OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[Gatorubet]

Lighten up Francis. I just saw that comic and it reminded me of this thread. Just trying to lighten things up a bit with one post.

 

[kinch]

Brewtus: we know how you feel. why don't you do us a favor and stay out of it?

Actually, I believe that I have a decent idea how everyone who has posted in this thread feels, though, apparently, certainly feelings should not be expressed (perhaps you would simply rather that he express them differently?).

This thread has captivated me for ages now, and has only improved with Muffler's intelligent expansion of the knowledge base from which the thread draws. Marley too.

Great work everyone here. I'll go back to lurking now. . .

 

[buckeyegrad]

Wiki is not authoritative when compared to Judaic tradition.

Didn't say or imply it was authoritative. I said that it noted the disagreement in understanding the relationship of Caleb to Kenaz and Othniel.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Not to side track, but was wondering......

What if the Bible - or parts of it anyway (Particularly the Prophecies) were never intended for publication or mass consumption? What if these stories describe a metaphysical journey to God and were intended to be passed only among the highest religious officials of any particular era? What if they are "coded" in a language (messianic, for example) which do not intend real future events, but instead describe the attainment of certain level of understanding?

Other parts - for example descriptions of historical events - maybe also weren't necessarily intended for publication, though I don't see the point in keeping them "private."

Just a thought I had this AM as I read something about New Jerusalem - notably the understanding that there will be no sin, no judgment and no death.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Not to side track, but was wondering......

What if the Bible - or parts of it anyway (Particularly the Prophecies) were never intended for publication or mass consumption? What if these stories describe a metaphysical journey to God and were intended to be passed only among the highest religious officials of any particular era? What if they are "coded" in a language (messianic, for example) which do not intend real future events, but instead describe the attainment of certain level of understanding?

Other parts - for example descriptions of historical events - maybe also weren't necessarily intended for publication, though I don't see the point in keeping them "private."

Just a thought I had this AM as I read something about New Jerusalem - notably the understanding that there will be no sin, no judgment and no death.

Well, that is certainly how a gnostic could read them.

 

[muffler dragon]

Didn't say or imply it was authoritative. I said that it noted the disagreement in understanding the relationship of Caleb to Kenaz and Othniel.

Okay. I apologize for being curt once again.

In short, the underlying knowledge of tribal affiliation in Judaism precludes any discrepancy in this manner. The person who wrote the wiki description probably hasn't spent much time in the background of the topic.

 

[muffler dragon]

Not to side track, but was wondering......

What if the Bible - or parts of it anyway (Particularly the Prophecies) were never intended for publication or mass consumption? What if these stories describe a metaphysical journey to God and were intended to be passed only among the highest religious officials of any particular era? What if they are "coded" in a language (messianic, for example) which do not intend real future events, but instead describe the attainment of certain level of understanding?

Other parts - for example descriptions of historical events - maybe also weren't necessarily intended for publication, though I don't see the point in keeping them "private."

Just a thought I had this AM as I read something about New Jerusalem - notably the understanding that there will be no sin, no judgment and no death.

Well, that is certainly how a gnostic could read them.

bgrad:

That's quite true.

BKB:

I'll go one further for you to chew on.

What IF the books of the Jewish Bible were primarily meant as a history of the Jewish people for the Jewish people? What I'm getting at is there is very little in the Jewish Bible that has to do with Gentiles (aka other nations/ethnicities). Then what?

I do have an answer for myself, but I don't know if this is something that many others consider or think about.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

bgrad:

That's quite true.

BKB:

I'll go one further for you to chew on.

What IF the books of the Jewish Bible were primarily meant as a history of the Jewish people for the Jewish people? What I'm getting at is there is very little in the Jewish Bible that has to do with Gentiles (aka other nations/ethnicities). Then what?

I do have an answer for myself, but I don't know if this is something that many others consider or think about.

In my contemplation of this question over the last couple days (I mean my original question, and how it relates to what you've just asked), I would say I would completely agree - a Jewish text written for Jews.

I don't know how much of this thread you've read, but if you've followed along for a while, you'd see that I veiw G-d and all this from a perspective attempting to be without any "magic." That is to say, I think that G-D doesn't need parlor tricks, and whatever we observe to be the nature of reality is an expression of G-d (indeed, what else could it possibly be?) Thus, given that I can see and observe the reality around me, I am inclined to assume that it is whatever it is, and whatever G-d is must be in agreement with that (that is to say, If G-d exists, he must do so without reality being something different than whatever it is)....

So....

I personally think this re: the Bible, at least in part and as it concerns your question. I think it is in some respects "minutes" if you will. I think, for example, that descriptions of various invasions and the like occurred and the Bible records these. They speak in a religious tone, but then, I don't see how that's particularly uncommon to the time period... In some respects I think the concept of a god was for political control, and thus relating events to G-d's plan served a particular political purpose. That's not to say that G-d isn't "real" to these people, just that the idea is also a political tool.

So, it would appear to me that the Bible is several things. 1 - it is an expression of metaphysical philosophy (ie "How are we here? Creation of Genesis) 2 - A documentation of History - which has 2 parts - A) Contemporary events (Invasions, exiles, etc.) and B) Events removed in time which were important enough to pass down from generation to generation orally, like the Flood (I think the Flood describes the end of the last ice age - my rationale is beyond the point here, but I've expressed it on the board before) 3- an expression of Law(s)/morality and 4 - A mechanism for people to "find G-d" among other things.

I do not believe G-D is found on the pages of a book any more readily than He is revealed in nature. I look at the Bible as the word of MAN about G-D and not the word of G-d himself. The WORD of G-d, I've found, is found WITHIN, not without.

Edit: the last remark sorta overstates what I mean.... G-d is found "without" as he's "everywhere" as it were... I just mean a person can find G-d in multiple ways, and there's no particular reason to trust the words of others when you need only look inside yourself.

Edit II: I suppose I also evaded your question some. What IF it's for jews by jews and not for Gentiles.... the reality is, a whole bunch of folks have taken the Old Test and based their religion on an extension of whatever they took it to mean. So, I suppose the best example I can come up with is a cult, but I don't mean it in a negative way. In other words, there are entire belief systems founded upon something that was never intended. That's not to say those beliefs are bad, unworthy or anything... just that they are an unintended extension of something... I suppose that's part of the mystery of the power of this particular book throughout time.

 

[muffler dragon]

In my contemplation of this question over the last couple days (I mean my original question, and how it relates to what you've just asked), I would say I would completely agree - a Jewish text written for Jews.

Before I forget, let me just say, "Wow.". Great post. I thoroughly enjoyed (and enjoy again) reading it. Very cool.

I don't know how much of this thread you've read,

Actually, I just happened upon this thread when I went to the New Posts page one day. My first post is the first time I'd read anything. I went back a few pages to see what the topic was, and then jumped in.

but if you've followed along for a while, you'd see that I veiw G-d and all this from a perspective attempting to be without any "magic." That is to say, I think that G-D doesn't need parlor tricks, and whatever we observe to be the nature of reality is an expression of G-d (indeed, what else could it possibly be?) Thus, given that I can see and observe the reality around me, I am inclined to assume that it is whatever it is, and whatever G-d is must be in agreement with that (that is to say, If G-d exists, he must do so without reality being something different than whatever it is)....

Very interesting, indeed. There's not much with which I would disagree. Question: where does this leave you on acceptance/belief in supernatural?

I personally think this re: the Bible, at least in part and as it concerns your question. I think it is in some respects "minutes" if you will. I think, for example, that descriptions of various invasions and the like occurred and the Bible records these. They speak in a religious tone, but then, I don't see how that's particularly uncommon to the time period... In some respects I think the concept of a god was for political control, and thus relating events to G-d's plan served a particular political purpose. That's not to say that G-d isn't "real" to these people, just that the idea is also a political tool.

Question: to what end is it a political tool? Has this "end" changed throughout time in your opinion?

(I should clarify that my questions are not "loaded". I neither agree nor disagree with what you wrote. Just inquiring to learn.)

So, it would appear to me that the Bible is several things. 1 - it is an expression of metaphysical philosophy (ie "How are we here? Creation of Genesis) 2 - A documentation of History - which has 2 parts - A) Contemporary events (Invasions, exiles, etc.) and B) Events removed in time which were important enough to pass down from generation to generation orally, like the Flood (I think the Flood describes the end of the last ice age - my rationale is beyond the point here, but I've expressed it on the board before) 3- an expression of Law(s)/morality and 4 - A mechanism for people to "find G-d" among other things.

That is very intriguing. I can see completely how you would come to those considerations. My waves of thought intersect many of the statements and underlying meanings of what you present.

I do not believe G-D is found on the pages of a book any more readily than He is revealed in nature. I look at the Bible as the word of MAN about G-D and not the word of G-d himself. The WORD of G-d, I've found, is found WITHIN, not without.

Edit: the last remark sorta overstates what I mean.... G-d is found "without" as he's "everywhere" as it were... I just mean a person can find G-d in multiple ways, and there's no particular reason to trust the words of others when you need only look inside yourself.

I completely follow what you are stating. My POV regarding G-d is that G-d is ineffable. This would fall in line with what you have presented, but at the same time, it's of a different perspective.

Edit II: I suppose I also evaded your question some. What IF it's for jews by jews and not for Gentiles.... the reality is, a whole bunch of folks have taken the Old Test and based their religion on an extension of whatever they took it to mean. So, I suppose the best example I can come up with is a cult, but I don't mean it in a negative way. In other words, there are entire belief systems founded upon something that was never intended. That's not to say those beliefs are bad, unworthy or anything... just that they are an unintended extension of something... I suppose that's part of the mystery of the power of this particular book throughout time.

That's quite true.

In my life the question I asked you has caused me to answer the question in more a more personal way. I've actually had a conversation like this with my wife. My Noachide belief structure was formed and molded over about 18 months. During this time, I didn't talk to my wife about it much at all. I simply didn't want to have, "I don't know." be the answer the majority of her questions. Yet, when we finally had a break through conversation about just "what the hell do you believe then?" It led into this very direction. I have adopted a VERY personal theistic view of G-d. It's neat to hear that you have a similar POV.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Before I forget, let me just say, "Wow.". Great post. I thoroughly enjoyed (and enjoy again) reading it. Very cool.

Danke. Likewise, I - as above - found (find) your debate with Grad highly informative and enjoyable.

Very interesting, indeed. There's not much with which I would disagree. Question: where does this leave you on acceptance/belief in supernatural?

I suppose the way I need to answer this is to define supernatural. On the one hand, I don't contend there is any such thing. ANYTHING which occurs, must be "natural" if it is to occur in reality. That said, I'll answer the remainder in 2 parts. 1st - the more "accepted" version of supernatural. I'll use "ghosts" I believe in ghosts. ESP - I believe in ESP. Things like that. I don't believe they are unnatural, though in common parlance, they'd fit the definition. On the other part - I have to say I do believe in the Supernatural, because I believe that while G-d is ALL that is Nature (and I mean reality, not a forest and some trees :p) including the infinite amount of universe I believe exist. But, over and beyond that, G-d is also something very different than just the universe (and metaverse). So, I'd have to say there is a supernatural G-d (And I should say, I usually just type God, I'm trying to use the hyphen as it appears to be your preferred, so if I slip... well... sorry ) in that He exists independent of the observable (and theoretical).

Question: to what end is it a political tool? Has this "end" changed throughout time in your opinion?

I have held this contention out on several threads, and I'm not sure I've ever really been able to articulate my meaning. I DONT suppose some sort of vast organized conspiracy of mind control. But, I DO expect humans to be human. And in that regard, I anticipate that authors like Paul - while believing what they wrote - also had an objective which may be "hidden" OR that if Paul did not, I am certain his readers did. Again, this may or may not be a conscious objective of any such person, it's more a comment on human nature and my mistrust of the idea of some sort of ..... metaphysical altruism, I guess, than it is a comment on the meaning of the documents themselves. I mean, did Paul have an axe to grind? My answer is "Yes" but that isn't an indictment of Paul, just a recognition that he's a fallible MAN, not a god. Grad would argue, I think, that Paul was unable to be wrong because of a divine component to his writings. On this, he and I disagree, though - with the exception of the overall message of Jesus as Christ - I don't have any particular quibble with Paul's philosophy....

Now, back from that tangent... Yes, I believe the usage of the Bible (or really any god) has changed over time to meet the stresses of that time. Take Hammurabi.... here's a guy who wants to be in charge. Now, what's a good way to get people to think you're to be the leader? Scare em with a magical god, tell em you're in good with this god, and if you follow my lead, we'll all have plenty of food, etc. Simplified, to be sure. But, the point is MAN acquires POWER through the threat of a god. The Bible is used similarly - though again I don't necessarily mean to imply for improper purpose. Some examples may be the Inquisition, the Crusades, Holy Roman Empire, or even England. To me, it's not a lot different than Egyptians believing in Ra, or thinking Pharoh was a god. Same idea, different "god"

More contemporary examples would include idiots like Jim Baker and other evangelists, which I should say I hold in VERY LOW regard. Profiteering on god, I think, is all but self evident.

(I should clarify that my questions are not "loaded". I neither agree nor disagree with what you wrote. Just inquiring to learn.)

It's all good.

That is very intriguing. I can see completely how you would come to those considerations. My waves of thought intersect many of the statements and underlying meanings of what you present.

It's nice to know I'm not alone in this respect I have respect for what's contained in the Bible. For example, I find it interesting that the Genesis story - when read "metaphorically" seems to match what cosmologists today believe happened in the creation of our universe... simplified, but for example "And the LORD said let there be light, and there was" is easy enough for me to understand as "the Big Bang." You read further and see that life was in the water first, then land.. then man... and so on. I read the "tree who's seed is within itself" as a description of DNA, and so on. And it interests me that authors in antiquity would be "Correct" about what it is to create a universe, and in particular THIS universe without the sophisticated tools of the present. My conclusion, then, is that there is "something" to the Bible... something "inspired" if you will... but, at the same time, my bullshit meeter goes off sometimes as well. Often my bullshit meeter goes off when I hear of magical reasons why Jesus was the Christ, ie "walking on water" I don't need, nor WANT, a magician messiah. I think such tales are meant to "Sell" Jesus as Christ. Mystery can be a powerful tool.

I completely follow what you are stating. My POV regarding G-d is that G-d is ineffable. This would fall in line with what you have presented, but at the same time, it's of a different perspective.

A good friend of mine once said "I try to take all world religions and sift their contentions through some sort of sifter, and I find that each tends to boil down to things like 'be good to each other'" and I therefore hold this to be a truth." I think that's wise. I also think that there are infinite ways to come to the infinite. I believe Buddhism is agreeable with Hindism, which is agreeable with Islam, and Christianity and everything else. That is to say, these particular belief systems... NOT ONE of them is wholly correct, but each is exactly correct, and all have important lessons to teach those who seek to understand. And, also, EACH has been perverted by man. It's this "perversion" which we must find and disregard... and in my practice of life (religion) I find the only person I can truly trust to discern the most High is myself. I have no axe to grind with myself. I don't deceive myself. And so, on issues G-d, I just ask G-d and not some other. There are SO MANY great ideas out there.... and I meld them in to my understanding of reality and nature and if they agree, they become "truth"... and if they do not, I examine the nature of my error... to further my understanding

My hardest question for myself right now is the paradox I have found between me having an inherent MIStrust of people on matters religion and my also held belief that God is also within them. Sometimes I need to remind myself that "good" and "evil" are imaginary constructs. Being IN the world, and not OF it. I digress...

That's quite true.

In my life the question I asked you has caused me to answer the question in more a more personal way. I've actually had a conversation like this with my wife. My Noachide belief structure was formed and molded over about 18 months. During this time, I didn't talk to my wife about it much at all. I simply didn't want to have, "I don't know." be the answer the majority of her questions. Yet, when we finally had a break through conversation about just "what the hell do you believe then?" It led into this very direction. I have adopted a VERY personal theistic view of G-d. It's neat to hear that you have a similar POV.

Going back to the original question and point, then, I see how the prevailing Christianity (whatever it may be) is a decision. A man made decision. Who determines which Gospels get in to the Bible? Man. You may trust those men, and that's cool.. but I see nothing which COMPELS that trust. Nor, as should be obvious, do I personally NEED such a story to believe. God is right here in front of me to see, to feel, to enjoy. What else do I need?

Edit: And my wife just thinks I'm insane :p

 

[muffler dragon]

I apologize upfront for dissecting your statements below; however, it will flow easier to make comments individually instead of waiting for a paragraph to end.

Danke. Likewise, I - as above - found (find) your debate with Grad highly informative and enjoyable.

Thank you very much. I am about 10% into my goal of totally destroying the arguments of all who oppose me.

On a more lucid note, I simply like presenting a different POV (that is dear to me) so as to prick the minds of others into thinking about topics that may have never arisen before. I like to make people think just as I enjoy it myself. Some people like it, some don't mind, and some hate it. Just have to see who fits into what category. Ultimately, theology is a discussion that I can have any night for any length of time. I find it enjoyable and fascinating.

I suppose the way I need to answer this is to define supernatural. On the one hand, I don't contend there is any such thing. ANYTHING which occurs, must be "natural" if it is to occur in reality. That said, I'll answer the remainder in 2 parts. 1st - the more "accepted" version of supernatural. I'll use "ghosts" I believe in ghosts. ESP - I believe in ESP. Things like that. I don't believe they are unnatural, though in common parlance, they'd fit the definition.

I see what you mean. It's a matter of perspective and personal acceptance.

On the other part - I have to say I do believe in the Supernatural, because I believe that while G-d is ALL that is Nature (and I mean reality, not a forest and some trees :p) including the infinite amount of universe I believe exist. But, over and beyond that, G-d is also something very different than just the universe (and metaverse).

Comprendo.

So, I'd have to say there is a supernatural G-d (And I should say, I usually just type God, I'm trying to use the hyphen as it appears to be your preferred, so if I slip... well... sorry ) in that He exists independent of the observable (and theoretical).

I was thinking about this very item just before I read this paragraph. FTR, you needn't concern yourself about it on my behalf. My adoption of the hyphen has come about, because of a personal acceptance of a Jewish tradition. You can read about it here, if you're so inclined:

Judaism 101: The Name of G-d

I have held this contention out on several threads, and I'm not sure I've ever really been able to articulate my meaning. I DONT suppose some sort of vast organized conspiracy of mind control. But, I DO expect humans to be human. And in that regard, I anticipate that authors like Paul - while believing what they wrote - also had an objective which may be "hidden" OR that if Paul did not, I am certain his readers did. Again, this may or may not be a conscious objective of any such person, it's more a comment on human nature and my mistrust of the idea of some sort of ..... metaphysical altruism, I guess, than it is a comment on the meaning of the documents themselves. I mean, did Paul have an axe to grind? My answer is "Yes" but that isn't an indictment of Paul, just a recognition that he's a fallible MAN, not a god. Grad would argue, I think, that Paul was unable to be wrong because of a divine component to his writings. On this, he and I disagree, though - with the exception of the overall message of Jesus as Christ - I don't have any particular quibble with Paul's philosophy....

If I may, then I would like to request that you limit your response to my statement with the Jewish Bible. (If you have such a consideration) My personal beliefs regarding the Christian testament probably do not do it justice when I dialogue with someone who isn't a Christian (according to the creeds, at least). Therefore, please feel free to keep the sphere of our discussion with the parameters of the Jewish Bible unless we delve into a particular Christian testament topic. Hopefully, it will give you more of an understanding as to where I'm coming from, and also save you the time of writing. :) I do understand everything that you've written above, and if you feel the same about the construct of the Torah and the remainder of the Jewish Bible; then that's fine. I just have a suspicion that you may respond with something different.

Now, back from that tangent... Yes, I believe the usage of the Bible (or really any god) has changed over time to meet the stresses of that time. Take Hammurabi.... here's a guy who wants to be in charge. Now, what's a good way to get people to think you're to be the leader? Scare em with a magical god, tell em you're in good with this god, and if you follow my lead, we'll all have plenty of food, etc. Simplified, to be sure. But, the point is MAN acquires POWER through the threat of a god. The Bible is used similarly - though again I don't necessarily mean to imply for improper purpose. Some examples may be the Inquisition, the Crusades, Holy Roman Empire, or even England. To me, it's not a lot different than Egyptians believing in Ra, or thinking Pharoh was a god. Same idea, different "god"

More contemporary examples would include idiots like Jim Baker and other evangelists, which I should say I hold in VERY LOW regard. Profiteering on god, I think, is all but self evident.

For lack of a better phrase: "very interesting". Looking ahead, this seems to be a basis behind your paradox below.

It's nice to know I'm not alone in this respect I have respect for what's contained in the Bible. For example, I find it interesting that the Genesis story - when read "metaphorically" seems to match what cosmologists today believe happened in the creation of our universe... simplified, but for example "And the LORD said let there be light, and there was" is easy enough for me to understand as "the Big Bang." You read further and see that life was in the water first, then land.. then man... and so on. I read the "tree who's seed is within itself" as a description of DNA, and so on. And it interests me that authors in antiquity would be "Correct" about what it is to create a universe, and in particular THIS universe without the sophisticated tools of the present. My conclusion, then, is that there is "something" to the Bible... something "inspired" if you will...

I would like to recommend a book to you. "Genesis & The Big Bang" by Gerald Schroeder. Dr. Schroeder was a professor at MIT. He has a physics background, and he is now more involved in the Orthodox Jewish community. His book speaks EXACTLY of the things that you mention above. He speaks of the theory of relativity (as it pertains to time), and delves into many other topics that ARE scientifically sound but somehow can pertain to the Genesis account. FTR, it should be noted that Jewish tradition typically does not hold the Genesis record in Chapters 1 & 2 to be completely literal (especially chapter 1).

but, at the same time, my bullshit meeter goes off sometimes as well. Often my bullshit meeter goes off when I hear of magical reasons why Jesus was the Christ, ie "walking on water" I don't need, nor WANT, a magician messiah. I think such tales are meant to "Sell" Jesus as Christ. Mystery can be a powerful tool.

Bingo!!! It's it amazing that some where in the last two thousand years a memo went out to the conscience of humanity that "mystery" was a bad thing? Even though I am a chemist, I find myself appalled at the fact that there are persons who can't handle the unexplainable. Personally, I long for those things that are above my mental capacity. I don't know if it's an age thing or just the desire to marvel. But I feel your thoughts in my core on this one.

A good friend of mine once said "I try to take all world religions and sift their contentions through some sort of sifter, and I find that each tends to boil down to things like 'be good to each other'" and I therefore hold this to be a truth." I think that's wise. I also think that there are infinite ways to come to the infinite. I believe Buddhism is agreeable with Hindism, which is agreeable with Islam, and Christianity and everything else. That is to say, these particular belief systems... NOT ONE of them is wholly correct, but each is exactly correct, and all have important lessons to teach those who seek to understand. And, also, EACH has been perverted by man. It's this "perversion" which we must find and disregard... and in my practice of life (religion) I find the only person I can truly trust to discern the most High is myself. I have no axe to grind with myself. I don't deceive myself. And so, on issues G-d, I just ask G-d and not some other. There are SO MANY great ideas out there.... and I meld them in to my understanding of reality and nature and if they agree, they become "truth"... and if they do not, I examine the nature of my error... to further my understanding

My thoughts on this paragraph are two-fold.

1) Personal. I completely agree from a personal standpoint. My belief in the Seven Laws of Noach establishes, IMO, the proper boundaries for how to treat my G-d, my fellow human beings, the creatures and elements of the earth. Should I follow those considerations, then my concern for what happens after I die is diminished to almost nil. I am of the mindset that since I believe in a benevolent Almighty and should I do the best to live a good life and follow these guidelines; then the future will take care of itself in the hands of that Benevolence.
2) "Universal". I use parentheses on universal, because it's my own concept that no one else needs to adopt. But I feel that humanity is a universal concept. Within this concept I take two stances: 1) I shall not judge (in a matter of determning superiority or defamation) those who believe differently than me. Since this would be a complete repudiation of the Seven Laws (according to my understanding). 2) I believe that those people who live a good life and try to be the best person they can be will have nothing to concern themselves with concerning the after life. I feel this way about both theists and atheists.

My hardest question for myself right now is the paradox I have found between me having an inherent MIStrust of people on matters religion and my also held belief that God is also within them.

Been there/done that. I imagine this is something that you'll come to rectify as time passes.

Sometimes I need to remind myself that "good" and "evil" are imaginary constructs.

Two questions:

1) Have you ever heard of "yetzer"? It's a transliteration of a Jewish term.
2) Have you ever heard of the concept that G-d created both good and evil?

Being IN the world, and not OF it. I digress...

Is the emboldened a concept you hold or just saying as an end to your post?

Going back to the original question and point, then, I see how the prevailing Christianity (whatever it may be) is a decision. A man made decision. Who determines which Gospels get in to the Bible? Man. You may trust those men, and that's cool.. but I see nothing which COMPELS that trust. Nor, as should be obvious, do I personally NEED such a story to believe. God is right here in front of me to see, to feel, to enjoy. What else do I need?

The only "need" I can think of is: community.

 

[AKAK]

Muffler Dragon, Pardon BKB not respoding by the way, its time for him to become an errand boy sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill.

 

[Gatorubet]

Muffler Dragon, Pardon BKB not respoding by the way, its time for him to become an errand boy sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill.

Saigon... shit. I'm still only in Saigon...

 

[muffler dragon]

Muffler Dragon, Pardon BKB not respoding by the way, its time for him to become an errand boy sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill.

Saigon... shit. I'm still only in Saigon...

Now, I'm really confused.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Muffler, sorry it's taken this long to get back to you. Had to honor the scum week poli-board shut down...

I apologize upfront for dissecting your
If I may, then I would like to request that you limit your response to my statement with the Jewish Bible. (If you have such a consideration) My personal beliefs regarding the Christian testament probably do not do it justice when I dialogue with someone who isn't a Christian (according to the creeds, at least). Therefore, please feel free to keep the sphere of our discussion with the parameters of the Jewish Bible unless we delve into a particular Christian testament topic. Hopefully, it will give you more of an understanding as to where I'm coming from, and also save you the time of writing. :) I do understand everything that you've written above, and if you feel the same about the construct of the Torah and the remainder of the Jewish Bible; then that's fine. I just have a suspicion that you may respond with something different.

OK, your original question was: Question: to what end is it a political tool? Has this "end" changed throughout time in your opinion?

I think Leviticus might serve as a good start. I think it's pretty obvious that this particular book is an organization of rules/laws. Maybe not "Political" in one sense of the word, but at the same time, there is a component of making people behave in a certain way owing to fear of God. I would be content to call Leviticus essentially the same thing as the Code of Federal Regulations, or the United States Code in American Government. That is, a set of rules. So, in terms of "political" as a term of governance, I would think Leviticus fits.

Likewise, I've been reading about the prophecies of Jeremiah, and I can see how this may not be prophecy at all so much as it is an accounting of a specific time period in Jewish history. Much the same way as modern Americans keep some sort of eye on history for some purpose, I think that guys like Jeremiah were charged with the responsibility of preserving history for some purpose. I'm not being clear.... If we imagine the Jews, or at least some Jews, as an entity trying to obtain organization and power as a "state" we might see the Bible as an organized text handed down from generation to generation (ruler to ruler?) as a guideline... or a source of wisdom.. or... how to say this... as a preservation of past wisdom for future success. (Kinda like our own Constitution). The Bible, in it's recording of real life events, is like any other manuscript of historical import... Ancient Chinese scrolls... Egyptian carvings... clay tablets from Babylon. Same thing. The Jews ascribed each of their success and failures to their God (well, the failures as a judgment from their God from their own failings, I suppose) Doing so, and "establishing" God's role in governance, controls future behavior of Kings to be wise, to do "Good".. because God is watching. Skipping around a little bit, I hope that makes sense.

How has it changed? Not sure it has. I mean, I can see where the Jews still treat the world as if their God is in complete control of their successes and failures (as a nation). This would be true of Islam as well, I would add.... oddly, not so true of Christianity. At least not in my view. Ultimately, religion is politics, I think. To be clear, I do not mean to say that God is reduced to a political tool and is therefore otherwise imaginary. To the contrary, God is real (at least I think so), but He doesn't get involved the way Religion says he does. I mean... it makes no sense to me that God would be SO active in history for so long and then... all of a sudden... he just closes up shop for 2000 years. RELIGION is, to me, man organizing with other men of same belief for the purpose of power. What the power is is not really important. I don't mean to imply sinister purpose.... just trying to call it what it is... GOD, however, is something quite different.

Frankly, I can't see how God gives a shit about any of the day to day goings on in the life of Man.... Or.. why he'd manipulate it in any way. I'm troubled by an all powerful God who can't seem to put together a universe where he has to do magic to make sure things go OK.. Strikes me as outlandish. I mean, if you read some of the stories of the Bible (speaking again about the prophecies I've been reading of late) it's like God is sitting on High thinking... "Sweet Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you people? How many times do I have to tell you... STOP WITH THE IDOLS! Jesus!" (Sorry for my glib presentation.. it's just the way I've come to talk about this stuff over the years, I don't mean any offense) because the jews keep fucking up, over and over and over again. Anyway.... this god... seems.... pretty aloof and unprepared. I believe in a much different God.

All that said, I think that the POINT of it all (the Bible) is in the right ball park... That is to say, "giving it to God" makes people think of God with some regularity, and I see that as a good thing.

For lack of a better phrase: "very interesting". Looking ahead, this seems to be a basis behind your paradox below.

I would like to recommend a book to you. "Genesis & The Big Bang" by Gerald Schroeder. Dr. Schroeder was a professor at MIT. He has a physics background, and he is now more involved in the Orthodox Jewish community. His book speaks EXACTLY of the things that you mention above. He speaks of the theory of relativity (as it pertains to time), and delves into many other topics that ARE scientifically sound but somehow can pertain to the Genesis account. FTR, it should be noted that Jewish tradition typically does not hold the Genesis record in Chapters 1 & 2 to be completely literal (especially chapter 1).

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out!

Bingo!!! It's it amazing that some where in the last two thousand years a memo went out to the conscience of humanity that "mystery" was a bad thing? Even though I am a chemist, I find myself appalled at the fact that there are persons who can't handle the unexplainable. Personally, I long for those things that are above my mental capacity. I don't know if it's an age thing or just the desire to marvel. But I feel your thoughts in my core on this one.

Yeah, every time I hear of some "unexplained" thing, I think how great is this universe? I just think there is so much more out there to learn than what is immediately around us.... we're so young. The unexplained ... it has a reason.. it is explained and natural.. we just don't quite understand... and THAT, I think, is the meaning of life.

My thoughts on this paragraph are two-fold.

1) Personal. I completely agree from a personal standpoint. My belief in the Seven Laws of Noach establishes, IMO, the proper boundaries for how to treat my G-d, my fellow human beings, the creatures and elements of the earth. Should I follow those considerations, then my concern for what happens after I die is diminished to almost nil. I am of the mindset that since I believe in a benevolent Almighty and should I do the best to live a good life and follow these guidelines; then the future will take care of itself in the hands of that Benevolence.
2) "Universal". I use parentheses on universal, because it's my own concept that no one else needs to adopt. But I feel that humanity is a universal concept. Within this concept I take two stances: 1) I shall not judge (in a matter of determning superiority or defamation) those who believe differently than me. Since this would be a complete repudiation of the Seven Laws (according to my understanding). 2) I believe that those people who live a good life and try to be the best person they can be will have nothing to concern themselves with concerning the after life. I feel this way about both theists and atheists.

I concur. I wanted to touch on your last sentence.... I find myself much more comfortable around atheists. I find that most of them actually believe in God, they just don't know that they do.... and they're usually much easier to talk to because they try to stick with facts and not stories used to back up their beliefs. That's not meant as a backhand towards any theists reading this.. I'm just speaking in a general way.. and that's been my expirience. I also like talking to atheists because they can test my beliefs... I have to be ready to make sense to them in defense of my God, or they'll jump me immediately and point out how foolish I am to believe such a thing in the face of fact X, Y or Z to the contrary. Thus, I've come to accept that I MUST accept the reality around me as real, and thus any God must ALSO be compatible with the same. So far, my God is. I don't think, however, other people's God is. I don't mean people on this board necessarily, I just mean some people I've met in life. If believing in your God, for example, requires the Earth to be 6,000 years old...

Been there/done that. I imagine this is something that you'll come to rectify as time passes.

Hope so... I figure I'll get it eventually. In some ways I have. I just need to remember that a Paradox isn't a problem, it's just an answer. P = notP It's the same thing.

Two questions:

1) Have you ever heard of "yetzer"? It's a transliteration of a Jewish term.
2) Have you ever heard of the concept that G-d created both good and evil?

I have not heard of Yetzer. I have heard God created both good and evil. I can live with that, but, ultimately, if it's God's creation, it is the same. I think Good and Evil are mostly man's constructions of culture and ethics. In a country with a severe population problem, abortion seems a perfectly fine solution. Some here in the US would consider that Evil... what does God think? I doubt he cares. What is death to God anyway? What harm have I done if I kill you? If you believe in God and the life that comes after this life, I don't see the foul. Now, that's not an endorsement of killing. It's a comment on "punishment." I DO NOT believe killing is OK. I believe in living and let live... I do not believe in encroaching on my neighbor.. whehter his things or his life... I believe in learning... and to maximize my learning, it's best if more people are around, I guess. But, I'm troubled that we have this idea that dying is some kind of bad thing.... if we also believe in God. But, then, I also don't understand why a Christian wouldn't welcome the coming of Armageddon so they'd get to be with their Christ for 1,000 years and instead seem to fear it.

I am getting off track. I don't believe in labels. I mean, yeah, I can say something is Good or bad.. or whatever... but that's just a description of my value judgment on it and not some sort of real thing. What is Good? It depends on who you ask. And, again, if God created evil... well... I don't see how he could get all pissed off about someone doing what he created to be done.... sorta setting up a sadistic bastard God if he creates a thing he despises simple so he can punish those who will commit it. EVERYTHING JUST IS. That's what I think.

Is the emboldened a concept you hold or just saying as an end to your post?

It's something my Mom tried to get me to believe... something she believed. Something I'm coming to realize is part of the key to my peace with the universe. I do believe it, I just don't believe it to the core like she did... that was part of her person... me? Well... I mean... my profession pretty much establishes I cannot remove myself from OF the world. But, I'm working on it. Mom was able to look at the most foul bum and see why God would love him. I, most the time, just see something to joke about.... at least outwardly that's how I behave. She (Mom) was a better person than I in this regard... of course.. "better" has no meaning either... but, it's a way to categorize my aspirations, I guess.

The only "need" I can think of is: community.

I need to be reminded of this. Community is something that I must get to with the resolution of my paradox re: mistrusting people. I'm not there yet.