Poll

If heaven exists, who deserves to go there?

The moral believers only
3 (27.3%)
The moral unbelievers only
1 (9.1%)
The moral and immoral believers only
2 (18.2%)
The moral believers and moral unbelievers only
5 (45.5%)

Total Members Voted: 10

Voting closed: April 12, 2006, 06:50:22 pm

Author Topic: A challenge to the religious  (Read 5530 times)

Zorro vz Zionistz

  • Iokan (+1)
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
A challenge to the religious
« Reply #45 on: April 16, 2006, 07:38:22 am »
ur rite maelstorm, nyeh the many holy bookz r corrupted but not the faith itself, i mean christianity was prob an amazin faith bk then when they followed the original script, not anymor ethough eh.

Zaperking

  • Radical Dreamer (+2000)
  • *
  • Posts: 2210
    • View Profile
A challenge to the religious
« Reply #46 on: April 16, 2006, 10:55:27 am »
Even in Christianity, there is the idea of reincarnation, but on a karmic level. An inference from a passage in there says that until you live a life where you do good and balance out your past lives, heaven wont be open to you.

Basically, if you were evil in one life, like killed people and stuff, you'll be reincarnated again and again until you live a life where you are the one who suffers and pays the price of your past lives, in which you can go to heaven. A person who did good (not being selfish, caring for others, trying to live life to the fullest without interfering with others) would only have to suffer a bit in life a bit to go to heaven.
This whole conspect has something to do with also why babies die. Apparently, their karma from their past life is to great so they have to die, and then be reborn again. (works out if the baby was born into a rich family and loving, and that would be uneven if they were horrible in their past life).

Anyway, as for what I think of heaven. I don't truely think that God would send humans to hell. He loves us all, as he molded each and every one of us. So I think everyone goes to heaven, one day (yes, i do kind of think that reincarnation may exist). But if Hell does exist, I don't want to think of it as flames and demons and such. I want to think of it as a purifying experience. Heck, living right now, on this planet, may actually be that hell.

GreenGannon

  • Squaretable Knight (+400)
  • *
  • Posts: 460
    • View Profile
A challenge to the religious
« Reply #47 on: April 16, 2006, 11:21:42 am »
Uh Zaper? Where the hell did you get that from? I'm a Christian myself, and I've heard doctrines from all around, but I've *never* been to a church that preaches that.

Sentenal

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1948
    • View Profile
A challenge to the religious
« Reply #48 on: April 16, 2006, 12:18:03 pm »
I see alot of people are bringing up the "Bible was corrupted" bit again.

Firstly, yes, its very possible that at least some of the bible had been changed.  However, I do not believe any of these changes have been major.

People keep saying that the bible had been change, and therefore they don't believe it.  Well, guys, just what do you believe has been changed about it?  Are you going to assume that since some of it is different from its original form, that all of it has been change?  Are you going to assume that it was all just made up in the middle ages?  Regardless of minor changes throughout the bible, the main message is constant, and has not been changed;  Jesus is the Son of God, came to Earth, died, and rose agian to save us from our sin.  And that is the most important message the bible gives, regardless of any other changes, that has remained constant.

@Zaper:  What the hell...?  Where in the bible does it say that?

I found an interesting site that compares the Manuscript, Documentary, and Archeological Evidence of the Bible and the Quran.  Its here.  Might be an interesting read for you, BZ.

One quick question:  Is Zorro vz Zionistz a troll?  I can tell from his name that hes anti-Jewish (little difference between anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish), so I assume that BZ may had brought him here.  But if hes not a troll, why does he type like that?

Leebot

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • Black Wind Agent (+600)
  • *
  • Posts: 636
    • View Profile
    • Infophilia
A challenge to the religious
« Reply #49 on: April 16, 2006, 01:25:19 pm »
Quote from: Sentenal
But if hes not a troll, why does he type like that?


Haven't been to many other message boards, have you Sentenal? Sad to say, grammar like that isn't at all uncommon. We just happen to have more intellectual people here who acknowledge the benefit of using proper grammar and spelling.

Sentenal

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1948
    • View Profile
A challenge to the religious
« Reply #50 on: April 16, 2006, 02:35:13 pm »
Quote from: Leebot
Quote from: Sentenal
But if hes not a troll, why does he type like that?


Haven't been to many other message boards, have you Sentenal? Sad to say, grammar like that isn't at all uncommon. We just happen to have more intellectual people here who acknowledge the benefit of using proper grammar and spelling.

Actually, I have, and thats the reason I ask.  Most of the time, when people type like that, its because they are a troll.

CyberSarkany

  • Heir to the Masamune
  • Black Wind Agent (+600)
  • *
  • Posts: 695
  • "So zetta slow!"
    • View Profile
A challenge to the religious
« Reply #51 on: April 16, 2006, 03:15:45 pm »
Never said I believe it is corrupted, changed yes, but corruption is something different(for me).
I like reading the bible, because you read every story different in a different part of your life. I don't think it's a lie, but that doesn't mean I believe it. Everybody sees things different, so did the authors maybe . So if someone writes something he sees as a miracle, another one who saw the same may write it totally different(with attemps to explain the event as example).
But I don't say everyone who believes it is stupid, neither do I say people who don't believe it are, because we all have different experiences. Maybe I sometimes will have such an experience so I can truly say I believe in God, but untill then I don't want to be a fake Christian saying I believe and I don't.

Leebot

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • Black Wind Agent (+600)
  • *
  • Posts: 636
    • View Profile
    • Infophilia
A challenge to the religious
« Reply #52 on: April 16, 2006, 06:59:44 pm »
Quote from: Sentenal
Quote from: Leebot
Haven't been to many other message boards, have you Sentenal? Sad to say, grammar like that isn't at all uncommon. We just happen to have more intellectual people here who acknowledge the benefit of using proper grammar and spelling.

Actually, I have, and thats the reason I ask.  Most of the time, when people type like that, its because they are a troll.

Some of the time, yes. Most I think are just lazy bastards.

Maelstrom

  • Architect of Kajar
  • Porrean (+50)
  • *
  • Posts: 70
    • View Profile
A challenge to the religious
« Reply #53 on: April 17, 2006, 01:34:41 am »
Quote from: Sentenal
Well, guys, just what do you believe has been changed about it?  Are you going to assume that since some of it is different from its original form, that all of it has been change?  Are you going to assume that it was all just made up in the middle ages?


It's going to be hard to tell what actually is fabricated, so if you're investing yourself into the Bible in a literal sense, you are rolling the dice pretty much any time you integrate anything new.

That said, the main problem with the Bible isn't a case of people making things up.  Rather, it's people misinterpreting the events going on around them, and particularly in the case of the Old Testament, certain legends will also be made grander and grander as they are passed down from generation to generation until they are eventually recorded in some reasonably-permanent way.  In the case of a latter, it's not a deception, but people naturally envisioning these stories to entail greater heroism over time.  It's really a matter of people behaving reasonably but still screwing things up.  Or maybe they are just supposed to be embellished stories, and we're the ones messing up by taking them word-for-word.

Quote from: Sentenal
Regardless of minor changes throughout the bible, the main message is constant, and has not been changed;  Jesus is the Son of God, came to Earth, died, and rose agian to save us from our sin.  And that is the most important message the bible gives, regardless of any other changes, that has remained constant.


It takes a considerable leap of faith to believe in the resurrection happening, at least in a literal sense.  As such, it can realistically that message may be true, but it may be so in a symbolic sense (at least with minimal restructuring).  Jesus (who, at a minimum, is a brilliant prophet, particularly for his time) "saves" us from our sins by serving as a spectular example and teacher of the right way for us to live our lives, at least relative to the problems of the day.  Even though he dies, his commitment to those values (even to death) shows us that these *are* principles/ideas worth dying for, and this love moves us to do the same.  His sacrifice gives us the courage and understanding to stand for what is right, just, and merciful, even when it is at odds with tradition.  In fact, we who take his message to heart *are* the resurrection.

You don't necessarily have to believe my interpretation, but it's certainly compelling.

Burning Zeppelin

  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
    • View Profile
    • Delicate Cutters
A challenge to the religious
« Reply #54 on: April 17, 2006, 01:43:43 am »
Quote
One quick question: Is Zorro vz Zionistz a troll? I can tell from his name that hes anti-Jewish (little difference between anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish), so I assume that BZ may had brought him here. But if hes not a troll, why does he type like that?

-.- No SHES not a troll. She's actually quite smart. And no, I didn't really invite her...I introduced the forum to her ^_^ Maybe you should be more flexible and let people talk how they wish.

The Abraham story was to show that "good" is obeying God, and not your own desires.

The Bible isn't totally corrupted, though many Christian scholars and priests misinteperet it, and give off their version of the teachings as the right one. The Pope, anyone?

Sentenal

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1948
    • View Profile
A challenge to the religious
« Reply #55 on: April 17, 2006, 02:06:33 am »
Quote
It takes a considerable leap of faith to believe in the resurrection happening, at least in a literal sense. As such, it can realistically that message may be true, but it may be so in a symbolic sense (at least with minimal restructuring). Jesus (who, at a minimum, is a brilliant prophet, particularly for his time) "saves" us from our sins by serving as a spectular example and teacher of the right way for us to live our lives, at least relative to the problems of the day. Even though he dies, his commitment to those values (even to death) shows us that these *are* principles/ideas worth dying for, and this love moves us to do the same. His sacrifice gives us the courage and understanding to stand for what is right, just, and merciful, even when it is at odds with tradition. In fact, we who take his message to heart *are* the resurrection.

You don't necessarily have to believe my interpretation, but it's certainly compelling.

While I guess that is a reasonable interpertation for those who refuse to believe in the Resurrection, I don't think that interpretation is true to the messages the bible relays.  The main theme in the New Testiment is that Jesus died on the cross in place of our sins.  Jesus' primary purpose was to die.  Now, people are free to not believe that.  However, there is relatively strong evidence that this is what the bible was ment to relay, and this part was not embellished.

Quote
-.- No SHES not a troll. She's actually quite smart. And no, I didn't really invite her...I introduced the forum to her ^_^ Maybe you should be more flexible and let people talk how they wish.

Its not that I'm being inflexible, its just I would rather not try and decipher what she writes.  Its not that hard to write readable english (a language I assume she knows).

Quote
The Bible isn't totally corrupted, though many Christian scholars and priests misinteperet it, and give off their version of the teachings as the right one. The Pope, anyone?

Agreed, which is a problem with nearly all religions, unfortunately.

Maelstrom

  • Architect of Kajar
  • Porrean (+50)
  • *
  • Posts: 70
    • View Profile
A challenge to the religious
« Reply #56 on: April 17, 2006, 05:50:03 pm »
Quote from: Sentenal
While I guess that is a reasonable interpertation for those who refuse to believe in the Resurrection


The issue isn't a matter of refusing to believe it, because that would suggest that the evidence is unquestionably compelling.  Witnesses and investigations were far less sophisticated 2000 years ago, and something that appears as a miracle at the time may have some rational explanation according to today's standard (medically or logistically speaking).  People at the time were generally uneducated, and science was essentially nonexistent, so they would be susceptible to making various kinds of errors.  Furthermore, it's notable that the Bible does not always differentiate between what's story and what is fact, and often the Church has interpreted certain sections to be stories only after scientific evidence has disproven their validity on a literal level (and even then, the Church is still often slow to concede those points).

You may feel the evidence is there, but my experiences in life compel me to question *any* so-called "miracles" ("Oh, he was given only a one in a hundred chance of surviving; it must have been God intervening for us." Well, when you've got a hundred such people, you expect ninety-nine to die, and one to survive, so that one was simply the lucky winner.  Nevermind that there are people given a ninety-nine percent chance of surviving but end of dying, and certainly many of those are "good" people).  Some people will beat the odds, sometimes odds that are unforseen, and this doesn't even begin to address issues of mistaken identity, exaggeration (in the "heroic" sense), fabrication, story-telling, whatever.

I reject things that are either evil or non-existent: Satan, etc...
I neither deny nor accept things that could be good or non-existent: All the "good" mysteries of religion
Accept things that are good and believable: The philosophy that seems appropriate to apply to my life.

Quote

Quote
The Bible isn't totally corrupted, though many Christian scholars and priests misinteperet it, and give off their version of the teachings as the right one. The Pope, anyone?

Agreed, which is a problem with nearly all religions, unfortunately.


When you put it that way, the best solution would seem to be to trust no religion, or to least trust your own judgement once you've given all angles a fair shake.  Don't show preference to a religion just because by accident of birth it got a foot in the door.

Daniel Krispin

  • Guest
A challenge to the religious
« Reply #57 on: April 18, 2006, 12:00:37 am »
Quote from: Maelstrom
That said, the main problem with the Bible isn't a case of people making things up.  Rather, it's people misinterpreting the events going on around them, and particularly in the case of the Old Testament, certain legends will also be made grander and grander as they are passed down from generation to generation until they are eventually recorded in some reasonably-permanent way.  In the case of a latter, it's not a deception, but people naturally envisioning these stories to entail greater heroism over time.  It's really a matter of people behaving reasonably but still screwing things up.  Or maybe they are just supposed to be embellished stories, and we're the ones messing up by taking them word-for-word.


It is a rather modern - and foolish - modern understanding of ancient literature that the only truth can be the literal. Truth can be conveyed even if it's not literally how things happened. However, within the last few centuries, with a focus on a fact-based approach to things, people have even attempted this with the Bible - and what we get is such things as Usher calculating the age of the earth to 4004BC. It must be understood that, as you say, things do change, and are embellished, or whatever. But that's not important. What's important (as, indeed, is important in any literature) is what it says. I mean, how many works of fiction are said to make wonderful comments on humanity and society, yet without an ounce of literal truth in them? Anyway, it's really foolish to try and put a 20th century style of reason onto something written 2500 years ago - more than that, it's rather arrogant to think that our way of rationalizing these things is the only way. Matter of fact is, one gets far more out of the Bible if one reads it for what it is, knowing how everything works together historically and all, than attempting to squash history into a literal framework that doesn't exist.

Personally, though, I do trust my religion. The reasons for this are several. Firstly, faith. I'm stubborn in believing it, even though I have the opportunity not to - and I'm not certain what that is, if not faith. Secondly, reason. My father approaches theology in such a systematic way, it pretty much trounces everything else I've ever heard of. Thirdly, it seems to be the most enduring of all - if one counts its inception with the Jews, it has lasted some 4000 years, and thus only Judaism is its peer in that regard. Nor has it changed all that much in that time - true, traditions, in some regard, have changed, but the overall beliefs and practices are not much different (or, at least, there isn't any proof that they are.) Keep in mind that in this I'm not talking about the Roman church, but rather the way Lutherans practice it. Anyway, it just strikes me that it seems to outlast everything else, and thrives best in adversity. So I'll stick with Christianity. Honestly, I've seen nothing that works better, for myself or the world, than it.

Maelstrom

  • Architect of Kajar
  • Porrean (+50)
  • *
  • Posts: 70
    • View Profile
Re: A challenge to the religious
« Reply #58 on: April 20, 2006, 02:44:59 am »
Oh, I do agree with the idea of reading the Bible in a nonliteral manner, and in a way that is aware of the culture and society of when and where these stories are told and recorded.  Finding new ideas is powerful when you can recognize the underlying principles and then apply them to your own life as would seem appropriate.  That philosophy works great for reading other stories, too, but the Bible certainly stands out because of its comprehensive and long-standing nature (as you mentioned).

However, I would like to remark that while Lutheran doctorine is sometimes applied this way, at times the exact opposite is done (a literal interpretation).  Or at least that's what Wikipedia says.  The latter may not have emerged in your experiences, so would I be right in guessing that your overall message is to advocate the idea of interpretting the Bible in a critical way, and that Lutheranism is how you have seen that concept implemented?

Thanks for your time.

Daniel Krispin

  • Guest
Re: A challenge to the religious
« Reply #59 on: April 25, 2006, 02:35:14 am »
Oh, I do agree with the idea of reading the Bible in a nonliteral manner, and in a way that is aware of the culture and society of when and where these stories are told and recorded.  Finding new ideas is powerful when you can recognize the underlying principles and then apply them to your own life as would seem appropriate.  That philosophy works great for reading other stories, too, but the Bible certainly stands out because of its comprehensive and long-standing nature (as you mentioned).

However, I would like to remark that while Lutheran doctorine is sometimes applied this way, at times the exact opposite is done (a literal interpretation).  Or at least that's what Wikipedia says.  The latter may not have emerged in your experiences, so would I be right in guessing that your overall message is to advocate the idea of interpretting the Bible in a critical way, and that Lutheranism is how you have seen that concept implemented?

Thanks for your time.

Hmmm... come to think of it, that Lutheran statement should probably be slightly amended. I was just thinking 'this is how I think of it, and I consider myself true Lutheran, thus this is the true Lutheran way of things.' Alright, probably not the best of logic. Admittedly, my father, in the Church, is a tad marginalised for his viewpoint - the Confessional segment of the Lutheran church, I'd say. However, what I was thinking about the critical analysis of the Bible probably comes less from doctrine, and more from the fact that, while my father is qualified as a pastor, he is also trained as a systematic theologian, and far prefers teaching. As such, he is a scholar, and treats the Bible in a scholarly-religious manner, and has a better understanding of its origins, development, and so forth, than 99% of pastors do. As such, I have always been raised to think in that manner, and have always held it as the right way of doings things.

So, to be honest, on considering it, there are probably many Lutherans who'd disagree with me on that. However, you must understand that there are so many fractures and divisions within the Church (and I'm not talking Protestant-Catholic, or even, say, Lutheran-Baptist, but rather within not only the Lutheran church, but within the synod, the district, and the Churches themselves) that it's difficult to say what's Lutheran one way or another these days. However, seeing as my father is extremely logical and learned in the matter, and knows the origins of the Lutheran doctrines - I've at least never been able to logically refute it - I'll take him to be the standard for what is truly Lutheran. As such, those who preach works-righteousness, those who'd look to much to the literal interpretations... they're not doing things quite the right way. Or, that's what I'd say.

By the way, what DID Wikipedia say about Lutherans? I don't trust Wiki much myself, but I'm curious.