Theological Opinions , PART II

[Count Comfect]

Jewish quotes about Heaven/Afterlife tend to be fairly cryptic. For example:

"Rabbi Yaakov says, 'This World is like an anteroom (of a Palace) with respect to the World-to-Come. Prepare yourself in the anteroom so that you will gain entry to the Palace.' (Pirkei Avot, 4:21)"

Not a word about what happens if you don't get in, notice.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't quite understand what's the relevance of that statement?

an answer to your question? They destroyed the post where you questioned me so I cant refer to it anymore.

If something happens to be a church or a formal philosophy, does that have any weight when evaluating if it's true? What are your thoughts?

you mean a religion? See that’s exactly what im talking about. No need to insist that religion is all about truth and literalness. How limiting and short sighted. Religion and philosophy can be extremely useful tools for learning and relating to the world. Not to mention for dealing with hardship and the inevitable torment of human life in a harsh universe.

I wasn't "indoctrinated" by anyone - I believe what I think is true, based on lots of thought and observation.

yes yes of course you do… as you’ve said 8 billion times before…

but of course you realize millions of Christians and practitioners of other religions would not agree. They would say well I believe like I do because that’s how I was brought up. Because that’s my religion. And one must be faithful to ones religion. Very few of them have taken the time like you (apparently) to do countless hours of research and scientific study on the nature of each and every claim made in the bible and why each and every one of them just happen to be the actual way the world is. They simply believe. Its human nature.

Meanwhile, agnostics by definition must look at all the available data and figure out what they can from reality that way. Not because they joined a church or because they were raised a certain way or were born again into a certain way. None of that stuff applies. Its just naked raw what do we know.

Lots of people grow up surrounded by certain beliefs and then change them.

and tons more simply follow them blindly or without any real evidence. But theres nothing to follow if you are agnostic. Theres no formal or informal body decreeing what should be believed and what shouldn’t be.

Is there anything wrong with getting ideas out of a book?

course not. Although I would hope you wouldn’t base your very essence and sense of reality on say… Lord of the Rings. No matter how good it is and representative it is. Its still a work of fiction. But one that says a LOT about us as humans and the world in general. A great teaching tool.

Sure it is.

no its not. What exactly are “agnostic morals�? find me the source for these as you can for your “Christian morals�. Youll find the term is meaningless of course because agnosticism doesn’t imply a belief system. It doesn’t imply a list you must conform to to be included in the religion. Because its NOT A RELIGION.

Further evidence for this can be found in the fact that agnostics can run the gambit from wonderful giving selfless people to cruel horrible selfish killers. And everything in between. There is no one set of “agnostic morals�. Where as with Christians they are all supposed to follow certain specifically spelled out decrees (commandments anyone?). THOU SHALT NOT KILL! Take it or leave it. you have no choice. Its part of being in the club.

If I were to ask you if you thought killing was wrong because we're made in the image of God (among other reasons), you would say that you don't BELIEVE that is right. Your objection to killing is NOT based on that people are made in God's image; you don't BELIEVE that.

my view on killing comes from my genes and my environment (culture). As does yours. Because religion is part of your culture.

they certainly have NO grounds to object to anyone else's morality! After all, if the right thing to do is come up with your own morality, how can you object to other people's morality if it's different than your own?

another example of trying to drag agnosticism DOWN to the level of religion here. I can object to your “morality� when your “morality� impinges on my freedom and well being and rights. As can you. if you believe killing is wrong don’t kill. If you believe gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry (or vote or own property) then don’t be gay. But don’t force your morals onto others when it restricts their freedom and their liberty to do things that you can do yourself.

They BELIEVE that since there is a lack of evidence (using your phrase) to decide for any particular "religion" being true, that they should come up with their own ideas of morality, right?

yeah cause im the spokesman for the world church of agnosticism I forgot…

ive told you where my “morals� come from. You want to know where others think theirs come from ask them.

"down" - a very interesting choice of words! I mean, if there's a lack of evidence for you, how do you know a particular religion isn't right?

Again, you shouldn’t approach religion from the perspective of IM RIGHT! YOURE WRONG! That’s so human. And by definition religion transcends humanity. It is the a way of perceiving the unperceivable. Of tapping into that which is beyond us. So to spend all your time arguing every little point about religion and how YOURE religion is right and everybody elses religion is wrong is simply keeping yourself in the dark. Religion should never be about the literal. It should never be about trying to translate the symbolism into reality. No. You break it when you do that. And you fool yourself. You need to let religion allow you to transcend. Not use it as some sort of human legal document.

Why is believing in a particular religion necessarily "down"?

it limits you. it obscures your vision and your perception. Suddenly everything needs to fit into specific grooves. And if things don’t fit then you will find yourself trying to force them to. That’s the kind of bias that leads to creationism and noahs ark literalism. I think it’s a lot more honest to have no grooves at all. And let things fall where they may.

I find this attitude, btw, in many "non-religious" people; that they are somehow automatically superior (at least in some ways) to "religious" people. I'm very surprised that YOU seem (because of the use of the word "down") to hold this belief, IRex! Is this true? I don't see how your opinion that there is a lack of knowledge available automatically makes you above (since others are "down" below you) others. Perhaps they see more than you do, and their conclusion is perfectly valid based on what they see. Or maybe I just misunderstand how you're using "down".

I think you are just reading way too much into the use of one simple word. But you have a habit of this.

You seem to think religious people are wrong AND you seem to look down on them. Is that right?

I think some of the most profound people in the world are religious. Because these people get it. religion is one of the most difficult tools to master and these people use religion correctly. They transcend with it. they don’t use it to limit their thinking. A lot of people do however. But that’s understandable considering human nature. Its easy to slip over into the cult aspect of religion. Into the sheep aspect.

Do you think you're being insulting to me and other "religious" people by saying you don't want to be pulled "down" to the level of religion?

I think im just trying to point out the difference between being agnostic and being religious.

I don't think I'll touch the science issue right now, except to say that I think it is a god for you in the same way that the God of the Bible is god for me.

Yer right. You shouldn’t touch it. because you have it so completely wrong. science doesn’t demand my allegiance if I am to be a “believer�. Science doesn’t even want me to believe. Science is a tool. Nothing more.

[Rían]

They destroyed my post? Do you mean they edited it and didn't tell me? Or was it just destroyed from the thread split?

[Narinya_Cocachitawa]

[QUOTE=inked]
I would say rather to conform the individual to the intent of the Creator...QUOTE]

I must dissagree with this. The Almighty gave man compleat free will. Thus opening many pathes to the same truth. That is why there are so many different religions. If the Almighty wanted people to be conformed, the Almighty would do it. There'd be no need for another human to do it.

We have free will for a reason, and that reason is to find our own way, not follow another's way.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Narinya_Cocachitawa

I must dissagree with this. The Almighty gave man compleat free will. Thus opening many pathes to the same truth. That is why there are so many different religions. If the Almighty wanted people to be conformed, the Almighty would do it. There'd be no need for another human to do it.

Except that according to Christian theology, those that are born again in him have been made co-creators with God. Also, God has definitely been known to act on his own accord to bring people to Jesus without any human missionaries at all. The Apostle Paul was one person to whom Jesus spoke directly, to show the truth. According to Christian theology, God draws those people whom he has predestined for glory to himself. Only by his Spirit can this take place. He puts the hunger for him in their hearts and then fills them with himself. He acts through missionaries sometimes, but it is still him acting. He is the one who brings people to himself, and he does it through many, many different means. Why on earth should he be limited to acting only through visions or other supernatural appearances and meetings?

Originally Posted by Narinya_Cocachitawa

We have free will for a reason, and that reason is to find our own way, not follow another's way.

I take it, then, that you are against all education and against any parents teaching their children .

That these things should be taught is taken for granted. But if each person is supposed to "find their own way," why should you apply this only to God? Why do you apply it to God at all, may I ask? Virtually everything else is learned through trial and error.

[inked]

[QUOTE=Narinya_Cocachitawa]

Originally Posted by inked

I would say rather to conform the individual to the intent of the Creator...QUOTE]

I must dissagree with this. The Almighty gave man compleat free will. Thus opening many pathes to the same truth. That is why there are so many different religions. If the Almighty wanted people to be conformed, the Almighty would do it. There'd be no need for another human to do it.

We have free will for a reason, and that reason is to find our own way, not follow another's way.

NC,

That is precisely the Christian claim. The Almighty did it. It was in Judea, in Bethlehem, that the Almighty became Man. Then, just as the Apostle's Creed states it, he lived, was crucified, was Resurrected, Ascended, and sent the Comforter. When God was Man, He played by His own rules, and thought it well worthwhile. So there is one Truth and one Way. That's what Christianity claims. That is Whom we are to be conformed to, not a religion.

Rather astonishing, eh!

[Narinya_Cocachitawa]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I take it, then, that you are against all education and against any parents teaching their children .

That these things should be taught is taken for granted. But if each person is supposed to "find their own way," why should you apply this only to God? Why do you apply it to God at all, may I ask? Virtually everything else is learned through trial and error.

I never said education, especially worth while lessons such as thoes that come from our parents was wrong. I never thought you'd take it that way.

As for trial and error... That is exactly my point. Humans learn best from their mistakes and examples of others who have made mistakes.

We all know this story. It happens to each and every one of us. The hot stove and the child.

Who hasn't ever touched a hot stove before, whether by accident or out of defiance? The child has been warned many times that they'll be burned if they touch the stove while it's hot, and not to play near it while Mommy's cooking.

Yet, even after being shown a nasty scar, the child persists in playing near the hot stove.This child is expressing free will by defying his parents. One day, he throws a ball at the pot handel thinking it would be fun to watch the food fall out (after all, he's only a little child). But he is sitting right beside the stove and boiling water/scalding food spills over onto him, burning his flesh.

Now he can fully understand why he was told not to play near a hot stove.

It is through trial and error that people learn. Animals learn through a very similar process, too.

The Almighty Creator gave us free will so that we might find the way on our own. We choose whether or not to follow the teachings of religious figures such as Jesus, Muhammed, and Buddah. Each choice we make has a consequence followed by another choice. If we make a bad decision, we suffer a bad consequence followed by a more difficult choice. If we make a good decision, we can enjoy the consequences and have a simplear choice to face afterward. The better your decisions are, the clocer to the True Path you are. The worse your decisions, the farther from the Path you are. It may be one path, as you say, but there are many ways to walk it. Leaps and bounds, or baby steps.

Free will and the ability to make the decisions for our self sets the pace, not the path that another human living here on earth sets before us. We each walk the path a little differently. No two people can comfortably step in the exact same place as the person before them. So, in a sence, it's many pathes to the same truth.


As for "Why on earth should he be limited to acting only through visions or other supernatural appearances and meetings".

Since when did I say that? I can understand that there are people that the Creator uses as tools for the greater good. That is the Creators way of doing it. but don't you think that these people chosen by the Creator would actually have heard the Creator's wish themselves in a way other than through religous texts?

Writting such as the Bible are man made things. They were recorded by men. They were translated (often mistranslated) by men. Men interperate them daily. Men skip over things that challenge what they believe, choosing to ignore it rather than face the truth of it. They jump to texts such as Duteronomy 18:10 and compleatly skip over teaching such as thoes in 1 Corinthians 12 because they know it to be safe.

"Supernatural" meetings do happen, and they are another way of expressing the Creator's will, though not always.

I am of the personal belief that both the Creator and the Downfallen can speak to us, as well as the deceaced. Each individual of these that contact the living has their own story to tell, their own wishes of the person they speak to. Some are sent with messages from others such as the Creator and the Downfallen.

Again, this goes back to free will, as well as the ability to judge others. It is your choice wheter or not you follow another's teachings of experience, or the lies of the Downfallen, or make your own way through life finding things out for yourself.

You may choose to follow the lessons of a preacher. I am a minister's child myself, but I chose to learn from personal experinces as well as their own experiences. Some things they try to teach me from personal experience, I can't fully understand untill I've gone through it myself.

I'd rather live and learn than live and not understand why i'm told not to do something. Some mistakes are going to be made no matter what you do.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Narinya_Cocachitawa

The Almighty Creator gave us free will so that we might find the way on our own. We choose whether or not to follow the teachings of religious figures such as Jesus, Muhammed, and Buddah. Each choice we make has a consequence followed by another choice. If we make a bad decision, we suffer a bad consequence followed by a more difficult choice. If we make a good decision, we can enjoy the consequences and have a simplear choice to face afterward. The better your decisions are, the clocer to the True Path you are. The worse your decisions, the farther from the Path you are. It may be one path, as you say, but there are many ways to walk it. Leaps and bounds, or baby steps.

I don't really understand what you're saying, here. Could you clarify? By "many ways" do you mean many religions? Or many belief systems, philosophies, or just general ways of living?

Also, you speak of bad decisions and good decisions. Good or bad for what? For us? What is good or bad for us? Is good just to be at peace with ourselves? Is it happiness?

Another question: how do you define what is good and what is bad? Many people define these very differently. Some people think one thing is bad, while others think it to be good. Are you saying there is good and evil that transcend people's opinions about it (For example, Nazis thought that brutalizing Jews was good. Was this good?) If they are morals that transcend human beliefs about them, how are we to know what precisely they are?

Originally Posted by Narinya_Cocachitawa

Free will and the ability to make the decisions for our self sets the pace, not the path that another human living here on earth sets before us.

How do you define "path"? Are you saying that "everyone doesn't have to work in this pizzaria" or that "not everyone has to be loving"?

Originally Posted by Narinya_Cocachitawa

We each walk the path a little differently. No two people can comfortably step in the exact same place as the person before them. So, in a sence, it's many pathes to the same truth.

Or away from it.

Originally Posted by Narinya_Cocachitawa

Since when did I say that? I can understand that there are people that the Creator uses as tools for the greater good. That is the Creators way of doing it. but don't you think that these people chosen by the Creator would actually have heard the Creator's wish themselves in a way other than through religous texts?

I don't really see why. Do you?

One sidenote is that Jesus did say that reading texts is not going to bring eternal life by itself- it is knowing him that brings eternal life. So I do agree that reading isn't the key (though it can be used by God to lead to him).

Originally Posted by Narinya_Cocachitawa

Writting such as the Bible are man made things. They were recorded by men. They were translated (often mistranslated) by men. Men interperate them daily. Men skip over things that challenge what they believe, choosing to ignore it rather than face the truth of it. They jump to texts such as Duteronomy 18:10 and compleatly skip over teaching such as thoes in 1 Corinthians 12 because they know it to be safe.

The New Testament also condemns witchcraft, by the way. It is clear from scripture that Gifts of the Spirit are different from the various Satanic imitations. However, many people in their desire to throw out Satanic imitations also throw out the real thing. So about that, I agree with you.

Since when does this human failing mean that the scriptures are not divinely inspired, though?

Originally Posted by Narinya_Cocachitawa

I am of the personal belief that both the Creator and the Downfallen can speak to us, as well as the deceaced.

What do you mean by "speak to us"? Do you mean literal back and forth conversation? Or do you mean that we can simply learn from them (meaning by reading about them or remembering them)? If the latter, what do you mean by our being able to learn from the Fallen?

About speaking to the deceased, what do you think of the possibility that evil spirits might impersonate the dead?

Originally Posted by Narinya_Cocachitawa

Each individual of these that contact the living has their own story to tell, their own wishes of the person they speak to. Some are sent with messages from others such as the Creator and the Downfallen.

Again, this goes back to free will, as well as the ability to judge others. It is your choice wheter or not you follow another's teachings of experience, or the lies of the Downfallen, or make your own way through life finding things out for yourself.

Or learning from those that are more wise then yourself (which seems smarter then trial and error). Like it says in Proverbs, "he who listens to the wise becomes wise."

Originally Posted by Narinya_Cocachitawa

You may choose to follow the lessons of a preacher. I am a minister's child myself, but I chose to learn from personal experinces as well as their own experiences. Some things they try to teach me from personal experience, I can't fully understand untill I've gone through it myself.

Is it desirable to fully understand them? I agree that personal experience is a more powerful instructor then other people's experiences. However, it also seems very, very much like playing with fire. And it's rather fatalistic to say, "I'll get burned by fire anyway." Furthermore, trying dangerous things out for oneself can get one into addictive problems. It seems really stupid, to me.

Originally Posted by Narinya_Cocachitawa

I'd rather live and learn than live and not understand why i'm told not to do something. Some mistakes are going to be made no matter what you do.

As you said before, learning from other people's mistakes is critical. Understanding why something is bad from an intellectual standpoint is good. Understanding it from personal experience is sad (though usually more powerful). I would advise you to listen to your parents' experience. I think that they are probably instructing you because they don't want you to go through the experiences you describe.

[Rakkety_tamm]

I "was" a Christian for the first 12 years of my life, yet I never understood it what-so-ever. What Narinya_Cocachitawa says makes more sense to me than the Christian religion ever has. please go poking holes into what others say and belief because you don't understand it.

[Tessar]

I would just like to point out that you shouldn't think of christianity based on what you did, or did not, understand at age 12. I mean... c'mon... that's the stage where you're still thinking about cute little bible stories and think that the 'fruit' of the garden was an apple.

[Lief Erikson]

How do you know it wasn't?

Originally Posted by Rakkety_tamm

please go poking holes into what others say and belief because you don't understand it.

Exploring and asking questions is very good, Raketty. We're all agreed on that.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by tessar

think that the 'fruit' of the garden was an apple.

was it not then? i wlays thought it was a apple, which the snake gave the woman, no?

[Lief Erikson]

The snake didn't give it to her, but it did trick her into taking it.

I do agree with you somewhat, though. It's possible to see the apple as a symbol, but I don't really see why one should. The subsequent scriptures are clear enough that Adam was one real flesh and blood person. The genealogies refer to him that way, and in the epistles Paul says that, "just as through one man, Adam, all the world sinned, so through one man, Jesus Christ, eternal life was given to all that would believe."

[Rakkety_tamm]

In reponse to what you said, Tessar, I took a class called "World Religons" in school, which basicly was a fancy name for legal bible study in school, and I still can't understand it.

[Tessar]

As to the apple thing, it's considered very possible (and even likely) that the idea of the 'tree of life' and 'tree of knowledge' being actual trees and having real fruit on them is only a metaphor.

What many (myself included) believe is that the 'fruit of knowledge' had more to do with an immoral action that Adam/Eve were told not to do, and knew they shouldn't have, but did anyways because of the temptation of the devil. Because of that they were cast out of the direct grace of God (cast from the garden).

Granted no one really KNOWS for sure, and you're allowed to believe that it was an apple if you like--heck you can believe it was a mango/banana hybrid if you want, so long as you understand the basic principle behind the teaching.

And Rakkety--where did you take that bible class? Was it in a public school? I know some Catholics who went to bible classes in public schools, and found out later that the teachers weren't really teaching much of anything that had to do with actual Catholicism. When it comes to any kind of religion, I have no confidence whatsoever in the public or private school systems, unless they are actually a part of that religion. Even then many times you end up with teachers who don't understand their own religion.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I do agree with you somewhat, though. It's possible to see the apple as a symbol, but I don't really see why one should.

Well one good reason is its been continually used as a symbol in numerous religious and cultural manifestations through out human history. The christians didnt come up with it. Its just a real good archetype for conveying a certian set of points. Forbidden Knowledge is often associated with a "falling". Gaining such knoweldge is often associated with consuming something delicious or the moral failings of the female of the species. Are we to believe that Pandoras Box was literal too?

[Rakkety_tamm]

Originally Posted by Tessar

And Rakkety--where did you take that bible class?

World Religons is a front name for bible study in public school.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well one good reason is its been continually used as a symbol in numerous religious and cultural manifestations through out human history. The christians didnt come up with it. Its just a real good archetype for conveying a certian set of points. Forbidden Knowledge is often associated with a "falling". Gaining such knoweldge is often associated with consuming something delicious or the moral failings of the female of the species.

I know the Christians didn't come up with it. That's obvious. The Christians weren't even around until after Christ .

If you're arguing that the Jews didn't come up with it, I'd agree with you there too. Adam and Eve came before the Jews. Noah came before the Jews. The knowledge coming through Noah would have been heard by many. This doesn't mean it is literal, and it doesn't mean it isn't literal. It leaves it an open question, as far as I can see.

[inked]

Well, the symbolic fruit has varied quite a bit. I personally think the pomegranate best. All those individual pips which suggest the varied nature of the temptations and the loss of time insisting on sampling each and every one before "deciding"! A powerful visual and tactile metaphor for the protean nature of temptation. Not to mention the individual's absorption with the process of engaging the opportunities. (Reminds me of vampires counting garlic seeds until sunrise and *poof* destruction!)

[Count Comfect]

Medieval clergy always taught it was a persimmon. So opinions have, as inked says, varied. Probably didn't help that apples aren't believed to have grown anywhere near where Eden is located (ie Tigris/Euphrates area)