Theological Opinions , PART II

[Rían]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes, it's rather interesting that the Jewish religion was formulated without a huge emphasis on the after-life, if any. There's vague references in it in the Psalms, but not too much elsewhere in the Old Testament that I'm aware of. I think Lewis put it correctly - the point of the OT writings were to show that God is One (the most powerful One there is, for that matter), and that He cares about moral behavior. Kind of the ideas summed up in the Shema that gets put into mezuzzahs (sp?).

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

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 don't think that everything in the Bible is literal. There's some lovely and powerful poetry, some parables, lots of imagery, etc. However, it is based on the actual reality of the state of the universe, IMO. Otherwise I wouldn't bother much with it.

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. ... Meanwhile, agnostics by definition must look at all the available data and figure out what they can from reality that way.

Oh come now You know I haven't looked at "each and every claim made in the bible", any more than YOU, my dear sir, have looked at "all the available data" I have spent many, many hours analyzing and thinking about various worldviews, though; I imagine more time than many people have.

I don't have time to analyze every part of every worldview, whether officially written down or not, and neither do you. Bummer, eh?! I work from actual observation of the world around me, just as you do, and analyze various worldviews I come across, just like you do. The only difference is that we have reached different conclusions. (and yes, you HAVE reached a conclusion - that's why you refer to yourself as an agnostic. And I, just like you, am open to changing my conclusions if I see data that warrants it. At this point, however, I have seen SO much data to support my conclusion that it would take an awful lot to make me change it.)

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.

I don't see why that matters, unless a person follows formal or informal decrees without thinking them through first. Oftentimes a group of people are right.

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.

Why should I bother to consider LOTR as a basis for reality, when its author says it's fiction? If statements are made as a truth claim, however, then I need to consider them and analyze them and see if they hang together logically and are supported by evidence and by experience.

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.

Why does that matter? As long as a person thinks about things, why should it matter if it's part of what you call a "religion" or not? Why does it matter what the source of morals is as long as a person thinks them through?

What I'm saying is that you are an agnostic, and given that belief, you come up with your moral decisions. You work the same way that I do.

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.

I think we've seen over and over here that people can call themselves Christian and feel free to ignore any part of the Bible they feel like ignoring.

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

But it is a chosen part, because I have thought about it, as well as other options, and decided that I think it is based on the truth.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

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.

I asked you on another thread if you were against partial birth abortion, and you said you were. Let's look at this further.

You've said (and just said again) that if I don't think gays should marry then I don't have to be gay. Let's apply that same standard to YOU and partial birth abortion. Since you think it's wrong, then why don't you just not encourage women to not do it, but don't try to force your morals onto others! If other people don't think it's wrong, then I certainly hope you wouldn't try to force your morals on them, just like you tell me to not force my ideas on gay marriage on others. Same standards here, please.

Again, you shouldn’t approach religion from the perspective of IM RIGHT! YOURE WRONG!

I think I should, so I intend to.

And by definition religion transcends humanity. It is the a way of perceiving the unperceivable. Of tapping into that which is beyond us.

Does your "unperceivable" and "that which is beyond us" exist, or is it just a name for pretty thoughts?

Religion should never be about the literal.

Your opinion; mine differs.

It should never be about trying to translate the symbolism into reality.

If it's symbolism, what is it symbolizing?

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.

I'm not interesting in transcending the way you describe it. I'd take drugs if I was interested in transcending that way. What I am interested in is analyzing various truth claims and seeing if I think any seem to model the universe the way I observe it, because I think it is useful, to say the least, to know (at least at some limited level) the true state of the universe in which one lives. I obviously can't know everything about the true state of the universe, but I think an important place to start is the question, "Is there a god/gods?", and go from there.

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.

I don't. I think. Many people don't.

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 guess I believe that Christianity is true the way that you believe that evolution is true. I find the data overwhelming. And when data doesn't fit, we both look to see if there are other ways that the data can be interpreted, because the weight of the previous data is so strongly in favor of Christianity (me) and evolution (you). And if there is ENOUGH data that doesn't fit, then we would jettison our beliefs.

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

I have a habit of pointing out people's biases that they often don't see themselves.

I think some of the most profound people in the world are religious.

What do you mean by "profound"? I'd call them foolish, if by "religious" you mean wasting time on things you don't think are real.

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.

Again, if I want to transcend in that way, I think I'd choose drugs.

they don’t use it to limit their thinking.

When one makes errors about the framework in which one is operating, they make lots of mistakes. When one tries to figure out the true state of the framework in which one is operating, it doesn't "limit" their thinking. On the contrary, it maximizes it.

Its easy to slip over into the cult aspect of religion.

Yes, some people don't think about their worldviews Including agnostics and atheists.

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

I see no important difference. They are both conclusions about the true state of the universe, and people base their moral decisions on them.

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.

I agree. Where I think you take it into the "god" aspect is when you think it applies to things outside its proper sphere.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

so it begins....

the path through life is fraught with danger and that which would attempt to lead you from the path of noble truth

freedom, equality, liberty as opposed to discord, intolerance and supercedence

[inked]

LCoU,

Like the liberty, freedom and equality of Yugoslavia, East Germany, the sovietized communnist Balkan states and USSR prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall and in the interval from 1917 to then?

the noble truth of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Che?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

marx, lenin and che maybe, i fail to see how you can even think to place stalin and mao on a par with those revolutionary geniae

[inked]

Easily, LCoU, because Stalin and Mao are the two most "successful" implementers of the theories of Marx and Lenin. Che was a "wannabe like Stalin or Mao," and I do not mean disrespect in that statement.

Nasty how the practitioners of a "pure" doctrine end up screwing it up so badly, isn't it? Reminds me of the complaints against Christians for not living up to their ideals. But human nature and all that!

[Rakkety_tamm]

I was always told that Eden was in Scotland.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Rakkety_tamm

I was always told that Eden was in Scotland.

no, the eden project is in cornwall

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The only difference is that we have reached different conclusions. (and yes, you HAVE reached a conclusion - that's why you refer to yourself as an agnostic.

and please explain to me what the “conclusion� that agnostics are supposed to hold exactly. I know the conclusion that Christians must hold to to be Christian. That its all because of god. So what is the conclusion for agnostics then? Its all because of what? By the way what do you do with an agnostic that doesn’t believe in evolution? Because they are out there.

it would take an awful lot to make me change it.)

clearly. Your belief system is hardened and defended at all costs. Wouldn’t take much for me. Just some direct evidence. Maybe even the hand of god making a new species. That’s not much to ask is it? if its so easy to do.

I don't see why that matters

it matters because you insist that being agnostic is no different from following a religion. Well if that’s all it is then wheres the church? Wheres the agnostic bible? where are the simple easy commandments we must follow as agnostics? The rules we must obey if we don’t want to be kicked out? What do you mean? We have to judge everything all by ourselves?? What a pain! That’s too much thinking!

Why should I bother to consider LOTR as a basis for reality, when its author says it's fiction? If statements are made as a truth claim, however, then I need to consider them and analyze them and see if they hang together logically and are supported by evidence and by experience.

I can find you evidence that middle earth once existed and that hobbits lived in ancient Indonesia. And I can insist that its true till my dying day. Refuting every argument you ever make that no its just a work of fiction. Im CONVINCED of it! And my clever human brain can easily look at the books handed down by Lord Tolkien and project what I see in there onto reality. Maybe theres no arc on Mt. Arrarat but I know for sure the ruins of Orthanc sit at the bottom of the Mediterranean by gum! Ive seen the charts! And I will dodge and parry any common sense remark you make to attempt to steer me toward any other opinion. And the fact that 500 million of my closest friends ALSO believe that the Lord of the Rings is the word of god only makes the truth all the more clear I say!

Why does it matter what the source of morals is as long as a person thinks them through?

your continued insistence was that my “source of morals� come from my choice to be agnostic. My argument was no that’s incorrect. My “morals� are irrelevant of my being agnostic.

What I'm saying is that you are an agnostic, and given that belief, you come up with your moral decisions. You work the same way that I do.

wrong. see above. My “morals� come from my genes and my environment. Theres no evidence for anything beyond that. It has NOTHING to do with the fact im agnostic… AGAIN there IS no agnostic set of morals. I don’t see why you continue to insist that there is.

I think we've seen over and over here that people can call themselves Christian and feel free to ignore any part of the Bible they feel like ignoring.

ok well then can I call myself Christian? Because other then the whole bible thing im cool with it. can I call myself a doctor just because I have a white coat? Or do I have to meet certain standards and follow certain rules? Guess what. Agnostics don’t have to. Theres no guideline to it. it’s a default state where a conclusion is suspended.

But it is a chosen part, because I have thought about it, as well as other options, and decided that I think it is based on the truth.

you chose your genes? And the culture you lived in?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

You've said (and just said again) that if I don't think gays should marry then I don't have to be gay. Let's apply that same standard to YOU and partial birth abortion. Since you think it's wrong, then why don't you just not encourage women to not do it, but don't try to force your morals onto others! If other people don't think it's wrong, then I certainly hope you wouldn't try to force your morals on them, just like you tell me to not force my ideas on gay marriage on others. Same standards here, please.

and once again Ill respond to this argument you like to pepper in every SINGLE thread… with PROVE THE HARM. I can prove the direct harm involved with killing a nine month old fetus. Prove the harm your religion tells you gays will do by marrying. Until then don’t impose your morals on others when there is no harm done.

Does your "unperceivable" and "that which is beyond us" exist, or is it just a name for pretty thoughts?

is your conclusion that we now perceive everything? That the universe has been thoroughly and completely examined and cataloged?

If it's symbolism, what is it symbolizing?

why everything of course.

I'm not interesting in transcending the way you describe it. I'd take drugs if I was interested in transcending that way. What I am interested in is analyzing various truth claims and seeing if I think any seem to model the universe the way I observe it, because I think it is useful, to say the least, to know (at least at some limited level) the true state of the universe in which one lives. I obviously can't know everything about the true state of the universe, but I think an important place to start is the question, "Is there a god/gods?", and go from there.

and that is exactly why you miss the point. Because for you religion is all about whose right and whose wrong. and you cant seem to see through the veil. You cant seem to see that we use limited human language and archetypes in ALL religions and ALL cultures to try to put a face on whats underneath it all. But I don’t blame you. its hard. Especially when that’s all you know.

I have a habit of pointing out people's biases that they often don't see themselves.

funny you miss the most obvious ones in yourself then.

What do you mean by "profound"? I'd call them foolish, if by "religious" you mean wasting time on things you don't think are real.

what a sad statement. Writing off learned and wise elders as “fools� simply because they don’t believe as you do. Because they can see beyond what you see and understand how myth and psyche and doctrine intertwine to touch a greater truth about who we are and whats important. Many Christians have achieved this. Its not an anti-christian ideal at all. Millions have not however. Millions are stuck in the notion that “Im right and YOURE wrong!

When one makes errors about the framework in which one is operating, they make lots of mistakes. When one tries to figure out the true state of the framework in which one is operating, it doesn't "limit" their thinking. On the contrary, it maximizes it.

but your focus is simply on the veil. Not the body underneath. Its not seeing the forest for the trees. You see your tree and your tree is your entire reality.

I agree. Where I think you take it into the "god" aspect is when you think it applies to things outside its proper sphere.

such as…

[Rían]

IRex, you entirely missed my point, probably because I didn't express it well enough, but I prob. can't get to it until next week.

[Narinya_Cocachitawa]

Originally Posted by Rakkety_tamm

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

Well, they do teach more than Christianity in that class. They're supposed to cover six of the largest religions in toe world like Christianity, Islam, and others. It's too bad the man who's teaching it now is retiering. I was hopint go have him again next year.

Originally Posted by Rian

I don't think that everything in the Bible is literal. There's some lovely and powerful poetry, some parables, lots of imagery, etc. However, it is based on the actual reality of the state of the universe, IMO. Otherwise I wouldn't bother much with it.

I agree to a certain extent. Yes there is records of real events, but much of it is a collection of parables. All were put together in a believable record. But one has to understand that it would be awefully boring to think that humans are the only "intelligent" life forms in the whole of space.

I find it distinctly odd that Cain only had brothers, but managed to find a wife. He certainly wouldn't have married his mother, would he?

[inked]

NC,

Are you a closet literalist at heart? Or merely trying to make a myth into a scientific treatise? Or something else?

[Rakkety_tamm]

Originally Posted by Narinya_Cocachitawa

Well, they do teach more than Christianity in that class. They're supposed to cover six of the largest religions in toe world like Christianity, Islam, and others..

Hon, that's what they say, but they focas on Christianity, I scraped out a decent grade, but twasn't my best class, most of the time they were trying to show me the "errors of my ways" since they found out that I wasn't really christian.

EDIT: BTW, thanks for helping me with the cd again, I'll make a tape of it for you.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Narinya_Cocachitawa

I find it distinctly odd that Cain only had brothers, but managed to find a wife. He certainly wouldn't have married his mother, would he?

Originally Posted by Genesis 5:4

After Seth waas born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.

He married one of his sisters.

[Rakkety_tamm]

that is discusting.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

15th may was the birthday of the buddha, day of meditation for me

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by Tessar

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.

I went to a catholic elementary school and a private catholic high school, and I would say my teachers did have a good understanding of Catholicism, heres the break down of the high school classes I took...

Freshman year was learning about the Bible - Old/New Testament.
Sophomore year was learning about Sacraments and Relationships.
Junior Year was learning about Morality and Ethics in accordance to the Catholic Doctrine.
Senior year was learning about World Religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddism, Taoism etc...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

and once again Ill respond to this argument you like to pepper in every SINGLE thread… with PROVE THE HARM. I can prove the direct harm involved with killing a nine month old fetus. Prove the harm your religion tells you gays will do by marrying. Until then don’t impose your morals on others when there is no harm done.

No, you don't understand. I'm fine with what you said there. What I'm saying is that you need to apply that standard to YOURSELF when you are discussing partial birth abortion. If others don't think it's wrong, then YOU shouldn't push YOUR standard on them - IOW, don't vote against partial birth abortion - you don't have to do it, so according to your logic with me and gay marriage, you shouldn't force your opinion on others. That's what I'm pointing out.

I think gay marriage is harmful to society and to the participants. You don't accept my definition of wrong/harmful in this case, and you tell me that I shouldn't vote against it because I don't have to choose to do it myself. I"m pointing out that you should apply that SAME standard to yourself in the case of partial birth abortion. YOU think it's wrong - well, others obviously don't, because they're not being dragged into abortion clinics screaming "don't kill my baby!" - so I would hope that YOU wouldn't push YOUR definition of wrong on these people that think partial birth abortion is NOT wrong. Would you? If it came to a vote, would you vote against partial birth abortion? If so, why? If not, why not?

what a sad statement. Writing off learned and wise elders as “fools� simply because they don’t believe as you do. Because they can see beyond what you see and understand how myth and psyche and doctrine intertwine to touch a greater truth about who we are and whats important.

Why is it sad? What are they "learned and wise elders" about if religion isn't about truth? What are they seeing beyond TO, in your opinion, if it's not something that's true or false?

I agree that things intertwine to touch a greater truth about who we are and what's important - and IMO, that greater truth is expressed in the Christian doctrine. It seems like the only thing that your "elders" are wise about is being "transcendant" - but if that has no relation with knowing truth, then what are they wise ABOUT? No offense, but it seems like they're just wise about getting high