God

[Tleg93]

Phil, I do see your point, I'm just saying there's two sides the story behind all supposedly 'religious' wars. I don't think that the reasons reported in history books are ever the complete truth. It really depends on what side your on; the winning side or the losing side; the agressor or the defender.

Take the situation in the world today for example. The radical Mullahs and Islamic terrorists are trying to foment a religious war between Muslims and the west where there already exists mistrust and fear. They present our attacks on them (radical terrorists) as a religious crusade when, in fact, that's not true from our point of view. The reason for the war from the American perspective is the defense of American interests, security and citizens.

If for some reason they (Islamic terrorists) won the war then the history books would say that the Mujahadeen repelled the Christian crusaders from attacking Islam and it would go down as another Christian crusade against Islam, a religious war. If we win then it will be a much different story. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just trying to elaborate a bit on your premise, that's all, so please don't get bent about it if you are.

[georryan]

Religion always gives christianity or any other relgious belief a bad name. For every good belief you can see a misuse of it.

Arab Terrorists, Catholic inquisitors, crusades, and the numorous cults that are out there. There has almost always been someone who has tried to use religious beliefs to manipulate the masses. It seems like religious beliefs come from our deepest beliefs and fears, which probalby makes it such a great tool.

I would definately urge anyone interested in the Bible or any religion to read up on the religion. For instance, read up on the bible, if for some reason whichever religious sect or group your looking at doesn't follow up on that founding document, then stay clear.

[evolutionmovement]

I just meant that if you read the Bible or even just listen to what organized religions tell people they need to do, then God seems like a petty, insecure, jealous entity. As a couple small examples, take Deuteronomy for instance: its a death offense to wear linen and wool together. All clothes must also have fringes or twisted ropes (depending on translation) on its corners. A woman who is raped in the city is as guilty of the crime as the rapist, but not if she's raped in a field (?) Some groups believe men need to have beards. Would a being who created the entire universe be so rediculous? The only beings I know of like that are humans and we know how I feel about them.

This doesn't include the contradictions, like thou shalt not kill, yet God tells people all the time to kill and even wipes out cities himself. A Muslim told me they don't eat pig (or monkey) because God turned a city of sinners into pigs and monkeys, and so they are people and that would be canibalism. Of course, the real reason was probably diseases people were getting from bad pork back then so they needed a reason to get people not to eat pork when they had no knowledge of germs, but there I go applying logic - my Achille's heel. Nearly all references to reincarnation have also been taken out (it's harder to keep people under control if they think they'll come back).

Anyway, not necessarily to shit all over the Bible, I just think it needs to be considered how often it's been retranslated and changed over the years and how the beliefs of previous and later conquered peoples influenced it. Personally I prefer the New Testament anyway as Jesus' seemed like a pretty cool guy, whether one believes he was the 'Son of God' or not. I also find it amusing that he didn't want any of the crap that followed, like tithing; crusades; witch hunts; inquisitions; ornate buildings; forced conversions; oppresion of women, perceived criminals, other races, etc. His views are a huge departure from the early Mesopotamian cultures-influenced Bible. They are actually much more agreable with Eastern faiths, like Budhism.

Steve

[georryan]

Well I agree, that a lot of hte old testiment rules and regulations really seemed wacked. If you look at some of them it really seems to make sense in topics relating to health, but some of the others you just kind of wirinkle your eyebrows and go: "what???"

In the end though, when you move from the old testiment to the new testiment you see a big difference. In reality the biblical God is a jealous God. He admits that. According to the bible he is THE ONE and ONLY God and wants to be known by his creation. The devil told some lie and tried to make himself higher than God and was thown out of heaven for it, and now he is trying to corrupt the world with his lies. (That can be found in Isaiah and a lot of the other prophets). God on the other hand doesn't want to be seen in the wrong light. Plus, I think that a lot of those rules were to instill a brake from the other traditions of the day. You will also notice that Jesus totally spoke down on the mindless following of tradition by the jewish leaders.

He spoke highly of a relationship with God and tought his disciples about it.

Later the disciples/apostles that gave the message to the non-jews did not force them to abide by the jewish traditions.

I don't fully understand the reasoning behind the old testiment traditions, but God was definately trying to setup his own system for hte people there and brake them from the traditions they were used to in Egypt. For instance, if you read were he gives the 10 commandments he basically makes a pact with the hebrews, saying that if they follow him, he'll bless them and lead them to prosperity. Similar to a pact that any other king would make with thier people of the time. (at least that is how it has been described to me.) Of course, they didn't follow well, and they continually rejected their God.

As far as your comment on the revisions and and all that, I have to disagree a bit. The bible has to be one of hte most amazing compilation of books ever. All religion asside, it was written by several different authors, it is basically 66 books, written by different authors over a period of over a 1000 years. Yet, when we look at the dead sea scrolls (the oldest found record of the bible) and then look at today's bible, it is basically identical. Not only that, but it is Generally consistent with itself. The old testiment prophets make predictions about Jesus. There are passages that basically outline things that happen in his life and they happen exactly as they say. If you ever read the Gospel John, he consistently points out old testiment documents that point out things that happens in Jesus's life.

As far as your comment about the simmilarity of Buddhism and Jesus's teaching I have to agree. It is amazing how the similar some of those teachings are. One simple Eastern religion book I've read is the "Daoism of Poo" and it was interesting how many parrallels I could find in Jesus's teaching. It was worded a little differently, but the basic concept was identical.

[BAC5.2]

Scott - I see your point, but that's not what I'm saying. ANY religious influence (even if it's propaganda or whatever) is all based on an idea about God. Yea, a war is really about oil, or power, but the use of God is really just the use of an Idea about God.

That's what I am saying.

[evolutionmovement]

I agree that the Bible is an amazing document in how it has survived over the years and its impact even today. While much of it has survived remarkably well, translation from one language to amnother inevitably takes its toll. Many old testament teachings also bear a seemingly more than coincidental resemblance to the tales of Gilgamesh or Confusious' teachings. Not that it negates its message, just that some of it is derived from earlier sources that believed in multiple gods. The dead sea scrolls are also believed to be much newer than the Old Testament. It mostly just bothers me that stuff like references to reincarnation (with the exception of Jesus saying he was the prophet Isaiah or Ezekial, I can't exactly recall - Sunday school was a long time ago) were cut out as I think it's important. And what happened to Jesus in the missing years? Some say it was cut out, it's unlikely that no one found it important. It's possible it was never mentioned by Jesus and no one else was with him in those years to recall, but it's definitely a place I suspect material may have been cut out. For me I only consider the New Testament as a source for some of my own beliefs and look upon the Old Testament as an amazing historical log of where we came from that also happens to contain a lot of life lessons by example story-telling.

Steve

[Tleg93]

Scott - I see your point, but that's not what I'm saying. ANY religious influence (even if it's propaganda or whatever) is all based on an idea about God. Yea, a war is really about oil, or power, but the use of God is really just the use of an Idea about God.

That's what I am saying.

Oh, ok, I guess I was chewing it up a bit more than needed. No foul, I enjoy debating even well worn topics like god occasionally.

[georryan]

I agree that the Bible is an amazing document in how it has survived over the years and its impact even today. While much of it has survived remarkably well, translation from one language to amnother inevitably takes its toll. Many old testament teachings also bear a seemingly more than coincidental resemblance to the tales of Gilgamesh or Confusious' teachings.

Yeah I've seen that and heard that before as well.

The dead sea scrolls are also believed to be much newer than the Old Testament.

Really? I've never heard anything about that, at least nothing that seemed to have much backing. I'll have to look that up sometime.

It mostly just bothers me that stuff like references to reincarnation (with the exception of Jesus saying he was the prophet Isaiah or Ezekial, I can't exactly recall - Sunday school was a long time ago) were cut out as I think it's important.

I also have never ever heard of this. I'd like to see that to see what the context was and all that. I have done some research on documents that weren't in the bible (infancy gospels, gospel of thomas, gospel of mary, apacrapha), things that were later found or left out the cannon (accepted bible books by christian standards, with exception to the apacrapha and the catholic church). For the most part from what I've seen it all makes sense, but I haven't heard of anthing being abbridged. I do know that Paul quotes things from the book of Enoch and some other books of the time that weren't in the bible.

And what happened to Jesus in the missing years? Some say it was cut out, it's unlikely that no one found it important. It's possible it was never mentioned by Jesus and no one else was with him in those years to recall, but it's definitely a place I suspect material may have been cut out.

Yeah, I know that it isn't mentioned, but the gospels weren't witten to be a historical record per-say (from what I understand). There are also manuscripts that are thought to have existed but have not been found (the gospel Q for instance).

For me I only consider the New Testament as a source for some of my own beliefs and look upon the Old Testament as an amazing historical log of where we came from that also happens to contain a lot of life lessons by example story-telling.

It does certainly seem to fill that role nicely.

[LaureltheQueen]

who the hell decided that god was a man?

[georryan]

hahaha

Well, I doubt God can be classified as either, although God is often referenced as being a father type figure for purposes of relating to God. ( It was really hard not to have He, Him, and His in that sentence!)

[kastrix]

YA didnt you guys ever see dogma?
Alanis Morisette is god

DUH!!!

[evolutionmovement]

I think God would be a hermaphrodite if anything.

Steve

[THAWA]

why would god need sex organs in the first place?

[scottzg]

I've been reading a lot of Steven J. Gould lately (yea, for fun, im an odd one). He was a paleontologist at Harvard.

Gould indicates in an essay the possibility that the idea of a supreme being is an adaptation put forth by minds that can contemplate their own deaths. No other creature prior to humans (that we know of, anyway) could consider their place in the universe. The human mind is the way it is because we are more likely to survive being smart like we are; our consciousness and self awareness is a side effect that it isnt really designed do deal with. Since we can cope, it doesn't really matter as far as our success as a species is concerned.

I find this idea fascinating.

[evolutionmovement]

I'd likely buy that were it not for the second law of thermodynamics (energy cannot be created nor destroyed) and the weird shit I've been through. I guess that's not necessarily an explanation of God's existance, but it shows something beyond our present limited view of existance.

Hardy - God would have both sex organs (a 'true' hermaphrodite) so it could fuck itself. It's more than welcome to it for setting up a system of pain and destruction. For women I love that have been sexually abused or have eating disorders. For douchebags that get away with everything. For a president who has none of the good qualities of either a liberal or conservative and for creating someone like me then throwing them in a world where they aren't allowed to do what they were created for.

I'll apologize now for the mood swing.

Steve

[THAWA]

I still dont understand why god would need to go through the natural process of creating a person. why couldnt he just create one like he created everything else?

also i dont understand half of what you just said

[Tleg93]

I've been reading a lot of Steven J. Gould lately (yea, for fun, im an odd one). He was a paleontologist at Harvard.

Gould indicates in an essay the possibility that the idea of a supreme being is an adaptation put forth by minds that can contemplate their own deaths. No other creature prior to humans (that we know of, anyway) could consider their place in the universe. The human mind is the way it is because we are more likely to survive being smart like we are; our consciousness and self awareness is a side effect that it isnt really designed do deal with. Since we can cope, it doesn't really matter as far as our success as a species is concerned.

I find this idea fascinating.

It is a fascinating idea but I still question the statement that we are the only beings that can contemplate death. Animals know when they are going to die sometimes. I had a poodle once that was old and would scream at night because of his arthritis. One day my family decided it was time to end his suffering. As we took him down to the SPCA to be euthanized he looked out the window, clearly intractable, and wouldn't look at us, come over or anything. I've had other dogs too that had to be put to sleep and it's almost always the same. Some animals are smarter than others too so some don't put two and two together. I think it's pretty arrogant of humans to assume that we are the only ones capable of feeling, it's just not true. And why do people think that we're god's special little creatures?

That being said, on another level it's impossible to know what other animals or even other people see or feel due to the subjective nature of consciousness. We can't even tell how each other sees the world or if things taste the same from one person to the next so how are we going to know how an animal 'sees' things.

[evolutionmovement]

Anyone ever see an elephant funeral?

According to the second law of thermodynamics, we go somewhere when we die. That doesn't explain where or what we become or if there's a god, but it may point in that general direction.

The God is a hermaphrodite was a joke. But if it did reproduce, it'd have to do it with itself.

Steve

[THAWA]

okay, but why would god have to reproduce? He created everything from minerals to bacteria to plants to animals and for some reason he has to reproduce to create a person. That is what i dont agree with.

[LaureltheQueen]

God impregnated mary. if that is true, then god is at least half homosexual

[Tleg93]

God impregnated mary. if that is true, then god is at least half homosexual

Geez, I feel like I shouldn't even be laughing about that.

[THAWA]

he didnt impregnate her as we all know is normal. He only put jesus in her. and how can god be homosexual if he isnt a sex?

[Tleg93]

I think Laurel was being flippant, just being a smart ass.

[evolutionmovement]

I was told in Catholic school that he impregnated her through the ear. No wonder Catholics are so clueless.

Steve