked

https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

dtguitarfan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708

Posted: October 09 2013 at 05:54

Epignosis wrote:

Reading anachronistic ideals into the Bible doesn't persuade me, I must say. I mean, if you want to get into it, God was disappointed that Israel even asked for an earthly government.

1 Samuel 8 wrote:

⁶But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. ⁷And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. ⁸As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. ⁹Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

¹⁰Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. ¹¹He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. ¹²Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. ¹³He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. ¹⁴He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. ¹⁵He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. ¹⁶Your male and female servants and the best of your cattlec]">[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. ¹⁷He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. ¹⁸When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

¹⁹But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. ²⁰Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”

²¹When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. ²²The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”

Then Samuel said to the Israelites, “Everyone go back to your own town.”

Sounds like God had about as high an opinion of monarchies as he did of democracies. Wink

That is a very over-generalized mis-statement of what that passage was about. The people were using a democracy to choose a monarchy. God is not against democracy, and neither is God against government. You are, but that doesn't mean the Bible is. You just choose to be so violently opposed to any form of authority that you gloss right over the passages that support it, and then you find the one passage that you can twist to suit your needs amongst the dozens I can find that refute your position, and then you think you've won.

My 2012 List

dr wu23

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20712

Posted: October 08 2013 at 22:28

dtguitarfan wrote:

I have written a new blog post defending the idea that social justice is a concept in the Bible. I thought about sharing it in the Libertarian thread...but I don't need to go there. Wink

Based on Gospel writings on Jesus he was definitely for 'social justice' and if he were alive today he would be seen as a left wing radical.....which makes one wonder why so many Christian conservatives cling to their idea of who they think he was and don't actually utilize any of his principles.

One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin

Epignosis

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32595

Posted: October 08 2013 at 18:06

I think you'd benefit from these:

http://www.amazon.com/Social-Science-Commentary-Synoptic-Gospels-Malina/dp/0800634918

http://www.amazon.com/Honor-Patronage-Kinship-Purity-Unlocking/dp/0830815724/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381272777&sr=1-1&keywords=honor+purity

http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Near-Eastern-Thought-Testament/dp/0801027500/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_z

Reading anachronistic ideals into the Bible doesn't persuade me, I must say. I mean, if you want to get into it, God was disappointed that Israel even asked for an earthly government.

1 Samuel 8 wrote:

²¹When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. ²²The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”

Then Samuel said to the Israelites, “Everyone go back to your own town.”

Sounds like God had about as high an opinion of monarchies as he did of democracies. Wink

https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

dtguitarfan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708

Posted: October 08 2013 at 07:56

I have written a new blog post defending the idea that social justice is a concept in the Bible. I thought about sharing it in the Libertarian thread...but I don't need to go there. Wink

My 2012 List

dr wu23

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20712

Posted: October 01 2013 at 14:09

If anyone is interested in watching an interesting film that addresses these issues about enlightenment while still being a part of the wrold I recommend The Razors Edge with Bill Murray or the old version with Tyrone Power.

Based on Maugham's short novel btw.

"The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to pass over; thus the wise say the path to Salvation is hard," taken from a verse in the Katha-Upanishad.

One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin

tamijo

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287

Posted: October 01 2013 at 11:57

dtguitarfan wrote:

tamijo wrote:

dtguitarfan wrote:

timothy leary wrote:

Buddha says awareness of self is illusion and the main cause of suffering

but I think that was more what Buddha was getting at

I know a lot of buddists, both westeners (sigh) and Asians, but its the first time anyone have indicated to know what Budda was getting at.

I'm not claiming to understand Buddha in the same way I understand that 2+2=4. It is very difficult for anyone to claim understanding of these concepts, as they almost always involve some paradox. For example, it could be said that in order to properly release the self, you must first understand your self. It's tricky, for sure. What I'm getting at, though, is that I don't think the goal is this complete detachment where you become apathetic. Rather, it is more about becoming very much "real", very much in the world. To be "real" and in the world, you must learn to stop living inside of your false self. But to stop living in your false self, you must first be aware of your false self, and how it operates. Yes, very confusing, I know. But perhaps you're starting to see what I'm getting at at little?

Sure, I'm aware that was not what you was trying to say, just came out in a funny way LOL

and I do agree to your claim, it's not about becoming apathetic, it's about being in a state where you are able to be in the situation, without the situation getting 'in' you.

Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours

dtguitarfan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708

Posted: October 01 2013 at 08:29

Originally posted by Second Life Syndrome

Second Life Syndrome wrote:

dtguitarfan wrote:

^ Interesting - I have put it on my list of books I want to read. Thank you! I have another one of his books on my list.

Yeah, even that title is provocative. I had a recent conversation where someone asked what the gospel was and how to preach it. I went into the history of the word "euangelion" and how Jesus' gospel matched other gospels of Caesar and other "messiah's" in some ways, but contrasted them in others, etc. etc. (I have a blog post on the subject). So then, the person who started the conversation goes "Geoff, what is truth?" So I immediately had this back-of-the-neck-hair-raising-suspicious feeling from that question. So I go into the difference between "truths" and "Truth", which is infinite and thus infinitely unknowable, etc. So she starts going "is there anything you know is true?" And I can tell she's heretic hunting here, so I'm taking an avoidant stance. I'm describing how people often claim to "know" things, but all they know is what they've perceived, and this implies that they've put trust in their methods of perception, but how can we "know" that we don't have faulty perception? What if my eyes are bad and I've never found out (for example)? Etc. She keeps hounding me: "is there anything you know is true?" Over and over again she's asking, and I'm trying to get her to think deeply and lead her to the inevitable answer. She's having none of it. Other people in the thread are even telling her she's being pushy and rude, but she's ignoring them. Finally, after she repeats the "is there anything you know" line of questioning I give her my answer: "there is only one thing anyone can know with absolute certainty: I am." Boom, she goes off on a tirade about what a heretic I am and lists of about 30 things she "knows" are true that are requirements for being a "Christian", and therefore I'm not one but a wolf in sheep's clothing in the service of Satan, bla bla bla. I say "you don't know any of those things. You hope and trust in them, just as I hope and trust in the things I believe in. And belief, by the way, is more than thoughts in your head - it's about what you're willing to act on. If you can't act on it, you don't really believe it." More heretic calling, etc., and finally I leave. Eh...well, I thought you might enjoy that story.

Been reading Descartes?

Haha, actually, no. I mean, I'm familiar with the quote. It's other things that I've been reading and thinking about that led me to this conclusion. We're so addicted to certainty in America, and it's actually becoming quite harmful, because no one can have a peaceful conversation about any topic any more. But when you really think about it, you can't be certain of anything but the fact that you exist. Because in order to believe anything, you have to put your hope and trust in something. I can say "I saw A, so I believe B." But that implies that I'm putting trust in my vision. I trust that my vision is not faulty. But how can I know? Well, I can ask other people to look at what I looked at and describe it, and if it matches, I can put more trust in my belief. But this implies that I must trust that everyone's vision is perfect - it's possible that every single human being has vision that is faulty and that does not perceive things as they really are. But it would not be a very pleasant existence to live like that, so at some point you put your hope and trust in things, because it is more healthy to do so. And if we could all admit that, and seek healthy beliefs rather than beliefs based on a false certainty, the world would be a much better place!

My 2012 List

Second Life Syndrome View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: August 20 2012
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 365

Posted: September 30 2013 at 19:34

Been reading Descartes?

theprogmind.com

dr wu23

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20712

Posted: September 30 2013 at 14:46

timothy leary wrote:

My bad....you is then

"You are what you is."

Zappa

One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin

dtguitarfan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708

Posted: September 30 2013 at 09:52

tamijo wrote:

dtguitarfan wrote:

timothy leary wrote:

Buddha says awareness of self is illusion and the main cause of suffering

but I think that was more what Buddha was getting at

I know a lot of buddists, both westeners (sigh) and Asians, but its the first time anyone have indicated to know what Budda was getting at.

My 2012 List

tamijo

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287

Posted: September 30 2013 at 08:12

dtguitarfan wrote:

timothy leary wrote:

Buddha says awareness of self is illusion and the main cause of suffering

but I think that was more what Buddha was getting at

I know a lot of buddists, both westeners (sigh) and Asians, but its the first time anyone have indicated to know what Budda was getting at.

Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours

dtguitarfan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708

Posted: September 30 2013 at 08:02

^ To add to my earlier post, I also find a commonality between Buddhism's idea of the "annihilation of self" (as I've heard it called in some cases) and "taking up your cross", or "self-sacrifice".

My 2012 List

dtguitarfan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708

Posted: September 30 2013 at 06:57

timothy leary wrote:

Buddha says awareness of self is illusion and the main cause of suffering

I think the point of this was not to say "I don't really exist". I think it's more along the lines of realizing that this idea that I can be an "individual" without anyone else is an illusion. This idea of separation is an illusion. I am a product of all of the people I've met and the combination of ideas I've been presented with through all of them. There is nothing that I "know" outside of my relationships. I can't "know" anything if I haven't experienced it or observed it. So separation is an illusion. It's very hard to explain, but I think that was more what Buddha was getting at - knowing that we are all a part of "one another".

My 2012 List

timothy leary View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319

Posted: September 29 2013 at 12:28

My bad....you is then

Padraic

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169

Posted: September 29 2013 at 12:07

timothy leary wrote:

"I am" is surely no certainty.

How so? I thought Descartes took care of this.

dr wu23

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20712

Posted: September 29 2013 at 10:21

timothy leary wrote:

Buddha says awareness of self is illusion and the main cause of suffering

Well...the Buddha was suffering from delusion himself ..

as are all human beings.

But more to the point is that self and how we see reality overall with a small s is certainly a state of misperception or 'illusion' if you like and Self with large s is when we 'get it' and realize that error.

If one realizes...not just intellectually... 'I Am' (state of pure beingness) ,then they are beyond this and have gone beyond duality . They Are and are one with All.

The first noble truth explains the nature of dukkha. Dukkha is commonly translated as “suffering”, “anxiety”, “dissatisfaction”, “unease”, etc., and it is said to have the following three aspects:^[c]

The obvious physical and mental suffering associated with birth, growing old, illness and dying.
The anxiety or stress of trying to hold onto things that are constantly changing.
A basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of existence, due to the fact that all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance. On this level, the term indicates a lack of satisfaction, a sense that things never measure up to our expectations or standards.