Is there a God? What do YOU think???

[bartock]

Another example is the first two chapters of Ezekiel.

 

Upon reading this, one can make a case for it being a description of a UFO landing, with fair descriptions of landing gear, boosters, space helmets etc.

 

Or you can argue it being a supernatural being landing in his fiery chariot.

 

There is several possible explanations of what is described in Ezekiel, and it just goes to show that the Bible can be interpreted in whatever way needed at the time.

 

The Apartheid Government in South Africa based its racist policy for years on the Bible, justifying everything they did as being the "Will of God". Today, those same people are defending multi-racial and democratic institutions as being the "Will of God". The times have changed, and so did the interpretations. The Bible, in my opinion, is probably the most abused book in the history of Mankind to justify excesses and political ends.

 

The Catholics and the Protestants have been bombing Northern Ireland to shreds for years based on different interpretations of the same Book.

 

then it makes israel an aparthied state too

[Linda Stolte]

then it makes israel an aparthied state too

I don't recall seeing the word "aparthied" used in any translation of the Bible. I think this may be straying from the actual subject.

 

There is several possible explanations of what is described in Ezekiel, and it just goes to show that the Bible can be interpreted in whatever way needed at the time.

The Bible is not up for individual interpretations. The Bible is the word of God, written by men led by the Holy Spirit as to what to write. Therefore God's word is already being interpreted. (2 Peter 1:20-21)

20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. NAS

[bartock]

I don't recall seeing the word "aparthied" used in any translation of the Bible. I think this may be straying from the actual subject.

 

 

The Bible is not up for individual interpretations. The Bible is the word of God, written by men led by the Holy Spirit as to what to write. Therefore God's word is already being interpreted. (2 Peter 1:20-21)

20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. NAS

please dont miss quote me :)

[Linda Stolte]

My apologies to (bartock). I have edited my previous post to show that the comment on "the Bible can be interpreted in whatever way needed at the time" was the original post of (Boerseun)

[niviene]

niviene,

I think there is a difference in what you mention here. Taking the Bible literally deals with taking the words to mean what they say. For instance, a literalist would take the Creation account to mean that God created the entire earth in six literal days, not in thousands of years, not through evolution, etc.

Whether or not you choose to accept/live by other parts of the Bible has little to do with taking it literally. Agreeing with what it says, or even disagreeing with it, does not mean a literal or non-literal view. It just means that you choose to follow, or not follow, what it says. That lends itself more to a 'pick-and-choose' religion than a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Saying that you do not want to believe that marrying your already married fiancee is adultery is just that - you don't want to believe it. However, not wanting to believe it doesn't make it so.

Please don't think I'm being a prig about this - I'm divorced, and re-married. And my current husband and I lived together, even had children toghether, before we got amrried. I'm not saying that we're perfect - far from it. But the Bible is pretty specific about those things for a reason. When you get married, you are supposed to remain that way. That's why you say your vows to God. When you get divorced, the world absolves you of those vows. God doesn't. He doesn't approve of divorce. I hear people say "Well, if God knew my husband/wife, he'd approve of divorce". But I think what God really wants is biblical marriages - that is - marriages that start with Him at the center, and stay that way. If you put Him before yourself, before your spouse, before your kids, AND your spouse does the same, problems have a way of working themselves out.

I also am kinda confused how you can take an OT law (thou shalt not steal) literally, and not find any room for leeway, but you are very against a NT teaching (divorce+remarriage=adultery), justifying that it was written in other times and things are different now. Isn't that a bit inconsistent?

 

Sorry I didn't see this response sooner. My problem with that passage, Irish, is that the Bible specifically makes it sound like Men are allowed to divorce women for any reason, and if they haven't committed adultery already and the man decides to divorce the woman, he forces her to be an adulteress. In other words, Man has power over Woman to make her a sinner, according to this passage, even if she has not committed this sin. I will never agree with anything that suggests that Man or Woman has more or less power or standing with any God than the other. So, I feel that it's open to a more modern point of view, and consider it to be the close mindedness of the men that wrote it at a time when society said it was to be that way. It does not say Man becomes an adulterer when he divorces... only Woman. I was just switching the roles. And, furthermore, since I do not believe that all marriages are "of God", I do not think they should all be bound by religious dogma. Some people marry under God, some people simply marry legally. This is one of the reasons I feel that we should not be able to stop gay marriages - a legal process, not a religious one. But, that's for another thread... I don't want to get into it here, other than to try to show what I feel are differences between religious and legal forms of marriage.

 

And, a fundamentalist I would define as somebody who takes the bible literally - meaning that they would believe in a passage like this verbatim. I would disagree with them on two levels - that they couldn't see that it was written by a man and the circumstances and environment around the author at the time it was written, and also that I will very rapidly walk away from any one / religion that suggests that I should be subordinate to any other human being - if God exists, I should be subordinate to God alone; all other subordination or seeming subordination should be by my choice and acts as a fellow Christian - not as a subordinate class of citizen mandated by a regulation such as this. I agree with you in that fundamentalists, in my opinion, believe the Earth was created in 6 of our current days; also, believe that early people lived nearly a thousand years; and believe that there was a flood that covered the entire planet - and, it happened only a couple thousand years BC. I think there are plenty of passages in the Bible that teach a way to God, a way to accept Jesus, a way to be thankful for life and a way to live on this planet. But, the Bible is a work by humans, who by very definition are not perfect. This is what I see in it. I look for the reasons behind the writings, just like I do in textbooks in school - what was the author's purpose in writing this; what did they want me to get out of it? And that's where I see the real benefit. I guess it doesn't matter who is right or wrong (and I feel there really is no person who is right or wrong) but we see it as we need to see it to get what we need to get out of it.

[Biochemist]

... My problem with that passage, Irish, is that the Bible specifically makes it sound like Men are allowed to divorce women for any reason, and if they haven't committed adultery already and the man decides to divorce the woman, he forces her to be an adulteress. In other words, Man has power over Woman to make her a sinner.....

I really don't think this is what the passage means, Niv.

 

I think Jesus is making a practical statement here. A single woman in Palestine in 30AD probably would have to be with a man to survive economically (note the number of verses about care for women and orphans). This means a divorced woman would either get remarried or engage in promiscuous bevavior.

 

This was more a case of men accepting their responsibilities, rather than granting them any particular rights or powers.

[niviene]

I really don't think this is what the passage means, Niv.

 

I think Jesus is making a practical statement here. A single woman in Palestine in 30AD probably would have to be with a man to survive economically (note the number of verses about care for women and orphans). This means a divorced woman would either get remarried or engage in promiscuous bevavior.

 

This was more a case of men accepting their responsibilities, rather than granting them any particular rights or powers.

 

I think it represents that both parties are supposed to accept their responsibilities. I just don't like the literal sense it gives. That's why I said that I looked for why the author wrote it rather than believing these things literally. :hihi: I agree with you... I don't think that's what this passage means. I don't think it's there to be read literally. I also think the passage that says "a man who even looks at a woman with lustful eyes has already committed adultery" also goes for the woman who does the same with another man. And I would agree that a person who was having a cyber fling with somebody online would be committing adultery, in my opinion, because it happens in the mind. I like to relate these passages to today's reality... it seems to work better for my opinion.

[Biochemist]

I think it represents that both parties are supposed to accept their responsibilities. I just don't like the literal sense it gives....

I don't know where all of this discussion of "literal" comes from. As I have said before NO ONE takes the Bible literally. There are some who believe that the seven days of creation are seven 24-hour days, but even those folks allow for figurative use in lots of other passages.

 

The issue is not literal versus nonliteral (i.e., figurative). The issue is whether you think the Bible is true. One can believe the Bible is true and still have legitimate questions about what specific passages mean.

 

Incidentally, your definition of "fundamentalist" is OK, but not usually what most folks mean. Most folks use "fundamentalist" to describe a group that precludes a set of behaviors. Some of the more conservative Baptist denominations preclude drinking, dancing and smoking (for example). This is the usage that the media uses when they decribe "Muslim fundamenaltists". This is not a description of interpretive style. It is a description of intolerance for a broad set of behaviors. The Taliban count as fundamentalists.

[questor]

why don't we rephrase the question? why not ask--do you believe in a creator? do you believe the cosmos just happened, or do you think it was created by a sentient force?

then let's ask a few more questions...what is the propulsive mechanism that propels the earth around the sun? how did information get into human genes that enables replication?

what is the subatomic activity that causes a human thought? what is the activity that causes life? why get caught up in arguing about the Bible or religion when answers to the previous questions would give proof about the true character of the cosmos? Questor

[bartock]

why don't we rephrase the question? why not ask--do you believe in a creator? do you believe the cosmos just happened, or do you think it was created by a sentient force?

then let's ask a few more questions...what is the propulsive mechanism that propels the earth around the sun? how did information get into human genes that enables replication?

what is the subatomic activity that causes a human thought? what is the activity that causes life? why get caught up in arguing about the Bible or religion when answers to the previous questions would give proof about the true character of the cosmos? Questor

good questions!

yes i do believe in a creator who created every thing.intelligent design is actually talking about a creator.

u r asking

1. what is gravity or the nature of the gravitational force?where does it come from?what it really is?

Ans...gravitation is a tendency of mass to move towards each other?would i be wrong if i said it is the will of the creator that a force of attraction should exist between masses and we have named it gravity?

 

2.the mechanism by which the next link in the chain of DNA is added to make the next higher stage of life forms?

Ans..well through emr.but what is emr(electromagnetic radiation)?we call it energy.we define energy only by the way it affects things and there is no other way to define energy. reminds me of when people say that we can not know the essence of God.well we also dont know what energy is.(ouch!)

 

3.where does human thought come from?

Ans...the human thought comes from his consciousness where his total past learning history resides and we give our selves reasons through our inner speech to do what ever.when we r talking to our self with our inner speech we make our thoughts.but where did the simbolic language come from that we use for our inner speech?i think the creator gave us that simbolic language.because of the inner speech we have free will.

 

4.how did life beguine.

i guess with the beguining of the universe.

[Boerseun]

then it makes israel an aparthied state too

Pretty accurate observation, in my honest opinion.

[Biochemist]

Pretty accurate observation, in my honest opinion.

I am not quite sure how you made this assertion. Israel does prosecute terrorists aggressively, and the terrorists are mostly Palestinians. But the majority of Palestinians are not terrorists, and are neither prosecuted nor persecuted. Even the ones that are Israel residents (or Israeli citizens(!)) are granted full rights under law unless they consort with terrorists. How exactly is this like apartheid, where an entire race was suppressed because of race only?

[bartock]

I am not quite sure how you made this assertion. Israel does prosecute terrorists aggressively, and the terrorists are mostly Palestinians. But the majority of Palestinians are not terrorists, and are neither prosecuted nor persecuted. Even the ones that are Israel residents (or Israeli citizens(!)) are granted full rights under law unless they consort with terrorists. How exactly is this like apartheid, where an entire race was suppressed because of race only?

well of all the people biochemist i thought u would be able to see the truth.any way if u read the articles on israeli policies (amnesty international) you will see that these are apartheid policies.of course it is not in your face(stupid kind that was practiced in south africa)kind of aparthide but very stealthily gisguised.so people who blindly trust israel cant really see what actually these policies are designed to do. ;)

can u think of an excuse that is needed for apartheid policies to continue?

how can an oppressor maintain his oppression in a world that is pushing for more human rights and freedom?the answers are there for those who seek.

what would the comparison be of britain-ireland and israel-palestine?

[Biochemist]

well of all the people biochemist i thought u would be able to see the truth.any way if u read the articles on israeli policies (amnesty international) you will see that these are apartheid policies...

Well, since you brought up AI as if it were not a biased source, you have lost nearly all credibility.

 

The word "apartheid" means something. It means an explicit public policy of overtly suppressing a race. You can certainly call Israelis racists if you like. Just like you could call Californians or Texans or South Carolinians racists. That would be an opinion.

 

But it you call Israel "apartheid" , all it shows is 1) you don't know or care what the word means, and/or 2) you are trying to incite feelings.

 

Israel is not apartheid, by definition. Amnesty International is an anti-Israel group that uses colorful (and inaccurate) language to politicize their views.

[bartock]

Well, since you brought up AI as if it were not a biased source, you have lost nearly all credibility.

 

The word "apartheid" means something. It means an explicit public policy of overtly suppressing a race. You can certainly call Israelis racists if you like. Just like you could call Californians or Texans or South Carolinians racists. That would be an opinion.

 

But it you call Israel "apartheid" , all it shows is 1) you don't know or care what the word means, and/or 2) you are trying to incite feelings.

 

Israel is not apartheid, by definition. Amnesty International is an anti-Israel group that uses colorful (and inaccurate) language to politicize their views.

yes the subject of calling israel an apartheid state is a touchy one.

1.how is AI biased?what source is unbiased?u think dr. uri davis is also biased?

2.did u ever read the israeli polocies?

3.waht does the word apartheid mean?according to the american heritage college dictionary the word apartheid means

a)a policy of racial segregation practiced in south africa against the non-whites.

b)any policy or practice of seprating or segregating groups.

c)the condition of being seprated from others;segregation.(i still think the israeli policies are staelthily disguised to fool people.)

4.well i feel for those who r wronged(inocent civilians no matter on which side they r on).showing feelings is another way of expressing how much u stand for what u say(i think).

well i did not know my words could incite feelings!

how do u mean when u say my words r trying to incite feelings?

5.all words r colorful serving someone's purpose.words could be used to incite feelings or suppress the feelings.

6.my intention was to ask honest questions.tell me how to take the inciting part out of the fallowing questions i.e.how do ask these questions objectively?

a)can u think of excuse that is needed for apartheid policies to continue?

b)how can an oppressor maintain his oppression in a world that is pushing for more human rights and freedom?

c)what would the comparison be of britain-ireland and israel-palestine?

[Biochemist]

how do u mean when u say my words r trying to incite feelings?

If one elects to use language that is hyperbolic in a political context, it incites feelings.

 

If someone suggested that John Kerry, in his run for US president, "appeared to be self aggrandizing" because he took videos of his experience in Viet Nam for potential use decades later, that might be fair. If someone suggested that John kerry "egocentrically exaggeratged his trivial Viet Nam experience" that is inciting feelings.

 

If someone questioned the process that excused George Bush from the last several months of his National Guard service, that would be fair. If someone said that George Bush was a "draft dodger" because he avoided service in the armed forces, that would be inciting feelings.

 

If someone thought that Israel is unfairly restrictive on Palestinians within their borders, that might be fair. If someone accuses Israel of apartheid, that is inciting feelings.

[bartock]

how would u answer these questions

1.can u think of any excuse of apartheid policies to continue?

2.how can an oppressor maintain his oppression in a world that is pushing for human rights and freedom?

3.what would the comparison be of britain-ireland and israel-palestine?