|
Post by Raz V5.0 on Feb 10, 2005 19:49:36 GMT -5
"His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters." (Rev. 1:14 and 1:15)
"His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude." (Daniel 10:6)
|
|
|
Post by Juan on Feb 10, 2005 20:00:05 GMT -5
Copying this post of mine directly from the "Too human" thread in debate hall:
Humanity doesn't turn towards religion because of a fear of death, for in many religions there is no "after death" fate, just death. Humanity turns to religion in belief of something "greater" then them, the belief that there is something, not neccesarily a god or gods, but something bigger then them.
Its not an attempt to escape from death, its the seeking of a path towards enlightenment. Religion is merely a form of Philosophy.
Many people question religion because of the arguements about heaven and hell, the belief of why people go there, and on the concepts of free will and divine fate. Is humanity stuck on a path, seeing as how many argue God knows all that is to happen, and that there is no free will. This is just one side of a long standing religion arguement: Freewill or Destiny?
Whats the point of freewill if it isn't "free?" I feel that god leaves all open to man, for him to make his own life and see his character develop. I belive that God doesn't judge ones actions in their lifetime but rather their character behind the actions. Whats the point of judging character if everything is preset?
I do believe god has perhaps some sort of controll over life, sure, but he doesn't CONTROL your entire life. If he did, what is the point of living at all? No variation. Its like playing Tetris except you watch the combinations fall into place without your movement. You want to go there? No. There is off limits. Here. Go here. "But that isn't right". Go there anyways. Plus if god controlled fate, then god inherently makes people evil.
Many people have a problem with the concept of heaven and hell, that ones sins make them go to heaven or hell. I feel rather that is ones' character more then ones' actions guides their fate if one looks in a Heaven-hell view of afterlife. Some argue then that "ones character guides ones actions"
The "Characters makes actions thing" doesn't always hold true. According to some, to kill anything is instantly basically "Whammo, hell". If you believe the "sins" or "choice of religion" makes you go to heaven or hell. BUt character doesn't always mean that. You could be say, Islam or Buddhist or hell, atheist. That would damn you, according to some. But if you have a good character, I think, it doesn't matter. If you are overall a good person, I see it as "Yeah. Heaven."
Just say Johnny 2 by 4 over there say commits suicide due to say, depression due to a chemical imbalance. According to some, that is killing without repent. Hell for the boy. However, the way I see it, say Johnny was really a good boy just couldn't take it. I think its CHARACTER more then ACTIONS.
It is also a belief by some that those born before Christ's souls weren't saved, therefor they are stuck in limbo for eternity, or damned. That is foolish, blindness at the fact that, if there infact is a god, all knowing, he would be the most understanding being out there.
I find it funny that people always question "Why death? Why pain in life? Why not have us all experience eternal bliss from the get go?" Ace, you once argued that you didn't believe in god because of the fate of a female friend of yours, who died young in age. You took this as a reason to not believe it god, or that god is in fact evil enough that you do not wish to believe in him if he does in fact exist.
Its rather simple, and yet its not. Think about it. Eternal Bliss. For eternity. Basking forever in the "Light of god". Just basking. The way I see it is, it would seem boring after a while, actually. Imagine a world without problems, conflict, or anything. Nothing would ever happen. Hence I think Earth has problems, frankly, so you can experience it. Deal with obstacles. Handle (or, perhaps) succumb to impediments. A test of character (something hard to test in eternal bliss), along with simply an experience. People who grow old in life, and find themselves bed ridden, often say they are ready for death, having experienced a good life and frankly growing tired and well done in the path of life. It is the thrill of the adventure, an adventure that tests what the adventurers are made of. It is sad that one may pass on early in life, but if no one passed on, fate would be definite and the experience would be meaningless.
I wonder if god, like say Leto Artredies, the God Emperor of Dune in the Dune series, sees just the pathes of life, with the branches and possibilities and possible pathes, with branches that people could take.
Now to the "good and evil arguement".
For there to be good, there has to be evil, or rather, the knowledge of good and evil. Innocence is not goodness, it is a blank slate.
Many people argue against god and religion because people commit atrocities in his name. People claim "If there is a god, why did he let such atrocities take place? Why didn't he intervene? Why did God, say, not stop the evils of the Holocaust? Why did he 'create' Hitler?
Why did God have have the Holocaut happen? First of all, if God were to intervene with all life, what would be the point? Its like having someone live your life for you and do everything for you, its totally different. But it was so evil! Thats the point. Many countries were often slow to help Germany, it is matter of ethics, Sarah. If god were to intervene, it would be undermine the good in the world essentially.
Our country was slow to combat the threat of the "Axis of Evil", not really going overly into combat until we ourselves were attacked. That is evidence in itself. Germany had a much greater warmachine then us, but in the end it came down to "Is it worth American lives and potential defeat to intervene aganist this Evil?" America was slow to answer this question, finally forced into it as we we too were attacked. When we were attacked it finally dawned on some that "If we don't fight back, we will be destroyed". Some wished to negotiate or surrender to the Axis. But in the end, we didn't surrender even when the odds were against us. We and our Allies conquered a seemingly invincible menace. Its the strife over evil! Hitler's actions were horrible, but think of it this way. Lets look at the Garden of Eden as a figure of speech. The Garden of Eden is the bliss of ignorance. The Fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil is a clear meaning in representing the gaining of an awareness of "Good and Evil" and the loss of a deep innocence. But its notable that there was no "Tree of Good" or "Tree of Evil". But that both were intertwined as one tree. For one to know good, they must know evil. For there to light, there must be darkness. Its an ancient concept.
One could think, once again figuratively, that The Garden of Eden was the bliss of heaven perhaps, or like heaven, and that god in fact despite bidding them not to, wanted them to feast of the tree. Innocence has problems in that, figuratively again, if God were to tell Adam or Eve not to eat of the tree, they would have no qualm going against God's word for the fact is, they were unable to feel qualms or regrets, or even worry. The embarking into the concepts of Good and Evil, a balance, serves as a sort of awakening of a maturing of mankind, perhaps what god wanted all along.
This is of course an arguement about different religious beliefs, which is diverging somewhat off the topic, pardon my rant, which I partially stole from other rants I've made on other sites. More back on topic, humanity is, as said, capable of good and evil. Its a matter of development and choice. I have faith that, in the end, good will prevail. There is idiocy in humanity, sure, and we will do the best to qualm it. Many are indeed Cruel, in the need to feel their own superiority. They are trash, the best way to view it. Spit on them. However, cultures and nations and races is more of a sense of "individualness", background, and beliefs than hate and a sense of superiority. I have myself argued before that, in America we shouldn't try to even destinct "black" and "white", but the fact is that the African American community has its own culture and history which they wish to share with generations, and so the concept of "African Americans" is there.
|
|
|
Post by Xtermo on Feb 10, 2005 20:57:03 GMT -5
Having reread Sab's last post- Well the fist thing is that if God/Yaweh/Alla are real then many of the other gods are real as well. As it says in Exodus "You shall have no other god befor me..." Actually, it says "Not you shall have gods other before me." It goes on to clarify a ban on the creation of things with intent of worshipping them. At the time, if you believe the story, the Jews had just left Egypt, where it was commonplace to worship all of the gods of the Egyptian people, including, but not limited to those associated with the cult of immortality that popularized Anubis, and the Pharos, who claimed their power was devinely granted by Horus. It's not an implication that other gods exist, but are lesser, but a statement that such other gods are of human creation and thus of no virtue. He doesn't like letting praise for His work go to imaginary beings, is the short version of the first several of the Ten Statements of the Lord (Or the "Ten Commandments", if you prefer a less accurate, but more commonplace translation). in sum that means that the Jews belive that they are more than one god, thus so does the Christens and Muliums have moe than one god. in Fact Jesus is one. If you made that statement in the lands in which such religions were formed, you'd probably be stoned. However, not being one to be unreasonable, I'll instead site the Trinity as explanation of your confusion. If you want to talk about that, we can- but it's a lot of work to describe and I'm feeling particularly lazy today, so I won't unless you (or someone else) presses me to. What's with Judius' last name Iscariot during the time they didn't HAVE last names, plus the 'ot' is a female's ending. so it could mean that he was really a she. "Judas Iscariot" is just the crappy English rendering for the Greek Iodas Iskariotes which just means "Judah of Kerioth". It's the same kind of naming system used by Jesus- "Iesus Nazarenos" just means "Joshua of Nazareth". Even Leonardo DaVinci's name falls under the same method. It just means "Leonard of Vinci". It's true that no family names existed as we know them at the time, Sab- but it was commonplace until late in the common age to define yourself by taking either the name of your father (or in some rarer cases, your mother) or the name of the town where you were raised. So, as we here see- this is a great example of translations leading to problems with theology. (see my last post) And then, there was- "His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters." (Rev. 1:14 and 1:15) "His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude." (Daniel 10:6) These are both references to the ressurected form of Christ. Nice use of the Old Testament reference with that quote from Daniel, though. My own understanding, having read the original forms of the texts, is that those don't prove that he was black. They're actually metaphorically symbolizing his fulfillment of a handful of prophecies through a description of his postdeath appearance. (Although I don't doubt that there is a possibility that he was black. I've seen nothing yet to say otherwise.)
|
|
Kensai
Delta
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Posts: 207
|
Post by Kensai on Feb 10, 2005 22:40:25 GMT -5
Jesus wasn't black. He was mexican. He was dirty and poor, but still a cool person to hang out with.
|
|
|
Post by Juan on Feb 10, 2005 22:46:14 GMT -5
Uh, X, the entire region back then basically was in fact either very dark arab or Black.
|
|
|
Post by Raz V5.0 on Feb 10, 2005 22:53:06 GMT -5
It isn't a big deal though, like pretty much originated around the African continent.
So really, we all got a little nigger in us.
|
|
|
Post by Tobari Sabbatine on Feb 11, 2005 0:48:59 GMT -5
Jesus wasn't black. He was mexican. He was dirty and poor, but still a cool person to hang out with. He's Hewber... but the Mormans belive that someone 3 of the lost tribes came to America (yes like the story about them in South Park, THAT'S what they belive) oh X *picks up her New Revised Standard Verson Holy Bible Catholic Ed, the one I'm using to get my minor in Theolagy) Exous 20.1-3 The God spoke all these Words: I am the Lord your god, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before (or besides) me.
|
|
|
Post by Xtermo on Feb 11, 2005 14:32:26 GMT -5
I never said Jesus wasn't black. I just said I don't think those verses in particular are proof that he is. oh X *picks up her New Revised Standard Verson Holy Bible Catholic Ed, the one I'm using to get my minor in Theolagy) Exous 20.1-3 The God spoke all these Words: I am the Lord your god, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before (or besides) me. ... >[ *Picks up the Masoretic Texts (thats in the original Hebrew, for those who don't know already)* Exodus 20:1-3 reads as follows, Sab: Va'ydaber Elohim et kl-hadbarim ha'leh le'mir: 'enoki Yaweh Elohikho asher hotse'tikha me'eretz me'raim mabeit 'abodim. Lo-hibeh l'kho elohim 'aherim 'al-pheni.Or, if you like English: "And God all words these saying: I Jehova, your God who has brought you out from the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. Not shall there be to you gods any other besides me." Never trust to the interpritations of man, Sab. Good to see ya going for the theology minor, though. On the other hand, I've found no instances of a singular first person form for "to be" in Hebrew that wasn't only implied. Much to my surprise, I can assure you. You may just have been right on that one. Sorry I doubted you. Also, my word order in the last post wasn't right. Having looked it up, the correctd translation is above.
|
|
|
Post by The Giant-Size Man Thing on Feb 11, 2005 15:07:59 GMT -5
|
|
Kensai
Delta
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Posts: 207
|
Post by Kensai on Feb 11, 2005 15:17:34 GMT -5
I'll belive Sab is in college, when I see a post i don't get a headache reading from her.
|
|
|
Post by Raz V5.0 on Feb 11, 2005 16:14:29 GMT -5
I just wanna know what drug she is on so I can go from 12 to 18.
|
|
|
Post by Xtermo on Feb 11, 2005 16:31:09 GMT -5
rotten.com has some pretty interesting reads concerning the Bible, Christianity, and Religion in general. You should take the time to read these. They are very interesting. Seen 'em all before, and I'll see 'em again, no doubt. Most of the statements made there are either taking verses out of context, or extrapolating the meaning of certain words, or just plain taking advantage of poor translation. If you want a read that makes no sense in English at all, take a look at Solomon's Song of Songs (it's a short one anyways. go on- take a look!). As for discrepancies in the transcribing of the Bible, most of that is relatively unimportant, and I have originals of multiple versions to compare anyways. And as for "Secret Gospels", there are literally thousands of letters that circulated in the first 2 or 300 years of the Church that some people took as inspired and others did not. But aside from the cannonized texts, nearly all are proven to either be bulshit or faked.
|
|
|
Post by The Giant-Size Man Thing on Feb 11, 2005 23:02:33 GMT -5
Did you actually read them or did you just skim the over or just assumed that they were nothing new?
By the way, there are no such things as "originals" anymore when it comes to Biblical scripture. It's all translations of translations of manuscripts of manuscripts going back hundreds of years.
And even the "canon" books picked out by the Church still contain discrepencies and contradictions. BLATANT contradictions, not just a different word here and there. Most notably Jesus saying that the Old Law stands true and then later he says it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by Tobari Sabbatine on Feb 11, 2005 23:30:20 GMT -5
I'll belive Sab is in college, when I see a post i don't get a headache reading from her. What about if I'll show you my degree? X, I didn't know you can read Hebrew. I know it's quite hard translating it since it has no vowels.
|
|
|
Post by Xtermo on Feb 12, 2005 0:33:18 GMT -5
Did you actually read them or did you just skim the over or just assumed that they were nothing new? By the way, there are no such things as "originals" anymore when it comes to Biblical scripture. It's all translations of translations of manuscripts of manuscripts going back hundreds of years. And even the "canon" books picked out by the Church still contain discrepencies and contradictions. BLATANT contradictions, not just a different word here and there. Most notably Jesus saying that the Old Law stands true and then later he says it doesn't. I read them. I'm more than just "glancingly familiar" with the scriptures, as you may have surmised by now. It's sort of a hobby for me. You're absolutely correct in stating that there are no original texts remaining, but I'm talking about the original forms, copied word for word, as opposed to translated. The oldest versions we can get our hands on go back maybe to 500 CE. I'd have to check up on my dates to be sure, though. And it's true that there are discrepancies in the texts, but as I've stated earlier, most of the "extra verses" and whatnot are just footnotes added for the benefit of those who may not have known already, as the texts will often imply previous knowledge of obscure historic events, locations, or traditions. And who has told you of such discrepencies? People who are trying to tear down the ideas of the Bible, or a truly subjective reader, merely trying to inform you of something you may have missed? There are many occasions upon which the Bible, in translation, appears to contradict itself, true- but there are a very few which I consent to having no satisfying explanation for. And for the record, Christ establishes the legitimacy of the Law, but in fulfilling the task that the law was created for, has put an end to the need to live by it alone. Though he may appear to contradict the Law (as with his not keeping of the Pharacees' interpretation of Shabbat law), such is not actually the case. What about if I'll show you my degree? X, I didn't know you can read Hebrew. I know it's quite hard translating it since it has no vowels. You're flattering me unnecessarily, Sab. It's true that Hebrew, in the form generally used has nearly no vowels (the "vowels" it uses merely hold the place of a vowel in the absence of a starting consonent), but my texts include the markup for the "official" interpretation of the vowel inflection. (although, as I'm getting used to reading it, I need the markups less and less) And my ability to read it is severely limited, which is something that I have been working on correcting. As I try to in all areas of life, I have massive amounts of research and resources from which to draw the information I need. Several dictionaries, concordances, and the like. ***EDIT: Having talked further to Sab about multiple versus one God of the Jewish faith, I've got a listing of verses to back up my statement that they believe in but one God. They are (as rendered by the New King James Version): Deuteronomy 6:4-5 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." Excerpt from Malachi 2:10 "Hath not one God created us?" Mark 12:29-30 (quoting Deut. 6:4) "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment." Mark 12:32-33 "And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." (extended beyond 32 with intent of reflecting the nature of Christianity) 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." 1 Timothy 2:5-6 (which also reflects the nature of the Trinity) "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." James 2:19 "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." I'm sure there's more, but I'd say the above make my point well enough. And as for those of you who will say, "Wait! Some of those aren't from Jewish texts!" I'll explain- Jesus was Jewish. His followers were Jewish. His view of the world was- I don't need to go on, do I? Christianity is just a modification of the Jewish faith, which states that the coming messiah, and all prophecies associated therin are fulfilled in Jesus.
|
|