Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2017 20:28:44 GMT
The Bible is not a singular book. It's a collection of literary works from a variety of different genres. People of faith believe it to be divinely inspired. Others do not.
So when assessing whether something in the Bible is "fantasy" or not, you'd have to be more specific (both with what event you're talking about and what you mean by "fantasy").
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 22, 2017 22:02:37 GMT
Perhaps you're taking the Bible the wrong way. People often argue about whether the Bible must be taken "literally." I am rather certain the most important parts should not be. An exercise I use to show what I mean is this, try to describe the color green to a person blind since birth. Notice that you can't do so "literally." The word "green" only has meaning to people who have already experienced it. The most important parts of the Bible are things most people have never experienced. There is no way to describe such things literally. People who don't understand the necessary arts often make a terrible mess of things with their stunted thinking. That's all. It's their fault. The Bible isn't the problem. Did you ever play "Simon Says" as a child? I mean the game where a leader gives everyone else instructions like "stand on one foot" or "fold your arms" preceded by "Simon says" and if so everyone is supposed to follow the instruction. Then the leader will try an instruction without preceding it with "Simon says," and people who follow that instruction anyway are "out" because Simon didn't say. The Bible has books often from specific authors. In the book of Jeremiah he tells us it is "the word of the Lord which came to" him. The author of the book of Ecclesiastes was not a "prophet" and tells us "I gave my heart to seek and search out wisdom." It might well be then that the various books have different sorts of lessons. In the New Testament the books of Mark and Luke were not written by apostles. Perhaps we should be careful whether Simon says. Science is a wonderful thing but just being artless doesn't make anyone a scientist. Science can only solve problems when everyone agrees what the problem is. Most issues in society are so because there is no agreement what the problem is. Science is useless and other arts are required. See why I said when people think the bible has no merit it's because they read at an elementary school level now? P.S. I believe you can read at a college level. I think you might be following a crowd that is obviously very disinclined to read at a college level. That brings up another interesting point: That what is written in most religious texts is open to interpretation.
For example: Did Moses ACTUALLY part the Red Sea, or is that to be taken as an analogy that his struggle was so great, and his faith so strong, that it was as if he parted the Read Sea. Whenever I ask people who "believe" about that I always get a nebulous answer at best. That kind've shows me that at best they also have some doubts, or just don't know. So, if you have doubts or don't know, how can you believe so strongly?
Another example: The Kuran has passages in it about Jihad. Some interpret that as an actual war against infidels. Other interpret that as a personal struggle to overcome evil impulses in one's own life. Who's right and who's wrong? They're both interpretations taken from the same texts. I don't know.
I "audited" a professor (attended his class one day although I was not enrolled in it) who apparently believed it was simply a matter of enough people combining their wills together to accomplish anything. He did not come out and say so but he hinted at psychokinetic powers. You haven't tried to describe green to a blind person. Notice that the differences between religions make more sense when you look at it that way, as highly symbolic rather than concrete details. Then too there was that Tower of Babel thing. Atheists here seem to get a big kick out of saying "which God" when you can get them to think about it at all.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Sept 23, 2017 15:03:37 GMT
The hatred against Jesus by the wolrd makes it undeniable that Christianity could only be alive today by supernatural forces, be they good or bad. Anyone who denies that is in delusion and comes across as a toothless redneck who dropped out in the sixth grade. No offense.
That's interesting since delusional toothless rednecks who dropped out in the sixth grade make such a bulk of American Christianity. And no offense taken... I'm not one.
And just so that I'm perfectly clear, I don't hate the Bible, or people who believe in it.
My mother believes in it, as do many others in my family, and many other fine people that I know. And for the most part I recognize that belief in religion can have many positive effects for many people. I just don't believe in it myself, and I don't understand how anyone with any intelligence can actually accept the Bible as anything other than apocryphal.
Again, you show that you can't read. I clearly proved that the Bible is the opposite of "fantasy", unless you're a masochist. No sane person would fantasize about being crucified, flayed alive, beheaded, set on fire, and certainly no sane person would consider the book of Job to be a "fantasy". It may be a lie, it may be poorly done, but it clearly is no "fantasy". It's purposely designed to be one of the most depressing, hate filled stories ever written. There's no denying that the "God" in this story is almost as evil as the Devil himself.
If Jones owns a slave, Toby, who is chained up to his job area, and Smith tells Jones that Toby only does his work out of fear, and talks Jones into killing Toby's family, and then afflicting him with horrible, disfiguring diseases, Jones is almost as evil as Smith. Some would say he is more evil, but there's no denying he is evil.
Fantasy? No way. Horror, yes. Fantasy, no. Fantasy is "inspiration". The Bible is the most uninspired story ever. No sane person wants it to be true.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 24, 2017 0:48:07 GMT
Even if God doesn't exist, it's not a parable. It does have parables in it. It's not a parable, but it does have parables in it. Yes. On occasion, there are books that are printed that have several smaller books within them. Sometimes they're called collections or anthologies or maybe a compendium. Sometimes, there can be one book and within the writings of that book, one avenue an author can take, is to include examples, illustrations, & yes, parables to help convey a particular point within that same book. If that's hard to grasp as a concept, we'll just call it magic...
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Sept 24, 2017 1:08:26 GMT
I wouldn't call it gospel or fantasy. It's a collection of writings. Some parts more likely to be historical fact than others.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Sept 24, 2017 1:17:25 GMT
It is the most boring national epic I have read.
The Iliad and the Odyssey are much more enjoyable.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2017 3:06:20 GMT
1) To move away from the dualistic notion of the ego sense of "self", and the compartmentalized notion of the God force\figure.
2) Religious teachings have still filtered down through the ages, even if one is not religious. There is still sticky and unclean residue.
3) Who's idea? Yours, mine, the dude at the end of the street. How does one communicate an idea literally anyway? The idea itself is still subjective and born of thought, and what is the thought?
1) I'm not certain I would agree with that. I'm also not certain you practice it. Can you do any cool stuff with it? Can you solve the debt crisis? 2) Much the same answer as for 1). 3) Okay, I agree with that. What's your point?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 25, 2017 11:18:12 GMT
Atheists here seem to get a big kick out of saying "which God" when you can get them to think about it at all. If you mean that one god is automatically real and all others necessarily imaginary, then can you show the difference between the two sorts, this time around? i.e. give evidence which deliberate supernatural candidate must be responsible for reality over all the other candidates? We can take that the magical claims of respective scriptures cancel each other out and those from personal credulity do not count.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Sept 25, 2017 14:44:45 GMT
That brings up another interesting point: That what is written in most religious texts is open to interpretation.
For example: Did Moses ACTUALLY part the Red Sea, or is that to be taken as an analogy that his struggle was so great, and his faith so strong, that it was as if he parted the Read Sea. Whenever I ask people who "believe" about that I always get a nebulous answer at best. That kind've shows me that at best they also have some doubts, or just don't know. So, if you have doubts or don't know, how can you believe so strongly?
Another example: The Kuran has passages in it about Jihad. Some interpret that as an actual war against infidels. Other interpret that as a personal struggle to overcome evil impulses in one's own life. Who's right and who's wrong? They're both interpretations taken from the same texts. I don't know.
I "audited" a professor (attended his class one day although I was not enrolled in it) who apparently believed it was simply a matter of enough people combining their wills together to accomplish anything. He did not come out and say so but he hinted at psychokinetic powers. You haven't tried to describe green to a blind person. Notice that the differences between religions make more sense when you look at it that way, as highly symbolic rather than concrete details. Then too there was that Tower of Babel thing. Atheists here seem to get a big kick out of saying "which God" when you can get them to think about it at all. That's another interesting point to discuss: Which God? I'm not sure we mean the same thing when we ask that.
(I don't know if I've made this clear but I am NOT an atheist. I believe in god, just not religion. That might sound contradictory, but I think belief in god is separate and personal. That's just me.)
When we ask "which god? we mean which religions god(?) Some like to say that there is only one god (which is really code for "THEIR religions" god), or that all the religions are just talking about the same god, which is actually inaccurate. Each religions texts attributes different aspects to their version of god; enough so that its clear that each religions god is intended to be separate, not a shared singular god. Christians are even sub-divided within themselves.
So when people say "raise your hand to god" here in the states they usually mean a Christian god. They don't mean Allah. They don't mean Buddha. But what if you're a Muslim and you're in a courtroom and they ask you to raise your hand to god and put your hand on the Bible? Muslims don't do that. So who's god do you mean? You mean your Christian god. You certainly don't mean Allah. So is that Muslim persons Allah/Koran less worthy than yours? After all, you're worshipping YOUR god when you say "raise your hand to god" in a courtroom. Not his god.
So that's why people ask "Which god?" Because we're trying to get you to see the problem in that. Its not that we're disrespecting your god. Its actually the reverse. You're disrespecting OUR god when you expect us to worship YOUR version of god.
So yeah, which god?
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Sept 25, 2017 15:00:52 GMT
That's interesting since delusional toothless rednecks who dropped out in the sixth grade make such a bulk of American Christianity. And no offense taken... I'm not one.
And just so that I'm perfectly clear, I don't hate the Bible, or people who believe in it.
My mother believes in it, as do many others in my family, and many other fine people that I know. And for the most part I recognize that belief in religion can have many positive effects for many people. I just don't believe in it myself, and I don't understand how anyone with any intelligence can actually accept the Bible as anything other than apocryphal.
Again, you show that you can't read. I clearly proved that the Bible is the opposite of "fantasy", unless you're a masochist. No sane person would fantasize about being crucified, flayed alive, beheaded, set on fire, and certainly no sane person would consider the book of Job to be a "fantasy". It may be a lie, it may be poorly done, but it clearly is no "fantasy". It's purposely designed to be one of the most depressing, hate filled stories ever written. There's no denying that the "God" in this story is almost as evil as the Devil himself.
If Jones owns a slave, Toby, who is chained up to his job area, and Smith tells Jones that Toby only does his work out of fear, and talks Jones into killing Toby's family, and then afflicting him with horrible, disfiguring diseases, Jones is almost as evil as Smith. Some would say he is more evil, but there's no denying he is evil.
Fantasy? No way. Horror, yes. Fantasy, no. Fantasy is "inspiration". The Bible is the most uninspired story ever. No sane person wants it to be true.
My being able to read, or not, has nothing to do with anything. You're playing words semantics here (Fantasy? No. Horror, yes), which is not the issue. Its not my reading, but your understanding, that's missing.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Sept 25, 2017 20:57:47 GMT
It is the most boring national epic I have read. The Iliad and the Odyssey are much more enjoyable. Not that the Bible is great, but I doubt if you've read the Iliad or Odyssey, as they are even worse in fantasy. They're basically Homeric brown nosing the most important rulers that influenced where he lived. Odysseus is just a hateful brute in both epics, abusing his power to get as many men killed as he can. He has absolutely no inspiration, strategy, or credible motivation in the way he gets his entire army butchered.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Sept 25, 2017 21:09:32 GMT
Not that the Bible is great, but I doubt if you've read the Iliad or Odyssey, as they are even worse in fantasy. They're basically Homeric brown nosing the most important rulers that influenced where he lived. Odysseus is just a hateful brute in both epics, abusing his power to get as many men killed as he can. He has absolutely no inspiration, strategy, or credible motivation in the way he gets his entire army butchered.
Haha yes I have read them-more than once. In fact my Classics instructor urged us to read them in Greek to get the full impact. I think you haven't read them, or you got turned off by the Iliad's catalog of ships in the second chapter. The Iliad and the Odyssey have giants, sea monsters, talking horses, invisible warriors, robots (Hephaestus' workshop), and various other fantasy elements. The Bible is very dull by comparison. Not to mention, Zeus is a lot more fun than Yahweh and Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 26, 2017 7:48:08 GMT
I "audited" a professor (attended his class one day although I was not enrolled in it) who apparently believed it was simply a matter of enough people combining their wills together to accomplish anything. He did not come out and say so but he hinted at psychokinetic powers. You haven't tried to describe green to a blind person. Notice that the differences between religions make more sense when you look at it that way, as highly symbolic rather than concrete details. Then too there was that Tower of Babel thing. Atheists here seem to get a big kick out of saying "which God" when you can get them to think about it at all. That's another interesting point to discuss: Which God? I'm not sure we mean the same thing when we ask that.
(I don't know if I've made this clear but I am NOT an atheist. I believe in god, just not religion. That might sound contradictory, but I think belief in god is separate and personal. That's just me.)
When we ask "which god? we mean which religions god(?) Some like to say that there is only one god (which is really code for "THEIR religions" god), or that all the religions are just talking about the same god, which is actually inaccurate. Each religions texts attributes different aspects to their version of god; enough so that its clear that each religions god is intended to be separate, not a shared singular god. Christians are even sub-divided within themselves.
So when people say "raise your hand to god" here in the states they usually mean a Christian god. They don't mean Allah. They don't mean Buddha. But what if you're a Muslim and you're in a courtroom and they ask you to raise your hand to god and put your hand on the Bible? Muslims don't do that. So who's god do you mean? You mean your Christian god. You certainly don't mean Allah. So is that Muslim persons Allah/Koran less worthy than yours? After all, you're worshipping YOUR god when you say "raise your hand to god" in a courtroom. Not his god.
So that's why people ask "Which god?" Because we're trying to get you to see the problem in that. Its not that we're disrespecting your god. Its actually the reverse. You're disrespecting OUR god when you expect us to worship YOUR version of god.
So yeah, which god?
Various atheists and other critics of religion might have different attitudes underlying their question "which god?" I think the predominant one is that the differences in religions make one truth behind them preposterous. I think you haven't tried yet to describe green to a blind person. Perhaps you would understand my point better if you did that. Notice that if others also try they might not use the same approach as you. Notice that the approach will likely vary in different cultures. It is however the same green, there is only one (in the exercise), and no, there is no group preference required. Many people misunderstand their religion. Many people would misunderstand your attempts to describe green if they were blind. That is no proof that "green" does not exist.
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Sept 26, 2017 12:23:31 GMT
The color green does not exist in the real world. It exists only in our minds. Perhaps a more fitting analogy than you realize.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Sept 26, 2017 14:45:06 GMT
Not that the Bible is great, but I doubt if you've read the Iliad or Odyssey, as they are even worse in fantasy. They're basically Homeric brown nosing the most important rulers that influenced where he lived. Odysseus is just a hateful brute in both epics, abusing his power to get as many men killed as he can. He has absolutely no inspiration, strategy, or credible motivation in the way he gets his entire army butchered.
Haha yes I have read them-more than once. In fact my Classics instructor urged us to read them in Greek to get the full impact. I think you haven't read them, or you got turned off by the Iliad's catalog of ships in the second chapter. The Iliad and the Odyssey have giants, sea monsters, talking horses, invisible warriors, robots (Hephaestus' workshop), and various other fantasy elements. The Bible is very dull by comparison. Not to mention, Zeus is a lot more fun than Yahweh and Jesus. I've read both, and now I am sure you haven't read them, because you simply name the bits that are known to those who merely see the stories on screen, or hear them from someone else.
Just like modern movies, it doesn't matter if you try to produce all that "bang" of special effects and monsters, if you don't have some characters to relate to. The Homer epics have no one to relate to, at least no one a sane person can relate to. Odysseus goes out of his way to get people butchered. He's a total sicko. That makes the Odyssey even duller than the Bible. Same for the Iliad, since he is really the background hero of the story, coming in late to be the hero. Again, he's just a hateful brute, trying to get his men killed.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Sept 26, 2017 16:23:28 GMT
I've read both, and now I am sure you haven't read them, because you simply name the bits that are known to those who merely see the stories on screen, or hear them from someone else. There has never been a faithful version, and never can be because of the complexity of the Homeric simile. Homer makes comparisons to everyday life, such things can't be done in a movie. Not to mention, talking rivers or deities roaming among a battlefield aren't cheap. The Bible is crude by comparison. Homer could appreciate the tenacity of a fly in trying to bite a man, or compare swarming armies to bees or crops being cultivated. The Bible is a mishmash of at least 5 different writers, they stick in 2 versions of creation it is such a mess. If you have read the Iliad, then you can name the one thing Homer does with character description which is unusual. Let's test your knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Sept 26, 2017 19:21:07 GMT
That's another interesting point to discuss: Which God? I'm not sure we mean the same thing when we ask that.
(I don't know if I've made this clear but I am NOT an atheist. I believe in god, just not religion. That might sound contradictory, but I think belief in god is separate and personal. That's just me.)
When we ask "which god? we mean which religions god(?) Some like to say that there is only one god (which is really code for "THEIR religions" god), or that all the religions are just talking about the same god, which is actually inaccurate. Each religions texts attributes different aspects to their version of god; enough so that its clear that each religions god is intended to be separate, not a shared singular god. Christians are even sub-divided within themselves.
So when people say "raise your hand to god" here in the states they usually mean a Christian god. They don't mean Allah. They don't mean Buddha. But what if you're a Muslim and you're in a courtroom and they ask you to raise your hand to god and put your hand on the Bible? Muslims don't do that. So who's god do you mean? You mean your Christian god. You certainly don't mean Allah. So is that Muslim persons Allah/Koran less worthy than yours? After all, you're worshipping YOUR god when you say "raise your hand to god" in a courtroom. Not his god.
So that's why people ask "Which god?" Because we're trying to get you to see the problem in that. Its not that we're disrespecting your god. Its actually the reverse. You're disrespecting OUR god when you expect us to worship YOUR version of god.
So yeah, which god?
Various atheists and other critics of religion might have different attitudes underlying their question "which god?" I think the predominant one is that the differences in religions make one truth behind them preposterous. I think you haven't tried yet to describe green to a blind person. Perhaps you would understand my point better if you did that. Notice that if others also try they might not use the same approach as you. Notice that the approach will likely vary in different cultures. It is however the same green, there is only one (in the exercise), and no, there is no group preference required. Many people misunderstand their religion. Many people would misunderstand your attempts to describe green if they were blind. That is no proof that "green" does not exist. Asking me to describe green to a blind person doesn't address the issue of what would a Muslim do when asked to put his hand on the Bible in an American court of law. The question of "which god do you mean?" I think it still valid in our day. There's no one consensus.
You might think there is because you honestly believe in your version of god, and in so believing you accept yours as the only one, the true one. So does that give you the right to tell the Muslim that his is not the true one? Getting a blinds persons understanding of color doesn't help me with that conundrum.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 27, 2017 0:19:26 GMT
There are other options available for taking an oath in court for people with various religious traditions. You are complaining about a problem that has already been solved. I suppose there are many people who have that problem, but I am not one of them. Have you not noticed? You are two thousand years behind. Anthropomorphic gods were already going out of style at the time of the Roman Empire. Although he apparently "believed in the gods" Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius is an example of a thinker who applied his beliefs about the gods to current conditions. Unlike many of the people you're complaining about, he was very good at it. When you do that, various beliefs can appear to serve. Philosophy was quite well developed and was considering various complex and nebulous forces in nature and society. What "lord of the universe" do you suppose he meant? Jupiter? Zeus? Rather something beyond Greek and Roman musings on the complex, nebulous and elusive forces in nature and society? Maybe something that requires insight, and not just of the color green.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 27, 2017 9:15:31 GMT
Anthropomorphic gods were already going out of style at the time of the Roman Empire. So does this mean you worship a deity which has been unfashionable for thousands of years? The Christian God remains characterised in human terms still (for one thing we are supposedly made in it's image), being a god of love, capable too of anger, jealousy, repentance, with a moral sense and all the rest. The only thing Jehovah conspicuously lacks is a sense of irony or humour.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Sept 27, 2017 14:27:41 GMT
I've read both, and now I am sure you haven't read them, because you simply name the bits that are known to those who merely see the stories on screen, or hear them from someone else. There has never been a faithful version, and never can be because of the complexity of the Homeric simile. Homer makes comparisons to everyday life, such things can't be done in a movie. Not to mention, talking rivers or deities roaming among a battlefield aren't cheap. The Bible is crude by comparison. Homer could appreciate the tenacity of a fly in trying to bite a man, or compare swarming armies to bees or crops being cultivated. The Bible is a mishmash of at least 5 different writers, they stick in 2 versions of creation it is such a mess. If you have read the Iliad, then you can name the one thing Homer does with character description which is unusual. Let's test your knowledge. No, he does nothing unusual with character description, despite the efforts of ignorant self righteous control freaks who insist that he does. The idiots will marvel because one character is described by another person, but that's not unusual at all. In fact, it's ignorant. Only a fool thinks he knows anything about someone else. Control freaks love to do this, and Homer sang his brown nosing for control freaks in power.
You're not going to test anything, sicko control freak. You just proved my point, you raving lunatic. So go cry home to your mommy cause mean Styx made you cry. Me sorry.
|
|