What And Why You Believe please write logical posts.

[Troubadour 0]

This gets very old, very quickly, and after the 50th or so 'faith attack', one feels rather beligerent towards the whole lot. Sadly, since all the crazies identify them selves as christians(loudly), those of us who deal with them begin to group everyone who identifies themselves as christian in with the crazies, and often react with irritiation that isn't deserved because the crazies have given you a *very* bad name.

Sadly, this is very true. All too often people take one look at the soapbox preachers and Bible thumpers and form their opinions simply on the extreme examples. This is also true with the other end of the spectrum. Many people call themselves Christians, but that of course does not mean they are. Such people say one thing and do another, the hypocrites you might say.

I'd put such assupmtions on par with people stereotyping Muslims based upon the extremists that orchestrated such terrorist attacks as 9/11. I know several Muslims and I love them just as much as the next guy. That's what God calls us to do anyway. So, yes, as you say... we do get a bad wrap oft times.

Now, do you believe every word of the bible is literally true? And I mean every word. Gen 32:30 says, "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Then, John 1:18: "No man hath seen God at any time..."

 

If such passages are held to be true, then there is a problem, because these two passages are contradictory and therefore cannot both be literally true. If these passages are not 'literal' then there is a problem, because then you must interpret the 'absolute truth', and you aren't really in a position to do that(because you aren't god, so you can't say(without supreme hubris) that you know what he wants).

 

There are escapes from this trap, so I am pointing it out as a word of caution. The declaration 'it is true!!' is what gets the atheists and agnostics and such so irritated.

This is pretty classic, if you don't mind my saying so... No offense to you at all MTF. I'm very glad you brought this up. You see the Bible cannot, absolutely cannot be taken piece by piece. It is one whole book; one whole story. When you take two or three verses out of context and match them up together... you can get any meaning you could be looking for. This is what many atheists use as fuel to refute Christianity.

Say I open up my Bible randomly and read the first verse my finger lands on... it says "And Judas went out into the field and hung himself." Then I close it and reopen it to another page. It might say, "And the LORD said, 'Now go and do the same.' " Pretty ridiculous, ya?

I myself have not read the Bible entirely through, so I don't neccessarily have much room to talk here... but I'm working on that. What I'm getting at here is that each part of the Bible must be taken in context. Knowing what happened before and after each story has great significance on its meaning. Some may be metaphorical, some may be literal. Very confusing for all of us!

[tattoopunk 0]

Personally I think that religion was created for the masses to have hope and as a rationality behind certian laws. There are many arguments about which religion is the true religion, but look at it this way, what do you think of when you hear the word cult?Got that image in your head, good, now what do you think of when you think of your religious belief.Are these two drastically different images? They shouldn't be, for one simple reason, all religions started as a cult.If you are to say that cults are all based of of some insain idea of a 'false god' then what is to keep someone from saying the same about your religion.It does not seem to follow human nature to worship an idol, I think that religion is something to offer peace and hope for the masses, but religion is not for everyone.I hope that I didn't offend any of you by writing this, it is ofcorse my own personal belief, and thus you can disregard it as mindless dribble.In conclusion, just remember religion is no excuse for ignorance of others and is never to be a just cause for violence or hate.Thank You

[liknus 0]

I deal religion as another weekness of humanity.I don't believe in any kind of god cause i dont believe that "something superior" exist. I respect all religions but one....The scientology....I think that those guys are just hiding behind some quotes of great man as Einstain.For more info on religions u may visit http:\\http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Say I open up my Bible randomly and read the first verse my finger lands on... it says "And Judas went out into the field and hung himself."  Then I close it and reopen it to another page.  It might say, "And the LORD said, 'Now go and do the same.' "    Pretty ridiculous, ya?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, the issue is many a christian/preacher/etc will happily quote bible versus at us, and then demand that we accept the lord. So we follow in kind.

 

Also, I used that example because both peices make comments about the nature of god. If the book says nobody has seen him, and then has someone say that they have, then that is an issue.

 

But your comment is correct about context, and that was part of my point. If you include context, then you must interpret that context, and whether or not the book is true quickly becomes secondary to whether or not your INTERPRETATION of the book is true.

 

If something is the 'absolute truth', or 'every word of it is true' then interpretation is a bit of a no no. Statements like these are what open up the religion to such attack. Indeed, I suggest you go check the context of the two passages I used. As far as I can tell(with a quick web search, I don't have a bible handy), their context doesn't make them incompatible like your example suggests.

[Troubadour 0]

If something is the 'absolute truth', or 'every word of it is true' then interpretation is a bit of a no no. Statements like these are what open up the religion to such attack. Indeed, I suggest you go check the context of the two passages I used. As far as I can tell(with a quick web search, I don't have a bible handy), their context doesn't make them incompatible like your example suggests.

Here is one part of the Bible that seems to make part of what you seem to be getting at MTF. In Genesis chapter 32, Esau is coming to meet his brother Jacob. These two guys have had somewhat of a mottled history you might say. So Esau, being the stronger one, makes Jacob very afraid. Jacob does just about everything he can to passify Esau and ensure his and his family's survival. While Jacob is waiting for Esau to show up, he wrestles with some dude until daybreak.
Now before I go any further, let me say this... Obviously, English was not the first language the Word of God was written in. In Hebrew, there are lots of separate connotations and meanings for every word. I gotta hand it to the English translators for doing their absolute best to convey the ture meaning while maintaining a certain degree of literalism. But of course, when battling inferred meaning and literal meaning, something is going to be lost in the translation.

Back to Genesis...

Here, is a prime example of one of those words where the actual meaning is pretty hazy. In the passage, Jacob beats the dude he's wrestling with. As we know, God is omnipotent (all powerful). How then could a mere human defeat God? The word translated as "God" here is also found in Hosea 12:3-4 (I encourage you to look it up) where it is translated as "the Angel of the Lord". Some say that Jacob was wrestling only and Angel. Some say that God took on the form of an Angel. (maybe to make it fair... ) Whatever the case, I believe this proves both of our points in one form or another, MTF.

Yes, some of the true meaning intended in the Word is lost due to translation and individual interpretation. I absolutely agree. However, taking the Bible as a whole can give one a general scope of God's message. When reading things in context, the intended meanings can be brought forth quite clearly. I don't think that God intends us to dwell on deatails.

As far as the passage in John 1, this is absolutely dependent on the conext in which is was spoken/written. He says that "no one has ever seen God". Christians believe, as it says in the Bible, that Christ is God in the form of man. Therefore, many have seen God. Or you could argue that in Exodus, God tells Moses to hide behind a rock then God wil walk by and let Moses see his back. Obviously, anyone that goes to Heaven will see God. What really matters here is the point that the author is trying to make. I'll have to study it more to understand what that point is, but as of yet I've only taken a brief look at it.

Well, the issue is many a christian/preacher/etc will happily quote bible versus at us, and then demand that we accept the lord. So we follow in kind.

I would hope here that the one quoting scripture would be using it in some for of Biblical context or another. If they're speaking of the life of Jesus on this Earth, then using words that He has spoken are good. Or when teaching some sort of Biblical lesson, the passage and some of the surrounding passages should be used to support its meaning. I know that at the church I attend, when we read a verse that has something to do with the sermon, we also read the entire passage that it's contained in to get a general feel for what it's getting at.

One last thing here... I just wanted to say thank you MTF! It's really great to be challenged in my faith, and in such a friendly way too! It's refreshing to review what it is I believe and why. So thanks.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

One last thing here... I just wanted to say thank you MTF!  It's really great to be challenged in my faith, and in such a friendly way too!  It's refreshing to review what it is I believe and why.  So thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you, and you are welcome. I came to my (semi) religious views through being challenged. So, I find that thoughtfull challenges do not hurt faith(unless that faith is truly unwarranted), but instead clarify and deepen it.

 

I deal religion as another weekness of humanity.

I don't believe in any kind of god cause i dont believe that "something superior" exist. I respect all religions but one....

The scientology....

I think that those guys are just hiding behind some quotes of great man as Einstain.

Well, if you are like me(in the past) then that feeling comes from meeting mainly the loonies or the ignorant. Not everyone is like that, nor are religions(per say) the problem. The problem is dogma, the lack of thought, which unfortunately some religous groups(or even social groups like racists) press into others and their children.

 

I agree with you about scientology though. It is truly a den of evil(at the top). And I pitt the poor people suckered into it. I had a step-sister in the witness protection program because they tried to kill her for leaving.(Had, because my father and that woman divorced).

[liknus 0]

Well, if you are like me(in the past) then that feeling comes from meeting mainly the loonies or the ignorant.  Not everyone is like that, nor are religions(per say) the problem.  The problem is dogma, the lack of thought, which unfortunately some religous groups(or even social groups like racists) press into others and their children.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I dont think that i am suppressed by someone....

I just think that there is no need for religion...

Cause if u r strong enough to cope with the evryday's probs u don need a superior being to "protect" or "help" u and "control" u....

[heshu 0]

What and why I believe...Well, I am not sure which category I fit into. Here's my background.My father atheist and my mom ?partial? buddhist.I grew up attending catholic schools. I believe there's a God, a power above us. However, I don't qualify to be what you call a christian cause I didn't receive any of the sacraments unlike people who are non practicing christians. I think one of the most important elements in what you believe and why you believe it is how it will affect one's life. I believe no matter what religion one is, it's suppose to help you live a better life and how you relate with other people. So what I end up doing is that I believe in bits and pieces of all the different religions!

[Troubadour 0]

What and why I believe...

 

Well, I am not sure which category I fit into. Here's my background.

My father atheist and my mom ?partial? buddhist.

I grew up attending catholic schools.

I believe there's a God, a power above us. However, I don't qualify to be what you call a christian cause I didn't receive any of the sacraments unlike people who are non practicing christians.

I think one of the most important elements in what you believe and why you believe it is how it will affect one's life. I believe no matter what religion one is, it's suppose to help you live a better life and how you relate with other people. So what I end up doing is that I believe in bits and pieces of all the different religions!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't mean to cause any offense, but speaking as a Christian firmly founded in my beliefs... there's no such thing as non-practicing Christians. Either you are a Christian or you aren't. I realize that this might bring up the debate of eternal salvation, but we'll tackle that maybe a bit later. What I'm saying is that Christianity is a lifestyle, not simply a form of beliefs. This is one reason why I struggle to call Christianity a religion. The term religion gives the idea of an organized corporation, something which Christianity is not. I've met people of other beliefs and would say that they also live a lifestyle based on their faith. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that there is a difference between what we call religion and what we live. Am I making sense here? I don't know, I guess this is harder to explain than I thought...

Anyway, no such thing as non-practicing Christians. As I tried to establish above, Christianity is a lifestyle, so you either live it or you don't.

 

I hope I don't come off as offensive here... sorry if I do.

[thatguycalledrob 0]

Alright, a quite confusing bit of scripture. A good portion of the bible is plain enough to read thanks to translations such as the niv (or, the message if you don't mind poor accuracy and love good flow). I've heard, though I've never studied Greek or Ancient Greek for that matter, that the language sounded pretty and was able to make very complex English points simple. I'm no authority on that matter though.

 

Since it's a rather confusing point, I like to use a more literal translation (more word-for-word less phrase-for-phrase) bible such as the New American Standard. The next thing to do, is to do is disband that argument about context by saying this. I beleive the bible to be completly true every bit of it - the original that is. Now any translation will do to help you understand the basic truths, but when it comes to these issues - translaters and translations can be problematic. So, anyway back to the interpretation.

 

If we read the whole of John 1 (niv) (nas), we see the context is that author is describing God's nature - a highly debated topic. There is a concept out there known as the Trinity (basically, it's confusing as to how and why God - the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit are also one being) which no one entirely understands. Nevertheless, it can help us decipher this scripture. If we accept, for a moment, that there are in fact 3 parts to God, and two of which are a Father and a Son and also understand that the context of what we are talking about is the nature of God, particularly the nature of Jesus, how then do we interpret John 1:18 ? How about if we say the passage is actually saying noone has ever seen Jesus - because it says "...the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father..."? Then, if we understand that the author is talking about the time when Jesus is becoming flesh, then it makes sense that noone has ever seen Jesus, yet.

 

I'll admit it's not the best interpretation of that. But, I'm not the best at this stuff.

 

As far as the 'christian/preacher/etc' demanding you to do something because they quote a scripture at you - I'll agree that's foolish. Though I myself am one of those who goes around trying to convert people and I also share scripture with people. I beleive it's almost pointless to share scripture with someone who does not beleive it. I beleive in sharing scripture with people who claim to be a 'christian' and yet do not follow it, or follow it weakly.

 

Oh, and I just read that second part "whether or not the book is true quickly becomes secondary to whether or not your INTERPRETATION of the book is true." I agree with you to some extent. One of the reasons I don't like Rowe's and Paley's writing is that they try to prove that God exists. I don't really think it's possible to prove God exists or that bible is completly true. I beleive there are many convincing evidences, signs, etc. But, as my first roomate once said, "You'll never be able to prove to me that we were not just created seconds ago, and that every bit of our past up to this very moment in time weren't just created memories, formed by whatever made us in the first place". That's not an exact quote, but it was three years ago.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

If we read the whole of John 1 (niv) (nas), we see the context is that author is describing God's nature - a highly debated topic.  There is a concept out there known as the Trinity (basically, it's confusing as to how and why God - the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit are also one being) which no one entirely understands.  Nevertheless, it can help us decipher this scripture.  If we accept, for a moment, that there are in fact 3 parts to God, and two of which are a Father and a Son and also understand that the context of what we are talking about is the nature of God, particularly the nature of Jesus, how then do we interpret John 1:18 ?  How about if we say the passage is actually saying noone has ever seen Jesus - because it says "...the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father..."?  Then, if we understand that the author is talking about the time when Jesus is becoming flesh, then it makes sense that noone has ever seen Jesus, yet.

 

Oh, and I just read that second part "whether or not the book is true quickly becomes secondary to whether or not your INTERPRETATION of the book is true."  I agree with you to some extent.  One of the reasons I don't like Rowe's and Paley's writing is that they try to prove that God exists.  I don't really think it's possible to prove God exists or that bible is completly true.  I beleive there are many convincing evidences, signs, etc.  But, as my first roomate once said, "You'll never be able to prove to me that we were not just created seconds ago, and that every bit of our past up to this very moment in time weren't just created memories, formed by whatever made us in the first place".  That's not an exact quote, but it was three years ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, the point is that you can never prove anything, but you CAN disprove at least some things. The issue with stating that the bible, or any other religious text is true is that as soon as you do that, any discrepancy acts as at least a partial disproof. How partial or absolute the disproof is depends on the extent to which the faith/religion rests on that truth being necessary. If faith rests on something being infallible (like the pope at one time) then as soon as a mistake is made things fall apart.

 

As for word for word vs. phrase for phrase translations, word for word is less accurate in some ways. For instance, if one were to translate the phrase 'the jig is up' from english to some other language word for word, then it would come out saying that there was a floating saw. This is, to say the least, innaccurate.

[heshu 0]

I don't mean to cause any offense, but speaking as a Christian firmly founded in my beliefs... there's no such thing as non-practicing Christians.  Either you are a Christian or you aren't.  I realize that this might bring up the debate of eternal salvation, but we'll tackle that maybe a bit later.  What I'm saying is that Christianity is a lifestyle, not simply a form of beliefs.  This is one reason why I struggle to call Christianity a religion.  The term religion gives the idea of an organized corporation, something which Christianity is not.  I've met people of other beliefs and would say that they also live a lifestyle based on their faith.  Therefore, I come to the conclusion that there is a difference between what we call religion and what we live.  Am I making sense here? I don't know, I guess this is harder to explain than I thought...

Anyway, no such thing as non-practicing Christians.  As I tried to establish above, Christianity is a lifestyle, so you either live it or you don't.

 

I hope I don't come off as offensive here... sorry if I do. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I refer to those people who have at least received the sacrament of baptism and maybe the sacrament of confirmation, etc. at some time in their lives as non practicing Christians. It's important to differentiate this point because can a person who hasn't been baptized called him/herself a christian?

However, I do agree with you that one must incorporate their beliefs into their lives, therefore, living by what they believe.

[liknus 0]

I don't mean to cause any offense, but speaking as a Christian firmly founded in my beliefs... there's no such thing as non-practicing Christians.  Either you are a Christian or you aren't.  I realize that this might bring up the debate of eternal salvation, but we'll tackle that maybe a bit later.  What I'm saying is that Christianity is a lifestyle, not simply a form of beliefs.  This is one reason why I struggle to call Christianity a religion.  The term religion gives the idea of an organized corporation, something which Christianity is not.  I've met people of other beliefs and would say that they also live a lifestyle based on their faith.  Therefore, I come to the conclusion that there is a difference between what we call religion and what we live.  Am I making sense here? I don't know, I guess this is harder to explain than I thought...

Anyway, no such thing as non-practicing Christians.  As I tried to establish above, Christianity is a lifestyle, so you either live it or you don't.

 

I hope I don't come off as offensive here... sorry if I do. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe that u and other 10 men all around the world have the same attitude on christianity...

Most christians expect from their god to help them and advise them with them having to follow the rules "God" has set.(what would their behavior be if they where not christians? would they kill with no sence of action?...)

They cannot understand that the only way for humanity to survive throughout time is to rely on its own power...

This is the way things have been for humanity during the last 400.000 years.. !!!!

[Troubadour 0]

I believe that u and other 10 men all around the world have the same attitude on christianity...

Most christians expect from their god to help them and advise them with them having to follow the rules "God" has set.(what would their behavior be if they where not christians? would they kill with no sence of action?...)

They cannot understand that the only way for humanity to survive throughout time is to rely on its own power...

This is the way things have been for humanity during the last 400.000 years.. !!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whoa... It almost scares me sometimes thinking about the guy that has to sit with his finger over the "big red button". (I'm speaking metaphorically here, of course.) To think that we as humans have only ourselves to rely on, that we must depend on eachother for survival... well, the idea just scares me. I'm glad we don't. If I had to deal with all the things that happen in my life alone, I think I would go insane. I'd definitely be a completely different person; a person I'm very glad that I'm not. It's not that I don't trust Humans, it's just... well yeah, I don't trust Humans. Don't get me wrong, I'm a very trusting person... but when it comes to governing the planet, keeping things in order, I flat don't trust anyone but God. That's just way too much for us to deal with I think. I've tried relying on my own power to handle the things I've faced in my life, and found myself lacking, but God was right there behind me to back me up when I turned to Him. It doesn't make it any easier, but He makes me feel comfortable with what's going on because I know that He's got a plan and is working for the good through it all. (Romans 8:28, Jeremiah 29:11) I'd go nuts if it was any other way.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Whoa... It almost scares me sometimes thinking about the guy that has to sit with his finger over the "big red button".  (I'm speaking metaphorically here, of course.)  To think that we as humans have only ourselves to rely on, that we must depend on eachother for survival... well, the idea just scares me.  I'm glad we don't.  If I had to deal with all the things that happen in my life alone, I think I would go insane.  I'd definitely be a completely different person; a person I'm very glad that I'm not.  It's not that I don't trust Humans, it's just... well yeah, I don't trust Humans.  Don't get me wrong, I'm a very trusting person... but when it comes to governing the planet, keeping things in order, I flat don't trust anyone but God.  That's just way too much for us to deal with I think.  I've tried relying on my own power to handle the things I've faced in my life, and found myself lacking, but God was right there behind me to back me up when I turned to Him.  It doesn't make it any easier, but He makes me feel comfortable with what's going on because I know that He's got a plan and is working for the good through it all. (Romans 8:28, Jeremiah 29:11)  I'd go nuts if it was any other way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, you could look at it my way, because while I don't share his angst, I do feel that we are on our own(or at least that there is no god). My way of seeing it is that if we ARE here by ourselves (barring aliens), then that means that any problems that exist are human, or natural in scale. That means they can be solved by humans as well. We might be all alone, but we are more than enough by ourselves.