This is a very complex thought. First off, who is the “we†of your thought that “we use itâ€? I referred to specific organized religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Perhaps you are one of the “we†of that group, but many are not. Of course human beings will create a concept of god for their own personal reasons. That is very different than misrepresenting someone else’s concept (in this case Moses) and drowning out any question about that misrepresentation. In Exodus Moses identified the God of Abraham by conveying the essence of that god concept in a name. None of those three religions which claim to believe in the God of Abraham as revealed by Moses respect that concept of god Moses offered.
I am sort of with LiquidAngel on this. I can give you the concept that helps me in understanding this: we are to god as a wave is to the ocean. We are not the ocean.
Phaedrus then writes:
I was referring to a very specific concept of god. Perhaps you can contribute your thoughts, understanding (or questions) regarding god or the concept I proffered.
And Islam is submission to god. (in a sense they all are, when you become a “born again” christian, you submit your will to god’s will.)
so this statement is problematic.
I think what your speaking of here is dogma that enforces behavior for the belief, in the case of atheism it’s possible to have dogma look at stalin or hitler…
again my point was more from the agnostic stand point.
this is where I disagree, there is a difference in believing in yourself and believing in god, when you believe in yourself it’s a much more rational belief.
again, I say that the debate to show the non-existance of god is completely un-neccesary as until he comes from the sky, water, sun or wherever you think god is, then claiming the existance of god as a fundamental core of your belief system is preposterous.
Not only that, but I think you’ve got to stop and think about the rationality of such belief.
dude Judaism invented Abraham. Even if he was real, the jews didn’t twist anything, they simply combined the local religions in the area to form their own. The flood myth and creation myth came from sumer myths and were modified slightly.
This is no different than what any religion does when it starts out, it takes what is known and makes up some new stuff.
really your god is no different than there’s because your god is the correct one and there’s is not.
I think you mean YHWH? I’ve never heard anyone refer to the jewish god by AYEH. There was EL which was a local god of the area, which became Elohim
What the jewish faith did if anything that set the path in motion for modern day monotheism is to deny the existence of the goddess, and completely anthropromorphise god as a male.
why?
Why do we even have to conceptualize god to understand the mystery?
I think the buddhists have it right in that respect and don’t focus on the dogma of god, instead you focus on finding yourself in the large pond that we live in.
what does assigning god to “all” do for you?
My opinion is that if you need god to set you on the right path, you are being disingenuous.
completely disagree.
There is no way that the western religions of the world have the same concept of god, and saying they do is pointless because each western religion believes they have the “direct” line to heaven and only by believing that line can you get to heaven.
Early man desperately wanted to understand why the earth was so chaotic, why the need for death?
So gods were invented… with anthropromorphic charateristics. perhaps before reaching the anthropromorphic stage the gods took on animal qualities like the native american beliefs.
The point is that all of our concepts of god come from the flawed construct of trying to understand the world.
the concept of god came from trying to deal with our own mortality.
So we invented a god that was like us that was immortal, then christianity expanded on the idea taking from egyptian beliefs that the physical body can be ressurected and become immortal.
any concept of god is unsatisifying to me… it’s as simple as this:
“what is the meaning of life?”
“god.” - (then attribute to god whatever the answerer wants to.)
because of what that entails, it entails an invisible infinite entity beyond the reaches of our physical universe, the reaches of all encompassing mortality. Even stars are born and die.
The fact that he has the power to create, but no power to interact.
What purpose does such a “god” serve? He’s an enigma wrapped in impossibility and devoid of logical reason.
I think your going about it all wrong.
The god of abraham quest is pointless as your just reassigning attributes to the god of abraham. (who again is a fictional character.)
I think if you want to reinvent the wheel of what it means to live, you’ve got to completely tear down the old wheel and start from scratch.
Does that mean to throw away all of the old texts?
No it means to examine them in a skeptical light, not a “the god of abraham is misused” light.
I disagree with that, it only becomes a religion the moment you use atheism to drive your actions.
An atheist doesn’t have to believe that there is no god, they can know it from logic and reason.
some questions:
1: Is god necessary for moral living?
2: If you answer yes to 1, explain the fact that only through the influx of secular thought we have in fact become MORE moral? (abolishment of slavery for example, the recent realization that beating your wife and kids is a bad thing as another example.)
3: If you suddenly had to stop believing in god why would that upset you?
I know you probably wern’t adressing me but, religon really seems anathama to good moral thought. They tend to reduce good to obediance, or personal gain (the gian of everlasting life.) For instance, I never have yet talked to a christian that could understand doing the right thing just because it’s right. Futhuremore, by haveing the formula for picking out good things be nothing but God’s edicts. It allows for almost anything to be considerded good based on interpretaion or preported personal communication. The worst breed of Religious Ethesist are those that argue for a God given concious that tells us what to do. This quickly leads to the attudide of if it feels right it is.
Really, the only way of seemly getting a Good ethics is to do something like Kant or Mill and develop some real rules. Rule of law not role of king, no matter how divine that king may be.
Nice try Scythekain, but I don’t think it holds up. Point by point:
You quote me:
You respond:
Really? It seems to me that Judaism is about waiting for the messiah - some guy from the sky who’s coming down to save our asses, or chanting and singing and not getting your ox out of the ditch on Saturday and making sure you kill your chicken in a special way that only some guy who is a scriptural specialist on how to kill a chicken can certify that you killed it the right way so you can eat the damn thing. Judaism is an organized religion that rationalizes killing people although their “god†sent Moses down with the law “Thou shalt not killâ€.
You continue:
Missed the mark again. Christianity is all about propping up this guy Jesus and insisting that he is god – the God of Abraham (the god that Jesus himself prayed to) is sort of sent to the locker room because the first string (Jesus) is taking over. Jesus never claimed to be god (other than in mistranslations: Note that in the original translation of the King James Bible (Jn 8:24) the translator has Jesus saying “If you believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.†There was then a footnote stating that the “he†was added by the translator. What Jesus actually said, if you translate from the original Greek, is: “If you believe not AYEH (I AM – the name of god given in Exodus), ye shall die in your sins.†In addition, the word “hoti†which was translated as “that†(that I am he) is left un-translated, translated as for and because more than it is translated as that, though it is also translated as that frequently, it is also translated as before, are and not. Christianity is all about collecting money, acquiring power and controlling the womb and weenie. The US Christians merely said that Jesus would have supported their invasion of another country even though they cannot point to one thing that Jesus said to that effect.
And you say:
Again, the words are in total contradiction to the god they claim to worship. Their god is going to get them laid (not once, but multiple times) if they kill some Jews or some Americans or anybody they deem an infidel – the catch is that to get laid they have to kill themselves too. Of these three organized religions, Islam is the most problematic. That Mohammed actually did exist is almost irrefutable (unlike Abraham, Moses and Jesus). Mohammed was a warrior and a political leader. It is clearer in his case that he was at minimum conflicted by these roles (spiritual leader, warrior and political leader). You can translate the meanings of words, but religion is about the actions of those that gather under the banners of those words and whether or not the actions and words are in line.
You quote me:
You then respond:
No, I am simply giving you the dictionary definition of religion, We all have a tough enough time communicating as it is, but we wouldn’t be able to communicate at all if we decided on our own individual definition of the words we use
You quote me:
.
You respond: a
I am unclear on what you mean here.
you quote me:
You respond:
Atheism is not the belief in one’s self, though some atheist may have that belief. Atheism is specifically the belief that there is no god. Again I refer you to dictionaries. Merriam Webster defines atheism as: a: disbelief in the existence of deity. b: the doctrine that there is no deity
You quote me:
You respond: again,
Rather than quote myself, please read more carefully the concept of god I proffered. That concept did not give god a gender or a form or a place to put his feet up and have a brew. The concept I am putting out there is an ancient concept that I don’t think has been improved on: GOD IS, WAS AND SHALL BE WHAT IS, WAS AND WILL BE. God is both the creative energy and the creation.
You quote me:
You repond:
We agree, but I am making a distinction between one who follows a religion and one who believes in god. The original statement of mine that you took issue with is that religions are conduits for belief in god. My point is that they are not. They have a different agenda than that. And who care whether Abraham exists? We don’t even know if Shakespeare wrote what he is credited with writing, but I can still get insight from reading him.
You quote me:
You respond:
Please expand on the idea of “my god†and your contention that “mine is the correct one.†I offered a concept of god. Perhaps you could address that concept as well.
You quote me:
You respond:
Please read my earlier posts. In the original Hebrew (Exodus 3:14) when Moses asks who the hell he’s talking to in that burning bush, the rely is AYEH AYEH or HAYAH HAYAH. Both are phonetic renderings. AYEH means am or be in ancient Hebrew as well as was, shall be, became, etc. YHWH was a later rending of that, but it did not convey the depth and texture of the original
You continue:
If you read the above, you will see that it was the Jewish religion, not the Jewish faith that accomplished what you rightly say was done. The God of Abraham was neither male nor female, or for that matter, neither human, vegetable nor mineral.
You quote me:
You respond:
I apologize for my lack of clarity. I was not offering dogma – at least not by what I define dogma to be. I offered a concept for consideration.
You quote me:
You respond:
Nice try, but if god is both life and life force, then we all need god. A thinker as intelligent as you are, it is my guess, acknowledges forces in the universe greater than yourself. If you don’t like calling that force god, call it the Life Force, YHWH, AMON or Ishcabibble, but that force of life is the name of god given in the Hebrew Book of Exodus and may have been inscribed over the entrances to some ancient Egyptian temples that would well predate Exodus.
You quote me:
You respond:
You declare at the top of this response that you “completely disagree. With what? You did not address anything I wrote. I happen to agree with much of what you say here, but (again) I am referring to a specific concept and name of god that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all claim to worship. The fact that they don’t simply supports what I am saying that organized religion has nothing to do with god – not even the god they claim as theirs!
You quote me:
You respond:
Then I put to you that it is not the concept, but the word.
You continue:
If you have an issue with the meaning of life, take it to therapy. I never claimed a god that was going to answer yours (or anyone else’s) questions. You seem so locked into fighting the word of god that you are unable to hear what another person is saying. It outweighs your drive your for understanding.
You quote me:
You respond:
What is is not all invisible (though some is like air). 2. I never proffered “an entityâ€. 3. I never mentioned morality. I don’t know who you are arguing with.
You go on:
Sorry, but creating and sustaining are interactions.
You continue:
Possibly, but who cares? So is the universe – reference Stephen Hawking, Paul Halpern and Brian Greene among others. Just because you can’t understand it does not mean it is not there. Haven’t we grown past that way of thinking?
You quote me
You respond:
The God of Abraham is just a way for me to reference a concept of god that was offered in the Hebrew Book of Exodus. What “attributes†specifically am I attributing to this concept that you have difficulty with? That, as best as we can understand it, god may simply be what is? Is that concept bothersome? If so, why?
You continue:
This seems to be your personal need. I am simply trying to understand the wealth of information that so many serious and thoughtful people have given us.
You continue:
If you look more closely, you will see that the statement that the “God of Abraham is misused†happens to be a skeptical statement.
You quote me:
You respond:
Again, I was giving you the English language definition of atheism. If you want to define words to fit your need, there is little possibility of mutual understanding.
You continue:
The concept of god I offer is necessary for moral, immoral, amoral and all the variations of living we can conceive of. It is the force that makes the sun shine, the plants grow, and offspring be conceived. Without it, there would be no living at all.
You ask on:
Whew! Thank God (no, no) heaven (no) the lord (just as bad)… Damn! Who… What… Who/Whatever do I thank that I don’t have to answer this one! Because without life, there would be no thought, let alone secular thought.
You ask again:
Because then I’d have to believe that there would be no watermelon in the summer, no beach to play on, no water to splash in.
The “just feels right” crowd is the one that is keeping society dredged in the stone age.
I think the “rule of king” can also be called the “rule of rote”. Like you said they do it because it feels right.
To me (I’ve prayed), praying is egotistical masturbation. The answer you get is almost always the answer you want. Very few people pray correctly (as bob ascribed in another thread) which is more akin to true meditation then what is ascribed to as “praying to the lord”
(rough paraphrase ahead)
Basically instead of saying anything you just shut up and listen to the universe.
This entails the ultimately hard part of also shutting your mind up.
I think law should entail “empathy” and we need to train ourselves in proper empathy projection. The ability to project what someone else would think of your actions towards them.
Judaism is about the tradition of a covenant with God, but which started off as a Mystery. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and his sons are legendary figures who are portrayed in their struggle to understand the sentience that intervenes in their lives. Moses is probably a legend too, but his story picks up the thread that had been latent over hundreds of years. All legendary figures have something real at their core, but it is the message that counts, not the people.
Jesus obviously was aware of the strength of this message, he was convinced of its ability to overcome the tribulations of his time and serve as a witness to the nations. He describes its influence as fatherly and merciful. The Torah is expression of a new alternative life and the prophets longed for the day when it reaches the hearts of the people. Christ believed that day had come just as his followers did.
Paul picked up the thread in showing the redemptive attribute of God in the Christ mythos, Christ Jesus being the suffering servant, the Lamb of God, initiating a new exodus in a world full of idolatry. Just as Israel once marched out of the Egyptian Empire, so should the Jews and the Christians march out of the Roman Empire. But neither Peter nor Paul was a new Moses, and so Christianity was adapted by the Romans.
I don’t think so; many evangelicals today see themselves in the role of executing the will of God in a godless world. Thereby they assume the right to deal out “righteousness†as they see it. On the other hand, those rulers who have no God and wield their might do so with an understanding that it is a moral “right†they have. It isn’t blatant idolatry that we are talking about here – on either side – but an assumed authority.
This shows that we are closer to each other than we sometimes show. Since God as “a Being,†like some superhuman, may have been a Greek or Roman possibility, but it certainly isn’t the OT, nor the NT idea of God. It is the Mystery that is continually mentioned (Mat 13:11; Mar 4:11; Luk 8:10; Rom 11:25; 16:25; 1Co 2:7; 4:1; 13:2; 14:2; 15:51; Eph 1:9; 3:3+4; 3:9; 5:32; 6:19; Col 1:26+27; 2:2; 4:3; 2Th 2:7; 1Ti 3:9; 3:16; Rev 1:20; 10:7; 17:5; 17:7) in the NT, but seldom followed up.
MB, you know that there is a difference between “inventions†and the development of Myth. It isn’t a contest of originality that we are talking about, but the passing on of valuable tradition or picking up the thread of insight gained by past generations – whether they were my relatives or not.
that is true, and I struggle finding a good message in the first five books of the bible at times, because it seems overtrodden with political control…
There is a good spiritual message to be had in the torah. And certainly there is ‘some’ truth to the characters within the book. One branch of research I saw thinks that from adam to noah is the first line of kings from the empire of Sumer, and the “flood of the earth” was the sumer valley, and is a retelling of the gilgamesh epic.
How much truth is even in that epic though?
who knows?
At best we’ve got to pick and choose which legendary characters we want to look up to, and which ones we think are not so good to look up to.
Or we could make ourselves people to look up to.
Christ I believe also has become more legend than real… And I agree with Harris’ point that even the new testament is filled with Jesus doing things that modern people would find immoral. (like approving of slavery, saying that “at the head of man is christ, at the head of woman is man, it’s through man that woman gets to christ” (I realize paul said this, but he was “inspired”)
When I say to throw out what we know to start over (deja vu? tentative’s no-knowledge thread) I don’t mean to literally throw out everything but to change the way we look at what we know.
Paul and his fellows that started the catholic church believed that through christ one’s “behaviour” changed. Paul is also found advocating that if possible one should not get married. (which I completely disagree with, and should be able to.)
It’s funny though how much we have in the bible, how much vital passages are ignored…
my memory isn’t serving me very well this afternoon, but somewhere in one of Paul’s letters he talks about disagreeing with the other “apostles” on an issue, and standing up to them. This is behavior that was later mitigated out of the christian church until very recently with the new age movements.
yeah and this is the problem I was talking about, they aren’t using common sense or empathy to decide if that’s a good idea, and their “god” is the same as george bushs. Mammon or ego or a combination of the two.
we can’t have an assumed authority we have to act in the best interests of others. The only way I can see of doing that and keeping gods out of the way is by using empathy. As soon as someone brings god into morality it gives that person too much weight in the argument.
well as the religion evolved it merged local hellenistic anthropromorphism.
Is that the “mystery” you are talking about though? In Rom 11:25 it looks like Paul is talking about explaining the salvation through christ. I wish I had time to look up all those verses right now, but unfortunately I don’t…
well let’s put it this way, if I make up a character versus expanding upon a real person would the resulting mythos be the same?
hard to say… modern myth is hard to come by. Certainly we have the american “paul bunyan” or “johnny appleseed” and I’ve oft wondered if there were real people behind these mythical characters.
I can agree with the importance of myth… it’s more combatting (through conversation) that complete literalness of such mythology. I know people in christianity that have traced their genealogy back to adam and eve.
talk about taking the bible too seriously.
good ineffable stuff… I think it’s like an “ovoid” bubble (religion) it needs to be pushed once in awhile to remain elastic.
A compelling metaphor, but I think it might be better to see God as the ocean, and us as the beach.
As to Moses’ thought, it goes through Christianity and Christian teaching – at least. It is part of the Tradition. Although i’m not sure you got the name right.
Just a couple of points.
Agnostic is a term invented by christian to describe borderline christians. To be agnostic, you must at least consider there to be a real possibility of the existance of ‘god’
I am an atheist, and it certainly isn’t my religion. Atheism is my stance on the existance of god. Logic dictates I can be an atheist without making a claim such as ‘a god cannot and does not exist’ as some here seem to think. It goes like this: There is absolutely no evidence that a god exists, nor has there been any unexplained mysteries or equasions where a ‘supernatural’ force was required to arrive at a solution. It is safe to say such a thing does not exist, simply because there is no reason whatsoever to think one does.
This same logic could be applied to the existance of a real, breathing gingerbread man or maybe intelligent underwear.
That’s just as bad as christian saying that “homophobe” is a term invented by homosexuals to vilify anyone who doesn’t accept their behavior.
Agnostic, was invented by those who felt you couldn’t prove the existence of god one way or the other. A- gnostic: the lack of knowing.
you don’t have to. You just have to say “I don’t know”.
I agree with this stance, that you can know through logic that there is no god. But I think that in order to say you don’t use it as a religion? do you use atheism to justify your behavior? if yes then it is akin to a religion, if no they your stance is correct.
where can I get a real breathing gingerbread man to try on this pair of intelligent underwear?
Bob,
I think we need to distinguish between Judaism as religious practice (how it is manifest by its followers in their actions, reactions and interactions with the world around them, not “practice" in the sense of rituals) and Judaism as religious idea or concept. Your thoughts apply to Judaism as concept and as such contribute to a discussion of what Judaism is according to the scriptures upon which it is based. The knowledge that the major figures of the Torah are most likely mythological helps in understanding that the scriptures themselves are not literal accounts of actual events and were never intended to be seen that way. Moses spoke in allegory, Jesus in parable. Discussion of the factual accuracy in either case is irrelevant. The Torah needs to be examined as one would examine a Shakespearean sonnet. The same with the words of Jesus.
As for the other scriptures, Psalms, Paul’s Epistles, etc., they are actually minor works with many flaws and cannot be accurately critiqued until one has an in depth working knowledge of the primary works (the Torah and the words of Jesus in the Gospels). Just because some pope and emperor in the 4th century decided to include them in a book in which the Gospels and Torah were also included does not mean they are of the same caliber.
As for you thought:
I would like to bring to your attention that Jesus only uses the word “mystery†only one time and that is in answer to the disciples asking him why he talked in parables. You reference three times, but they are simply three narrations of the same instance. Your proposition that “It is the mystery that is continually mentioned†refers much more to Paul’s references to mystery than to Jesus’. It also needs to be taken into consideration that Paul was not one of the people there when, as part of that answer, Jesus said, "Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables“ (Mark 4:11) and there is no indication that Jesus thought Paul understood these “mysteries†at all. Jesus and Paul never met – though Paul runs around writing and speaking as if he and Jesus had some mutual understanding with each other. Paul may have been more responsible for mutilating the message of Jesus than any other person in history.
I am curious as to where Jesus approved of slavery. I’d appreciate a chapter and verse. I do love the part where you criticize Jesus for saying something and in the same paragraph acknowledge that Jesus didn’t even say it!
My Real Name responded to my thought that “God is in Man the way the ocean is in a wave†by saying:
This is a completely different concept. The beach is not the ocean. It is not made up of the same elements as the ocean. If the ocean were to dry up, that which was the beach would still remain. It might change because of the drying up of the ocean, but it would not cease to exist. A wave cannot exist without an ocean. The ocean is the wave and the wave is the ocean expressing as a wave.
The dictionaries dictate that when you use the word atheist it means “one who believes there is no god.†Here are a few sources:
Merriam Webster: one who believes that there is no deity.
Cambridge: someone who believes that God or gods do not exist
Oxford: the belief that God does not exist.
I can state with great conviction that a toilet is a room or closet used for storing provisions and insist that you get the cereal out of the toilet, but no matter how hard you look or how angry I get you’re not going to find cereal in the toilet and at some point you are just going to stop taking what I say seriously.
You can say that atheism is a stance, a position, or a ham sandwich. It is impossible to communicate if we each believe that we can define words however we choose.
I also call to your attention that all three dictionaries state that atheism is a belief. Juxtapose that with the definition of religion as a belief system and if you are in any way objective you see that atheism is a belief system and therefore a religion. It is not a religion that believes there is a god, it a religion that believes there is not a god, but it is belief, because the existence of god or gods cannot be proven or disproven, you either believe a power greater exists (a theist) or you do not believe a power greater exists (an atheist). No logician can disprove the existence of a higher power unless the logician postulates certain un-provable assumptions.
Could you please explain what you feel to be the contradictions between what Jesus and Paul reportedly have said. If you feel it is too involved, feel free to start a separate thread where it could be discussed. I know many people believe the main differeince is in the work/faith relationship but I don’t see where the problem is. Perhaps you imply something more.
Whilst I agree with the direction of your criticism, I think there is a distinct difference between the biblical account and Shakespeare’s sonnets (to be fair to both). I would also have you notice that what you are saying is in fact similar to what I was trying to put over, but the storylines within storylines are the result of oral tradition and continued editing after being finally put into writing. This is what I mean by a concept (thread) being picked up by different generations and spun anew.
I think it is quite normal for such things to happen, and there is strength in the message that is fabricated in the storytelling. Whilst many of my fellow Christians consider such a theory as destructive, I consider the development of religious truth in this way to be valuable – as long as it is treated in the same way and is allowed to continue to develop. This builds up religious practice in the sense of “how it is manifest by its followers in their actions, reactions and interactions with the world around themâ€, but also in the sense of rituals that mark important stages of development in a lifetime.
Conservative Christians try to maintain a solid continuity between the modern day theology and the ideas of Jesus and the Prophets back to Moses and the Ancients. The fact that the fabric of that tradition reveals different weavers with different techniques is something that they avoid mentioning. Whilst the call of Luther and Calvin to go back and look at the source of Christianity was important, it gave rise to the Christian fundamentalism that we suffer today. It is almost amusing to see some praise the theology of Karl Barth and others, whilst failing to see them as weavers of the message just like those in the early years of the Church, or editors of the Torah after the Babylon exile.
I quite agree. Indeed, the real letters of Paul are probably more of historical use than the Gospels, and must be seen to be what they are – a discourse with a Church in a certain situation, which dates the letters. There are moments of thought that could be developed upon, and the figure of Christ Jesus is a fascinating idea, which I believe has religious value. But the very fact that the Tanakh enjoyed rigorous editing has provided the calibre that you refer to. To canonise something as ephemeral as a letter is comparable to saying that a newspaper should be conserved as literature.
Quite right, but it isn’t the fact that Jesus is said to have used the word, but that three Evangelists use the same term, whilst a fourth doesn’t but infers the Mystery, which is important for me. I believe that Mark, Matthew and Luke are historically and culturally quite a distance from each other, with cataclysmic occurrences between them. All the same they record that Jesus spoke in parables to emphasise the Mystery of the Realm of God.
Here you speak of Jesus in a different way, as though it were possible that Jesus could have an opinion on Paul at all. But it was Paul that was struck by the Mystery that he recognised in the teaching of the Apostles, weaving the thread of the Mystery into his fabric, developing its pattern in an even broader manner. He makes everybody aware of his “exclusive†revelation which became the theology of the Church, whereas the thread of the OT message wavered in the Gospels and was picked up by people like the Gnostic and Mystics.
The Pauline Theology effectively hijacked the idea of Israel too and provided the path to supersessionalism (despite the Letter to the Romans). He caused a misunderstanding of the debates in the Gospels and a whole row of prejudices. He saw to it unwittingly, that the rift between his converts amongst the Gojim and his Jewish brothers became deep, and he became one of the most hated of the Apostles amongst the Jews.
you should get free if you can, but if not you should stay a slave.
While there is no official (being what was put into the bible by the roman catholics.) record of christ saying this, I’m sure that he did say something akin to this, and alot of the teachings and writings of paul probably reflect him referencing a sheet of “sayings” (like the “gospel of thomas”)
and further:
are you forgetting the commandments:
let’s tick through them:
1: you shall have no other gods before me.
2: you shall not make yourself an idol of anything on heaven above or beneath the earth or in the waters below… for I the lord god am jealous…
3: You shall not misuse the name of the lord god.
4: remember the sabbath day and keep it holy. (to worship god on.)
5: honor they father and mother
6 - 10: basic ethical code.
so at least the first 3 if not the fourth have to do with worshipping god. The whole “saviour thing” is a etymological myth, and not a mainstay faith and nor does it affect their view of god.
Christians view christ as god.
this isn’t official doctrine.
it still doesn’t hit the mark. Atheism is rarely institutionalize, and as I and Dr. S. said the non-existance of god is known through logic not faith.
atheists also rarely have a “set of beliefs and practices”…
if your unclear your about my point on agnosticism your perfectly clear.
I didn’t say it was… read for comprehension.
“this is where I disagree, there is a difference in believing in yourself and believing in god, when you believe in yourself it’s a much more rational belief.”
tell me where in there I say “atheist”.
This does nothing for me. God is creative energy. What is that saying?
How does this prove the existence of god?
remember my
“I say that the debate to show the non-existance of god is completely un-neccesary as until he comes from the sky, water, sun or wherever you think god is, then claiming the existance of god as a fundamental core of your belief system is preposterous.”
and here you are telling me what god is. But really you’ve told me nothing, just given me meaningless vagaries of what you think god is.
That’s true, but that doesn’t mean you should take shakespeare literally and kill yourself when your lover kills themself.
Just like you shouldn’t let the flat earth science of the bible override modern day logic. (and yes I know you don’t do that.)
like for example, slavery, homosexuality, killing, etc.
(quote from believer)
“It says in the bible that you shouldn’t allow medians into the church, so we should only allow our pure race to see the face of god in the church.”
or
“It says in the bible homosexuality is a sin, so it must be the work of the devil”
should we accept 2000+ year old logic?
why should we accept anything these books have to say if their moral and ehical codes no longer apply, why do the spiritual values?
tell me you don’t think your idea of god is better than the typical organized religious view of god.
I can tell you do by the way you discussed those religous views of god, and the way you discuss your own view of god.
ah, AYEH, is really meaningless as god, lord, allah, YHWH, elohim, shaddai, jesus christ.
They all mean the same thing.
and again, why should we think the ancient hebrews had some special connection to god, and they are the absolute truth if you use the right translation to get the words AYEH, instead of LORD, or YHWH, or whatever else?
Now your the one making up definitions.
in my book if you follow the jewish faith, you are a member of the jewish religion.
and where do you get this “the god of abraham was neither male nor female”?
please quote where in the bible or “jewish faith” that this doctrine is espoused.
That didn’t answer my questions at all.
IF god is… (fill in the blank) then you need god in your life.
Isn’t this what I said would be used?
Are their forces beyond comprehension?
of course.
is the universe greater than me?
of course.
does this denote intelligence behind the scenes?
nope. Remember that ancient man thought the thunderclouds were possessed of “god” and intelligence.
I disagree with this:
how do you know? by a feeling?
nope, the concept. Again I challenge your need for god.
AH but you did.
Therapy is for people who can’t get along in the world, I can get along in the world just fine, I can find purpose without god just fine. Can you?
You but you fail to see that.
if god is the life force do you think he is immortal? remember that would defy all laws of the universe.
When was the last time god created?
and how do you figure he is sustaining? the universe is self sustaining.
well you got me there.
I could say the same thing about applying god to the unknown could I not?
can you tell me why that is a prefered concept over the hindu or norwegian concepts of god?
from the bible? I’d rather goto moby dick for serious and thoughtful information than the bible. seriously there’s some interesting poetry in there, but it’s overwhelmingly about how god helped a people kick another people out of the land, then about how god will punish the non-believers…
Unless you believe that I don’t see how it’s very useful information about any god.
But here’s a question…
if you remove that concept does behavior change?
uh, ok… Explain how life proves your “lifeforce” god.
are other animals in the lifeforce or is human kind special?
Waterlover,
A (No, the lack of) theism (belief in a theology, god or gods)
Clearly the word translates directly into ‘no/the lack of belief in god or gods’
No belief CANNOT be a belief simply because that is a contradiction, and logically impossible. A thing simply cannot exist and not exist simultaniously.
But even if I did accept your definition of atheism, which I don’t, you are making a huge leap with this statement
You identify atheism as a belief, and a religion as a belief structure. You then somehow leap from that to atheism being a belief structure, and therefore a religion, when it is clearly one isolated belief. How do you ‘objectively’ turn a single belief to an entire belief structure?
By this logic if I believe I have two hands that becomes my religion.
Ridiculous.
Do you assume wasting ones time wondering about absurd notions such as deities is the most important thing in everyones life, even if they conclude no such thing exists? Trust me, many people don’t consider the idea worth even a casual thought, and certainly don’t base their entire lives around it.
To be agnostic is to say ‘i don’t know’ , as someone mentioned.
To be atheist, in my case at least, is to say ‘I don’t know, but the whole idea is so ridiculous that I don’t think it deserves any serious consideration’
We are in agreement, but my examination has lead me to see clearly that the one person that Christian conservatives and fundamentalists do not quote to support their actions and contentions is Jesus himself – in fact most of the time they quote the Old Testament more than even than anything else – and more often than not they are not quoting from the Pentateuch but from Psalms, Proverbs and Isaiah. All you have to do is look at some of their social positions and ask a simple question: Where does Jesus support your condition. The War in Iraq? Government control of reproductive rights? Government control of sexual behavior? Taking money from the poor in the form of taxes? Name the issue and see what Jesus had to say about it?
Actually the word that is translated as “mysteries†is a Greek word that actually has secrets or hidden things as its primary meaning, not mysteries. That was the translator’s decision. And what was secret? (I preface this by saying that this is a personal opinion and actually not important to understanding the parables or teachings. In fact it is just a flight of fancy if there were no historical Jesus [something that is in question]). It is possible that the “secret†Jesus spoke of is the actual Message of Moses which was being hijacked by the Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ time just like the message of Jesus is being hijacked by similar forces today. It is possible that Jesus knew the danger anyone who taught or preached the actual message of Moses bluntly, so he disseminated the information through parables that he could defend to the political and religious powers that were watching him like a hawk. The reason Jesus may have been killed (if in fact he lived) and a reason that the Essenes were marginalized and then destroyed may well have been that the religious and political institutions of the time would have been seriously undermined if Jesus managed to convey to the masses that the message of Moses was not what they were being told it was. Imagine what the political repercussion would be if the masses in the United States actually saw that the Christianity of Christian fundamentalists was actually anathema to the teachings of Jesus. Imagine if the masses believed that this man they believe to be god would have forcefully condemned attacking and killing other people. What do you think would have happened to the march to war if the majority of Christians in the country believed the war to be in conflict with their religion rather than justified by it? That is just one example. What about abortion? Homosexuality?
Read through this entire thread and see how many people actually quote the words of Jesus when they are discussing Christianity – I think you will find it amazing. In fact see how many even paraphrase him correctly. If you read Chapter Seven of The Gospel of Mark you will see that Jesus knew well that the Pharisees were distorting the message of Moses and using it for their own gain.
Here you speak of Jesus in a different way, as though it were possible that Jesus could have an opinion on Paul at all. But it was Paul that was struck by the Mystery that he recognised in the teaching of the Apostles, weaving the thread of the Mystery into his fabric, developing its pattern in an even broader manner. He makes everybody aware of his “exclusive†revelation which became the theology of the Church, whereas the thread of the OT message wavered in the Gospels and was picked up by people like the Gnostic and Mystics.
We agree, but it is my contention that “his “exclusive†revelation which became the theology of the Church†is in conflict with the actually teachings of Jesus who himself picked up the message of Moses as you suggest the Gnostics and Mystics (both of whom did not survive – along with Jesus).