I would like to tell you a bit more about God

[maadmax 0]

I hold Spiritual phenomena to the the same standards as scientific proofs. RESULTS! If a spiritual principle is from God it works and produces visible results, just like a valid scientific principle. It is a subjective process but the serious spiritual students can accumulate Truth that allows them to live a life free of self destructive stupidity that characterizes the unenlightened human decision making process. Bash Spirituality all you want but the scientific process is useless in helping us make the right decisions on a daily basis that keeps us from self destructive decisions and behaviors.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

If a spiritual principle is from God it works and produces visible results

so your in the camp with Gandhi then? "All religions are True" ?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

Quote

If there really was a god don't you think he would be a little less ambiguous? Why can't he just communicate with us directly instead of through an old book that can be interpreted in many different ways?

I guess that would be a question you'd have. My questions would be a lot different.

Why would you not ask this question, as it is rather pertinent to you beliefs?

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[philh 0]

"I already answered you. IMO, the purpose of Genesis is not to describe the creation of the world, but using a story to tell about the relationship between God and man, and God's redemptive nature. "

I understand in your opinion you think the Genesis story is not literaaly true and that its a metaphor etc.
but what you dont explain is why do they get so many details wrong? Surely the same symbolic meaning could have been conveyed with the details correct? To go back to my murder witness example, if the witness gets all the details wrong isnt it more reasonable to assume thhey were not a witness? So it is with the bible, whoever wrote the Genesis story could not have been inspired or in contact with any being that was present at creation.

How do you know the Genesis story is not meant to be taken literally? Is it just because thats the only way a christian can save face without throwing out all modern science as creationsists do?

I could equally say the purpose of the resuurection story is not to describe actual events but to simply give us a story as a moral lesson. What would be the difference?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

I hold Spiritual phenomena to the the same standards as scientific proofs.... It is a subjective process.... Bash Spirituality all you want but the scientific process is useless in helping us make the right decisions on a daily basis that keeps us from self destructive decisions and behaviors.

Uhhh, so which is it?

Scientific or subjective?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

"I already answered you. IMO, the purpose of Genesis is not to describe the creation of the world, but using a story to tell about the relationship between God and man, and God's redemptive nature. "

I understand in your opinion you think the Genesis story is not literaaly true and that its a metaphor etc. but what you dont explain is why do they get so many details wrong? Surely the same symbolic meaning could have been conveyed with the details correct? To go back to my murder witness example, if the witness gets all the details wrong isnt it more reasonable to assume thhey were not a witness? So it is with the bible, whoever wrote the Genesis story could not have been inspired or in contact with any being that was present at creation.

If it is a metaphor, what details specifically are you saying is wrong?

Quote

How do you know the Genesis story is not meant to be taken literally? Is it just because thats the only way a christian can save face without throwing out all modern science as creationsists do?

I could equally say the purpose of the resuurection story is not to describe actual events but to simply give us a story as a moral lesson. What would be the difference?

Years from now in a planet of the apes apocolyptic future someone unearths an "American History book" and "Gone with the Wind" do you think it would be hard to tell the difference between the two?

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If there really was a god don't you think he would be a little less ambiguous? Why can't he just communicate with us directly instead of through an old book that can be interpreted in many different ways?

I guess that would be a question you'd have. My questions would be a lot different.

Why would you not ask this question, as it is rather pertinent to you beliefs?

Whether or not God will perform tricks to convince me he is real is not pertinent to my belief system. Maybe yours ... not mine.

steveOrino

[philh 0]

"what details specifically are you saying is wrong? "

Well there are many, here are a few examples:

1) Light is created before stars (science shows there is no light without stars).
2) Day and night are created before stars (day and night are a result of the Earths orbit around its parent star).
3) Plants exist before stars (how would they photo-synthesize?).
4) the sun and the moon are created on the same day (Astronomers tell us the sun came way before the moon) .
5) Human being are created on the 6th day of creation (even if you assume a day represents a million year, 100 millin years, whatever, the proprtions will be wrong as science tells us humans have been around for 200,000 years and the universe for 13.7 billion years ) .
6) Stars created to give light to the Earth (even though most stars are invisible to the human eye).

So the question is what is more consistent with the truth: that the bile was written by ignorant men and they didnt know the truth of our creation or the bible was inspired by god but he chose to get so many details of the creation wrong?


"Years from now in a planet of the apes apocolyptic future someone unearths an "American History book" and "Gone with the Wind" do you think it would be hard to tell the difference between the two? "

yes it probably will be hard , I would certainly excericse caution on either book. My confidence in either book would be in proportion to the extent that we can verify their claims. We shoudl keep an open mind as too whether a book is an accurate history, an innacurate history or simply fiction placed in a historical setting. Using evidence to check would help a future historian decide. Using subjective feelings will not.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

I hold Spiritual phenomena to the the same standards as scientific proofs. RESULTS! If a spiritual principle is from God it works and produces visible results, just like a valid scientific principle. It is a subjective process but the serious spiritual students can accumulate Truth that allows them to live a life free of self destructive stupidity that characterizes the unenlightened human decision making process. Bash Spirituality all you want but the scientific process is useless in helping us make the right decisions on a daily basis that keeps us from self destructive decisions and behaviors.

So did you test both routes and then make a decision? It was already asked but which is it? subjective or scientific? You can only have one or the other, not both. Maybe you should try to understand scientific reasoning and critical thinking before you claim to make use of them.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

"what details specifically are you saying is wrong? "

Well there are many, here are a few examples:

1) Light is created before stars (science shows there is no light without stars).
2) Day and night are created before stars (day and night are a result of the Earths orbit around its parent star).
3) Plants exist before stars (how would they photo-synthesize?).
4) the sun and the moon are created on the same day (Astronomers tell us the sun came way before the moon) .
5) Human being are created on the 6th day of creation (even if you assume a day represents a million year, 100 millin years, whatever, the proprtions will be wrong as science tells us humans have been around for 200,000 years and the universe for 13.7 billion years ) .
6) Stars created to give light to the Earth (even though most stars are invisible to the human eye).

So the question is what is more consistent with the truth: that the bile was written by ignorant men and they didnt know the truth of our creation or the bible was inspired by god but he chose to get so many details of the creation wrong?

Or man wrote what he understood from the revelation God gave him. What would be the problem with that? You actually think it would make more sense that God would supernaturally impose his wisdom of the vastness of creation on early man and that man would be able to make sense of it, and his readers (and listeners as it was originally oral history) would comprehend it? Or do you like think like the fundys do that the Bible was written to be interpreted by mankind in the 21st century?

steveOrino

[billvon 3,107]

>Or do you like think like the fundys do that the Bible was written to
>be interpreted by mankind in the 21st century?

Careful, there, or you'll be called a "moral relativist!"

[steveorino 7]

Quote

>Or do you like think like the fundys do that the Bible was written to
>be interpreted by mankind in the 21st century?

Careful, there, or you'll be called a "moral relativist!"

However "some" morals are relative. Such as dietary laws

steveOrino

[philh 0]

"Or man wrote what he understood from the revelation God gave him. What would be the problem with that? "

The problem is that with your aproach you can never be wrong. Imagine genesis had said the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago , god made the universe in a tiny dense form of matter and then caused it too expand , he created the earth 4.5 billion years ago and made life to evolve into man 200,000 years ago. What would you say abou the bible then? Im sure you would say "aha the bible must be true." I think I might be tempted to as well. but the problem is it doesnt get any of this correct, in fact it gets it all wrong. But yet you still want to keep the bible as divinley inspired. Any aproach to truth that gets the same conclusion irrespecitve of the evidence is no aproach to truth at all, thats what we call dogma. Bible gets its facts correct : its true; its gets its facts wrong, its still true.

If you are going to maintain your metaphorcial intepretation but keep the divine nature of the bible you are going to have to explain why either god got all his facts wrong or he didnt care that those writing it down got all their facts wrong. In which case what else did they get wrong? How can you maintain the divinity of the bible if god isnt bothered about the accuracy of whats in it?

"You actually think it would make more sense that God would supernaturally impose his wisdom of the vastness of creation on early man and that man would be able to make sense of it, and his readers (and listeners as it was originally oral history) would comprehend it?"

no what I think would make more sense is that god (who I think most liekly doesnt exist) had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

"Or do you like think like the fundys do that the Bible was written to be interpreted by mankind in the 21st century? "
No i think the bible was written by ancient men ignorant of the knowledge we have in the twenty first century with cultural values opposed to most of us in the 21st century. That is why we should not treat it with special reverence.

[steveorino 7]

But the eternal truths they espose are good for ANY generation.

I know you said you went to Hebrew school. I interviewed a lot of Rabbis when I was working on my bachelor's degree. I never met a single one that thought Genesis account of creation was meant to be a science or even a history book. They, as well as my professors, saw it as ancient man's interaction with God explaining the relationship therein

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

"Or man wrote what he understood from the revelation God gave him. What would be the problem with that? "

The problem is that with your aproach you can never be wrong. Imagine genesis had said the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago , god made the universe in a tiny dense form of matter and then caused it too expand , he created the earth 4.5 billion years ago and made life to evolve into man 200,000 years ago. What would you say abou the bible then? Im sure you would say "aha the bible must be true."

Given that scenario I think most theological scholars would have a different look at the purpose of Genesis.

steveOrino

[beowulf 1]

Quote

But the eternal truths they espose are good for ANY generation.

I know you said you went to Hebrew school. I interviewed a lot of Rabbis when I was working on my bachelor's degree. I never met a single one that thought Genesis account of creation was meant to be a science or even a history book. They, as well as my professors, saw it as ancient man's interaction with God explaining the relationship therein

So does that mean God was bullshiting them with that story? or do you think the writer misinterpreted what God said (in that case God wasn't speaking clearly). If there was a big miscommunication then that would make the rest of the bible suspect also.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

But the eternal truths they espose are good for ANY generation.

I know you said you went to Hebrew school. I interviewed a lot of Rabbis when I was working on my bachelor's degree. I never met a single one that thought Genesis account of creation was meant to be a science or even a history book. They, as well as my professors, saw it as ancient man's interaction with God explaining the relationship therein

So does that mean God was bullshiting them with that story? or do you think the writer misinterpreted what God said (in that case God wasn't speaking clearly). If there was a big miscommunication then that would make the rest of the bible suspect also.

Apart from a few selected passages, I don't think God dictated (spoke) anything.

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

I'll buy into that theory but I'll bet we differ on what it was inspired by.

It makes some sense actually, especially when you combine it with SpeedRacer's "spirituality is an emotion" hypothesis. It would go along way to explaining why the bible is such convoluted gobbledegook and no one can put their finger on exactly what it means, why god is such an incoherent concept, why trance and ritual plays such a big part and why it's such a big pain in the arse to elect a new pope.

Yep, the bible is the incoherent "stream of consciousnes" dribblings of a bunch of bronze age hippies possibly with the help of chemically enhanced brain gravy.

As a hypothesis it's substantially more plausible than godidit.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

But the eternal truths they espose are good for ANY generation.

I know you said you went to Hebrew school. I interviewed a lot of Rabbis when I was working on my bachelor's degree. I never met a single one that thought Genesis account of creation was meant to be a science or even a history book. They, as well as my professors, saw it as ancient man's interaction with God explaining the relationship therein

So does that mean God was bullshiting them with that story? or do you think the writer misinterpreted what God said (in that case God wasn't speaking clearly). If there was a big miscommunication then that would make the rest of the bible suspect also.

Apart from a few selected passages, I don't think God dictated (spoke) anything.

Really!! How do you know which passages were dictated?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

But the eternal truths they espose are good for ANY generation.

I know you said you went to Hebrew school. I interviewed a lot of Rabbis when I was working on my bachelor's degree. I never met a single one that thought Genesis account of creation was meant to be a science or even a history book. They, as well as my professors, saw it as ancient man's interaction with God explaining the relationship therein

So does that mean God was bullshiting them with that story? or do you think the writer misinterpreted what God said (in that case God wasn't speaking clearly). If there was a big miscommunication then that would make the rest of the bible suspect also.

Apart from a few selected passages, I don't think God dictated (spoke) anything.

Really!! How do you know which passages were dictated?

Maybe where God said, "write this down ..."

steveOrino

[beowulf 1]

So many people have interpreted the Bible in so many different ways how do you know your take is the right one?

Bottom line is you don't know, you just believe your take to be correct. If there really was a God why would he have his only message be so ambigous? If he really is the one true God (cause face it there are lots of gods out there) then why would he only show himself to one small group of humans? That sounds kind of biased to me. If the Jewish God which Christians base their God off of was really the one true God then why would he be so biased towards one small group? It would make more sense if he had a single clear message that went out to everyone.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

But the eternal truths they espose are good for ANY generation.

I know you said you went to Hebrew school. I interviewed a lot of Rabbis when I was working on my bachelor's degree. I never met a single one that thought Genesis account of creation was meant to be a science or even a history book. They, as well as my professors, saw it as ancient man's interaction with God explaining the relationship therein

So does that mean God was bullshiting them with that story? or do you think the writer misinterpreted what God said (in that case God wasn't speaking clearly). If there was a big miscommunication then that would make the rest of the bible suspect also.

Apart from a few selected passages, I don't think God dictated (spoke) anything.

Really!! How do you know which passages were dictated?

Maybe where God said, "write this down ..."

Maybe the writers only wrote that to give it a better narrative flow.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

I'll buy into that theory but I'll bet we differ on what it was inspired by.

No doubt we would.

Quote

It makes some sense actually, especially when you combine it with SpeedRacer's "spirituality is an emotion" hypothesis.

Of course we know that is not what he was implying, but spin it your way ... religion & politics.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

But the eternal truths they espose are good for ANY generation.

I know you said you went to Hebrew school. I interviewed a lot of Rabbis when I was working on my bachelor's degree. I never met a single one that thought Genesis account of creation was meant to be a science or even a history book. They, as well as my professors, saw it as ancient man's interaction with God explaining the relationship therein

So does that mean God was bullshiting them with that story? or do you think the writer misinterpreted what God said (in that case God wasn't speaking clearly). If there was a big miscommunication then that would make the rest of the bible suspect also.

Apart from a few selected passages, I don't think God dictated (spoke) anything.

Really!! How do you know which passages were dictated?

Maybe where God said, "write this down ..."

Maybe the writers only wrote that to give it a better narrative flow.

I'm sure it carried some weight.

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

Of course we know that is not what he was implying,

I don't know that. The implication I got didn't go any futher than spirituality is an emotion. He might have wanted to imply something else but his explaination was incomplete to say the least.

Quote

but spin it your way ...

I did.

The only entity capable of writing a book in the 1st century that would stand up to 21st century scrutiny would be god. Man would be able to write to his generation but he wouldn't be able to see much further than that. A real omnipotent omniscient god would be able to inspire a much better written book than the bible.