paultrr Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 and a good way to start asking "does God exist" is by realizing you aren't him (or her, Buffy :xx:) I do not think that most of us that see nature as our creator think we are God to begin with. At heart we do not believe in any real god we simply see nature as our creator. But interesting how its us modern version of pagan's(ie a lot of anchient paganism looked at nature as the source, but admixtured such with polytheism) who manage to see what's really going on out there in the religious world. For the chirstians in this group do not try to admixture such with Satan. I believe it was Christ who said a House divided cannot stand. If we can see the truth and point out such then what is the source considering we claim no real God? For the simple minded try considering logic applied to world events. Here's where I like Linda see the danger in faith. But I differ with her over weither faith as a whole out to be thrown out with the bath water. Some of the best minds we had in the past when it comes to science came out of religious backgrounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAKER Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 But I differ with her over weither faith as a whole out to be thrown out with the bath water. Some of the best minds we had in the past when it comes to science came out of religious backgrounds.It is impossible to throw out faith. You will believe in something without having all the evidence. The only question is; what will you choose to believe.:xx: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bumab Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 ....remember Babalon out of the book of Revelations, the so-called spiritual harlot. She was also as some OT passages point out to be involved in monitary events and world trade. There is also mention of her great city burning as the whole world watches in the book of Revelations. Well, literally interpriting Revelations is a little sketchy, but definitly interesting. ....I think if those fortold events come true it will be because human's themselves in the name of their God of forces brought it about. Not because of some fallen angel. Not because some God made it happen. But, to use Christ's own recorded words,"Because of the hardness of man's heart". I don't think the "hardness of man's heart" and fallen angels and God are mutually exclusive... But, like I said, a literal interpritation of Revelations is a little sketchy, and not really something to be attempted by me :xx: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockytriton Posted May 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 Well, literally interpriting Revelations is a little sketchy, but definitly interesting. I've gone through a bunch of phases, from total belief to total disbelief and one thing has always remained the same in my belief, revelations should be completely ignored. I think it's just the ramblings of a senile man personally. I don't know if others really share this point of view or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 ... one thing has always remained the same in my belief, revelations should be completely ignored.... I don't know if others really share this point of view or not.Hmmm. I don't ignore it, but it is a pretty tough book to get theology from. The Revelation and Genesis 1 (oddly) seem to get the most air time in non-Christian circles. They are similar in that both were sourced through visions of the author (or in the case of Genesis 1, perhaps a previous author). Interpreting visions is pretty tough going. Very little else of the Bible is based on visions of the author. It is worth noting that John (the author of the Revelation) probably didn't understand the text either. Typically the receivers of a vision did not understand it. John does not offer to interpret the vision, he just records it. Parts of the Revelation are pretty inrtiguing, and there is a lot of spiritual value in the portions where Christ diagnoses the behavior of the churches (chapter 2,3). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokinjoe9 Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 I want to add to this thread also...Where does Rapture come from, it is not in the Bible. No need to quote Theselonians I've read it. I understand that there may be people who are not affected by the end times, but the bible states, "as in the times of Noah", "as in the times of Lot", during these times they were not magically removed from the earth they stayed right here, they were however excluded from punishment..Rapture is just another new doctrine put in place to satisfy a certain sect. I also thing Revelations is one of the best books, with the exception of, I am having trouble making sense out of it, but I am working on it. I do know that just because you see a preacher on TV that doesn't mean he/she is spreading the word of God even though it may seem like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockytriton Posted May 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 Well at least a lot of really cool horror movies came about because of the revelation book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 I want to add to this thread also...Where does Rapture come from, it is not in the Bible.From what I've been able to tell, the folks that talk about it argue that its an "interpretation" of the words "taken up" in various places in the Bible. Odd how folks who insist on the Bible being literal truth and not open to interpretation have got such vivid imaginations on this one... Cheers,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 ...Odd how folks who insist on the Bible being literal truth and not open to interpretation ...This idea certainly comes up regularly. I don't know ANYONE who believes the Bible must be interpreted "literally", even from the oroginal source languages. Conservative scholars of all flavors agree that use of idiom, hyperbole, phenomemnal language, poetry, allegory, metaphor, and histoical context is required for interpretation. I am not sure how a literalist could even read the newspaper, much less the Bible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 ...I don't know ANYONE who believes the Bible must be interpreted "literally", even from the oroginal source languages....'ats where the "universe created in seven days" stuff comes from: not allowed to interpret a "day" as anything other than 24 hours! :xx: A day interpreted as allegory? Apostate! Sacrelige! You're really lucky Bio: they got some pretty copacetic Christians up there in Oregon! Try Bakersfield! Whoo! Cheers,Buffy Queso 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 ...You're really lucky Bio: they got some pretty copacetic Christians up there in Oregon! Try Bakersfield! Whoo....Maybe, but I was not only referring to Oregon. I have regularly attended churches in California and Florida as well. I have friends (and 2 previous pastors) that are THDs from Dallas Theological Seminary, a conservative Mecca. I have friends (maybe a dozen) that have attended reasonably conservative Bible schools (Multnomah, Trinity, Prarie, Columbia, etc). These schools do NOT teach literal interpretation of scripture. None of these schools advocate the Bible is to be taken "literally"in the true defintion of the word. I think we are confusing enthusiasm for scholarship. Conservative, educated theologians rarely take these positions. That some local pastors may enthusiastically embrace literalism is interesting, but not the point. Asking rank-and-file Christians about Biblical interpretation techniques (i.e., hermeneutics) is like asking high school biology students about evolution-because they are "biologists". Or like asking my local hardware store owner about the relative merits of debt versus equity financing becasue he is a "business" guy. I think the next time I want to critique the holes in evolutionary theory, I will quote my mother or my high school biology teacher. That would make about as much sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bumab Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 Not many think the ENTIRE Bible should be interprited literally, in my experience. Most exclude the obvious poetry, like Pslams, Proverbs, Song of Songs, etc. But I do know quite a few people who think everything that remotely resembles narrative writing should be taken literally- all of Genesis, Revelations, the Prophets, etc etc. So, you're both right :xx: The bigger issue is are these people taking literally what SHOULD be taken literally, or what SHOULD NOT be taken literally? It takes a little more scholarly research and inquiry to look into how the Bible was written, the origional languages, etc. to see that the beginning of Genesis is a metaphor, for example. Many people are content to say: "It looks like it was written in a historical manner, so it must be history." Who knows if the debate about which parts of the Bible are historical and which are allagorical and which are poetical etc etc will ever be adequately addressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bumab Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 think the next time I want to critique the holes in evolutionary theory, I will quote my mother or my high school biology teacher. That would make about as much sense. Hey now, not all teachers are misinformed.... :xx: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 Hey now, not all teachers are misinformed.... :xx:Whoops. Sorry. Apologies to all informed shool teachers on the planet (including Fishteacher). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 I think we are confusing enthusiasm for scholarship. Conservative, educated theologians rarely take these positions. That some local pastors may enthusiastically embrace literalism is interesting, but not the point. Asking rank-and-file Christians about Biblical interpretation techniques (i.e., hermeneutics) is like asking high school biology students about evolution-because they are "biologists".Agree this is a minority, its just an extremely vocal minority. Disagree on its being "some local pastors" unless you include Jerry Falwell (Liberty University), Bob Jones (Bob Jones University), and many others of similar stature... Cheers,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 Whoops. Sorry. Apologies to all informed shool teachers on the planet (including Fishteacher).But, in my defense, I was talking about high-school students, not their teachers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 So, you're both right :) The bigger issue is are these people taking literally what SHOULD be taken literally, or what SHOULD NOT be taken literally?Amen! :xx: Cheers,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.