Define Religion

Thanks t316.

We sometimes get so caught up...that we forget.

 

You can have a book that's historically accurate, but that doesn't make the characters in it real. Most sacred books/stories that deal with a history of their people are "historically accurate". That still doesn't prove that they weren't embellished over time. Look at any myth/legend. Are you saying that you think the Greek gods are real since we now know the Illiad is historically accurate? How about the Hindu's Mahabharata? It's been proven (at least the Bhagavad Gita) to be historically accurate.

Jesus' rising from the dead isn't really verifiable. All it says in the Bible is that they left him in the cave after he died and when they went back he was gone. Then he met people who assumed he'd risen from the dead. Would you assume that someone you thought was dead who came back to talk to you had come back to life? Or would you try to find some other more logical reason?And you do realize that crucifixion causes death by suffocation and that it usually takes much longer than the length of time Jesus was on the cross? I'm not trying to tell you that he DIDN'T rise again, just that it's NOT verifiable by any means. Besides, many other legendary figures in different religions rise from the dead, especially in the Greek and Roman mythologies. Some even come back from Heaven/Hell/Hades

First off, you're assuming that he controls everyone's actions when you say that he wouldn't allow it. That would imply that we are all just puppets so that it doesn't really matter what we believe or don't believe. I agree that without faith it is definitely impossible to believe in God; however, I'm not sure about the pleasing him part. If you look at the Bible objectively, he rewards and punishes those who diligently seek him. The only thing I can say for sure about God (as described by his actions in the Bible) is that he's consistently inconsistent.

Actually, not all religions have a moral code. Morals are culturally based, not religious. And if we COULD be perfect, why would we need Jesus or even God for that matter?

Are we not supposed to improve when we convert and transform? I'm afraid you've thoroughly confused me with this last paragraph. You first say Jesus told us to be perfect, but then say that we'll never be good enough for God. Do you mean to say that God wants us to be MORE than perfect? Wouldn't that make us god-like? If so, then again, why would we need God or Jesus? If not, then what exactly did you mean?

Sorry to be so long winded with this one,duc, but there are just too many holes in your ideas for me to make sense of it all.

 

panther,

Thanks for playing devil's advocate. I hate being the only one picking on what people say

Chaplain,
Again, very well said. We'll definitely have to get together for some religious discussions.

I have to say that Papa summed it up when he said that there are some very intelligent people among this racing club. Thanks to everyone for so many interesting posts!

 

The content of the bible isn't credible because it was all put in one cover; it was put in one cover because it was credible.

At some point here we have to decide for ourselves the answer to following question: "Am I willing to consider something without absolute proof?" I submit that we do it all the time. We trust historians and journalists. We trust doctors. We trust other riders. We've been let down by all of them at one time. To simply say that God is inconsistant just because we don't understand, or even know all the facts is not good critcal thinking.

And there is no way the Romans mistook a live man for a dead man, particularly one who just got his heart pierced by a spear and laid in a grave for three days. There are plenty of accounts, by four different writers of Jesus being seen alive afterward.

Check the accounts out yourself from a historical, not religious standpoint. Not just written but recent archaelogical evidence.
The history stands on its own and doesn't need my help. What you do with it up to you.

As for God punishing those who seek him, I honestly don't know what your talking about unless you are refering to discipline. Incedently, if God did punish you, wouldn't he need to exist first?

 

Yes we are! But what I mean is, improvment is not the point. To be in the presence of God rrquires perfection and we can't attain it on our ownThe whole basis of the gospel is this: We are hopelessly sinful and lost without Jesus. Improvent is good without Jesus, but it's just polishing up a wreck so to speak. Jesus paid the price to ransom us out of our dead state. We CANNOT do that ourselves.

Think of the picture of the wedding that Jesus used so much. A dead bride, no matter how dressed up, is no fun if you get my meaning.

Don't apologize for the length of your wind. I really enjoy this.

 

Yeah, think about that for a minute. Any idea how long that is?



If I owed you $100, and promised to pay you in 10x-46 seconds you wouldn't be a happy camper!

 

Dude that is 10x MINUS46 seconds, as in .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds.

 

Would you be kind enough to provide the old testament source for this idea? I really would like to study it.

 

Bob Gospel means new testament.

mostly the first 4 books of it.

 

I know. That's why I specified "old testament."

I bring this up to highlight the dichotomy between Genesis 1:26 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;...." and the concept of original sin.

One of the basic tenants of Christian Science is that, having been created in the image of God, we are capable of perfection. But, because we have free will, we must strive constantly in an effort to fulfill that capability.

I find this a much more positive and encouraging belief than believing there is nothing I can do to rise above my current state. It puts the onus on me rather than claiming/blaming predestination.

That's the very same attitude I see wreaking such havoc in today's society, the "It's not my fault. There's nothing I can do about it. I was born this way." system leaves no incentive for improvement.

 

Actually, there are many more books that didn't make it into the Bible. The only reason the Bible was put together is because Jews were moving away from each other (ever heard of diaspora?) and the Jewish leaders wanted to make sure they kept to the same teachings and didn't break up into various factions teaching different things because of the distance between them. Song of Solomon was debated over heavily before they decided to add it. If you've never read it, you should. It's one of the most erotic books ever- one of those that the pre-teens read and snicker about. That's also why there are so many more books included in the dead sea scrolls than in the bible. They just got left out because they either didn't agree with what the Jewish leaders thought was important or for some other reason they didn't feel the need to include them in the bible..

Good critical thinking is analyzing things based on what you know. Most people realize that HUMANS make mistakes. GOD however is supposed to be perfect, therefore everything He does should be consistent with what he's done before. Read the Bible, He's definitely NOT consistent. He's more human-like in his actions which by definition would be inconsistent. And historians base their conclusions on what they know at the time. Just as scientists do, doctors do, or many other professions do. I don't think I'd include journalists in that list though since I don't feel they try to analyze information for the truth value as much as the sensation value.

People got mistaken for dead all the time. They didn't know what they know today. It still happens in many third world countries today.
In none of the books does he get his heart pierced by a spear. Only in John does one of the Romans stick a spear in his SIDE. And nowhere does it say that he actually laid in a grave for three days. It says they put him there and rolled the rock to cover the doorway. Then three days later, when various people (different accounts as to whom they are in each of the books) go to check on him, he's not there. JESUS NEVER SAYS that's he's risen from the dead. An angel or angels (again depending on the book) say that he's come back to life. The only thing he ever says is that he hasn't gone to be with his Father and that's ONLY in John. If you read all four accounts, you can find MANY differences between them all.

Why is it that only a couple of paragraphs ago you say that historians let you down all the time, then use history to prove your point in this paragraph? Do they only let you down when they tell you something you don't want to believe is true? How exactly does this critical thinking work again?

First, I've never said that God didn't exist. I just choose to use my head to decide what I believe ABOUT him. In other words, I don't follow blindly what I'm told by others. God gave me a brain for a reason, and it wasn't just to sit on my shoulders and hold my ears on.
Second, I'm talking about why God "saves" some people from harm but not others. How does He choose who lives and who dies, or who recovers from some terminal disease. I know a man who has always been a true believer. He's a Benedictine Monk, yet he's dying from cancer. There are people every day who have ALWAYS believed with all their being and have sought God in everything, yet they die horrible deaths or suffer other punishments like a child dying or anything else you want to think about. He punishes those who seek him as well as those who don't. This also goes back to that inconsistency thing.

 

He never promised Christians "you won't struggle because you believe in me." He did promise Christians that he brings good from evil. Somehow, God will bring something good out of your friend's disease. I'm losing a friend right now to a brain tumor and I ask God, "why are you taking all of the good ones?" And then I think of when God saved Abijah from an evil home. God saved the boy from Jereboam's evil destruction by taking his life and bringing him to Heaven because Abijah loved the Lord so much but he was not able to worship him because of his earthly Father.

 

-Dying isn't the worst thing that can happen to you.

-I never said the only credible texts were in the Bible.

-When they stuck the spear in Jesus' side, 'blood and water came out', consistant with the heart chamber of a tramatic person being pierced. The Romans didn't break his legs because he was already dead.

-I still don't know what you (Chameleon) mean when you say God is inconsistant. Examples please.

-Yes I have read SoS many times. Excellent book. Yes it is erotic.
Courtship, temptation during engagment, marriage ceremony, foreplay, oral sex, intercouse, afterglow - it's all there.

-The historians I meant were the recent revisionists that alter the facts, or select out relevant details. Like the communist/socialist leaning ones who rant about Hitler (bad guy) while ignoring Stalin (possibly worse guy).

 

First, duc, read the other three gospels in addition to John. Everything you're talking about is ONLY in the book of John. Nowhere in Matthew, Mark or Luke does it talk about the Romans spearing him in the side or breaking his legs. If you have four accounts of the same story and one is very much unlike the others, which do you believe? You're believing the one that's most unlike the other three, which is also the one that is most popular with preachers and television. John is also the one that's most misogynistic (against women), which would most likely mean it was written later than the others.

I know dying isn't the worst thing that can happen to you. I didn't say it was. What I was saying is why do some terminally ill people pray and get better while others don't? I know some people say "it's just God's will". I'm sorry but I just can't go along with that one. To me, that's just an excuse to help with the grief. And there's evidence in non-Christian cultures of people having the same attitudes, which leads me even more to believe that it's something humans have come up with and has nothing to do with any great plan.

You were taking about the Bible being historically accurate. If it was meant to be historically accurate instead of stories to illustrate a point, then they would have included all the books they had instead of picking and choosing only certain ones.

The blood and water is also consistent with bowels, stomach, lungs and probably any other part of the body. It would be harder for them to stick a spear through his ribcage and then through his heart than it would be through his abdomen. Besides, since Jesus was on the cross at the time, it seems to me like the spear would have gone into his side under his ribcage into his abdomen first before it could have gotten anywhere near his heart.

The inconsistency shows up all the time - not only in "miracles" that happen everyday to some but not others. To twist Laurie's example, why did he only take the one child? How about all the children today that cry out to God for safety while they're getting their nightly beating or who are out on the street with nowhere to go? Where's God in their life? Is there some great evil they've committed that makes them deserve their treatment? God is inconsistent in helping some and not others. If you say that it's because he has some plan, then why does he PLAN for some people to get abused and not others? Either way, it's inconsistent. He doesn't treat everyone the same.

How do you know the first historians were right and the second were altering the truth? New findings come out every day that make people reinterpret history. That's not even saying anything about the fact that people write history to appease the people in power at the time. Ever heard the saying that history is written by the victors?

Basically, duc, what I'm trying to say is that it's fine if you want to pick and choose what you take literally and choose what you want to believe. But don't try to argue that it's the objective truth. Religion isn't objective by it's nature. That doesn't make it wrong...only very subjective.

 

I think you just asked about 98 questions.

I don't know why bad things happen to some, good things to others. My understanding is that God gave this world to man to 'take dominion over'. Man yielded much of his authority and blessing up by giving in to sin.

I often hear this question: If God is good then why does he let bad things...? or if God is all powerful then why does he let....happen? The same people generally will refuse to submit their will to the will of God. You can't have it both ways. Either you let God have your life (and all that goes with that) or you don't. If I tell my kids not to run in the street and they do it and get mushed, it was their choice. (As kids they are under my authority - I can prevent it by force to a point. If they do it as adults, what can I do?)

I will challenge you with something: if you want to know something about God - ask him.

You can study me, talk to me friends, read stuff I wrote, etc., and you will know a lot about me. But you won't know me. There's only one way to do that.

I don't know all these answers. Would you really want me to? If you think about it, one of the great things about a long term marriage is that the two people are always learning and seeing new things in each other. Who would wait until they knew everything about the other person first before they made a commitment? If one has no questions, one is either an idiot (you clearly are not) OR one needs faith. I do not mean 'believe anything' faith. I mean find out for yourself faith. I say this as a friend: A cynic nevers learns anything. Skepticism is great. But fear is the not only the enemy of faith, but of reason. I sense some fear in your posts that may be a barricade to understanding (but then I don't really know you do I?) Some fear is healthy. To be ruled by it is not.

I'm not trying to win an arguement with you. I may be no better or worse than you, who knows, what does it matter. I'm never through learning and I've learned a lot from our discussion. All I'm saying is I know him.

 

Chameleon,
There are no wrong versions in the gospels. They are from different viewpoints. The authors were at different places at different times. John does not sign his book as his own but it is believed he wrote the book because he was beside Jesus more than any other person or disciple. That is why there is more detail in this book. John held onto his facts a long time before he wrote the book, therefore the delay. It is my favorite book in the Bible.

In the twisted example, you ask where is God in someone's life. He has to be asked into someone's life. He created us but he gives us the choice to choose him or the world. A relationship with him is not automatic when we are born. Even a child has to want Jesus in their life. He does not enter that life until he is asked. Maybe that is where you get confused on who he helps and who he doesn't.

 

This is really simple. If you are scared to burn up in Hell, then you have to be Religious,.......period. There is no other alternative except NOT to be afraid, which obviously you have not yet mastered. The definition of Religion is,... it's a crutch you use to avoid being afraid.

No one NEEDS to be Religious to be a decent person, or to learn and practice good moral value. Just look around you and do the opposite of what you KNOW are sins.

 

This has been a public service announcement from your friends at www.thechurchofdontworrybehappy.org

 

Maybe to you it is.

This sentence:

seems to be right on the money to me. Religious folks haven't cornered the market on moral behavior (quite the contrary, judging from the reports coming out of the Catholic Church lately), though they certainly claim to. Not everyone needs the threat of eternal damnation to lead a moral life.

 

Michael, you are exactly right. Morality and religion are often related but not interdependent. In fact, some religions have what we would call immorality as a major tenent of faith. Just ask Osama. Or any humanist.

BTW, the 'threat of eternal damnation' has never been (to me) a reason to be moral. You can't be good enough to get into heaven.