God... What are your thoughts???

[arkain101]

Ya Pyrotex, that was a really good post and it reminded me of a bit of an epiphany I had recently...

 

As far as biblical scriptures go, the "G-D" of varying titles defines itself, and sometimes referred to by authors in those texts as: the Lord Almighty, That who is most mighty, the Lord of lords, None above, The source of ALL, That which IS always, The first and the last.

 

Now where my moment came in is when I realised, the term and title God(g-d), is the title of the ideal of worship, a varying title of the same lord, above us. I found it profound for myself because of some consequences..

 

Example; The Lord Almighty, and is Israel's GOD, the god of Israel. (the title they refer to as their god)

 

Anyhow, it just occured to me that although there are vairations of who one calls a god, the foundations of each variation in something as the source of all, above all, is the same foundation, one similar simple thing that is comman amongst many variations of this kind, and it is faith in the greatest, as existence' source.

 

The golden rule I find each 'god' requires is to have faith in that which is greatest. That is what it says at least in scriptures as the most important thing to be seen as righteous (proper nature, seen as whole and compatible) in its perspective.

 

Havin faith in something like that isnt so hard, and is actually kind of logical.

 

The rest is just details to try and teach us to act a little more civilized so we stop wiping ourselves out in wars and famine and crap.. Lessons to assist humanity progress...

When we do things that hinder progress they fit into catagories of what is referred to as sin. Which is also quite logical. Getting drunk and screwing prostitutes isnt going to do much for progressing humanty..

 

After all the greatest struggle is usually keeping wisdom and knowledge alive to better ourselves....sins, the actions of destruction always seem to hinder that progress... why would we want to work bacwards and turn into bacteria? lol... Thus the lessons found in the details are sound and logical...If we could all just focus on that goal and put it in action instead of using knowledge for finding ways to become superior..

[BEAKER]

I'm just sayin'... :) :) :)

 

Is that a GlennBeck-ism?:hihi:

[Pyrotex]

...As far as biblical scriptures go, the "G-D" of varying titles defines itself, and sometimes referred to by authors in those texts as: the Lord Almighty, That who is most mighty, the Lord of lords, None above, The source of ALL, That which IS always, The first and the last....

Modern Jews and biblical scholars widely accept that the language of god-honorifics in the OT, like "lord almighty", "all-knowing", "infinite mercy", etc, derives directly from the honorifics demanded by the human kings and emperors of Earthly kingdoms of that era.

[BEAKER]

Modern Jews and biblical scholars widely accept that the language of god-honorifics in the OT, like "lord almighty", "all-knowing", "infinite mercy", etc, derives directly from the honorifics demanded by the human kings and emperors of Earthly kingdoms of that era.

Since we are speculating - (based on the historical evidence we prefer);

I imagine it's actually the other way around.

[Pyrotex]

Since we are speculating - (based on the historical evidence we prefer);

I imagine it's actually the other way around.

Correct. That is precisely what you are doing: "imagining"

[Lancaster]

Since we are speculating - (based on the historical evidence we prefer);

I imagine it's actually the other way around.

 

The honorifics demanded by the human kings and emperors of Earthly kingdoms of that era derive directly from modern Jews and biblical scholars?

 

:)

[BEAKER]

The honorifics demanded by the human kings and emperors of Earthly kingdoms of that era derive directly from modern Jews and biblical scholars?

 

:)

 

...And of course, if that's the case - and I'm sure it is - which came first; the chicken or the egg?

 

My meaning being, that if the honorifics drived from the Jews; their worship has always been exclusively to the only One True God. Even before there was the nation of Isreal, and the Jewish people; from the begining those who worshiped God (and specifically the ancestral lineage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), understood Him to be the Lord Heaven, and of all the Earth.

 

I'm sure that did inspire those who would be kings to seek that kind of adoration from their subjects.

 

But the only good kings realized that kind of worship was reserved for God alone; while still demanding respect through slightly lesser terms of honor.

[Thorshammer]

Hail, Thorr!

[Lancaster]

...And of course, if that's the case - and I'm sure it is

 

Wow. You are really sure of yourself. What I said was that ancient terms came from modern Jews. I said that. . .as a joke. What do you mean?

[Pyrotex]

...I'm sure it is...their worship has always been exclusively to the only One True God...I'm sure that did inspire those who would be kings to seek that kind of adoration from their subjects...only good kings realized....

The fact that YOU are "sure" counts for absolutely nothing. The extent of your "education" is fairy tales and Sunday School stories for widdle kids. Read some history, some REAL history. The existence of kings predates the Old Testament stories by thousands of years.

[BEAKER]

The existence of kings predates the Old Testament stories by thousands of years.

 

But not the actual events described in those stories.

 

widdle kids...

- those are kids that carve things out of small chunks of wood with a pocket knife, right?

 

What I said was that ancient terms came from modern Jews. I said that. . .as a joke. What do you mean?

 

That ancient terms came from ancient Jews.

[Lancaster]

Generally, when someone says "the other way around" when two things are being compared with a verb such as "derived" they intend to reverse the positions of the two things, not make up another comparison.

 

And have you stated a valid reason to contradict biblical scholars? Don't assume they are incorrect because they contradict your viewpoint.

[Pyrotex]

...That ancient terms came from ancient Jews.

I used to believe like you obviously do now.

 

Grew up in a very fundementalist, congregational church. All I knew about history and the origin of civilization came directly from the pulpit. By the age of 14, I thought that all of civilization came from the ancient Jews. They were the first to invent writing, the first to record history, the first to build temples, the first to have a religion, the inventors of laws and moral codes and so on and so on and so on...

 

My first introduction to real history was in college. I took European history (2 semesters, required) and noted a lot of serious differences between the secular version and the pulpit version. So, I took Ancient history (1 semester, elective) to get the secular scoop. They hardly ever mentioned the Jews. The reason? The Kingdom of Israel played an insignificant role in the historical development of the Middle East.

 

That's right. "Insignificant" Their language, their arts, their writings, their culture, their religon, their god, their military exploits--nada. Compared to the happenings in Egypt, Persia, Mesopotamia, Greece, Media, Assyria, India, China and other major empires from 5000 BC to 500 BC, the Jews played no role at all. They were a tiny population on a tiny triangle of land, devoid of any technological ability (they had to pay a neighboring kingdom to build Solomon's temple!).

 

the ONE thing the Hebrews did that was worthy of any note was that they adopted writing to a greater degree than most other small, tribal, backwater, late Bronze Age peoples. They wrote, and managed to preserve, a written account of much of their history, affording us a fascinating snapshot into what life must have been like back then.

 

But even the Old Testament had absolutely no impact on history or human culture until it was printed in German, then English and made available to the general public in the 16th Century.

 

The Jews were NOT the origin of law, god, culture, writing, or history itself. Sorry. Those guys in the pulpit were not intentionally lying to you, Beaker--they believe that stuff hook, line and sinker, just the same as you. But you and they have all been sadly deceived.

 

If you can't accept that (and I figure you probably can't) then find yourself a Jewish scholar. Call up a Jewish temple and ask if you can speak to one. The chances are, he can set you straight.

[Boerseun]

Well, Pyro - for some dumb reason I can't send you any rep. But I just want the record to show that I think the above post is excellent, true to form.

Tellin' it like it is, man.

 

:shrug:

[Pyrotex]

Thank you, Boerseun.

 

I no doubt would have grown up to be a bible-thumpin' TRUE BELIEVER if it hadn't been for one teensy tiny thing: I caught the preacher lying to me. Oh, it was no big deal, he didn't even know he was lying. He misused the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I tried to explain it to him later, but (and this shocked me) he was neither able to understand nor did he care. I was about 15 at the time.

 

He gave me a book with a title like, "Science as Revealed by the Bible". There was an obvious lie on nearly every page. Some of them were so ludicrous that it was almost funny. It attacked evolution, astronomy, geology, biology, paleantology, and even history. It was junk and at 15 years of age, I knew it.

 

I began paying far more attention to the Sunday sermons from then on. And I was far less gullible and accepting. I couldn't help it. My mind had been tuned to the possibility of falsehoods from the pulpit. The preacher was no longer infallible. The harder I listened, the more "glitches" I found, and the more I realized that TRUTH was NOT a major priority in pulpit logic.

 

Ten or twelve years later (I was a stubborn cuss--I WANTED to believe) I finally gave up in disgust. It just wasn't possible to believe fundementalist christianity AND understand the universe without a lot of mental and logical conflict. Unless, of course, I wanted to grow up stupid. So I made my decision. I would live by sight* and not by faith.

 

*['sight' = logic, facts, evidence, math, analysis, deduction, induction]

[REASON]

So I made my decision. I would live by sight* and not by faith.

 

Unfortunately Pyro, many people of faith rely so heavily on their faith that to let it go, even partially, would be devastating to them. They really have no desire to be "set staight," if you will. The prospect of having everything that they have established, or that has been established for them, as the foundation of their beliefs crumble underneath them can be daunting enough to deny even some of the most obvious scientific realities. It's been going on throughout history. I know you understand this.

 

To them, a world without a creator is empty. But I don't think faith is really about a creator or a God. Belief in a creator provides justification and hope for something far more important to the faithful. An afterlife. What good is believing in God if there is no promise of an afterlife. To me, this desire, to live on beyond one's death, is the at the core of most all religious faith. Science is threatening to religion for no other reason than because, as it chips away at religious notions, it chips away at the prospect of eternal life. Based on the percentage of humans who are believers, I expect that we are not ready to let go of this conviction.

 

What's great about your comments is that there are also many out there that are dealing with the same internal conflict regarding religious dogmatism, and it is nice to know that there are others such as you, who share, or have shared the same confusion and have been able to move on and follow what makes sense in their own heart and mind.........essentially, to be an individual.

[Pyrotex]

Unfortunately Pyro, many people of faith rely so heavily on their faith that to let it go, even partially, would be devastating to them. ....

You're absolutely right. Well said, noble sir!

 

I can remember being a freshman in college, talking to the other dorm residents, and the subject of religion coming up. I wanted them to know that *I* was a *real* christian, not like those fake Methodists and Catholics.

 

They laughed at me. It hurt really bad. I felt it was unjust. I used my best pulpit logic on them, and they swept it away with indifference and scorn. Then they began using real logic. Though I hung onto my faith, the authenticity of *REAL* logic could not be ignored. And that made me angry.

 

So, I do truly understand.