Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yeah, I was thinking the Old Testament law.

[Lief Erikson]

Woops! Spiderman going on in the background . . . will be back in an hour or two . Will respond later.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We're talking about a set of documents that were written before anybody had ever heard of Galilean scientific method, human rights, universal suffrage (let alone the vote), existentialism, atomic theory, relativity - and let's not even get started on genetics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do those things matter? If the subject matter of the Bible was physics or genetics or cultural events, then it would matter. However, the Bible deals with the human soul - its condition and relationship to God. Has genetics changed that? It also deals with some other things, too, such as the character of God - has the atomic theory changed God's character? Again, that's what's so brilliant about the Bible - it is applicable/significant in all times.

This is a very good point of RÃ*an's. One thing I'd like to do to expound on it though, in just a moment.

Originally posted by Ironparrot
According to the Catholic Church (pre-1960), the heavenly bodies revolved around the Earth. Thankfully, they lifted their ban on Galileo, or their credibility really would be shot.

Okay, there's a few things on this that I'd like to say. Firstly, the Catholic Church really did suffer quite a bit later on after Galileo's theories were shown to be right. Their opposing science that disagreed with their doctrine caused a battle between science and Christianity. Since then, science has become more accepted and Christianity less. Christians, in the past, used to be at the forefront of intellectual knowledge. Although there are still quite a few deeply intellectual Christians, it's nowhere near what it used to be.

There was once an argument made by a prominent Christian in the past that "Christianity is correct . . . because who but God could raise the sun through the heavens?"

He received widespread support, at the time. Christianity suffered for it afterward.


The Catholic doctrine that the sun, moon and stars rotated around the Earth came from a Biblical passage in Psalms. The Biblical passage said, basically, "The Earth shall not be moved."

That seems pretty straightforward. And it seems pretty straightforward that science flat out contradicts it. However, our scientific knowledge has increased from where it was then. The theory of General Relativity is now broadly accepted, and by its definition, the movement of objects is relative. It is acceleration that depicts movement. The Earth is not accelerating, therefore it is not moving.

The Biblical passage seemed correct, and then it was proved incorrect, but now is thought to be correct again.

Sometimes the simplest solution is not the answer, but does that say anything against God's Word?

The difficulty is, you're limiting God by not accepting a universal truth. Here's another thing that can be taught us about God through the Theory of General Relativity.

Everything is relative. However, even though everything is relative, one thing is a constant throughout, and that is light.

Originally posted by Ironparrot
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Um, I would say BY DEFINITION that God has severely simplified things. If a being that is omniscient has to communicate with beings that AREN'T, then obviously the info HAS to be severly simplified. That doesn't mean that it's not SIGNIFICANT, however.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well of course the Bible is significant! But that doesn't mean it's true to the letter, or that it's the Word of God at all. My very point - with which you have here concurred - is that the Bible is full of holes.

No, the Bible is not full of holes. Unless you consider every book to be full of holes, because it doesn't tell everything. Do you consider a simplified version of a biology book to be "full of holes"? No, of course not. Of course it doesn't tell everything, but it tells exactly what the different individuals at that age level need.

Now, the Bible goes a lot deeper than that. Christians learn from it and keep learning from it all their lives. It's like peeling skins off an onion (To quote my Grandmother). God reveals one truth to you, and then when you're ready for the next, he reveals another. Christians have spent weeks studying single passages of the Bible, meditating on them, and learning from them. So the Bible does go deeper.

The books is capable of reaching people where they are at and then God continues to teach them new things through it in the future.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Ironparrot
If the Bible is indeed simplified - as you readily admit - then it cannot be taken as solid truth, but rather an approximated model. And no way would such an approximated model make any mention of, say, evolutionary processes. Remember that the societies in which the Bible originated and propogated still subjugated women, bred intolerance of alternate faiths, and didn't even know there was such a thing as America (let alone Native Americans and their own specific traditions).

There were things in the Bible that were only applicable at that particular time, it is true. Many of the things in earlier books of the Bible are inapplicable today because the current medical research was lacked.

I don't really remember where the Bible bred intolerance for other faiths, except in a few specific cases. Of course, it said that Christianity is the one true faith, but I think that is just as true today as it was then. However, although we do see evangelists in the New Testament, I don't recall us seeing them cursing people of other faiths, or anything like that.

In the Old Testament, they were dealing with horrible religions though. Ones in which girls were traditionally selected by men and raped (The Canaanites), in which human sacrifices were offered, in which black magic was done . . . horrible evils that I think God was perfectly right to punish.

Originally posted by Ironparrot
I blame it all on that nasty little passage in Revelations that essentially "locks" the Bible from further amendment. The impossibility of amendment is what separates it from scientific laws (constantly revised by Galilean experimentation) and civil laws (amended by human legislation). Because these are free to be challenged and revised all the time, they never claim any sort of absolute universal truth. Yet like the Bible, their relevance remains. Hammurabi's code of law in ancient Babylon is still relevant in the sense that it introduced the concept of the legal code, but it wouldn't be very pleasant if we still enforced "an eye for an eye" in a literal sense.

The difficulty is, you're assuming in your premise that Christianity didn't come from God. If it came from God, and there is a universal truth with him, then what's the problem? We have limited knowledge, which is why our knowledge is constantly subject to revision. We are constantly learning more. If God knows all, why should his Word be constantly subject to revision? And it isn't.

We have evidence that the Bible's Old Testament is in its accurate form, dating from 1500 B.C. The New Testament also is basically proved to be in its original form. I can post you all sorts of stuff on this, if you want it.

Originally posted by Ironparrot
When one claims that the Bible is truth, one is claiming that a millennia-old document is not open to challenge. That, to me, is unjustified.

Much of the Bible is verified. In fact, basically everything (aside from the miracles, though I think there are some implications that they happened too) post-Solomon is largely as the Bible says. That's known history.

And now as accuracy as far as the spiritual truths goes.

I think Lizra and other Atheists have concluded Jesus was a good man. The things he preaches are righteous and good, in my opinion. Only as far as coming to know him goes do people disagree, though that's primarily because they haven't followed his words themselves, on that topic. These spiritual truths I think were just as correct for people in the past as they are for people now. People in the past would benefit just as much as present day people do by following Jesus' mercy. To me, they seem like universal truths, no matter which age you live in.

There were some that were customs, and those were brought up in the New and Old Testaments. We can still learn from some of these customs, and some of them are still applicable today. The Ten Commandments and the words of Jesus were universal, in my opinion.

Jesus said that "heaven and earth may pass away, but my words will never pass away". Despite severe persecution and the near impossible circumstances the Early Church was faced with, his words have prevailed. You might disagree that his words are universal in being good laws for humanity to follow. Sometimes they might seem impractical, but God gives his people the ability to follow them. Here we get into spiritual experience, again. The spiritual side is closely tied in with the moral laws side.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Ironparrot
Given that a) the lexicons of these early languages were not very robust; b) the intellectual capabilities of Man were what we would now call "primitive"; and c) the worldview of the Hebrews was severely limited in scope; how could The Word of God For Dummies still pass off as the Word of God in the face of superior empirical evidence?

It is true that as our knowledge increases, scientifically, our understanding of God's Word can also be improved. There are aspects of the Bible (Such as the General Relativity point of view of the Earth's movement) which aren't that easy to understand fully until later. There are parts that aren't meant to be understood until later, such as certain prophesies. However, I think that all the different points of the Bible can be used to assist other people in learning about God. Revelation will be very, very useful for God's children at the End Times. We can still learn things from it now, even if it isn't directly applicable at the present times, for the End Times aren't upon us yet (IMO). But God wasn't trying to make everything plainly understandable to people of a lower knowledge level. As in my "peeling the onion" example, God can speak through it even when it's not applicable directly yet, or immediately easy to understand, but it still is possible for him to speak through anyway.

Originally posted by Ironparrot
So my point is, even if God did exist, why rule out the possibility that things were severely simplified to conform to Man's level of intellectual maturity? And if that holds, then doesn't strict adherence to the Bible word for word become obsolete with human advancement, both cultural and scientific?

Just responded to that .

Originally posted by Ironparrot
We're talking about a set of documents that were written before anybody had ever heard of Galilean scientific method, human rights, universal suffrage (let alone the vote), existentialism, atomic theory, relativity - and let's not even get started on genetics.

Eh? RÃ*an was right, those aren't directly applicable. Those few Bible passages that are related to things like that (There are some, such as the Creation story) are correct. Here we get into a huge debate, no doubt . The flood, (Not the 7 days, please) the pre-Solomon historical events, and the creation of the Earth. Darn it. Do I have to get into those?

I can get into the pre-Solomon events, if anyone wants information on that. I'd be talking from one of my Dad's written books, but it has some really, really cool stuff in it that shows things about the Old Testament's likely to be accurate in its description of things all the way back to Joseph.

My Dad has a lot of material on the flood, and he's writing a book on that topic and on the topic of pre-flood events. Unfortunately, it's not finished yet, so I can't quote it. So I can't speak on the flood.

EXCEPT!!! That there are dinosaur findings on the different continents to the same, or extremely similar species. The dinosaurs were supposed to come after the continental divide.

There's my proof .

Just kidding. Although what I said is true, I can't tackle current scientific thought on the flood at this time. Not yet .

Originally posted by Ironparrot
If one insists that God must exist, and that the Bible isn't wholly false (just divertingly rhetorical and prosaic), that leads to a more reasonable claim: that God left out a lot of details that would be completely incomprehensible to the scribes he was busy "inspiring", and that the Bible is a general, metaphorical framework for history.

There is a lot of history in the Bible, that is true. Sometimes there are prophesies in the Bible, divine inspiration and speaking of things that were to come. The prophesies Jesus fulfilled are a strong evidence of that. The fact is, the divine inspiration leads as the divine will dictates. Sometimes people might right down things they don't understand, because they're hearing a voice. I have had that happen to me personally. The Lord started speaking to me through the Bible, and I started flipping the Bible open in many random places, putting my finger down and writing down what I saw. By the time I felt the Lord was done, I stopped writing down and looked at what I'd written. All the sentences from numerous different parts of the Bible, put together in the order I'd written them, perfectly described the dream I'd had the previous night. I had been asking the Lord just before I felt his guidance that he would tell me about the dream. After describing the dream back to me, he started going on from there, answering questions I asked and volunteering information.

Anyway. That was one of the experiences of divine guidance I had. Nobody has to respond to it.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
....Now, to the breech .

Sorry I can't keep you company for a few days, my in-laws are visiting. I think I'll be able to get some posts in on hell, 'cause EG's subject is a priority to me over IP's (cause she was first and cause she's asked me by name and cause she's nicer than IP ) (j/k, IP!) (but she is one of my first Entmoot friends and I like her ) but I doubt if I"ll get to IP's posts until next week.

Originally posted by Ruinel
This thread will soon be overrun by rabid Chirstian fanatics....

*checks to see if she is foaming at the mouth...*
At least I can spell ... *nudges Ru in the side*

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
The Catholic doctrine that the sun, moon and stars rotated around the Earth came from a Biblical passage in Psalms. The Biblical passage said, basically, "The Earth shall not be moved."

That seems pretty straightforward. And it seems pretty straightforward that science flat out contradicts it. However, our scientific knowledge has increased from where it was then. The theory of General Relativity is now broadly accepted, and by its definition, the movement of objects is relative. It is acceleration that depicts movement. The Earth is not accelerating, therefore it is not moving.

The Biblical passage seemed correct, and then it was proved incorrect, but now is thought to be correct again.

Sometimes the simplest solution is not the answer, but does that say anything against God's Word?

Actually, if I jump up in the air, I accelerate towards the Earth, and the Earth accelerates towards me. The movement of the Earth towards me is so tiny I don't notice. The acceleration of the Earth would be of magnitude 10^-25 m/s^2, but it would still be there. It's Newton's third law; that a body must exert a force equal and opposite in direction to any force acting on it.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I tend to disagree with you here, based upon the Bible and my own experience with God. There are restrictions he places upon our thinking. He says in the Bible "Make captive every thought and bring it to Christ" and that if someone looks at a married woman lustfully, he has committed adultery with her in his heart. What goes on in the spirit counts for a lot.

But, at least the way I would interpret that passage, that is not God restricting our thoughts, that is God saying we should restrict our own thoughts; it is a command to make every thought about Christ and not, say, commit adultery in ones mind. It is not, however, god actually, actively controlling our thoughts. It is, then, our own choice to make our thoughts go toward Christ, etc. Because if God were actively placing restrictions on our thoughts, then there would be no sin, right? In theory, anyway. So, the whole point of this is that we really do have free will and God requests/commands/whatever that we guide our thoughts in a certian direction and place the suggested restrictions. Leaves room for free will, that does. It's all about choice.*

*Well, I just saw Matrix Reloaded again. . .it's kind of a major theme

[IronParrot]

The Catholic doctrine that the sun, moon and stars rotated around the Earth came from a Biblical passage in Psalms. The Biblical passage said, basically, "The Earth shall not be moved."

That seems pretty straightforward. And it seems pretty straightforward that science flat out contradicts it. However, our scientific knowledge has increased from where it was then. The theory of General Relativity is now broadly accepted, and by its definition, the movement of objects is relative. It is acceleration that depicts movement. The Earth is not accelerating, therefore it is not moving.

The Biblical passage seemed correct, and then it was proved incorrect, but now is thought to be correct again.

And what this demonstrates is one (or both) of two possibilities: a) everybody misinterpreted that particular Biblical passage until science caught up, or b) this is an after-the-fact reconciliation to save the Bible from being labeled as "contradictory". Not unlike the theory that a single bullet bouncing around in weird arcs all over the convertible was responsible for every wound in Kennedy's body, to toe the party line that Oswald was alone. (Is that the "truth"? We still don't know either way.) You will always be able to reconcile any given text with seeming contradictions. All it demonstrates is that the Bible, even if it is the truth, is a fuzzy truth.

Sometimes the simplest solution is not the answer, but does that say anything against God's Word?

It says that the way it was written down, misinterpretations abound. If the Bible was a user manual, the tech support lines must be jammed.

The difficulty is, you're limiting God by not accepting a universal truth.

I have yet to see one reason why I should accept that a universal truth exists. Derrida and Foucault are rolling in their graves.

Here's another thing that can be taught us about God through the Theory of General Relativity.

Everything is relative. However, even though everything is relative, one thing is a constant throughout, and that is light.

Clever. Of course, we have to contend with those guys who broke the speed of light, and the fact that Relativity has some problems that Hawking and others are trying to patch up as we speak.

No, the Bible is not full of holes. Unless you consider every book to be full of holes, because it doesn't tell everything. Do you consider a simplified version of a biology book to be "full of holes"? No, of course not. Of course it doesn't tell everything, but it tells exactly what the different individuals at that age level need.

Yes, it's full of holes if it tries to pass the simplification off as absolute, incorrigible truth. And I mean both the Bible and your biology example. High school chemistry textbooks still teach the Bohr atomic model, even though it only works for hydrogen. Some high school physics textbooks still present the Conservation Laws as universal laws, even though they break down at the subatomic level. The difference here is that at a higher level of learning, the contents of these texts - which "tell exactly what the different individuals at that age level need" - are added to, expanded upon and corrected. People readily admit that they are overly simplified, and thus fallible.

You're not allowed to do that to the Bible, and that is where its being full of holes becomes a problem. If it didn't claim universality and infallibility, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all.

You'll note that the Hebrews began as a henotheistic civilization that recognized YHWH (the name replaced by "The Lord God" in the KJV) of the Old Testament as a patron god of those nomads. Without the claim to universality, there was no problem. It wasn't until Christianity and the New Testament that the perspective on the Old Testament was radically altered - and that only applies to you Christians.

Now, the Bible goes a lot deeper than that. Christians learn from it and keep learning from it all their lives. It's like peeling skins off an onion (To quote my Grandmother). God reveals one truth to you, and then when you're ready for the next, he reveals another. Christians have spent weeks studying single passages of the Bible, meditating on them, and learning from them. So the Bible does go deeper.

The books is capable of reaching people where they are at and then God continues to teach them new things through it in the future.

I do the exact same thing with The Lord of the Rings. Countless literarians do that with Shakespeare. Their infinite applicability does not mean what Tolkien or Shakespeare wrote was the "truth". The only difference here is that with those authors, we have specifically identified sources, which is why we know for certain that the works are fictitious. (Actually, even Shakespeare's identity continues to be in doubt, so maybe not.)

[IronParrot]

There were things in the Bible that were only applicable at that particular time, it is true. Many of the things in earlier books of the Bible are inapplicable today because the current medical research was lacked.

Point, game and match.

I don't really remember where the Bible bred intolerance for other faiths, except in a few specific cases. Of course, it said that Christianity is the one true faith, but I think that is just as true today as it was then. However, although we do see evangelists in the New Testament, I don't recall us seeing them cursing people of other faiths, or anything like that.

If we're to believe the arrogant presumption that what everybody else believes is false, I'd call that intolerance. In spades.

In the Old Testament, they were dealing with horrible religions though. Ones in which girls were traditionally selected by men and raped (The Canaanites), in which human sacrifices were offered, in which black magic was done . . . horrible evils that I think God was perfectly right to punish.

But once again, that's based on some universal concept of morality, which I maintain does not exist. I mean, such actions are morally reprehensible to me too, but I make no such claim that they must be so for everybody. It's like how the British colonists abolished the centuries-old Hindu practice of the suttee, because it was immoral... but only by Judeo-Christian standards.

How exactly does the Judeo-Christian moral standard justify itself as being the world standard? Saving you the trouble of answering, it doesn't.

The difficulty is, you're assuming in your premise that Christianity didn't come from God. If it came from God, and there is a universal truth with him, then what's the problem? We have limited knowledge, which is why our knowledge is constantly subject to revision. We are constantly learning more. If God knows all, why should his Word be constantly subject to revision? And it isn't.

And you are assuming in your premise that there is a universal truth, and that God is somehow all-knowing. Only the Bible says so, and as for the Bible's veracity, I believe you're still in the "burden of proof" hotseat. This is a prime example of what I meant pages ago when I referred to circular logic.

We have evidence that the Bible's Old Testament is in its accurate form, dating from 1500 B.C. The New Testament also is basically proved to be in its original form. I can post you all sorts of stuff on this, if you want it.

We also have evidence that some of the ancient Greek tragedies are still present in their original form. The fact that the original text has survived does not prove anything.

Much of the Bible is verified. In fact, basically everything (aside from the miracles, though I think there are some implications that they happened too) post-Solomon is largely as the Bible says. That's known history.

Oh please, this is assuming that just because part of the Bible is correct, all of it must be correct. That makes no sense.

Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is consistent with the historical events it depicts. There really was a guy named Caesar in a place named Rome, not to mention the dynamic duo of Brutus and Antony. And there really was a guy named Macbeth who seized the throne by way of murder and was later killed himself. Does that suddenly make every little detail in Shakespeare's work true?

Better example: we have archaelogical evidence that there really was a place named Troy that was sacked by the Greeks. Does that suddenly mean Achilles was really invincible but for his heel? Or that Paris took Helen by way of divine ordinance? Or that there were really such things as Charybdis, Cyclops and the Sirens? We actually have no proof against any of this, it's just that it's pretty unreasonable. But we can disregard that, just as we can disregard claims of the Bible being unreasonable, right?

There really was a King Arthur, as we've seen from archaelogical evidence. Does that mean he really did pull Excalibur out of the stone because of divine providence and predestination?

Nobody denies that the Bible was a portrait of history, but it was a history littered with a bunch of other unverifiable stuff. Gone With The Wind is a pretty accurate depiction of the American Civil War, Reconstruction, the formation of the Ku Klux Klan and other matters; so suddenly, Rhett and Scarlett must exist too?

The truth of a part does not imply the truth of the whole. Major, major logical fallacy here, which is why I've spent way too many paragraphs expounding on it.

[IronParrot]

I think Lizra and other Atheists have concluded Jesus was a good man. The things he preaches are righteous and good, in my opinion. Only as far as coming to know him goes do people disagree, though that's primarily because they haven't followed his words themselves, on that topic. These spiritual truths I think were just as correct for people in the past as they are for people now. People in the past would benefit just as much as present day people do by following Jesus' mercy. To me, they seem like universal truths, no matter which age you live in.

Of course Jesus' teachings are universally available as guidance that anybody can follow. Of course we agree that his teachings were "righteous and good" based on the sense of morality that has been impressed upon us by our surrounding environment. But that does not make them truths.

There were some that were customs, and those were brought up in the New and Old Testaments. We can still learn from some of these customs, and some of them are still applicable today. The Ten Commandments and the words of Jesus were universal, in my opinion.

Applicability is completely separate from truth.

The Ten Commandments are applicable because other than the whole "Thou shalt have no other god before me" bit, it agrees with some things that we accept in our society. To refrain from killing is probably good advice because killing upsets the stability of our environment. So does adultery. So does not loving thy neighbours. That's why we codify legality and leave morality to individual judgment. The Ten Commandments are applicable to me (other than the one I singled out), but I am not bound to live by them. My actions are, however, bound by the law that maintains our society.

And of course there are similarities between divine law and human law, because the general sense of morality in our society is influenced by religiously-founded traditions. But that only applies to Western society, and you can't expect the same of places founded on other faiths. But as I pointed out, following human law is part of our social contract with the state in which we live. I do not have a social contract with God.

Morals and laws have things in common, but they are not in any way the same thing. You can live by moral principles by which you feel you are governed, but do not presume that I am governed by the same principles.

Jesus said that "heaven and earth may pass away, but my words will never pass away". Despite severe persecution and the near impossible circumstances the Early Church was faced with, his words have prevailed. You might disagree that his words are universal in being good laws for humanity to follow. Sometimes they might seem impractical, but God gives his people the ability to follow them. Here we get into spiritual experience, again. The spiritual side is closely tied in with the moral laws side.

I agree that some of Jesus' teachings are "good ideas", but they are not at all "good laws", let alone universal. The reason is that the definition of "good" here comes from what has been impressed upon me by societal stigmata. These factors are not the same as those of cultures not as influenced by Christian traditions.

[IronParrot]

It is true that as our knowledge increases, scientifically, our understanding of God's Word can also be improved. There are aspects of the Bible (Such as the General Relativity point of view of the Earth's movement) which aren't that easy to understand fully until later. There are parts that aren't meant to be understood until later, such as certain prophesies. However, I think that all the different points of the Bible can be used to assist other people in learning about God. Revelation will be very, very useful for God's children at the End Times. We can still learn things from it now, even if it isn't directly applicable at the present times, for the End Times aren't upon us yet (IMO). But God wasn't trying to make everything plainly understandable to people of a lower knowledge level. As in my "peeling the onion" example, God can speak through it even when it's not applicable directly yet, or immediately easy to understand, but it still is possible for him to speak through anyway.

Okay, so now we've established that the Bible is like Shrek.

Reminds me of Obi-Wan Kenobi. "So what I told you was true... from a certain point of view." And just as we couldn't really be sure that Luke's father was dead, we can't really be sure that anything we think the Bible says is correct. I'm awaiting the day when God descends upon us and writes a preface to the Bible that boils down to, "It wasn't supposed to be an allegory of World War II!"

But seriously: where are we even given any indication that the events of Revelations will occur?

As for prophecies coming true, this largely amounts to fitting data to a fuzzy text. It was pointed out immediately after September 11th that a lot of its events matched up to Nostradamus really well. Does Nostradamus' impressive track record (never mind the fact that we had to bend a few arms backwards to make the predictions match history) indicate that every one of his so-called prophecies must be brought to fruition?

Take the Messiah, for example. When the Old Testament said there was going to be one, people were bound to start pointing fingers sooner or later, and the ones who pointed them at Christ just managed to develop a pretty big following. (Killing thousands during the Crusades certainly helped here.) Note that not everybody who subscribes to the Old Testament does so to the New one.

What if two thousand years from now, Mormons have a huge following? Will their popularity and resilience suddenly make them right?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
But, at least the way I would interpret that passage, that is not God restricting our thoughts, that is God saying we should restrict our own thoughts; it is a command to make every thought about Christ and not, say, commit adultery in ones mind. It is not, however, god actually, actively controlling our thoughts. It is, then, our own choice to make our thoughts go toward Christ, etc. Because if God were actively placing restrictions on our thoughts, then there would be no sin, right? In theory, anyway. So, the whole point of this is that we really do have free will and God requests/commands/whatever that we guide our thoughts in a certian direction and place the suggested restrictions. Leaves room for free will, that does. It's all about choice.*

Yep, I agree.

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
*Well, I just saw Matrix Reloaded again. . .it's kind of a major theme

Did you think the movie was good? I have not seen it yet, but I've heard nothing but rather poor reviews, and I loved the first Matrix movie.

[IronParrot]

If God governs the universe, then I think some principles of government can be applied to Him.

I believe that the democracy and laws under which I live govern me legitimately for several reasons:

- It is possible for citizens to vote the government out of office
- It is possible for citizens to run for government and participate in legislation, changing laws with the growing needs of society
- The government is ultimately accountable to the people
- The government is not above the law
- Political opponents are free to assemble and criticize the government

Let's look at God, under the assumption that the Bible is infallibly True with a capital T.

- It is not possible to vote Him out of office
- It is possible for us as human beings to affect divine "law"
- God is not accountable to His so-called "children"
- God is omnipotent and is unrestrained by His own principles
- Political opponents are "imprisoned" in Hell for eternity

So if the Bible represents a universal truth, then God is a repressive dictator. I find it ironic that a society that portrays repressive dictators as so deplorable still places such high value in the supernatural equivalent.

I refuse to be governed by a Big Brother in the sky, thank you very much. I didn't vote for your God, and I'm not going to a Hell that doesn't exist for me. Come Judgment Day, I'm going to request legal representation.

On the other hand, if the Bible did not presume to be universally True, then not only is it possible to vote God out of office, but people like Constantine "voted Him in", leading to the ultimate collapse of the Pagan Party. (Do not steal this metaphor; I plan to use it for commercial purposes. )

My prevailing point here echoes the one already made by many others before me: go ahead and live your life according to the wisdom of Jesus Christ. Have a good time in Heaven, and don't forget to send me a postcard. But don't you for a moment presume that I am included in your system of Heaven and Hell. They can exist for you as much as you want, but they don't for me, so leave me the purgatory alone.

[IronParrot]

Here's an example of my relationship to the state, and the concepts of law and morality.

Code of Law: "If you want to live in this society, you must realize that killing is unacceptable and against the rules."

IP: "I concur with that. In fact, not only is killing unacceptable, but I believe that it is wrong. Good job, Mr. Law!"

Code of Law: "However, to deal with societal needs, I'm going to make an exception for the unborn and say that abortion is acceptable."

IP: "Hold on just a sec, buster! I vehemently disagree. In fact, I think abortion is wrong. Fortunately, I have the power to lobby for a retroactive change to this, regardless of whether or not that will succeed. But until then, I will live under your rules."

Compare that to this:

God: "Killing is wrong."

IP: "Oh."

God: "Abortion is wrong too."

IP: "Oh. But Code of Law said that - "

God: "Shut up, mortal, Code of Law's going to Hell."

IP: "But what about the needs of a changing society?"

God: "My rules are UNIVERSAL!"

IP: "I'm not voting for you anymore."

[IP goes to Hell]

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by IronParrot
And what this demonstrates is one (or both) of two possibilities: a) everybody misinterpreted that particular Biblical passage until science caught up, or b) this is an after-the-fact reconciliation to save the Bible from being labeled as "contradictory". Not unlike the theory that a single bullet bouncing around in weird arcs all over the convertible was responsible for every wound in Kennedy's body, to toe the party line that Oswald was alone. (Is that the "truth"? We still don't know either way.) You will always be able to reconcile any given text with seeming contradictions. All it demonstrates is that the Bible, even if it is the truth, is a fuzzy truth.

I personally think it demonstrates a). Another small evidence of divine inspiration. If everything that was written was only applicable for the time it was written, it wouldn't be a universal truth, would it?

Originally posted by Ironparrot
It says that the way it was written down, misinterpretations abound. If the Bible was a user manual, the tech support lines must be jammed.

Misinterpretations are there sometimes, particularly for prophesies, or those things that apply to science. But the principle focus of the Bible is on the human soul, and the contact between humanity and its maker.

Originally posted by Ironparrot
Clever. Of course, we have to contend with those guys who broke the speed of light, and the fact that Relativity has some problems that Hawking and others are trying to patch up as we speak.

I'm inclined to believe you're not correct on anyone breaking the speed of light. You'll have to get me some reliable information to back that one up . . . sorry.

The problems with the Theory of Relativity lies in the place where it contradicts another major theory . . . I think Quantum Mechanics. Both theories are possible to follow through to their logical conclusions, but the logical conclusions differ. That is because there is still more we have yet to learn in science. When the two theories are tied together, we will have a far more unified outlook. If I remember correctly, electromagnetics also has a major role to play in that contradiction.

Originally posted by Ironparrot
Yes, it's full of holes if it tries to pass the simplification off as absolute, incorrigible truth. And I mean both the Bible and your biology example. High school chemistry textbooks still teach the Bohr atomic model, even though it only works for hydrogen. Some high school physics textbooks still present the Conservation Laws as universal laws, even though they break down at the subatomic level. The difference here is that at a higher level of learning, the contents of these texts - which "tell exactly what the different individuals at that age level need" - are added to, expanded upon and corrected. People readily admit that they are overly simplified, and thus fallible.

You're not allowed to do that to the Bible, and that is where its being full of holes becomes a problem. If it didn't claim universality and infallibility, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all.

The Bible doesn't claim to have every piece of information there is to know in it- about heaven or earth. It barely mentions the cherubim and the seraphim, which are heavenly beings. There are countless other things I don't know about the spiritual realm, I'm 100% certain.

So the Bible doesn't claim to have everything in it. It may not be fallible, even if it does simplify and not go into depth on every topic. Some things are possible to derive from analysis of the scriptures. Some things are explicitly stated. Other things aren't considered relevant enough to God's purpose to include. I don't understand where simplification implies fallibility.

Originally posted by Ironparrot
You'll note that the Hebrews began as a henotheistic civilization that recognized YHWH (the name replaced by "The Lord God" in the KJV) of the Old Testament as a patron god of those nomads. Without the claim to universality, there was no problem. It wasn't until Christianity and the New Testament that the perspective on the Old Testament was radically altered - and that only applies to you Christians.

What makes you think that God's not giving a manual to interpret every aspect of the Bible makes the Bible nonuniversal and fallible?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by IronParrot
If we're to believe the arrogant presumption that what everybody else believes is false, I'd call that intolerance. In spades.

I wouldn't call it intolerance at all. I'm a Christian, and I believe that Christianity is the one true faith, and yet I am not intolerant of other people's beliefs. Tolerance and agreement-with are two different things. I don't agree with other people's beliefs, but I definitely tolerate them.

Originally posted by Ironparrot
But once again, that's based on some universal concept of morality, which I maintain does not exist. I mean, such actions are morally reprehensible to me too, but I make no such claim that they must be so for everybody. It's like how the British colonists abolished the centuries-old Hindu practice of the suttee, because it was immoral... but only by Judeo-Christian standards.

Yes, but don't you see where your logical fallicy is? You're accepting God's actions are true, for the sake of argument, but not accepting the premise behind God's actions as true.

Originally posted by Ironparrot
How exactly does the Judeo-Christian moral standard justify itself as being the world standard? Saving you the trouble of answering, it doesn't.

If you have a point to make, would you mind expounding upon it? I'm probably being a bit dense right now . Logical- it's pretty late here, now. I might have to save responding to some of what you posted tomorrow, or the day after.

Originally posted by Ironparrot
And you are assuming in your premise that there is a universal truth, and that God is somehow all-knowing. Only the Bible says so, and as for the Bible's veracity, I believe you're still in the "burden of proof" hotseat. This is a prime example of what I meant pages ago when I referred to circular logic.

There's no way I'm going to be able to prove to you, beyond doubt, that the Bible is accurate. Historically, it is accurate. I can back that up pretty affectively. When it comes to the spiritual, there's no way I can prove it. It has to be through spiritual means that you reach the spiritual, just as it is by physical means that you discover the physical. You have to find the spiritual yourself, if you want to know if it's real.

Originally posted by Ironparrot
Oh please, this is assuming that just because part of the Bible is correct, all of it must be correct. That makes no sense.

Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is consistent with the historical events it depicts. There really was a guy named Caesar in a place named Rome, not to mention the dynamic duo of Brutus and Antony. And there really was a guy named Macbeth who seized the throne by way of murder and was later killed himself. Does that suddenly make every little detail in Shakespeare's work true?

Better example: we have archaelogical evidence that there really was a place named Troy that was sacked by the Greeks. Does that suddenly mean Achilles was really invincible but for his heel? Or that Paris took Helen by way of divine ordinance? Or that there were really such things as Charybdis, Cyclops and the Sirens? We actually have no proof against any of this, it's just that it's pretty unreasonable. But we can disregard that, just as we can disregard claims of the Bible being unreasonable, right?

There really was a King Arthur, as we've seen from archaelogical evidence. Does that mean he really did pull Excalibur out of the stone because of divine providence and predestination?

Nobody denies that the Bible was a portrait of history, but it was a history littered with a bunch of other unverifiable stuff. Gone With The Wind is a pretty accurate depiction of the American Civil War, Reconstruction, the formation of the Ku Klux Klan and other matters; so suddenly, Rhett and Scarlett must exist too?

The truth of a part does not imply the truth of the whole. Major, major logical fallacy here, which is why I've spent way too many paragraphs expounding on it.

What you just pointed out is completely correct. Historical accuracy doesn't mean the Bible is accurate as regards the spiritual. I wasn't attempting to show you that the spiritual side was accurate.

[Lief Erikson]

I'm getting too tired to respond to everything you posted, now. I'll do the rest of it later. I like how in your posts you go into both moral and legal aspects . Your posts are well written and well thought out. Very nice, it is, to be able to discuss this with you.

I'll get back to your other posts tomorrow or the day after. Goodnight.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by IronParrot
God: "Killing is wrong."

IP: "Oh."

God: "Abortion is wrong too."

IP: "Oh. But Code of Law said that - "

God: "Shut up, mortal, Code of Law's going to Hell."

IP: "But what about the needs of a changing society?"

God: "My rules are UNIVERSAL!"

IP: "I'm not voting for you anymore."

[IP goes to Hell]

Just wanted to say: I thought this was very funny. I can picture it happening. It would have fit nicely in Monty Python.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
But, at least the way I would interpret that passage, that is not God restricting our thoughts, that is God saying we should restrict our own thoughts; it is a command to make every thought about Christ and not, say, commit adultery in ones mind. It is not, however, god actually, actively controlling our thoughts. It is, then, our own choice to make our thoughts go toward Christ, etc. Because if God were actively placing restrictions on our thoughts, then there would be no sin, right? In theory, anyway. So, the whole point of this is that we really do have free will and God requests/commands/whatever that we guide our thoughts in a certian direction and place the suggested restrictions. Leaves room for free will, that does. It's all about choice.*

And you say you can't express things well? I think that was expressed very well, and I completely agree. I especially like your wording and conclusion here: "Because if God were actively placing restrictions on our thoughts, then there would be no sin, right?" I think that makes a lot of sense.