Spiritual but not religious?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=68056
Printed Date: June 02 2025 at 18:50
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Spiritual but not religious?
Posted By: Finnforest
Subject: Spiritual but not religious?
Date Posted: June 05 2010 at 18:22
|
Somewhat interesting article that touches on several points surrounding faith and community. Might be interesting for some. http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/personal/06/03/spiritual.but.not.religious/index.html?hpt=C1 - http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/personal/06/03/spiritual.but.not.religious/index.html?hpt=C1 ------------- https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sQD8uhpWXCw" rel="nofollow - It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood...Road Rage Edition |
Replies:
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: June 05 2010 at 18:28
|
Here's my two offensive cents: Believing in religious dogma is delusional and nonsensical, but if delusions make you happy then fine, be delusional. Nevertheless, it would be better if we all had as few delusions as possible; they're all dangerous in varying degrees. Religion is volatile; spirituality is volatile, but less so. Besides the so-called "SBNR" people are a lot more likely to want to listen to Enya and buy small trickling water fountains for serenity, rather than kill a Dutchman when he offends their sky daddy. So kudos to them. Now take the next step and believe in none of that nonsense. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Falx
Date Posted: June 05 2010 at 19:02
|
(disclaimer: I haven't read the link) It is possible to be spiritual without being religious. Spirituality could just be defined to mean "finding significance in ordinary experiences", this could be applied to listening to music (that moves you emotionally, plenty of threads on that on these forums) or gazing up at the stars and being impressed by the physics that go into star formation. =F= ------------- "You must go beyond the limit of the limit of your limits!" - Mr. Doctor "It is our duty as men and women to proceed as though the limits of our abilities do not exist." - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 05 2010 at 19:14
|
I've moved beyond religion and spirituality. I am quite certain that I will die someday. This doesn't really bother me. I just want to have some fun before my number is up. I will be kind to my fellow humans and other animals. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Marty McFly
Date Posted: June 05 2010 at 19:14
But by this logic I would be spiritual too ------------- There's a point where "avant-garde" and "experimental" becomes "terrible" and "pointless," -Andyman1125 on Lulu  Even my |
Falx wrote:Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: June 05 2010 at 19:28
|
Spirituality is MUCH stronger than a religion ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 01:22
|
Spiritual but not religious? Right here! EDIT: Well, at least I consider myself so. After all, it's all a personal thing. Whether you're christian, jewish, muslim, atheist, worship the sun, hail satan. Just keep it to yourself is all I ask for! |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 08:25
|
I suspect this phrase, "I'm spiritual but not religious" is just a way to not offend anyone. Because that's the name of the game in the US- if you offend someone, you lose (even if people just say they are offended by you, your words, or your beliefs, society now demands you apologize for it). Having a nebulous religion (that's what this spirituality is) allows you to make allowances for everybody without "judging" them (and yet somehow still voice criticisms of "organized" religion). This is merely Hegelian synthesis philosophy masquerading as religion. It exists in churches today- I'd say most churches with an enormous congregation fall into this category. Why? Because there is no truth, just what feels right and- this is the ultimate goal here- makes you happy. There is no evil except what you decide is evil. There is no accountability because no one can judge you. No one has authority over you. That personal god the article talked about? That's you. When you are "spiritual but not religious," you ultimately worship yourself. "I had this revelation that I bow to no one, and I've been spiritually a much happier person," And people call Christians self-absorbed, yet we believe the world was created for and worship a Jewish carpenter born 2000 years ago.  ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 09:06
|
Very interesting Robert, and I understand what you are saying. Convenience. Even within churches, you see them "evolving" to make them more comfortable to the modern culture of the people going there. That does strike me as pretty silly. I'm not religious (anymore) but if I decide to return to the church, I want it to mean something, rather than be some watered down sing-along pandering to the whims of the parishioners and their media-correct culture. OTOH, the quoted parable is very interesting and thought-provoking as well. Was this from the bible? What do you make of it? "God and the devil were walking down a path one day when God spotted something sparkling by the side of the path. He picked it up and held it in the palm of his hand. "Ah, Truth," he said. "Here, give it to me," the devil said. "I'll organize it." ------------- https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sQD8uhpWXCw" rel="nofollow - It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood...Road Rage Edition |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 09:21
No, this isn't from the Bible. It's a way of aggrandizing postmodern thought- the notion that "truth" is fluid and nebulous and is different for every person. Experience, not logic, scripture, science, or legislature, determines what is right and wrong, and what is true and false. And these can change as the situation changes. It's ultimately about personal happiness- that's why so many people can get married (which is a legal covenant), and then one of them commits adultery because he or she "just wasn't happy anymore." No moral absolutes here- just a convenient shiftiness for people to assure themselves that they are still "okay." It saddens me that the church I grew up in is now just like this. When we visited last month, we sat in a Sunday School class of young couples. I noted that the name Jesus or Christ wasn't mentioned once, and that any time a Bible passage was referred to, any follow up questions asked us to see how it relates to our own experience- the entire hour was complete and utter fluff. Many churches change their message to maintain relevance, and this saddens me. I get fliers in the mail all the time, real colorful fliers from churches inviting me to come to their series and learn how to spice up my sex life. Right, because that's what Jesus wants for me.  Of course, the Bible predicted this would happen: For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. (2 Timothy 4:3) Self-help is replacing God in churches.  ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 09:42
So, you're saying the Bible is going the way of the Constitution?  Where our justices are selected not to uphold it, but rather to dissect it and make it palatable and "relevant to the lives of Americans?" The self-help church thing sounds like the thinking in the schools, in the public square. Where every sharp corner must be wrapped in bubble wrap so that no group of people are put off by traditional thinking. Very interesting. I've seen the same flyers come to our house too. "Come to service Sunday and feel the experience!" Crap like that. Basically, making Church into a social call. If I ever do return to the church, I want the authentic experience, the history and the ritual is a part of the beauty. Maybe we don't live up to all of the ideals of the Church (I was a catholic), but, the answer would be for me to try harder, not for the church to move the bar down to my own comfort level. But for now, I remain in religious rebellion. To be completely honest, I don't have a firm belief....the only honest answer I have for the spiritual question is....I don't know. Maybe someday I will find it again, maybe not. ------------- https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sQD8uhpWXCw" rel="nofollow - It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood...Road Rage Edition |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 09:53
You are an insightful person, Jim. 
------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 10:04
|
I don't feel that way Robert! I feel like an idiot most of the time to be honest, when all of you smart guys are talking philosophy and physics, some of you guys amaze me. It becomes clear to me when I watch some of these long philosophical debates in other threads that perhaps I should have paid more attention to education. But I do know the Golden rule, and as Slarty says below, I try to practice it. And I had phenomenal parents, which helps. ------------- https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sQD8uhpWXCw" rel="nofollow - It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood...Road Rage Edition |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 11:20
Understand everything you say, and no doubt it's true for many probably, but I'll never BS anyone in terms of this topic. Been Catholic, been agnostic, I've actually thought about it all, and when I'm say I'm spiritual but not religious I mean it. And I don't really mind offending people, I've said it before and I'll say it now: I am against religion....doesn't mean I don't have my own faith, spirituality, beliefs whatever you want to call it. And I have indeed thought about what I believe long and hard. Personally, I just try not to judge people, especially with faith. Now, I do it alot...mostly when they force me to do so. Like I said, keep it to thine self, that's all I want. And if you havn't noticed before Rob, I don't really care for PC. And yeah, this is a topic where I really don't censor myself at all  |
Posted By: seventhsojourn
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 11:39
Delusion: An abnormal belief which is held with absolute subjective certainty, which requires no external proof, which may be held in the face of contradictory evidence, and which has personal significance and importance to the individual concerned. Excluded are those beliefs which can be understood as part of the subject's cultural or religious background... (Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry).
stoney... if you have evidence of the non-existence of God, why not let us in on it?
  |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 12:02
|
What about " The Church not made with Hands" to steal a Waterboys song title?
I believe that spirituality runs MUCH deeper than a religious label and yes very much a personal portal to knowing or believing. There is a progressive spirituality that seems evident these days where you Know people are on their journey guided by their inner self and their personal relationship with their God. I think the power of " Giving" unsolicited is the most " connected" spiritual kick of all and, religion...IMHO is a minor distraction with far reaching consequences.
We are who we want to be and the goodwill and spirituality created by freewill reigns supreme yet we must not judge those in fellowship of a specific denomination.
I ramble....but happily so  ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 12:25
I don't see how this is helpful at all (and would inevitably mean the end of traditional religion- maybe that's your point). A genuine Christian will share the gospel with others (Acts 1:8 isn't a command from Jesus- it's a declarative statement). The biblical model for sharing the gospel, however, isn't persistence with the same people. You throw the seed liberally and freely, and some of the crops with grow (Mark 4:1-20). If people don't respond or care, you move on. The concept of "Bible-thumping" and browbeating nonbelievers is unbiblical (and rude). ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 13:19
I have no problem with people trying to persuade me to their belief system. Jehovah's Witnesses should probably start being required to deliver mail. Although, I'm thinking they probably put a curse on my house and thay's why I got flooded out last year.  And as far as being spiritual rather than religious, it is possible to believe in the supernatural but not follow an organized religion.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 13:55
|
I'm with Sam Harris on this one: Explore your own self through meditation and introspection. The results will be highly subjective and entirely non-religious - except when you decide to write down your experiences and conclusions and try to teach them to others. Which is how all the major (and minor) religions started - although for most of them you'll also have to add a bit of criminal energy and some ulterior motives. I guess you can call me a spiritual person in that I think a lot about the world and it's beauty as well as its horrors, I ponder the cosmos and whether there's something beyond the things we today know. But despite all that, I'm still 100% atheist. Which means that I will not believe any religious concept without evidence. This rules out pretty much every concept of spirituality that the proverbial man on the street is familiar with. Even Buddhism and Taoism are ultimately tainted by dogma. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 14:03
Never actually thought of it that way, but yeah I suppose that's what would result. And maybe we got into another battle of semantics. I guess the bible thumpers are what I was thinking of. I mean, once I was sitting at lunch when some guys asked us if they could take some time and speak to us about God. We obliged, see that's fine. I'm glad you said browbeating, I couldnt think of any good of way putting it, but that was a good word to use. It is indeed rude, not to mention off putting and really turns some away. It goes for all though, Rob. I don't want to hear it from Atheists, nor Jews or Muslims or anyone, unless I want to. You could worship Satan for all I care, just dont go pestering about it. However, so many people are not as considerate and knowledgable as you Rob. Not even in a preaching sense, but just in regular conversations with people they insist on shoving down my throat and telling my I'm going to hell, even if I've said I dont care, (just to shut em up or freak em out ) |
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 14:10
i don't have a problem with them knocking on my door - Ii can choose to answer and how long I talk to them. Although I find it strange these jehovahs Ws coming over here to convert u poor heathens in little UK! Haven't they got their work cut out in America?
 ------------- Help me I'm falling! |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 14:12
We have Mormons living in this apartment complex and they get rotated out from Utah every so often (like missionaries, I guess). This means I get frequent encounters with them. There was only one of them whom I allowed into my home, and we'd discuss things and even go out to eat. Very kind and thoughtful young man (and a sweet wife). The other Mormons, they are a tad graceless, I must say. A pair of them approached me as I was getting my mail. I was unshaven, wearing an undershirt, my hair wasn't combed- I looked awful. They started telling me about Mormonism and I told them I'd read a good bit of The Book of Mormon (And that I was especially interested in the story about the wooden submarines God told people to build, but forgot to tell them to put air holes in it- I always ask the Mormons about that one). The end result is always the same: They always tell me that I need to pray to ask God to reveal the truth to me, and that I have to just experience it. One of those young men at the mail box said it was like chocolate cake- you can see the cake, but until you've tried it, you don't know what it's really like and how wonderful it is. He asked me if I liked cake. I said no, not really. He asked me what I liked. I said I like beer. He told me beer was bad for me. I told him so was his cake. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 14:25
|
Well played Rob. Yeah, back in early High School I knew a kid who was a Jehovah's Witness and he was always trying to give me his pamphlet's. I don't have so much a problem the door to door either because at least they go away if you ignore, or just say "no sorry". At least where I live. And actually I do remember walking back to my dorm and a Mormon stopped me to talk about it. Told me about their on campus meetings and all. Also, the one guy who was standing right outside a door and just thrust a small New Testament into my hand . Needless to say, not the way I'd prefer itI guess it happens all across the spectrum (damn atheists outside the HUB with horns yelling their insanity at us) and we seem to agree that if we don't want it, just leave us be. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 14:44
Well, it certainly is my point. Basically Christianity could be described as a racket started by John the Baptist, with Jesus (who was one of his disciples) as the successor. And after that you have Saul/Paul, picking up the scam without even having known Jesus in person. He sets up this new religion as an improved version of Judaism, without the inconveniences of circumcision, kosher meat etc.. There are also no fixed taxes to pay to the priests ... you pay only what you can afford to give. No wonder this new religion thrived. "Be a good person". That's a motto that most modern Christians would agree to, yet it has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. Spirituality also has nothing to do with Christianity ... you're not supposed to be spiritual, you're simply supposed to believe what you're taught. Thanks, but no thanks ... I'll stick with being good and pursuing some kind of spirituality by meditation/introspection and pondering the meaning of life. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 14:54
Isn't this a tad arrogant? I mean, you keep telling me (at least I remember that from previous discussions) that you *know* you're right. Now there's this other guy who also *knows* he's right. He believes in wooden submarines, you believe in a world wide flood and a boat that someone built and used to perpetuate people and all land animals of the planet. From my perspective, I see little difference between your positions. How can you be so sure that you're right? Nothing in scripture can verify your claims unless you see scripture as evidence in and of itself - which the Mormons also claim for their magic book. You can try to beef up your point using the argument of revelation - you can claim that Jesus talks to you, or you sense his presence by other means. But again, your counterpart claims the same. Add to that that experiments have shown that there's an area of the brain which, if properly stimulated, creates just this kind of spiritual experience. By this argument alone all religions are easily exposed as what they are: Man made delusions. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 14:56
Right...it's all a big scam that John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul profited greatly from. Really made them rich and got them in good with the Roman elite. I don't even know what being "spiritual" means in this context. "Be a good person" is, in itself, a meaningless imperative. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 15:13
I've shared this with you many times before. I will quote the exchange:
Regarding Mormonism specifically, we can quite easily investigate Joseph Smith's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Joseph_Smith_Jr. - life and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecies_of_Joseph_Smith_Jr. - claims . For example, he made prophecies that failed to come to pass. According to the Bible, that makes him a false prophet, and we should ignore him (Deuteronomy 18:22). Easy enough. Mormons teach that The Book of Mormon is consistent with The Bible. It is not. This is why I do not consider Mormonism "true Christianity." Now, with respect to the question of "Are Mormons saved or not..." ...well, that's a different matter altogether. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 15:38
|
I think we could go on and on so I am going to have one final comment and leave this thread. So much emphasis in some religions is put on the words of religions. To coin the science ficton great ,Frank Herbert, the people have come, through religious spin, obssessed with the words of God/their Prophets and have forgotten to worship God directly.
And I dismiss comments stating that you cannot be spiritual if you are not religious........................Why? Because I Know that you can, and that is as strong as faith.
To each their own. ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 15:41
No, in fact they died or got imprisoned for their beliefs. But they managed to pull people away from the established religions. The profit came later - when the religion became more powerful. They may not even have intended the profit in the first place - maybe it was simply about power or the feeling of satisfaction that you can get from people following you.
It's only meaningless if you think that good end evil are values defined by religious books. I maintain that these definitions are innate - education can pervert them or enhance them, but in essence anything that religion can tell us originally comes from our own intuition. Spirituality enters this context because atheists (which don't follow any religion) are often criticised by religious people to be overly rational and blind to the spiritual aspects of life. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 15:50
Well, you're quoting scripture to make a point against - scripture. Just because the old testament is old doesn't make it any more relevant. The whole book of Genesis has been shown to be fiction by Jewish scientists ... Anyway - how about John the Baptist's claim that the new prophet would come in his lifetime ... or Jesus' claims that the world would end in his lifetime? He was a doomsday fanatic, convinced that the world was going to end soon - "have no thought for tomorrow". Excuse me, but does anybody see the problem here? But like in any cult movement, when prophecies don't come true, many cultists get even more fanatic. It's counter-intuitive, but the fact that many Christians still expect the second coming of Christ after it's been postponed numerous times kind of illustrates this nicely. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 16:02
|
Technically Mike, the apocalypse was only delayed once. I think being spiritual but not religious is really a contradiction in terms, and generally speaking I'm pretty sure they're just being too lazy to commit to anything. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 16:10
This is one of the silliest claims you've ever made. May I remind you that Paul was already among the elite? He was a Pharisee, a "Hebrew among Hebrews," and he was a furious persecutor and killer of early Christians.
I maintain that adultery is immoral (as does the Bible). "Nature" would have us being sexually proliferate. The very fact that your idea of what is good will run counter to the varying code of ethics people adopt throughout the world (irrespective of religion in many cases) demonstrates that morality is in no way innate (in fact, I don't know if you have children, but I can attest that they don't have a clue what is right and wrong unless they are taught- otherwise they will often behave selfishly, deceitfully, and without regard for others). What "spiritual aspects of life?" What does that mean? I'm asking. And since when do you, an atheist, bow to the criticisms of the religious? ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 16:39
|
^ Adultery? Where is this coming from all of a sudden? I never said that adultery is moral. Personally, I think it is wrong because it involves hurting a person. It's a special form of lying. About children: I have none. But some of my friends and relatives have children, and I have seen many times that they adopt the behavior of their parents. My stepsister married a Muslim from Tunisia, and they have two cute daughters at the age of 3 and 1. Their parents are always arguing and the "man" in the house is beating the children and his wife. Our whole family is on the verge of breaking up because of this, and what do you know ... I saw the 1 year old daughter hit her grandmother when she wasn't getting what she wanted. We are all hard-wired to be good (peaceful, empathic, generous, forgiving etc.) but it's very easy to change that for parents. That's my take on the situation. BTW: I "bow" to nobody. I simply hear the criticism and come up with arguments against it. Needless to say that religious people will not accept these arguments when they are in contradiction with their dogma, which simply is not up for discussion.
I think that being spiritual and religious is a contradiction in terms. It all depends on how you define "spiritual" of course, but IMO religious dogma is always in contradiction with introspection and reflection. Dogma tells you what to believe, removing any need for spiritual journeys or discoveries except for those that confirm the dogma. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 16:45
|
Incidentally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Coming_of_Christ#Predictions_based_on_the_New_Testament - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Coming_of_Christ#Predictions_based_on_the_New_Testament
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 16:56
|
Mike, Henry said that, not me. Could you correct the quote box please? Thanks.
------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 17:00
Not necessarily. If my wife gives me permission to sleep with other women (an "open marriage"), and I do, I have still committed adultery (and committed evil), even if it did not hurt my wife. I do not base my morality on "not hurting" other people. You see? You do have a philosophical basis for morality. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 17:09
 Sorry.------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 17:12
That seems an extreme thing to say. Do you really think that? (I suppose you must you said it). Out of interest what is evil?
(Sorry to butt in!)  ------------- Help me I'm falling! |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 17:14
Well, there you have it. When you say "adultery" you actually mean the victimless crime against god, when I only see the empathic level of whether someone suffers in the process. This is how religion poisons your mind. You have effectively destroyed your basis for morality, since your objective is simply pleasing your god. What happens to actual people is peripheral, unless it might also violate one of your religious rules - then you obey because you fear to be punished by your god. How can anything be a moral action if you do it out of fear of eternal damnation? ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 17:43
That's a smug accusation to make. It's also loaded with assumptions. I do not "obey because I "fear to be punished by [my] god," for one. I obey out of gratitude. But you have proven not to understand the true concept of faith and grace ("patronage") as they related to ancient people, so I don't expect you to understand this. Also, you judge morality on motivation. Is that true? If it is, I'm surprised. Lots of people don't break the law because they fear legal consequences. Would a person refraining from theft for that reason alone not be acting morally? ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 17:58
Evil is being and doing that which God calls evil. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 18:12
I find it amusing that you accused me of being "a tad arrogant," especially in light of claims you make. I'm pretty sure no one has proved the whole book of Genesis to be fiction. That's silly. And even if I believed that, what do you expect me to say? "Oh gee, somebody says some Jewish scientists proved the whole book of Genesis to be a work of fiction. I think I will be an atheist now." The new prophet John the Baptist spoke of? That would be Jesus Christ. As for the passage you're referring to about Jesus, that's in Matthew 24, and you assume that he is talking about the same stuff that's in Revelation. Matthew 24 is one of the most divisive passages in Scripture because (I would argue) of the way the passage is often translated (especially the Greek word aion, which would refer to an age, not planet Earth). The Jews recognized two ages- the Mosaic age, and the age of the Messiah, and the latter would have no end (Luke 1:31-33). There is also a lot of Ancient Near Eastern "judgment language" (like the stars not shining) that hearers would understand immediately (such phrases are found in the Old Testament, like Isaiah 13:10). In short, Matthew 24 regards the consummation of the Mosaic age and the events that happened in 66-70 AD. This http://gospelthemes.com/Mt24.htm - article is lengthy, but does a good job explaining this. Now I've admitted several times that eschatology is a weak subject for me, but that is my understanding of Matthew 24. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 18:17
|
Well, as long as you are smiting people whom God has declared bad because God is not capable of doing this on his own...
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 18:49
This is very helpful Robert. It's an important distinction that I've never heard someone put so clearly. I don't like being "thumped to" and I've been vocal about it. But for someone to talk about what they believe and then let it go makes it infinitely more palatable. And I imagine that people who come to God on their own accord via a planted seed are much more likely to stick with it than someone who has been brow-beaten into participation by a well meaning parent, sibling, or friend. ? ------------- https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sQD8uhpWXCw" rel="nofollow - It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood...Road Rage Edition |
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 19:28
|
I think we're diverging from the OP again. We might continue with circulral arguments about philosophical aspects of truth and faith - but the thing in question is the new wave of spirituality - a spirituality without organized religion. A self-centered spirituality is not a new thing in recent history; however nowadays it's widened with Rainbow family, neuro-linguistical programming, brainwave managing, quantum mysticism, Tolle's 'The Power of Now' and whatnot. I'm not too keen on such self-helping spleen - and, inevitably, with modern zeitgeist of spirituality - but I'm not going to do moralistic diatribes about that. That article was a bit overblown and bears an aura of 'danger' - but I don't think anyone should be worried, not even the organized religious communities. Surely, there's a danger of self-centrism, skewing of values and delusion - but such danger is present in every human being with emotions and opinions about faith and spirituality (or lack thereof). Religion/spirituality impose certain moral values: we must not forget there were atrocious things done in the name of religion, as well as beautiful ones, since the dawn of history up to the present day. Human beings are creatures that love to - no, they need to socialize: Robinson Crusoe wasn't a human being until he met Friday. For that reason, I'm sure the entire 'spirituality without religion' movement will devide itself into various fractions, organizing churches, temples, schools, associations. There's nothing new. In fact, some aspects of it already remind me of Bahai religion. ------------- |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 19:31
Precisely. People should come to Christianity because of Christ, not to satisfy someone else. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: jampa17
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 21:25
Good topic and I see Rob is sharing some light as always. The especific passage Rob mentioned is the core of what we are talking about... It's expected by Christians to speak about Jesus but not to force anyone into him... some will believe and want to believe, some don't... is that simple... I think most Christians (Catholics especially) don't try to preach too much lately because people is tired of being forcefully obligated to believe... but is very clear in the bible, Christians are noticed for preaching about Jesus... ------------- |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 21:32
|
^ And I used to resent that so much, when people would bring up their faith. I didn't want to hear about it. I still have that kneejerk reaction when the Jehovahs come to the door, I rather resent someone knocking on my door about it. But I'm really trying to give everyone the benefit of the doubt now and realize they are trying to help. Robert has been more instrumental than anyone I've met so far in changing my views about Christians, precisely because of his easy going style, not to mention his knowledge on these subjects. I think we're lucky to have him here, for people who wish to discuss these topics, in whatever degree they are comfortable doing so. As I said, I don't know if I'll ever embrace faith again, but I keep myself open to the possibility. On the flip side, I appreciate that we have atheists willing to open up and talk about it. Not everyone who does not believe in God is willing to discuss it with others. ------------- https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sQD8uhpWXCw" rel="nofollow - It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood...Road Rage Edition |
Posted By: jampa17
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 21:50
and I see your point, when I was a kid I slam the door in the nouses of those guys... now I listen to them and very polite I thank them for their intent to make us "good" but I say to them that I'm a Catholic and that I do read the Bible so... I think is about growing up and learning that good education do not fight with anyone... I think the world is better that way... ------------- |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 21:58
|
^ that was one thing that frustrated me for some time, we had evangelicals in our family tell the Catholic wing of the family that they were "not saved", for whatever reason Catholicism was apparently not true Christianity to them. I didn't get that. Even if the Pope is "in the way" or whatever, Catholicism is still the worship of Christ. One of those distinctions that is lost on me. ------------- https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sQD8uhpWXCw" rel="nofollow - It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood...Road Rage Edition |
Posted By: jampa17
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 22:01
|
That's when it gets complicated... I would ask Rob about it... what I have being said is that as Catholics worships idols of wood and the virgin Mary, we are sinners and that's our worst sin... but I have never found why we should not be Christians... I can tell you why evangelistic cannot be saved, according to the most conservative Catholics believers but I do disagree... I think Jesus is the only one who save us, so is not in us to sentence who is "In" and "out"... really... who can...? ------------- |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 22:32
|
Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands
or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:4) ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 01:45
I'm terribly sorry - first I quote one of Henry's posts in your name, and now I made another mistake: I meant the book of Exodus. But of course the book of Genesis is equally wrong ... I don't have to prove that every verse is fiction, IMO it's enough to show that the basic tenets have no basis in the real world. Of course some of the information could be based on real world events, but I think you'll agree with me that it doesn't matter so much whether a person named Moses existed or not, as opposed to whether God exists and Moses, as described in the book, communicated with God. Or, in the case of the book of Genesis, whether the world could have been created in that way. Back when the book was written it would have been perfectly in line with the science of the time (if you you could call it that), but today we clearly know it's wrong. Still many Christians in the USA visit the creation museum and tell their children that their ancestors walked with dinosaurs.  And no, you don't have to become an atheist just because some scientists discover something. But such discoveries should make you less confident about the validity of your magic book over others. BTW: If I come across as arrogant ... I guess you're right about that. I'm simply fed up with people holding on to bronze age myths ... IMO such beliefs are forces of evil in the world. Nothing good can come out of them that couldn't be accomplished by secular reasoning.
Except that John said that the new prophet would come in his lifetime, but he died before he could name one. Then Jesus conveniently assumed that John must have meant him to be that prophet.
I don't care too much about such details. I don't believe in astrology either, and it's not like reading a thousand page volume on the intricacies of astrology and its different interpretations and approaches would change my mind. I'm sure you feel the same way towards some areas of pseudo-science. You make an exception for (your) religion, I don't. I guess that's one of the simpler ways to outline the difference between theists and atheists. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 04:22
|
BTW: Here's Sam Harris' presentation from this year's TED ... it's exactly on topic: ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 04:31
This was not a convenient assumption, as you call it. John 1:19-34 says:
The Jewish leaders in Jerusalem sent priests and temple helpers to ask John who he was. He told them plainly, “I am not the Messiah.”Then when they asked him if he were Elijah, he said, “No, I am not!” And when they asked if he were the Prophet, he also said “No!”
Finally, they said, “Who are you then? We have to give an answer to the ones who sent us. Tell us who you are!”
John answered in the words of the prophet Isaiah, “I am only someone shouting in the desert, ‘Get the road ready for the Lord!’ Some Pharisees had also been sent to John. They asked him, “Why are you baptizing people, if you are not the Messiah or Elijah or the Prophet?”
John told them, “I use water to baptize people. But here with you is someone you don't know. Even though I came first, I am not good enough to untie his sandals.” John said this as he was baptizing east of the Jordan River in Bethany.
The next day, John saw Jesus coming toward him and said: Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! He is the one I told you about when I said, “Someone else will come. He is greater than I am, because he was alive before I was born.” I didn't know who he was. But I came to baptize you with water, so that everyone in Israel would see him.
I was there and saw the Spirit come down on him like a dove from heaven. And the Spirit stayed on him. Before this I didn't know who he was. But the one who sent me to baptize with water had told me, “You will see the Spirit come down and stay on someone. Then you will know that he is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.” I saw this happen, and I tell you that he is the Son of God.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 05:08
|
^ from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John "Modern mainstream scholarship has predominantly concluded that the author of the Gospel of John was not an eyewitness to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus - Historical Jesus . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#cite_note-earlychristianwritings.com-38 - [39] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#cite_note-Francisco_Lozada_p._208-39 - [40] Certain modern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism - critical scholars concluded that the Gospel of John was largely unreliable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#cite_note-TM1998_2-4 - [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#cite_note-Jesus_1993._p._57-40 - [41] These further argued that the traditional identification of the book's author—the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beloved_Disciple - Beloved Disciple —with the apostle John was false. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#cite_note-Harris_John-5 - [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#cite_note-5GIntro-41 - [42] " This is why I don't trust scripture for anything. Usually it's documents that were written decades or longer after the fact, and especially when it comes to the gospels the contradictions between them render them totally useless for proving anything IMO. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 05:23
|
^I feel free to doubt the authority of these scholars. Anyway, here is wat the Gospel according to Matthew (of which these scholars say that it was written by a Jewish christian towards the end of the 1st century AD) states about the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:1-17):
In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. -------------
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 05:28
|
I feel the power of the Earth around me. I'm grateful for the air that I breathe, and the water that I drink, but I feel that I, like the Earth, am here by chance alone. Then I consider the probabilty of the Earth coming into being by chance; for conditions being just right for life to have evolved and flourished in the way that it has over billions of years, and I 'feel' that maybe there is something other than chance behind these processes.
That said, I dont want to open that can of worms. I'm not intelligent enough to debate it. However, I believe one thing, with some conviction. A God who expects to be worshipped, is probably no more than a creation of men who expect to be obeyed and feared. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 05:33
My friend's grandfather is a Jehovah's Witness and he's a complete idiot. He basically dislikes anything his granddaughter does. He hates the way she dresses, he didn't want her to go to College because he doesn't believe in Further Education. I think he's rather delusion and confused myself. I don't his views are shared by other Jehovah's Witnesses. Surely? Oh and apparently he believes I'm her Pimp. -------------   
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 05:38
|
@someone_else: This is the difference between you and me: You take scripture for granted - you may recognize some inconsistencies, but your premise is that your religion is valid, and you read and interpret scripture to fit that requirement. I don't believe anything that I cannot verify directly (in the case of general claims) or which is not supported by a strong consensus among the whole spectrum of biases (in the case of historical claims). By strong I obviously don't mean "complete" ... for example I believe that the holocaust happened even though there are some holocaust-deniers. Now, when it comes to scripture there's a combination of both historical and general claims. We're not only supposed to believe that scripture is accurate in the historical sense, but also that it has implications for our life today. I'll go with this: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 06:12
Or faith. The most extraordinary claim of all is this one (John 14:6):
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
This one is very radical! You can believe this or not. I have chosen to do so. -------------
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 06:49
You attack one interpretation of scripture, and I'd say about 90% of your criticisms are against the book of Genesis- you tend to harp on creation, which is decidedly bereft of scientific details because it is not a scientific text, and you tend to harp on the flood, which I've seen the evidence for and against it, and that which is against it does not persuade me. But let's assume the book of Genesis and the book of Exodus did not exist. Would my faith in Christ waver? Not at all, because of the typology and dozens of amazing prophecies Christ fulfilled. To put it another way (and cut to the chase), it doesn't really bother me if someone does not believe in the flood. Believing in a worldwide flood will not save a person.
Can you show why John was required to name one (and even still, John implied it- Matthew 3)? And the new prophet did come in his lifetime. Jesus began prophesying before John the Baptist was beheaded. Also, John the Baptist fulfilled Old Testament prophecies as well.
The same person who wants to treat us to hour-long video presentations can't be bothered to read an article addressing the very question he asked? If you are not interested in details, then do not ask the question and waste my time. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 07:21
|
A bit off topic, but hey. This caught my eye on another forum, the other day. I felt compared to share..
"One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said, “my son, the battle is between two wolves inside us all”. “One is Evil - It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority and ego”. “The other is Good – It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith”. The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather; “Which wolf wins?” The old Cherokee simply replied, “The one you feed”. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 07:44
What about the distribution of all the animals on the planet? There you go, proof that such a flood never happened, without any room for interpretation or need for persuasion. I could post a Dawkins video where he explains this in great detail, but why should I. Those who think rationally about the matter know that I'm right, and those who don't won't watch such a video.
There you go again, using circular reasoning. You know from scripture that Christ fulfilled the prophecies - that you know from earlier and even more unreliable scripture, part of which has been proved wrong by simply comparing its claims to the actual world we live in.
For me it would require a heavy dose of faith to believe in Christ. And by "faith" I here mean ignorance of evidence. Maybe if I had been indoctrinated as a child, I could believe the nonsense ... but luckily my parents never installed this shield against reality in me.
No, I'm not that versed on scripture. I will finally read Bart Ehrman's book on the subject though, because even though I don't regard scripture as a reliable source, I am interested in knowing more about the key passages. The knowledge can come in handy in discussions like these ...
I am interested in anything but scripture. If you don't want to watch the video I posted ... that's fine by me. Maybe some other people will watch it ... knowing that TED presentations are often quite interesting. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 07:57
|
You cannot attack the Bible and then say you are not interested in the Bible (or any defense thereof). That makes for a one-sided discussion, which I guess is what you are ultimately interested in. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 08:05
|
^ I am interested in the Bible, but I won't accept any defense for it that is again based on the Bible. And since the Bible is pretty much all you have, there's indeed no way for you to get me to accept it. But aren't you quite one-sided either? I mean, would you want to respond to my argument about animal distribution on a scientific basis, without resorting to arguments like "scripture says otherwise"? ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 08:23
I did not ask you about animal distribution. You asked me about Matthew 24 directly. I responded, and then you said you didn't care. I never resorted to "scripture says otherwise." My primary areas of study are language and cultural anthropology. My participation in threads such as these is in showing what the Bible says (as opposed to what many people assume it says). I am no scientist, and I've never pretended to be. You are welcome to share all the scientific evidence against a worldwide flood that you want, but I will not answer you, because it is not my field. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 08:27
|
Surely though, Rob, what you're saying the bible says is also what you assume it says too?
-------------
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 08:34
Good question. I interpret the Bible using strict hermeneutics, and I look at the language as well as the culture of the day. It comes down to: Intense study vs. Adopting tradition / interpreting the Bible through a 21st century Western mindset (both of which often lead to error). ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: jampa17
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 10:51
The problem Mike, is that you ask for answers against the Bible where you expect scientific "proof" when it is a sociologic and historical book. Non of the writers of the Bible were scientist, so how do you think that they could explain some phenomena that at the end has nothing to do with the different knowledge and messages that they are writing about... is like you want that a mathematic book gives you a language answer you need...
If I mention the different studies in which there's evidence about biblical happenings, like the Flood or the destruction of Sodoma, you will said is not prove, when all you give us is Dawkins videos, which do not explain nothing... he didn't live during those days... how we can get direct "prove" if you want to believe in a person who lives 2000 years after Jesus and you don't believe in the closest witnesses that we have in history...? ------------- |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 12:48
I don't care about evidence for scripture that's based in scripture. You always do that - ignore both common sense and science, and simply produce a verse and expect the other side to accept that as a "the discussion ends here" piece of evidence. I am - and have been - asking you about animal distribution now - you said that you believe in the big flood and Noah's arc, and I gave some piece of real world evidence that anyone who reads this can verify. You *choose* to ignore it. I don't care whether you ignore it or not, but I do think that real world evidence trumps bronze-age scripture in any argument, any way you look at it.
Excuse me, but this is ridiculous. You don't need a degree in biology or hours of research to realize that the distribution of animals on this planet is not consistent with a world wide flood wiping them all out and then distributing them from Noah's arc. Maybe you don't answer me because you're bored, or because you're angry because I didn't delve into your scripture argument, but my real guess is that you don't know a satisfying answer that doesn't conflict with your core belief. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 12:55
A huge percentage of all religious people does take the Bible seriously in scientific matters though ... and that's not a small thing.
I guess you think that fossils are all a big scam by anti-religious scientists? Please, if you believe in the Flood, explain to me why marsupials are only to be found in Australia? BTW: The gospels were written decades, if not centuries after those events (supposedly) took place. You base your argument on itself - it's circular reasoning. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 13:03
Are you really not able to realize the rose tinted glasses you're wearing? You're interpreting things into the Bible just like all the other people who base their whole lives (and that of their children) on the damn book and then back themselves into a corner, realizing that they were probably wrong. Most religious people would do anything to protect their house of cards from collapsing. Camels do go through eyes of needles sometimes. I choose the simple, dogma-free version of spirituality anytime - involving sunsets and meadows and appreciating life and nature in general. I may have many biases (I don't think that any ordinary human being is free of biases), but we should try to avoid basing our lives on bad ideas and flawed/contradictory concepts. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 13:05
No anger here Mike. I just recognize futility. And I don't offer answers for anything or debate anyone without researching a subject well first. Frankly, I don't see why I should research the topic to discuss it with you. You blow off what I say. Let me remind you once more: You asked about Matthew 24. You posed a challenge that Jesus claimed he would make a "second coming" during that generation and concluded he was false. Here is exactly what you said:
I answered, and it took time to craft my answer to you, showing that's not what he was talking about- yes using scripture to show linguistic and cultural consistency (what else am I supposed to use to do that? Fossil records? I can show you excerpts from the writings of Josephus if you'd like). Determining what a person was talking about and showing that they were not mistaken is a linguistic matter, not a scientific one. You claimed "Jesus said x, x didn't happen, therefore Jesus was wrong (and a doomsday fanatic)." I countered the argument and offered an article for support, and you said you didn't care. I'm not going to spend my afternoon discussing animals with someone who asks me a question and then ignores the answer. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 13:07
And ironically, you are the most browbeating "evangelist" this forum has ever seen when it comes to religion (or lack thereof). ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 13:12
|
^ I'll concede that I believe you when you say that according to Matthew he didn't say that. I hope you'll agree with me though that there are reasons for calling Jesus a doomsday prophet. There - can we put this to rest? And don't talk about animal distributions if you feel like you don't want to ... as far as I know, nobody has ever challenged Dawkins on that one, so why should you bother to try. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 13:16
I guess that's true. But then again I'm nothing compared to Hitchens or even Dawkins. I think that the basis for our on-going disagreement is your insistence to explain everything by referring to scripture. I try to explain everything by referring to science. If you honestly believe that science must defer authority to scripture, then our positions are simply not reconcilable. EDIT: I wouldn't call myself an "evangelist" though. I don't make extraordinary claims and then expect people to take my word for them - most of my points are simple facts that people can examine and verify for themselves. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 13:18
got you there man |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 13:20
That's what I mean- you view the Bible through a 21st century Western mindset. Hence your use of the notion of "doomsday." But I'll leave you to it. As for animal distributions, I am not prepared to debate it- simple as that. I study a subject first before discussing or debating things rather than fall into the trap of conceding all points to my opponent. That's a responsible thing to do. Now Mike, I do like talking about animals with you...just eating them. (Lost four pounds this past week, by the way ).------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 13:27
|
^ nice! I've lost another 2-3 pounds last week - and the fasting days really help. Hey, fasting ... it even ties in with the topic at hand (spirituality).
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 13:32
Science isn't my field, and I don't presume to speak on it much, that's all. Language, culture, and history are subjects I have studied and feel comfortable talking about. (One biblical subject I have studied on a more scientific level was the plagues of Exodus, however). ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 13:33
 I'll bump the Low-Carb Diet thread soon enough with some things I've been eating. I'd like to start trying new recipes again.  ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 13:33
|
^ I surely loved the Charlton Heston movie as a kid. Yul Brynner was perfect as the evil pharaoh.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 13:34
My dad is a huge fan of that film. The first time I ever saw it though was in a hospital room on Easter after a drunk driver hit us. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 13:39
^ you guys must have lost weight just debating this topic ................some reading for sure. Now go and get stuck into some good food. Good to see debates end amicably..or not end......amicably.------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 13:44
|
Exodus is surely an inspiring story ... like most of the old testament, it's good stories, but simply IMO not anything that we today should base anything on. It's outdated in every aspect ... especially as far as morality is concerned. Of course the movie kind of simplifies things ... the slaves are depicted as peaceful and generous while the Egyptians are depicted as ruthless tyrants. Even Jesus didn't mind slavery, and much less the old testament. From the movie you might even gather that God advocated against slavery and oppression in general ...
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 13:51
I attended a "historically black" college where, to be frank, the issue of American slavery popped up in damn near every subject. I did, however, write an 18-page essay contrasting the immoral peculiarities of American slavery with that which was commonplace in Rome and in Israel (and also how Southern preachers and slaveholders misused the Bible in advocating slavery).------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 14:42
^ The Bible may not encourage to keep slaves, but it surely doesn't advise against it either ... as far as I can remember it contains some advice on how to treat slaves, which I guess can be seen as a sign that whoever wrote the passages saw nothing wrong in keeping slaves ... otherwise I'm pretty sure he would have mentioned it (it's a long book).
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 14:49
You are quite right- the Bible does not condemn slavery. I would argue that it would have been cruel for it to have done so given the time and circumstances of the age. Ancient slavery in all its forms is a really interesting thing to study. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 14:58
|
Given that the Bible hasn't changed over the years I find it strange though that many Christians seem to feel like the "Christian values" had a lot to do with the abolishment of slavery. Any Christians who had a part in these movements can't have drawn their inspiration from their religion, can they? BTW: Raping and pillaging are also quite common in the old testament ... nothing wrong with that according to the book, provided that it's God's chosen people who do it. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 15:09
Slaves in the US were not even at least treated in the way Hebrew slaves were expected to be treated by law. I find it interesting- and make a point of this in my essay- that preachers frequently used the Old Testament law to justify slavery, but conveniently ignored that part about the Year of Jubilee. As for your question, I think they could be, and that many of them were. Hebrew slavery was a far cry from the US variety. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 15:17
|
How do you know, were you there?
-------------
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 15:19
|
^ Keep in mind though that wife and children of slaves belonged to the master forever. I reject any form of slavery, no matter how cozy it was for hebrew slaves compared to those on the cotton fields.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 15:21
|
http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm - http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm Sorry, could not resist ... this is priceless.  |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 15:23
Yes, James. I was there. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 15:30
Gosh, so only Enoch is older than you then? 
-------------
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 15:34
That's a convenient belief to hold now. I would bet you would not hold such a view if you were an impoverished Hebrew in those days (where there was no government assistance). In contrast, the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt because they were Hebrews (Exodus 1:9-11). Edit: And your comment about wives and children is inaccurate too. You must do a better job reading what the Bible says before spouting off nonsense from so scholarly a resource as evilbible.com ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 20:40
When pressed, I'll be the first to assert how little we know concerning our epistemological limits, whereas a majority of *minimally hypocritical/contradictory* religious people, when pressed about what they know wouldn't throw it all up in the air, lest their religion mean nothing. I find it silly for me to explicate the nature of the religious-nonreligious dialogue like this when we all know how this goes down with most religious folks.
Finders keepers. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Conor Fynes
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 21:10
|
I definately believe theres something beyond what we know... That does not however, necessarily include ideas about an afterlife or a divine being.
Call me a humanist, but I think the meaning of life should be to reach your highest potential and do your best at everything you set your mind to, regardless of whether there is some heaven to look forward to...
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 08 2010 at 01:11
What makes you so sure that your interpretation is more correct? As far as I know they're quoting from the King James version, and I think that it's reasonable for me to do so. BTW: If slavery was so great for the people back then, one wonders why they ever revolted against their masters. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |