REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Drgnslyer]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Just a thought in relation to your mention of priests:

Interestingly enough, of the great religions which are prominent today, very few have priests. Islam has clerics, Judaism has rabbis (though still people of priestly lineage), Protestantism has ministers/preachers, but as far as I know, only Catholicism and the Eastern Christian churches have priests. Buddhism I don't think does, but I'm not sure about Hinduism?

Saying Priest was more of a general statement for people not so well versed in religious history...

Call them what you will I suppose, meant to be seen simply as religious leaders.

[Drgnslyer]

*listens to the crickets chirp*

Hrmm....I wonder if i killed the thread.......

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Just a thought in relation to your mention of priests:

Interestingly enough, of the great religions which are prominent today, very few have priests. Islam has clerics, Judaism has rabbis (though still people of priestly lineage), Protestantism has ministers/preachers, but as far as I know, only Catholicism and the Eastern Christian churches have priests. Buddhism I don't think does, but I'm not sure about Hinduism?

'Priest' meaning???

[Janny]

Of course that's the point of religion is that it's something greater than man. Priests are fallible. Regardless what you say (and I don't know if this is worth my excommunication) even the highest ranking people in religion are still human.
That is the purpose of religion. If man knew everything, what would be the point in God. Like the babel fish in The Hitchhiker's Guide - 'God disappears in a puff of logic'.

As a scientist, I remain a religious person. Surely order in general points to the idea of God not diminishes the notion of His existence.
I do not consider it my duty to prove the existence of the 'celestial teacup'... don't get me started on Dawkins of the narrow mind.

[MasterMothra]

I would like to hear the christian apologists ideas about how the earth was populated by humans early on.

[Bombadillo]

Originally posted by MasterMothra
I would like to hear the christian apologists ideas about how the earth was populated by humans early on.

You mean the stories of Genesis, and how they excluded the dinosaurs and whatnot?

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Janny
Surely order in general points to the idea of God not diminishes the notion of His existence.

i always found the general messiness of our existence to point more towards a lack of any great mind behind it... or at least a far from perfect one

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by MasterMothra
I would like to hear the christian apologists ideas about how the earth was populated by humans early on.

What's a Christian Apologist? Don't you mean Creationist?

[MasterMothra]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
What's a Christian Apologist? Don't you mean Creationist?

Yes, sorry for any confusion.

Is it the christian view that two people spawned the beginning of humanity?

[Bombadillo]

You mean how the creation stories don't include dinosaurs and things that have been already proven through science? In that case, I'll inform you that Scientific Truth and Religious Truth are two entirely separate things, and not meant to be contrasted.
Scientific Truth relates to things that repeated physical tests have proven to be factually accurate.
Religious Truth means that one firmly believes in it, and therefore, to their own personal selves, it is a fact.

Or if you were refering to the inconsistency in Genesis, it is simply because it wasn't meant to be taken literally. *expects a bashing already* But for proof, just read it! There are two creation stories, and they blatantly contradict each other.
The first one: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. He took 6 days to create light, the sky, earth and seas, sun and moon, swimming creatures, land animals and humans in that order. He used only his commanding voice. On the seventh day he rested.
The second one: Using his hands, God created the world: the land and the water. Then using the clay from the ground, he molded a man, Adam. He then planted a garden for the man to live in. Next, He made all sorts of plants and animals for the man to eat, and left it up to the man to name them. Later, He put Adam to sleep, and removed one of his ribs while he was sleeping. This he made into a woman.
They aren't the same, not because the authors made a terrible mistake that was never corrected even millenia later, but because they didn't care. They were demonstrating certain points, not giving a narrative. Story #1 is only to say that God made everything in the universe, including Earth and Man, and he is allpowerful. Story #2 is only to say that God created the world, and created Man, and made Man in his image even, and wants us to be happy, even though we sin, and he can still punish us anyway.

There aren't really any discrepencies in Genesis, but it's so often interperated the wrong way. (And you can't make this stuff up.)

EDIT: Don't eat me, please. I don't mean to offend anyone.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by MasterMothra
Is it the christian view that two people spawned the beginning of humanity? [/B]

Well, one of many Christian views is that Adam and Eve were the beginning of humanity when God created them, but not all Christians believe that. Fundamentalists to believe the literal translation of the Bible. I don't personally, and there are other views besides Fundamentalism and whatever mine is.

I don't think you said anything offensive Bombadillo. Mooters are a little more thick-skinned.

[Starr Polish]

and you also have to remember that men did, in fact, write the Bible, not God Himself. Yes, the men were divinely inspired. But, as we all know, we make mistakes and contradict ourselves at some point () and some things about God are beyond mankinds reach, so the writers had to put things into terms they and other people could understand.

For example (and this is a personal belief, feel free to not believe it).

God is sort of on a different plane. He created time, and thus is "outside" of it, in a sense. So, when it says in Genesis that the world was created in seven days, the writer was putting it in terms he understood. Most of us like to think of things occuring in a linear sense, with a specific amount of time set to them (it took x weeks to build this, and x months to build this). But because God is outside of time, something was "lost in translation" as it was written by the hand of a man.

I hope that made sense.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Starr Polish
and you also have to remember that men did, in fact, write the Bible, not God Himself. Yes, the men were divinely inspired. But, as we all know, we make mistakes and contradict ourselves at some point () and some things about God are beyond mankinds reach, so the writers had to put things into terms they and other people could understand.

Actually, you've summed up nicely how I view the Bible as well.

For example (and this is a personal belief, feel free to not believe it).

God is sort of on a different plane. He created time, and thus is "outside" of it, in a sense. So, when it says in Genesis that the world was created in seven days, the writer was putting it in terms he understood. Most of us like to think of things occuring in a linear sense, with a specific amount of time set to them (it took x weeks to build this, and x months to build this). But because God is outside of time, something was "lost in translation" as it was written by the hand of a man.

I hope that made sense.

I've never thought about time that way, and I think that's very interesting. I did already feel that people found it necessary to put divine inspiration into 'human' terms.

[brownjenkins]

it must also be taken into account that there are countless creation myhs besides the christian one

[Drgnslyer]

You could compare with something completely different, like the general canadian west coast natives, who for a creation *note the signifigance of the word* "myth" where the raven opened a giant clam, and man and woman crawled out, creating humanity.

That's a very abbreviated version of it, but really creation myths were brought around to give us an answer to a question that during those times we simply did not, and simply could not phathom where exactly we came from. We created a story that seemed to make sense in accordance with our general beliefs and stuck to it.

One potential reason between the two different myths in Genesis could be attributed to the fact that the bible has been re-written numerous times....including one addition that we have King James to thank for, and many pagans, wiccans, and witches will likely never forget is the addition of the word "heretic"

I would love to get a copy of the origional bible written sometime in the BC....and compare it to todays bible....anyone see that one simpsons episode where a message being passed through a throng of people comes out with an additional "purple monkey dishwasher"? That's a very classic example of how one pure message can be severely altered and even bastardised through even 20 people....nevermind 2000+ years and thousands of contributors.

I've got a number of qualms with the bible as it exists today....I myself have read the bible as it was intended to be read, like a book (*gasp* NOT A BOOK!?!) cover to cover.

This is a fairly risque point, but jesus even said *I forget the exact words, i'll track it down and get the quote from the bible* that man should not worship god in a temple, that man should be able to simply worship god within himself...what exactly is a church...it's a christian temple....what did jesus say not to do....go to a temple to worship....


*Ends rant as he heads out the door to work*

Comments?

*Hides from potential smiters*

I know that what i've said here can be somewhat controvercial, but it's all fact, not asumption.

[Bombadillo]

Originally posted by Drgnslyer
You could compare with something completely different, like the general canadian west coast natives, who for a creation *note the signifigance of the word* "myth" where the raven opened a giant clam, and man and woman crawled out, creating humanity.

That's a very abbreviated version of it, but really creation myths were brought around to give us an answer to a question that during those times we simply did not, and simply could not phathom where exactly we came from. We created a story that seemed to make sense in accordance with our general beliefs and stuck to it.

One potential reason between the two different myths in Genesis could be attributed to the fact that the bible has been re-written numerous times....including one addition that we have King James to thank for, and many pagans, wiccans, and witches will likely never forget is the addition of the word "heretic"

I would love to get a copy of the origional bible written sometime in the BC....and compare it to todays bible....anyone see that one simpsons episode where a message being passed through a throng of people comes out with an additional "purple monkey dishwasher"? That's a very classic example of how one pure message can be severely altered and even bastardised through even 20 people....nevermind 2000+ years and thousands of contributors.

I've got a number of qualms with the bible as it exists today....I myself have read the bible as it was intended to be read, like a book (*gasp* NOT A BOOK!?!) cover to cover.

This is a fairly risque point, but jesus even said *I forget the exact words, i'll track it down and get the quote from the bible* that man should not worship god in a temple, that man should be able to simply worship god within himself...what exactly is a church...it's a christian temple....what did jesus say not to do....go to a temple to worship....


*Ends rant as he heads out the door to work*

Comments?

*Hides from potential smiters*

I know that what i've said here can be somewhat controvercial, but it's all fact, not asumption.

Yes, it can look like a regular tall tale, messed up by word of mouth. But the various Popes, Conclaves of Cardinals, the Magistrate, and eccumenical (sp?) councils have been continually supervising the Bible and its reprints through the centuries, and even deciding which literary works pertaining to God will be added to the canon. If there was anything wrong with the consistency (in any sense) of its content, they surely would have spotted it by now, or we never would have seen the book.

[Starr Polish]

Actually, a church is any place where to people meet in the name/to worship God. The church system of today was set up by mankind (and started with the Catholic church). I don't think Jesus was necessarily saying that church/temples were "bad", but that you shouldn't use them soley for worship, or say you're Christian just because you go to a building and go through the mtions (I know of Wiccans who regularly attend church and even teach Sunday School), because true worship is within yourself.

[Janny]

i always found the general messiness of our existence to point more towards a lack of any great mind behind it... or at least a far from perfect one

GENERAL MESSINESS??!!

The messiness is all human. Look at science. If I throw a ball into the air it comes down. If I throw it again harder, it goes higher and comes down later. Rubbish example, but all the world can be quantified (pretty much).
But sure the 'God of Chaos' from Eddie Izzard's Glorious works too.

[Janny]

RE: creationalism.
It doesn't work. It like most else is a metaphor. How would you propose you explain evolution to a less technologically advanced world?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Janny
GENERAL MESSINESS??!!

The messiness is all human. Look at science. If I throw a ball into the air it comes down. If I throw it again harder, it goes higher and comes down later. Rubbish example, but all the world can be quantified (pretty much).
But sure the 'God of Chaos' from Eddie Izzard's Glorious works too.

actually the "messiness" is a universal constant not a human construction. its called ENTROPY. Its the way the universe is inclined to move. Now many christians insist that this proves its all about god since complexity goes against this very idea of entropy. Of course they dont bring up that theres a gigantic nuclear furnace with 1.3 million times the voulme of our planet just 93 million miles over our shoulder. But entropy is much more patient then that. In time the sun will be spent and cold and earth will have been consumed by its outer expansion and in turn its atoms will be cold and dead. god or not. so think of this brief time we have as a living planet as a small burst of flame fed by the larger fires right next door. But like all fires this one too will burn itself out leaving only cold inert matter.