The Sleeper
Jr. Member
Karma: 3
 Offline
Posts: 76
Directive?
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2008, 02:25:35 PM » |
|
You can't be open and devout at the same time. Religion isn't about being open to other ideas.
....There's no room for your own thinking.
blam. there it is: the rope i keep tripping over.  Sorry - but religion isn't open for interpretation or cherry-picking if you're going to practice it the way it's intended to be practiced. HOWEVER, if you're going to make up your own religion that cherry-picks from other religions, go for it. That's your prerogative and you have every right to. There are tons of good things to pick up on from different religions and a lot of commonalities between them, namely the Golden Rule: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That's the thing about religions though, who says what the correct way they are 'intended to be practiced' is? Whose decision is that, besides the person who is following that system of beliefs? Whatever sect you're a part of determines the way the religion is intended to be practiced. That's determined by the people who started that sect. It's not straight from the deity's mouth, so isn't that sect just cherry picking? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Okay, woke to a grocery list...
Goes like this:
Duty and death.
-Aesop Rock
|
|
|
|
pyroclasticlux
|
|
« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2008, 03:37:58 PM » |
|
^ooh, brendan, ZING! (= the problem is that the sects/denominations -do- believe the words are straight from god (all religious texts written by him through others, blahblah), so by that logic, they could argue that it's not. That's too bad. That might've been cool. You'd have all kinds of cool things for 'fundies' to be afraid of.
"The new tara-ists are going to blow up America!"
"We're sorry, we can't let you on the plane. You're a tera-ist."
"A new religion has been tera-izing the United States!"
Ok, maybe not but that would still be funny for like, a day .. or so. apart from the fact that you spelled my name wrong on the last two (hehe), that's why i've never gone through with it.  once, when i told a co-worker how i followed my own beliefs, she yelled, 'you're like a tara-ist!' and that, being taken out of context by everyone else, got some negative attention - and required some explaining. hah I 'cherry pick' quite openly. why eat all the cherries, even the quite obviously rotten ones?
Because the cherries are a ruse if the tree doesn't exist. Zing! ooh, snap! hahahah |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
l'humour est culturel; le rire est universel
(=
|
|
|
|
Scott
|
|
« Reply #17 on: October 02, 2008, 12:31:19 AM » |
|
You can't be open and devout at the same time. Religion isn't about being open to other ideas.
....There's no room for your own thinking.
blam. there it is: the rope i keep tripping over. Sorry - but religion isn't open for interpretation or cherry-picking if you're going to practice it the way it's intended to be practiced. HOWEVER, if you're going to make up your own religion that cherry-picks from other religions, go for it. That's your prerogative and you have every right to. There are tons of good things to pick up on from different religions and a lot of commonalities between them, namely the Golden Rule: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That's the thing about religions though, who says what the correct way they are 'intended to be practiced' is? Whose decision is that, besides the person who is following that system of beliefs? Whatever sect you're a part of determines the way the religion is intended to be practiced. That's determined by the people who started that sect. It's not straight from the deity's mouth, so isn't that sect just cherry picking? Who's to say what is "straight from the deity's mouth" ? Cherry-picking is selecting only those points that agree with your philosophy or purpose. We're talking about interpreting words to mean different things in different times. These are the reasons sects are created, from quakers to episcopalians, sunis to shia and so forth. They're all using the whole book but interpreting it differently and perhaps putting more focus on certain parts (so in that way, I suppose you could call it cherry-picking). But consider this: if you didn't cherry-pick in general, the book would contradict itself in numerous places. This is good reasoning for 'cherry-picking' as a rule as no deity would intentionally contradict themselves. According to the Bible: 1. God never changes (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17), yet in the Old Testament, required blood sacrifices while in the New Testament, sacrifices His son alone. 2. God is a "man of war" (Exodus 15:3), yet God is the "god of peace" (Romans 15:33) 3. God is greater than Jesus (John 14:28) and God and Jesus are one (John 10:30) And if you're interested, here's a list of a bunch more for your researching pleasure- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.htmlOh and for looking up passages and things of that nature, I always use bible.com- http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearch.phpYou can look up any passage in several different translations. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The important thing is not to stop questioning; curiosity has its own reason for existing." -- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
pyroclasticlux
|
|
« Reply #18 on: June 12, 2009, 08:12:35 PM » |
|
These are the reasons sects are created, from quakers to episcopalians, sunis to shia and so forth. They're all using the whole book but interpreting it differently and perhaps putting more focus on certain parts (so in that way, I suppose you could call it cherry-picking). if the bible is inspired by God, don't you think He'd have made it fool-proof and not open to interpretation? if I were to write a book that was to be the 'end-all/be-all' of eternity & humanity, I would make dannnnnng sure I made it as clear as possible. also, there are so many ways humans interpret it, and humans were the ones to actually write it - so isn't it possible they put their own spin on things? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
l'humour est culturel; le rire est universel
(=
|
|
|
|
melidere
|
|
« Reply #19 on: June 17, 2009, 10:46:43 AM » |
|
if the bible is inspired by God, don't you think He'd have made it fool-proof and not open to interpretation? if I were to write a book that was to be the 'end-all/be-all' of eternity & humanity, I would make dannnnnng sure I made it as clear as possible.
Which language would you use to make that as clear as possible? And would you require all of humanity to learn that language so that the meaning isn't confused? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
London_Rain
|
|
« Reply #20 on: June 17, 2009, 01:07:37 PM » |
|
if the bible is inspired by God, don't you think He'd have made it fool-proof and not open to interpretation? if I were to write a book that was to be the 'end-all/be-all' of eternity & humanity, I would make dannnnnng sure I made it as clear as possible.
Which language would you use to make that as clear as possible? And would you require all of humanity to learn that language so that the meaning isn't confused? If I was God, yea. But again, we are speculating about something were we don't know anything about it. We don't know it's thought patterns. We don't know anything! Speculating about what God would do is just stupid. It's like speculating what The Flying Spaghetti monster would do. There is a whole gospel on the Flying Spaghetti monster; yet, if someone tried to say, "Aha! This is what he is thinking." he would be called an idiot. Same thing applies. W.W.J.D. is the stupidest question I have ever heard asked. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
pyroclasticlux
|
|
« Reply #21 on: June 17, 2009, 04:05:04 PM » |
|
Which language would you use to make that as clear as possible? And would you require all of humanity to learn that language so that the meaning isn't confused? Even within the English language, there are so many interpretations of the bible; my point was that, if even one language can't stick with just one version, how are we to know which is the truest? unless the basis is the first version written in English, which many would probably agree is incorrectly transcribed when their religion doesn't use that version. If the bible was divinely inspired, I should think that God would inspire the translations as well somehow. I mean, it's God - I can't imagine a being capable of every thought and action not being able to somehow make it possible that all translations (from language to language) be equal (for example: using simple language, less ambiguous phrases, more clear-cut directions, etc). I'm wondering, however, if the problem isn't with the book but with language itself. As strange as it may seem, having it only be available in one language which all humans could read (like a 'common tongue', even if by grace we only understood it in the biblical context) might have been the only way to avoid most forms of (other/mis-)interpretation. (That still seems like something God could have allowed for, of course.) That point has unfortunately passed, however, and we're stuck with an infinite amount of possibilities. W.W.J.D. is the stupidest question I have ever heard asked. Try to keep it neutral; we want to keep the site objective as much as we can without resorting to name-calling or spats.  I don't think the question is so bad entirely; it can be used to keep people on a moral path, if Jesus is a guiding light in one's life. Jesus can be used as an excellent figure for the promotion of peace, humility, and love. I don't feel morality and Jesus are mutually exclusive, but I think that that sort of approach can be greatly beneficial to Christians and 'believers' in general. Unfortunately, I think that 'WWJD?' is often used terribly out of context (materially, such as ' Would Jesus want me to buy that new car/get that new DVD/be totally filthy rich?' [coughJOEL OSTEENcough] or for personal gain, such as 'Would Jesus say it's okay for me to push my beliefs on those that disagree because it's my duty to change the heathens' minds?') As 'Linda Richman' would say, 'Disuss.' |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
l'humour est culturel; le rire est universel
(=
|
|
|
|
melidere
|
|
« Reply #22 on: June 19, 2009, 12:10:26 PM » |
|
I'm wondering, however, if the problem isn't with the book but with language itself. As strange as it may seem, having it only be available in one language which all humans could read (like a 'common tongue', even if by grace we only understood it in the biblical context) might have been the only way to avoid most forms of (other/mis-)interpretation.
(That still seems like something God could have allowed for, of course.)
That point has unfortunately passed, however, and we're stuck with an infinite amount of possibilities.
You're getting there. Now why didn't God just make up a common tongue for us to share Biblical truths with, do you suppose? (Hint: Genesis 11) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
London_Rain
|
|
« Reply #23 on: June 19, 2009, 09:07:18 PM » |
|
I don't believe I named called.
Anyways, the question is not what language would be God's language, but why would God even need a language? Why would he not just put the knowledge inside our brains.
Why would he need to create a book which was subject to human error?
"Because he wants us to be able to make our own choices."
He could also give us the option of free choice, along with the knowledge that he would put inside our brains.
Essentially, "Here is all of this knowledge, now you can choose to go by it, or do your own thing. It's up to you."
For an omnipotent, omnipresent, supernatural being, this isn't something hard to do at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
melidere
|
|
« Reply #24 on: June 20, 2009, 06:25:18 AM » |
|
I don't believe I named called.
Anyways, the question is not what language would be God's language, but why would God even need a language? Why would he not just put the knowledge inside our brains.
Why would he need to create a book which was subject to human error?
"Because he wants us to be able to make our own choices."
He could also give us the option of free choice, along with the knowledge that he would put inside our brains.
Essentially, "Here is all of this knowledge, now you can choose to go by it, or do your own thing. It's up to you."
For an omnipotent, omnipresent, supernatural being, this isn't something hard to do at all.
I believe the reason Tara chastised you is because calling a question stupid is essentially calling the asker stupid for asking it. God DID give us the knowledge inside our brains; we just refuse to recognize it because our souls are dead (remember in the Garden of Eden when God said "Eat of this fruit and you will die"). To those of us whom God sends his spirit to revive our souls, he does give us that choice. He doesn't drag anyone into his kingdom. The book is just reinforcement of the knowledge he's already given us, and a love letter to help us get to know him better--his likes and dislikes, his history, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
London_Rain
|
|
« Reply #25 on: June 20, 2009, 08:59:38 AM » |
|
This says it all. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
pyroclasticlux
|
|
« Reply #26 on: June 20, 2009, 11:02:42 AM » |
|
W.W.J.D. is the stupidest question I have ever heard asked. Try to keep it neutral; we want to keep the site objective as much as we can without resorting to name-calling or spats. as a moderator, I have to address things like that (or Scott might bring out the whoop-arse! hahah). I realise you didn't name-call; I just was worried about the tone a bit, because it sounded a bit pointed (I didn't want it to escalate an argument to the point of name-calling; call it a pre-emptive strike...or over-worrying). however, I don't think it necessarily means you're saying the person asking is stupid (I hope not, anyhow), but rather that the question itself is. anyhowwwwww  foremost, The book is just reinforcement of the knowledge he's already given us, and a love letter to help us get to know him better--his likes and dislikes, his history, etc. I do quite like this explanation. it makes a lot of sense: likening it to a text book, it helps us learn more about the subject*; calling it a 'love letter' also makes sense, though I would disagree when it comes to some of the more unpleasant parts and contradictions. still, I think it's a swell, interesting point made. *whether it's taken literally or objectively is up to the reader; for believers, it gives context to the 'whys' - though, of course, that's the point. Anyways, the question is not what language would be God's language, but why would God even need a language? Why would he not just put the knowledge inside our brains.
Why would he need to create a book which was subject to human error? L_R pretty much nailed my point right here; that is what I was trying to get across. his further argument: He could also give us the option of free choice, along with the knowledge that he would put inside our brains.
Essentially, "Here is all of this knowledge, now you can choose to go by it, or do your own thing. It's up to you." explains what I was trying to get to but couldn't articulate properly. what I meant by: I'm wondering, however, if the problem isn't with the book but with language itself. As strange as it may seem, having it only be available in one language which all humans could read (like a 'common tongue', even if by grace we only understood it in the biblical context) might have been the only way to avoid most forms of (other/mis-)interpretation.
(That still seems like something God could have allowed for, of course.)
That point has unfortunately passed, however, and we're stuck with an infinite amount of possibilities. was that it seems superfluous to have all these translations about when there's only one truth that humans are supposed to know inherently. (and why couldn't the correct version of the bible also be inherent?) contrary to what some christians/parts of the bible state, humans simply -knowing- there's a god isn't enough, because human nature seems to require that we assign specifics; since millions of people interpret their 'inherent knowledge' differently, why do we HAVE to subscribe to one bible or the other? why isn't it enough to just believe there's a god? (PS I recommend the video L_R posted; the issue of Adam & Eve was something that has bothered me since I first started learning about the bible; QualiaSoup's - the author's - argument makes all of the points I'm not concise enough to make.) |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 20, 2009, 11:08:59 AM by pyroclasticlux »
|
Logged
|
l'humour est culturel; le rire est universel
(=
|
|
|
|
London_Rain
|
|
« Reply #27 on: June 20, 2009, 03:48:56 PM » |
|
I realize that the statement might have gone too far, but I felt it got the point across. You can't speculate about the thoughts of something that we don't know about.
Because I worded the above badly, I will attempt again:
Speculating about the thoughts or intents of God is silly because we don't know the thoughts or intents of God. If you read the bible, it seems that he changes his thoughts and intents repeatedly, even though there is a verse in the bible that states that God doesn't change.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
melidere
|
|
« Reply #28 on: July 02, 2009, 12:12:32 PM » |
|
Speculating about the thoughts or intents of God is silly because we don't know the thoughts or intents of God. If you read the bible, it seems that he changes his thoughts and intents repeatedly, even though there is a verse in the bible that states that God doesn't change.
So you're really saying that the reason we needn't know or speculate about the thoughts of God of the Bible is that he's not consistent in his thoughts or intents, so we can never really get to know him anyway? Is that what you mean? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
London_Rain
|
|
« Reply #29 on: July 02, 2009, 01:12:06 PM » |
|
Speculating about the thoughts or intents of God is silly because we don't know the thoughts or intents of God. If you read the bible, it seems that he changes his thoughts and intents repeatedly, even though there is a verse in the bible that states that God doesn't change.
So you're really saying that the reason we needn't know or speculate about the thoughts of God of the Bible is that he's not consistent in his thoughts or intents, so we can never really get to know him anyway? Is that what you mean? First question, correct assumptions, wrong final question. You can get to know God all you want, but that doesn't mean that you can know what he is thinking. Second question, sort of. Although your second question is redundant, I will answer anyways. People who are considered "mind-readers" in the telepathic sense are essentially laughed at. Do I have any proof of them actually being able to read peoples mind? No, I don't have proof that says that they can't either, but I am extremely skeptical. You should be equally skeptical when you hear people claim that they can read God's mind, interpret his thoughts, or tell you that God had spoken to them. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
