[zacht_180]

Audio-Surfer posted:

Taking things exactly as written is literal, not objective.

No but it becomes objective in the sense that they see it as 100% truth. It's true for them and it's true for everybody, no matter what anyone says. That's objective. But yes, taking things exactly as written is literal. It can become objective because they apply it to themselves and others as nothing but truth and only truth.

[bIgFaTwOrM12]

zacht_180 posted:

I can understand where you're coming from.
Usually poetic structure is used in the Bible to portray metaphors or allegories. It's the same both in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Jesus' parables are like that.

The book of Revelations could possibly be an allegory, too, but it's the creation that people tend to focus on more. My school didn't teach us that this was a realistic description of how the world would end, and people shouldn't believe that. If this is true and John actually dreamed that, remember that dreams often contain many symbols anyway. Everything that is mentioned in John are symbols - the numbers, the dragon, the lion, and everything. The book of Revelations is also referenced to the Old Testament. There's about 250 references actually. But what he may have written may be very well be what he dreamed. One theory (but one I don't like too much) is that the book is actually describing Jesus' judgement and downfall of the early Roman Empire.

But John even used the word "signified" many times in the book, even in his gospel as well. The word itself can be pretty related to "metaphor" or "allegory."

Revelations to OT relations:

The original Hebrew language for, "cool of the day," in Genesis 3, when God's voice was heard, actually is "spirit of the day". And this was the judgement day for Adam.

John falls down as if he is dead. And the Lord touches him with his right hand, telling him not to fear. Daniel experienced the same thing in 10:9-11.

And Jesus holds seven stars in his right hand -- the same hand that touched John and "resurrected" him, although John did not actually die. The idea of resurrection life is there. Stars represent governing power, this is why a lot of flags contain stars and moons. Also, John wrote to seven churches which were named after their regions.


__________________________


There's a lot more. Like a lot.


I agree that it's very subjective. Most Christians are too objective and I think that is a little problem. I mean being objective here and there isn't a bad thing, but if they make everything out to be objective they will get absolutely nothing accomplished. And sometimes it just doesn't make sense.

Yes, there are specific things in revelations that are meant to symbolize something, but those are stated explicitely. Also the bible states nowhere that John is dreaming as he witnesses the events, it states that he is in spirit and observing a vision of what is to come. Your example of the Jesus's destruction of the Roman Empire is a perfect example of how scripture can be skewed through the idea of metaphor though.

I'm not sure at what point John is "resurrected" by God in revelations, but I looked up the verse you cited from Daniel and there's not mention of him being metaphorically dead or him experiencing a metaphorical resurrection.

The objectivity with which scripture is regarded allows Christianity to remain what it is. There's a reason why within the scriptures it says that they are not open for interpretation.

[zacht_180]

Daniel 10:9-11

9 Then I heard him speaking, and as I listened to him, I fell into a deep sleep, my face to the ground.

10 A hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. 11 He said, “Daniel, you who are highly esteemed, consider carefully the words I am about to speak to you, and stand up, for I have now been sent to you.” And when he said this to me, I stood up trembling.

Revelation 1:17-20

17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

19 “Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later. 20 The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels[a] of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

It's safe to assume that John was dreaming or either meditating. People who meditate sometimes report being in a dream-like state, actually dreaming. "In spirit" = being one with himself and possibly God; meditating, the vision came. He wasn't in his natural state. This is all assuming this actually happened.

They're not all stated specifically. Most of them aren't, actually. When you look at Ezekiel and the Revelations, Ezekiel is basically just the OT version of the Revelations, or vice-versa (Revelations being the NT version of Ezekiel). In Ezekiel, it starts with the Chariot of Cherubims. Christ is seated on top of the sapphire throne. Christ appears as golden and amber from his loins upward, and fire from his loins downward. This is Christ all over again in Revelations; he's golden above his waist and his legs were like "brass burning in a furnace." The two thrones are identical, in Revelations a rainbow is around it. In Ezekiel 3, Ezekiel is told to eat the roll of the sealed book. In Revelation 10, John eats the sealed book, too. The Revelation follows Ezekiel all the way through, and also deals with Jerusalem. Ezekiel 16 calls Jerusalem the whore, just Like Revelation does in chapter 17 and 18. And Rev 18:24 matches Jesus' words about Jerusalem in Matthew 23:35. I wouldn't even have time to go through and explain every single parallel. Even to Ezekiel 5 where the city is divided three ways by representation of Ezekiel's hair: 1/3 burnt, 1/3 cast to the wind, and then 1/3 part smitten with a knife. You heard of the city that was divided into three parts in Revelation? Ezekiel ends with a huge temple with a river coming out of it, with trees on either side whose leaves are medicine for the nations and the fruit comes forth in her months (read Ezekiel 47). Revelation has one tree, with leaves and fruit in the precise same manner. Why's it one tree? Because it's Christ. It's Christ and the church. Isaiah calls us trees of righteousness. This is analogous to John 15's Vines and Branches.

So the book of Revelation is not about the end of the universe. It's about Jesus. Jesus is being revealed unto us again. These symbols and whatnot came from the Bible itself, John precisely ordered the way he wrote the book. He didn't make them up. John did this because he needed to use symbolism that people would understand. OT symbols, we would understand. We're not interpreting them using our own ingenuity.
I.E.) Christ is a lamb because lambs were sacrificed in the Passover, not because lambs are gentle, loving, and peaceful creatures.

235 References from the Prophets
57 from Pentateuch
56 other various references from various books

There's 348 plain references that are used in the book of Revelations. About 250 are cited or close enough to being cited. There's 22 chapters in the book of Revelation, so that's almost ten obvious old testament references for each chapter.

[matsta]

DainBramageStudios posted:

We value human life just for the sake of it, rather than because it is a creation of God.
The very idea that we can distinguish right from wrong without a God to help us is anathema to Christianity. Sure, we might end up agreeing with some parts of the Bible, but then for the Bible to be wrong about everything would be truly extraordinary. Likewise, I probably agree with some of the things found in the Koran, but I wouldn't say that the Koran significantly influenced me.

The concept of giving human life some value "just for the sake of it" didn't arose in Modernity. What did arose is the concept of human dignity. However, I wouldn't say human dignity arose independently from Christian influence. The first time the concept appeared as we know it is in Kant's Moral Philosophy, and that philosophy isn't exempt from Christian influence. Nietzsche went so far as to call Kant's Moral Philosophy "disguised Christianism".

Schnuggle posted:

This question is the wrong way round. The question should be; tell me one christian moral concept that isnt in any way related to basic humanity moral concepts/being a good person.

The empathy emotion was not invented by religions.

I'm sorry, but those "basic humanity moral concepts" aren't in anyway obvious. A quick look at history will prove that easily. The fact that you find most Christian values "obvious" indicates how much you're influenced by Christianity while being unaware of it.

[Jookia]

matsta posted:

I'm sorry, but those "basic humanity moral concepts" aren't in anyway obvious. A quick look at history will prove that easily. The fact that you find most Christian values "obvious" indicates how much you're influenced by Christianity while being unaware of it.

No, the fact that we find most Christian values "obvious" indicates how influenced Christianity is by external factors.

[BFG9000]

zydos posted:

Genesis 1:16
God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

I create an idea about a group based on all of my interactions with said group. Family, friends, strangers, internet people, news stories, YouTube users and their videos, anyone I meet or hear of that is explicitly religious, like over-the-top, are like this. The ones who take it as an outlook on life but don't take the bible literally seem to be just fine, they know where to draw the line

And somehow you consider these "just fine" people to be "idiots"?
Thats probably not what you're trying to say but just keep i mind that when I read your initial post you seemed to think all religous people are dumb.

Edited:

Just a quick survey how many people in this thread are religous? (not "was")

[bIgFaTwOrM12]

zacht_180 posted:

Daniel 10:9-11

9 Then I heard him speaking, and as I listened to him, I fell into a deep sleep, my face to the ground.

10 A hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. 11 He said, “Daniel, you who are highly esteemed, consider carefully the words I am
about to speak to you, and stand up, for I have now been sent to you.” And when he said this to me, I stood up trembling.

Revelation 1:17-20

17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and
the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

19 “Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later. 20 The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and
of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels[a] of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

It's safe to assume that John was dreaming or either meditating. People who meditate sometimes report being in a dream-like state, actually dreaming. "In spirit" = being one with himself and possibly God; meditating, the vision came. He wasn't in his natural state. This is all assuming this actually happened.

They're not all stated specifically. Most of them aren't, actually. When you look at Ezekiel and the Revelations, Ezekiel is basically just the OT version of the Revelations, or vice-versa (Revelations being the NT version of Ezekiel). In Ezekiel, it starts with the Chariot of Cherubims. Christ is seated on top of the sapphire throne. Christ appears as golden and amber from his loins upward, and fire from his loins downward. This is Christ all over again in Revelations; he's golden above his waist and his legs were like "brass burning in a furnace." The two thrones are identical, in Revelations a rainbow is around it. In Ezekiel 3, Ezekiel is told to eat the roll of the sealed book. In Revelation 10, John eats the sealed book, too. The Revelation follows Ezekiel all the way through, and also deals with Jerusalem. Ezekiel 16 calls Jerusalem the whore, just Like Revelation does in chapter 17 and 18. And Rev 18:24 matches Jesus' words about Jerusalem in Matthew 23:35. I wouldn't even have time to go through and explain every single parallel. Even to Ezekiel 5 where the city is divided three ways by representation of Ezekiel's hair: 1/3 burnt, 1/3 cast to the wind, and then 1/3 part smitten with a knife. You heard of the city that was divided into three parts in Revelation? Ezekiel ends with a huge temple with a river coming out of it, with trees on either side whose leaves are medicine for the nations and the fruit comes forth in her months (read Ezekiel 47). Revelation has one tree, with leaves and fruit in the precise same manner. Why's it one tree? Because it's Christ. It's Christ and the church. Isaiah calls us trees of righteousness. This is analogous to John 15's Vines and Branches.

So the book of Revelation is not about the end of the universe. It's about Jesus. Jesus is being revealed unto us again. These symbols and whatnot came from the Bible itself, John precisely ordered the way he wrote the book. He didn't make them up. John did this because he needed to use symbolism that people would understand. OT symbols, we would understand. We're not interpreting them using our own ingenuity.
I.E.) Christ is a lamb because lambs were sacrificed in the Passover, not because lambs are gentle, loving, and peaceful creatures.

235 References from the Prophets
57 from Pentateuch
56 other various references from various books

There's 348 plain references that are used in the book of Revelations. About 250 are sited or close enough to being cited. There's 22 chapters in the book of Revelation, so that's almost ten obvious old testament references for each chapter.

Neither of those two excerpts mention anything about metaphorical death and resurrection, only in the one in Revelations is there a reference of death and that's used as a figure of speech. As for the symbolism afterwards, yes, that's clearly symbolism because it's explicitly stated.

Also why is it safe to assume that the text is meant to convey that John was simply meditating? Where does "Immediately I was in the spirit" convey at all that this is meant to be taken any other way than literally? Also, it seems like the only reason why you're considering revelations metaphor is due to the fact that you consider Ezekiel metaphor, if there's no explicit statement that Ezekiel is meant to be taken metaphorically then why shouldn't both books just be covering the same time and events? Again I don't see any real evidence that these should be taken metaphorically, they're just written in an artistic way about a subject that's difficult to believe.

[zacht_180]

God either you're really bad at reading or you just don't want to listen.

You keep saying, "Why then is it safe to assume this is a metaphor?", "The metaphors are explicitly stated when they're metaphors", "Who's to say it can't just be what it is and how it's suppose to be, literal?"
I answered every single one of them in pretty good detail.



Lol... Where did I ever say that Ezekiel was a metaphor? I didn't say that. I was saying the book of Revelations was an allegory, mimicking the book of Ezekiel. An allegory can stand for something real, can't it? Yes. Revelation uses numerous OT references, Ezekiel being a major one, to reveal to us who Jesus is. "Revelation." Hint hint. It's about Jesus. And if you do not get that impression, you are reading it through stained glasses tinted with false doctrine. Is the subject hard to believe? Yes. But that doesn't mean it's not a metaphor. I mean seriously, I even said earlier, it's not like me and some Biblical scholars and others who thinks this way are like, "Well shit this is hard to believe that must mean it's a metaphor!" You have to critically analyze the symbolism and meaning behind the text. And no, it is not explicitly stated every single time. I gave you tons of reasons as why some of these things should be taken metaphorically, and even explained them. Do you understand, or are you just refusing to understand? I could always take the offensive and say you're illiterate or something but I won't do that.


Our posts haven't even really been dealing with the topic question, "Why does religion exist?" If you'd like to keep talking about it feel free to start another thread or PM me or something.

[Schnuggle]

matsta posted:

I'm sorry, but those "basic humanity moral concepts" aren't in anyway obvious. A quick look at history will prove that easily. The fact that you find most Christian values "obvious" indicates how much you're influenced by Christianity while being unaware of it.

Children begin to show compassion and empathy toward their peers from the age of 1. This I find obvious

Christian teaching tells me to offer up my daughters for the mob to rape them, to protect the male guests to my home. This I find alien.

[Leader of Me]

matsta posted:

I'm sorry, but those "basic humanity moral concepts" aren't in anyway obvious. A quick look at history will prove that easily. The fact that you find most Christian values "obvious" indicates how much you're influenced by Christianity while being unaware of it.

I don't really think religion is the reason why we have our morality. I think it is because humans are self aware and experience a wide array of emotions, thoughts and feelings that we have a tendency to show empathy and compassion to people.

We understand that "we should treat people the way we want to be treated" because we are self aware, not because of religion.

[SCopE5000]

Leader of Me posted:

I don't really think religion is the reason why we have our morality. I think it is because humans are self aware and experience a wide array of emotions, thoughts and feelings that we have a tendency to show empathy and compassion to people.

We understand that "we should treat people the way we want to be treated" because we are self aware, not because of religion.

Emotions are just sensations in the body which we've layered our explanations and labels over, making some more desirable than others. Animals take emotions as equanimous, meaning there is no more desire to feel a certain way nor attempt to tamper with what is occurring naturally. Humans do exactly the opposite of this, some carry bullshit around for years.

Empathy, morality and compassion were born out of this drive to be happy all the time whilst attempting to disregard less desirable emotions and sensations. Do you see how most problems are born out of emotions and our unwillingness to accept them?

[bIgFaTwOrM12]

zacht_180 posted:

God either you're really bad at reading or you just don't want to listen.

You keep saying, "Why then is it safe to assume this is a metaphor?", "The metaphors are explicitly stated when they're metaphors", "Who's to say it can't just be what it is and how it's suppose to be, literal?"
I answered every single one of them in pretty good detail.



Lol... Where did I ever say that Ezekiel was a metaphor? I didn't say that. I was saying the book of Revelations was an allegory, mimicking the book of Ezekiel. An allegory can stand for something real, can't it? Yes. Revelation uses numerous OT references, Ezekiel being a major one, to reveal to us who Jesus is. "Revelation." Hint hint. It's about Jesus. And if you do not get that impression, you are reading it through stained glasses tinted with false doctrine. Is the subject hard to believe? Yes. But that doesn't mean it's not a metaphor. I mean seriously, I even said earlier, it's not like me and some Biblical scholars and others who thinks this way are like, "Well shit this is hard to believe that must mean it's a metaphor!" You have to critically analyze the symbolism and meaning behind the text. And no, it is not explicitly stated every single time. I gave you tons of reasons as why some of these things should be taken metaphorically, and even explained them. Do you understand, or are you just refusing to understand? I could always take the offensive and say you're illiterate or something but I won't do that.


Our posts haven't even really been dealing with the topic question, "Why does religion exist?" If you'd like to keep talking about it feel free to start another thread or PM me or something.

Ok, so let me get this straight, your saying that revelations is allegory that's just about Christ, nothing else, because it covers the same subject matter in Ezekiel then? If you actually read Revelations instead of artistically analysing every word you'd notice that revelations is actually about the church being reclaimed by Christ. I still have absolutely no clue where you're drawing your claims from at all though, you just keep vaguely referring to artistic writing and random assumptions. You're reading through stained glasses if you think that the bible is subject to the whim and criticism of any scholar or theologian that calls themselves a christian. How can you critically analyse symbolism if you're not even sure that there is any? Christianity is a religion, not an English class where the book has different meaning to everyone. The book has a set meaning that I agree must be carefully analysed, but when you start throwing in weak assumptions of metaphor and allegory you stray from that meaning. It does seem though that we aren't making any progress as we just keep saying the same thing to each other, but I have no interest to speak to closed ears, so I'll just leave it at that.

[Behemoth_PT]

Some guys guys are simply quoting from random bits of the Bible without any context or knowlege of the Old Testament vs New Testament... Of course you'll find spooky stuff...

Megafan posted:

Even though there is no concrete evidence to support the existence of Jesus Christ as portrayed in the Bible? A lot of people say they believe in Jesus, but not necessarily Christianity, but that's just as flawed in how you determined that.

The purpose of the Bible is not to prove that Jesus existed. But there are lots of historical documents out there proving there were such a man and confirming lots of the chronological events of the book.


Also there are lots of documents that got lost or destroyed by the Romans and the inquisition. To say that today's Christianity is as authentic as it was in its prime is wrong. This is one of the main reasons I do not believe in Christianity as an institution. Therefore I believe it is equally flawed to say that someone who doesn't follow the world of Christs according to that institution is not a Christian.

Apart from that what I was saying is that my beliefs inside Christianity are my own, as is everyone's. The message there is quite clear if one can situate the events culturally and historically instead of copy pasting it to today's world in a fundamentalist zealotry. (As it is - unfortunately - most commonly seen during anti-gay rallies and such ).

Notwithstanding to my point of view, it may seem that I support free interpretation of religion as everyone sees fit - chaos, and yes, there should be historical and theological guidance for people interested in pursuing Christianity as in any other religion. Most Bibles nowadays, specially European editions come with impartial, theological and historical side-notes so that there is no room for fundamentalist misinterpretation.

However, as in every theological subject such as religion, interpretations and theories are always being questioned and up for debate.

[Jookia]

Behemoth_PT posted:

The purpose of the Bible is not to prove that Jesus existed. But there are lots of historical documents out there proving there were such a man and confirming lots of the chronological events of the book.

Really? That's news to me. I haven't seen any.

[Behemoth_PT]

Ever heard of Tacitus? Josephus? The Pilate Stone that confirms that the mentioning of Pilates in the New Testament is legit? and many more...

I can't give you any empiric or scientific proof, but that happens with most figures from ancient times. There are reports , however, as there are for any other important person at the time.

Nevertheless tracking down the existence of any person from that period is understandably hard. He wasn't a nobleman and still there is a huge quantity of documents, both roman and jewish mentioning him in a non religious fashion.

I can understand that there are people who don't believe, or chose to have an atheist view and abstain from religion. That is pretty undestandable. However it isn't by chance that Christianity prospered for so long and had a huge impact during the Roman period. At least as discussible as the evidence may be, it doesn't hurt to get a little informed.

Edit:

Here, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

[matsta]

Jookia posted:

No, the fact that we find most Christian values "obvious" indicates how influenced Christianity is by external factors.

Schnuggle posted:

Children begin to show compassion and empathy toward their peers from the age of 1. This I find obvious

Christian teaching tells me to offer up my daughters for the mob to rape them, to protect the male guests to my home. This I find alien.

Leader of Me posted:

I don't really think religion is the reason why we have our morality. I think it is because humans are self aware and experience a wide array of emotions, thoughts and feelings that we have a tendency to show empathy and compassion to people.

We understand that "we should treat people the way we want to be treated" because we are self aware, not because of religion.

Sorry, but none of you have actually done what I told you in the comments. You always talk about people now. In the comment you replied to I advised you to take a look at history, and that is what you should do if you want to refute my argument. I don't know if you've got any historical conscience, so I must tell you that 2000+ years ago it was totally fine to wish death to your enemies and forget about the people who weren't citizens of your country/city-state/whatever. No, actually, that was what you had to do. How could people have thought that it is ok to "turn the other cheek"? Why do you think that Christianism was considered so radical back then? Do you actually think that universal values were embraced back then?

Edited:

I'm not saying that Christianism was the only thing that influenced our moral conceptions to they could be what they are now, but it had definitely some influence on shaping them this way. I'm actually surprised how people like Schnuggle think about Christianism while it isn't even close to that.

[BFG9000]

Schnuggle posted:

Children begin to show compassion and empathy toward their peers from the age of 1. This I find obvious

Christian teaching tells me to offer up my daughters for the mob to rape them, to protect the male guests to my home. This I find alien.

Aha thats rich
I dont believe I've seen the part where it tells you to let your daughter be gangbanged
Probably because
1. Either it doesnt exist or
2. You're misinterpreting a verse

[Leader of Me]

I think the main reason why Christianity spread was how it was so appealing to people. Those times in history were rough, food was scarce, there was hardly any hope for the poor and middle class, people were taught to fear God.

Then suddenly one day, this man comes along and preaches to everyone that in fact, God does love them and there this hope, and there is no need to be afraid of him, love him because he loves you, all he asks is for you to believe in him and follow his rules.

This kind of message of love and hope would have appealed to the poorer class of people who had no hope and no reason to live, this is why I believe Christianity spread and had such an impact.

[BuG]

I think religion and spirituality started out to explain what people couldn't comprehend or answer why it happened. Be it fertility of land, nature phenomenons etc.

It was later made into a weapon, a way to control a lot of people at once. In the dark ages, threatening someone with death probably wasn't as bad as many other outcomes they could face. But if you threaten them with an eternal suffering, something they could not hide from, no matter how hard they tried, you got them by the balls.

[eurocracy]

Behemoth_PT posted:

The purpose of the Bible is not to prove that Jesus existed. But there are lots of historical documents out there proving there were such a man and confirming lots of the chronological events of the book.

Please, show me them and explain how they prove it.

I mean, it could very well be a very old, deliberate story.

[Behemoth_PT]

eurocracy posted:

Please, show me them and explain how they prove it.

I mean, it could very well be a very old, deliberate story.

I already did that some posts up.

[Jookia]

Behemoth_PT posted:

Ever heard of Tacitus? Josephus? The Pilate Stone that confirms that the mentioning of Pilates in the New Testament is legit? and many more...

You do know Josephus was a forgery, right? That and an entire part of the bible doesn't make sense if Jesus existed.

Edited:

matsta posted:

Sorry, but none of you have actually done what I told you in the comments. You always talk about people now. In the comment you replied to I advised you to take a look at history, and that is what you should do if you want to refute my argument. I don't know if you've got any historical conscience, so I must tell you that 2000+ years ago it was totally fine to wish death to your enemies and forget about the people who weren't citizens of your country/city-state/whatever. No, actually, that was what you had to do. How could people have thought that it is ok to "turn the other cheek"? Why do you think that Christianism was considered so radical back then? Do you actually think that universal values were embraced back then?

Edited:

I'm not saying that Christianism was the only thing that influenced our moral conceptions to they could be what they are now, but it had definitely some influence on shaping them this way. I'm actually surprised how people like Schnuggle think about Christianism while it isn't even close to that.

But it wasn't radical. Jesus wasn't the first nor the last to propose these things.

[BFG9000]

Also matsta why do you say "Christianism"
It sounds awkward, almost like me saying "Muslimism" or "Africanese" or "Americanish"

Edited:

Just from the looks of it it almost seems as if you are trying to show some kind of disrespect to the group.

[Jookia]

Christianism or Christianity, it's really a preference.

[BoysLightUp]

Jookia posted:

You do know Josephus was a forgery, right? That and an entire part of the bible doesn't make sense if Jesus existed.

[citation needed]

Jookia posted:

But it wasn't radical. Jesus wasn't the first nor the last to propose these things.

Which things? The idea of the god of Abraham as all-loving, all-forgiving? Who else preached Jesus' message before Jesus (and no, "be nice" =/= Jesus' teachings)?

Edited:

Jookia posted:

Christianism or Christianity, it's really a preference.

nope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianism

Christianism has meant a whole bunch of things but it's not a synonym for "Christianity".

[SCopE5000]

Brainwave on Christianity.

If it is reasonable to assume that one is not a human post-death.. Why is it reasonable to assume one would be judged on our performance 'as a human' whilst knowing that it was humans who even created the concepts of good and bad/ duality in the first place.

The whole bible is full of polar opposites, literally describing and demonstrating the creation of separation and duality except it has been taken to blasphemous extremes by one priest or another by their over-complication and assumptions.

I mean, in genesis, they eat from the 'tree of knowledge' which creates separation. The 'tree of life' is seen as the unity which is lost, which as they are the earliest teachings, should be the most important. Striving to recognize and regain this unity should be the point, except it's been totally shifted aside in favour of other stuff written by more and more people, and taken literally. Death is seen as the ultimate end, where one returns to God/unity.. It's true that whilst we are here living as humans, it is not possible to experience anything except the faintest glimmers of unity in our day-to-day lives due to our ego, knowledge and beliefs playing into our perception of the world (for every 'thing' we create, a concept of that exact 'thing' not existing is also created).

Eastern religions take a more direct approach to the duality/unity as they recognized that it was humans that created this split, and thus it is a major concept explored as simplistically as possible. Hell, even the symbol of the Tao describes duality (Yin & Yang) and how we can only learn to expect both as humans.

So really, I think religion exists because it all points towards the same message. Humans have overcomplicated everything in our search for deeper & deeper meanings. People spend lifetimes debating God or Jesus existence, instead of simply striving to be more like them (although their performances have been blown away significantly, making it almost impossible for anyone to ever relate or this to even be close to attaining).

[Jookia]

BoysLightUp posted:

[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph...nium_Flavianum

The entire part of the bible not making sense refers to Paul's trial. You can find out more about the historical stuff about the bible here.

BoysLightUp posted:

Which things? The idea of the god of Abraham as all-loving, all-forgiving? Who else preached Jesus' message before Jesus (and no, "be nice" =/= Jesus' teachings)?

Oh my bad, I thought we were talking about our morals.

[Behemoth_PT]

Jookia posted:

You do know Josephus was a forgery, right?

First of all. Facts?

Second. Josephus isn't the only mention of Christ in history.

[DeathFang]

Reasons religion exists:
Ignorance (primarily about how the world works and science)
Arrogance (the want to feel superior and/or entitled)
Fear of mortality
An emotional crutch and/or driving force for the human mentality
To control, indoctrinate, and/or trick others

[Jookia]

Behemoth_PT posted:

First of all. Facts?

Look above.

Behemoth_PT posted:

Second. Josephus isn't the only mention of Christ in history.

Well I guess it's a good thing I didn't say that then, I'd look like an idiot!

[Behemoth_PT]

So basically if the above is what you think and you have no fact or argument to give whatsoever, then you have nothing other than a huge generalist prejudice about religion. That is your problem and not of religious people itself.

If you want to become deeply entrenched in your views, go ahead. I came here, showed my point of view, people asked me questions, I answered and argumented as best as I could. I'm not about to enter a bible bashing shitstorm.

[Jookia]

Behemoth_PT posted:

So basically if the above is what you think and you have no fact or argument to give whatsoever, then you have nothing other than a huge generalist prejudice about religion. That is your problem and not of religious people itself.

If you want to become deeply entrenched in your views, go ahead. I came here, showed my point of view, people asked me questions, I answered and argumented as best as I could. I'm not about to enter a bible bashing shitstorm.

What? Above I posted a link to Wikipedia and an hour long talk explaining my facts. What do you want?

[BFG9000]

DeathFang posted:

Reasons religion exists:
Ignorance (primarily about how the world works and science)
Arrogance (the want to feel superior and/or entitled)
Fear of mortality
An emotional crutch and/or driving force for the human mentality
To control, indoctrinate, and/or trick others

I see you seem to think religion is to control people
Explain why I make choices separate from the influence of a corrupt hierarchial religous system despite believing in the same god they do

You seem to think that religous people are ignorant of science.
Explain why countless scientists in history have spiritual beliefs

You seem to think that religion is tied with people's arrogance
Explain how you're not being arrogant in making that statement

[Jookia]

BFG9000 posted:

Explain why countless scientists in history have spiritual beliefs

Ignorance.

[DEG_fan]

Religion exists so we can have stupid debates like this.

[BFG9000]

DEG_fan posted:

Religion exists so we can have stupid debates like this.

+Zing

Edited:

Jookia posted:

Ignorance.

And yet these scientists have discovered things like genetic patterns in reproduction (Gregor Mendel), and developed a theory of evolution (Darwin)?

You yourself are ignorant of the fact that just because someone has some faith in something they are not immediately ignorant because of it.

[cerl]

I think religion was "created" and is so accepted across the world because of two things, the first is, the original reason why people "create" and believe in religion is to relieve themself from death angst.. every large religion in the world have some kind of afterlife or existance after death. Escaping and staying away from death is one of the strongest "instincts" in any animal. Evolution made it that way, animals who arent afraid or reluctant to death will not survive in the long run. The second reason is that people are born into it, they are raised by religious parents and relatives and therefor they are certain that it's right, I love how that is one of the strongest arguments against religion too, but thats for another thread.

Anyway. That's just my simplified view on the subject.. sorry for any spelling errors.

[Jookia]

BFG9000 posted:

And yet these scientists have discovered things like genetic patterns in reproduction (Gregor Mendel), and developed a theory of evolution (Darwin)?

This has no bearing on being ignorant.

BFG9000 posted:

You yourself are ignorant

Good job attacking me rather than my points.

BFG9000 posted:

of the fact that just because someone has some faith in something they are not immediately ignorant because of it.

Agreed. Which is why I didn't say that. I said that scientists had spiritual beliefs because of ignorance.

[BFG9000]

Jookia posted:

This has no bearing on being ignorant.



Good job attacking me rather than my points.



Agreed. Which is why I didn't say that. I said that scientists had spiritual beliefs because of ignorance.

By "attacking you" I was trying to point out the irony of your statement.

And me bringing up those people is perfectly relevant; they come from times where there were few scientific facts to ignore, and they themselves found things that religous fundamentalists ignore today. So I continue to not follow your logic about why scientists would be ignorant of facts they dont even know yet and then take it upon themselves to look for these facts.

Just to restate, having religion DOES NOT mean you ignore the ways of the universe

[Jookia]

BFG9000 posted:

And me bringing up those people is perfectly relevant;

I didn't say it wasn't relevant.

BFG9000 posted:

they come from times where there were few scientific facts to ignore, and they themselves found things that religous fundamentalists ignore today. So I continue to not follow your logic about why scientists would be ignorant of facts they dont even know yet and then take it upon themselves to look for these facts.[/quote

Just to restate, having religion DOES NOT mean you ignore the ways of the universe

Again, I said none of those things. Look up 'god of the gaps'. Newton thought planetary tugging was due to god.