I don't expect you to understand...

[Jujuman]

Hello All;
I agree with Barefoot. I have a problem with the iconagraphy of Jesus as the ONLY way to "heaven". SO...... what happens to the souls of BILLIONS of people the lived and died BEFORE Jesus was born? Do they go to HELL because they didn't follow his teachings? I don't think so......

I have some questions for Bryan. Maybe these questions will help you understand endoctrination for what it is, if you answer them TRUTHFULLY.


1) When was Christianity introduced to the African?

2) Why was Christianity introduced to the African?

3) If that is the case, why is Christianity good for the African?

4) If your ancestors slavemasters were HINDU, what religion would you be?

Curious minds want to know.......

Jujuman

[A.R.]

Occasionally some people report incidents where all the basic, time tested principles of everyday experience don't hold. They say someone walked on water, raised the dead, or floated into the sky. What am I to make of this? I've never seen anything like this unless I was dreaming or on some mind altering substance. I have, however, had experience with people lying. I've done it myself. I have experience with people misunderstanding what the saw, felt or heard. I've done it myself. I have experience with people hallucinating. I've done it myself.

So, when I weigh the evidence between reported exceptions and the apparent rules I see every day, I choose to believe in the rules.

barefoot.... do you love your parents?.... i am going to assume that even if the answer is no... u do love someone, so we will just use the answer "yes" for the time being...

well barefoot.... can u prove it?

[barefoot]

Wow, you're argument is just devastating! You're so right.

• Be they love, pain, color, or taste; we can't prove the existence of any subjective feelings. Therefore gods, fairies, gremlins and the Easter Bunny must exist!
  
  QED.

How could I have overlooked such an incontrovertible argument as this?

[A.R.]

because i don't feel i have the knowledge of the subject to debate with everyone's points... i will just use a quote i read in a book about one of the most beloved scientists of all time.....


Albert Einstein - "the more i try to disprove a higher power, the more i end up believing there is such a thing."

[John Sayers]

"The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books - a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects."

Albert Einstein

[barefoot]

• "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."
  
  - Einstein

Einstein was a smart guy, and well selected quotes let us draw whatever conclusions we like. In any case, quotes of smart people don't prove anything. Einstein didn't accept quantum mechanics and spent the 2nd half of his life developing theories that were almost completely fruitless. He got some things very right and some very wrong. Verifiable, reproducible evidence is the ultimate proof of any theory .

[rodwillner]

Firstly, I am Buddhist.

I'll quote Einstein as well.....................Every one else is lol...

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural
and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity.
Buddhism answers this description...If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism.
Albert Einstein

My opinion on all this is............
I agree with John, re there is no ‘one way’ to heaven (or nirvana or equivalent). It shouldn’t matter which religion some one is affiliated with. It’s not important that we try to debate which religion is meant to be the best. If people are doing good, then they are good people ~ simple. There’s no need to complicate & theorise & debate & argue & fight wars etc etc……. There is common denominator in all of these questions / comparisons etc regarding religions & beliefs that I think is sometimes missed. ……………and that common denominator is ‘us’……….’human beings’!

I often read the topics on this site & I know that you are all good people, from many religious back grounds, sharing ideas & thoughts etc. To make a point, like squillions of other things in this world, things like this forum help to bring us together as people. News, sports, websites, forums, blogs, music, art etc etc etc etc……. People of all backgrounds come together to share interests & hobbies & ideas etc just like we’re doing right now with this forum…………..But for me……..one question still remains….

We unite as people for so many things & for so many reasons, but we seem to stand divided when it comes to religion……………?

Rod

[vandergraf]

I too consider myself a Christian, however, due to:

1. the many TV evangelists who are only-in-it for-the-money.
{ I have worked for several, believe me. I know }

2. the many others who use Christianity as a way to milk money out of little old ladys and ignorant people.

3. the vast amount of varied interpetations of the Bible.

4. the various "Christian sects" that can't agree on major points.

5. the catholic raping and pillaging of countries and artwork through the centuries.

6. the "Christian right wing" , mainly in America, that continues to use our government and the white house as their bully pulpit to get across their twisted and in many cases, entirely mis-guided agendas,

I can no longer relate to modern Christianity. Yes, Jesus is the son of God and died for our sins, then was buried and rose from the dead. Beyond that, NO ONE KNOWS! There is no absolute doctrine beyond the fundamentals.

Everytime the Jiven Witness's show up with their briefcases, I just want to slap them. Sorry folks, but going door to door bothering people with your dogma does NOT guarantee a place in paradise. Thats as foolish as the 72 virgins deal, that some muslims believe in. But thats another story altogether.

[GuitarStv]

Perhaps a different perspective to the age old argument:

Some people need glasses to see properly, some people need braces to develop straight teeth, some people need a wheelchair to walk properly. People are complex, interesting, and different individuals. Some people require faith in their lives to live. Some people require a sense of community in their faith to be happy. Some people can live by their own rules and live perfectly happily.

The big problem occurs because faith is so specialized (much like glasses). Just because my glasses fit well and help me to see better, I would be inclined to think that everyone should wear these glasses - and it wouldn't make sense to me that people would complain about them. I would go back to my faith in my glasses (put them on) and determine that yes, my faith is sound (I can see better through them). This is where all the animosity, bickering, and arguing comes from.

I think that it takes a lot of personal strength to be able to see this and realize that you don't have the perfect faith for everyone else. It takes control to realize that the solution that works for you is not always best for everyone else, and that no one path could work for every person. So why get upset?


Since everyone else has thrown some quotes together from their favorite sources I'll have a go at it:

"To know you have enough is to be rich." - Tao Te Ching
"He deserves Paradise who makes his companions laugh." - Koran
"Let us love, not in word or speech, but in truth and action." - John 3:18
"Before enlightenment, I chopped wood and carried water; after enlightenment, I chopped wood and carried water. " - Anonymous

[Soundman2020]

Damn! I am soooo sorry I missed this thread! I arrived here on the forum after it had already faded, and I only just came across it now, but boy I wish I had been around back then! Some really good stuff going on in there. It would have been fun to get involved!

Oh well...


- Stuart -

[Eric Best]

Wow Stuart, you posting made me read this for the first time in 5 years! Amazing how civil this debate on religion was. It shows the class of the people who hang out on this forum. I do have to say I cracked myself up with my comparison of studio designers to religion.

An aftermath, in one of my posts I referred to a friend of mine, Andy, who was a Fundamentalist Christian when it was written. Andy in his devotion, learned to read Greek so he could read the original Bible. According to him it didn't say what he had been taught and what the translations were. He is no longer a Christian.

Does anyone know what happened to Knightfly?

[Soundman2020]

It shows the class of the people who hang out on this forum.

Absolutely! It was a pretty good, clean debate if you ask me. Good points on both sides, reasonably well presented, but with tempers under control for the most part. Good job!

I do have to say I cracked myself up with my comparison of studio designers to religion.

While I was reading that, I was just itching to turn around the exact same "analogy" against you! But then I thought better of it...

Andy in his devotion, learned to read Greek so he could read the original Bible.

Well, that would help him with only about one third of the Bible: the rest of it was written in Hebrew and Aramaic... And of course, I guess you do know that there is no such thing as "the Original Bible"?

According to him it didn't say what he had been taught and what the translations were.

I wonder how well he learned it? Koine isn't easy, and doesn't use the same verbal tenses that English does, for example. Words can have multiple meanings that are only clarified by context, etc. Optional prepositions and articles that can change the meaning of an entire sentence are hard to pin down. Not an easy task.

He is no longer a Christian.

That's a pity. The more Koine I learn, the more firmly convinced I become!

But then again, nobody could accuse me of being a strict fundamentalist, since that requires imposing metal contortions on my poor old mind and doing mangled neuronal gymnastics with my brain that I just could never handle in good conscience. I'd have to convince my self that lies are true and truth is a lie in order to go down that road.

But that doesn't make the Bible any less correct, or any less powerful...

Rather, I prefer to take each part at face value, and read it as it was supposed to be read: the poetic parts I read as poetry (without trying to convince myself that stars have hands and can applaud, for example, or that rocks have mouths and can sing); the historic parts I read as historic, but from the point of view of those who wrote them (not trying to impose my own modern-Western point of view on ancient-Eastern customs); and the actual spiritual parts I read as spiritual, without hoping too much that they can be made to fit the laws of science

But what amazes me even then is how closely the Bible actually does parallel science! There is no conflict if you study both at once and have a reasonably open mind about interpreting the Bible. For example, I see no conflict at all between the Big Bang theory, and the account of creation in Genesis: they tie in rather neatly, if you take the point of view that poor old Moses was doing his damnedest to put down on paper the things he was seeing in some kind of vision that God gave him. All things considered, he did a darn good job! But of course, a fundamentalist finds that really hard to do, since to him "water" also only ever means liquid H2O, and a "day" is a literal period of 24 hours, and nothing else (even though the exact same Hebrew word is used in several other places to mean "indeterminate period of time", much like we use it to day, as in "the day of the steam engine").

When you start reading the Bible with an open mind, admitting that it might actually be fully correct if you can only get the right handle on it, it starts to make an amazing amount if sense, and the supposed "conflicts" with science disappear! Personally, I don't see any conflict at all between the Bible and science, unless you really try hard to create those conflicts, instead of trying to resolve them. It seems to me those conflicts normally come from one side of the issue, based on preconceived notions about the other side, and without ever bothering to actually study the other side and try to figure out how to unite the two, instead of tear them apart!

So it's a pity that your friend lost his faith, based on inadequate linguistics. That really is sad. I would have liked to talk to him about that. It might just be a big misunderstanding.

Does anyone know what happened to Knightfly?

He does still drop in very occasionally, but hasn't done so in a while. You could try PM'ing him.


- Stuart -

[Eric Best]

Actually, Andy didn't lose faith, he just no longer considers himself a Christian. What he was led to believe by his reading of the Bible in Greek was that all paths to God are valid. He now considers himself to be a Universalist (which is probably the closest thing to what I believe).

As far as teaching himself Greek (he says that the first time the Bible was assembled, it was Greek), I consider myself fairly intelligent (even though I just spelled intelligent wrong, thank you spell check!). My degree is in Mathematics with a minor in Physics and I graduated cum laude. Andy is one of the brightest people I know. Now instead of debating religion, we talk about time space, string theory, evolution and all sorts of other things that he was not allowed even consider before.

[Soundman2020]

What he was led to believe by his reading of the Bible in Greek was that all paths to God are valid.

He must be reading a rather different version than the one I'm used to reading! I can agree that under some circumstances, (and very Biblically) some people can be "saved" without ever having being "born again" in the strict New Testament sense. Abraham is one example that comes to mind, but there are numerous others...

(he says that the first time the Bible was assembled, it was Greek)

I don't think I'd agree with him that there even is such a thing as "the first time the Bible was assembled". First time by whom? For what purpose? Which "Bible"? Catholic? Orthodox? Protestant? Jewish?

It's a common misconception by many who have only done limited cursory study of the Bible, that there is such a thing as "the original Bible" or "the first time it was put together". There is the canon of the Old Testament, and the canon of the New Testament, for sure, but there just is no such thing as "the original Bible", as though it were some single manuscript that someone put together, and on which all modern translations are based. That simply isn't true. There are over 24,000 good manuscripts or fragments of manuscripts, just of the New Testament, and scholars are still arguing today as to which are the "best" or "oldest" ones! There never has been (and indeed never could be) such a thing as "the original Bible", any more than you can say that there is such a things as "the original solar system" or "the first time the solar system came together". The concept itself doesn't make any sense: at what point in time do you set your index mark?

Of course, saying that there is no such thing as "the original Bible" does not imply that there is no such thing as "the original manuscripts": There were, for sure, but none of them exist any more (or if they do exist, they haven't been found so far).

And saying that there is no such thing as "the first time the Bible was put together" does not imply what we have today is somehow incomplete, any more than saying that there is no such things as "the first time the solar system came together" implies that the solar system we have today is somehow incomplete. Both are complete, but never had a single beginning. We might find "new" previously unknown parts of the Bible in the same way that we might find "new" previously unknown parts of the solar system: If we do, they won't be entire planets (books) or even moons (chapters). We might find a new comet or asteroid (verse, word), but no matter what new part we find, it won't change the overall big picture of the solar system (Biblical message). Just minor details.

Now instead of debating religion, we talk about time space, string theory, evolution and all sorts of other things that he was not allowed even consider before.

I sure can understand that a Christian fundamentalist would have a REAL hard time integrating space-time, relativity, Lorentz transformations and quantum mechanics into his way of thinking, but I certain don't see any conflict there! Fascinating subjects that tie in oh-so-well with the Bible. Supporting it, in fact: Agreeing with it, even. And never "proving" it wrong, on any point, surprisingly enough. I don't even see much of a problem with evolution (and that's one of the favorite bug-bears of fundamentalists): Even that fits in very well with the Bible, taken at face value, in full context. Indeed, logically there simply CANNOT be a conflict! If there seems to be a conflict, then the understanding is wrong, not the Bible itself.

Hmmmm... I seem to be getting eloquent tonight! Maybe I should shut up and do some work....


PS. I'm wondering how Universalists fit into your "Studio/Religions" analogy? "All roads to studio designs are valid, even the ones that are obviously wrong and don't work?"

- Stuart -