Religion

[Hiram Sedai]

I couldn't help myself.

It was humans that decided what was canonized scripture, what was Apocrypha, and what was the pseodopygrapha. It was humans that kept the 66 books and decided that they were the "Word". I have much difficulty with that.

I can accept that perhaps the Apostles and Disciples had the guidance of God when they wrote things. But it's difficult for me to accept that a counsel of very fallible people without Divine help transliterated what they read into their languages and threw away things that did not fit into what they believed to be true such as gnostic writings and the like.

Sorry, much of this comes from an American Baptist upbringing. You see, when a person is raised to believe that both God and the Word of God are the same being...faith becomes difficult. When one is seemingly tainted, the other is too.

What then, is "God breathed"? Which translation? If NIV is closest to the "truth" then what is the truth?

[ 12-05-2002, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: Hiram Sedai ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Hiram Sedai: I couldn't help myself. It was humans that decided what was canonized scripture, what was Apocrypha, and what was the pseodopygrapha. It was humans that kept the 66 books and decided that they were the "Word". I have much difficulty with that.

Right, and there are books today that you could call "inspired by God". The difference between these today, and those specifically in the New Testament, is that the New Testament was written by Jesus disciples, or those who knew Jesus disciples, so there information about Jesus was firsthand.

The old testament contains the Torah, written by Moses, which was the foundation of the Jewish faith. The Prophecies were included because firstly they came to pass, and secondly they contain much about how a relationship with Jesus works. Other books contain much valuable and honest history, others are beautiful songs. All speak about the Creator God, and when he is in you, you can feel the Holy Spirit when you read it. It's not just words on a page.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Hiram Sedai: I can accept that perhaps the Apostles and Disciples had the guidance of God when they wrote things. But it's difficult for me to accept that a counsel of very fallible people without Divine help transliterated what they read into their languages and threw away things that did not fit into what they believed to be true such as gnostic writings and the like.

Of the Gnostic writings found, the only one written by someone who personally knew Jesus, was the 'Gospel of Thomas.' This was only found within the last hundred years. The Gospel of Thomas doesn't contradict the Bible. As you'd expect from another Apostle, it supports the Gospels, despite having a Gnostic editor.

[Hiram Sedai]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Hiram Sedai: I couldn't help myself. It was humans that decided what was canonized scripture, what was Apocrypha, and what was the pseodopygrapha. It was humans that kept the 66 books and decided that they were the "Word". I have much difficulty with that.

Right, and there are books today that you could call "inspired by God". The difference between these today, and those specifically in the New Testament, is that the New Testament was written by Jesus disciples, or those who knew Jesus disciples, so there information about Jesus was firsthand.

The old testament contains the Torah, written by Moses, which was the foundation of the Jewish faith. The Prophecies were included because firstly they came to pass, and secondly they contain much about how a relationship with Jesus works. Other books contain much valuable and honest history, others are beautiful songs. All speak about the Creator God, and when he is in you, you can feel the Holy Spirit when you read it. It's not just words on a page.[/QUOTE]I respect the fact that you have faith in your god. I will do nothing to insult you or change that. I wish I still had that seed (mustard) of faith. I envy you. Unfortunately, I don't share that view at the moment.

My point was how can one consider the book that we consider to be the Bible right now to be what was written originally by Moses, the prophets, David, the twelve apostles, and Mary (Hebrews?). Yes, I know Paul wasn't really an apostle because he was ugly but he still was cool I guess.

Human error vs omnipotence. That's my point.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Hiram Sedai: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Hiram Sedai: I couldn't help myself. It was humans that decided what was canonized scripture, what was Apocrypha, and what was the pseodopygrapha. It was humans that kept the 66 books and decided that they were the "Word". I have much difficulty with that.

Right, and there are books today that you could call "inspired by God". The difference between these today, and those specifically in the New Testament, is that the New Testament was written by Jesus disciples, or those who knew Jesus disciples, so there information about Jesus was firsthand.

The old testament contains the Torah, written by Moses, which was the foundation of the Jewish faith. The Prophecies were included because firstly they came to pass, and secondly they contain much about how a relationship with Jesus works. Other books contain much valuable and honest history, others are beautiful songs. All speak about the Creator God, and when he is in you, you can feel the Holy Spirit when you read it. It's not just words on a page.[/QUOTE]I respect the fact that you have faith in your god. I will do nothing to insult you or change that. I wish I still had that seed (mustard) of faith. I envy you. Unfortunately, I don't share that view at the moment.

My point was how can one consider the book that we consider to be the Bible right now to be what was written originally by Moses, the prophets, David, the twelve apostles, and Mary (Hebrews?). Yes, I know Paul wasn't really an apostle because he was ugly but he still was cool I guess.

Human error vs omnipotence. That's my point.[/QUOTE]Fair concerns. [img]smile.gif[/img]

All through the New Testament are quotes from the old. There are copies of the originals as well.

For me the single biggest 'proof' is what is the fruit in people that read it. When I read it. Is my life enhanced? Do I feel closer to God? Do I gain an insight into human nature, into how to have a relationship with God? Into perceptional enhancements? Do I gain tools with which to relate to my fellow humans?

The Bible consistently touches people on an emotional, intellectual and spiritual level. I wouldn't read it if I didn't hunger for the 'soul food' it provides. I read it tonight with a group of friends. Our lives are a bit better as a result. Reading it fostered connection, discussion, healing, prayer and musical creation.

So I could go into the thread of preservation and dedication to accuracy that the Bibles books have had, but if it all does nothing in my life, what is the point? That ends up being the final litmus test. It teaches me that God loves me, who desires relationship with me. When I look at the planet I see a God of love who created so artistically, designing so much for connection and exploration of him.

Three things are in harmony - what I read in the Bible, what I experience of the world, and what I feel in my spirit.

When I read the Qu'ran I do not experience that same harmony.; I do not read about a God who loves so much he dies for me. I do not read that in the Bhagavad Gita. I don't read it in the works of Tacitus, Homer, Freud, or Shakespeare.

[img]smile.gif[/img] But I appreciate your concerns. One cannot be told the Bible is the word of God for them. They have to experience it. Experience it emotionally heal them. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Hiram Sedai]

Originally posted by Yorick: Fair concerns. [img]smile.gif[/img] All through the New Testament are quotes from the old. There are copies of the originals as well. For me the single biggest 'proof' is what is the fruit in people that read it. When I read it. Is my life enhanced? Do I feel closer to God? Do I gain an insight into human nature, into how to have a relationship with God? Into perceptional enhancements? Do I gain tools with which to relate to my fellow humans? The Bible consistently touches people on an emotional, intellectual and spiritual level. I wouldn't read it if I didn't hunger for the 'soul food' it provides. I read it tonight with a group of friends. Our lives are a bit better as a result. Reading it fostered connection, discussion, healing, prayer and musical creation. So I could go into the thread of preservation and dedication to accuracy that the Bibles books have had, but if it all does nothing in my life, what is the point? That ends up being the final litmus test. It teaches me that God loves me, who desires relationship with me. When I look at the planet I see a God of love who created so artistically, designing so much for connection and exploration of him. Three things are in harmony - what I read in the Bible, what I experience of the world, and what I feel in my spirit. When I read the Qu'ran I do not experience that same harmony.; I do not read about a God who loves so much he dies for me. I do not read that in the Bhagavad Gita. I don't read it in the works of Tacitus, Homer, Freud, or Shakespeare. [img]smile.gif[/img] But I appreciate your concerns. One cannot be told the Bible is the word of God for them. They have to experience it. Experience it emotionally heal them. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Why can't I stop responding? An emotional response to any book isn't proof enough for me. Just so you know, my hero was Thomas called Dydimus, or Thomas the Twin. He is one who showed a bit of courage in the New Testament.

You have a personal connection with the text that you read. I respect that.
I see something much different at the moment because of what is happening in my life. I won't delve into that here and now.

So, you tell me it's all true because it feels right. I'm glad that it works for you. But I need more.

[ 12-05-2002, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: Hiram Sedai ]

[Darkman]

Originally posted by Yorick: And would you mind telling me which religions have a collection of works bound in one tome, written by humans over a couple of thousand years and inspired by God?

None?

I'm sure that since you said "All" religions do, you'll be able to tell me what the religions are called and what the 'inspired books' are right?

Uh... no. I concede that 'all' was the wrong word to use. How about 'many'? Will that work for you?

Oh, before you get started, just remember that unlike the Bible, the Qu'ran is a single book, believed by Muslims to have been written in heaven and transcribed - not inspirationally written - by Muhammad.

What's the difference? The point is the same. They believe their holy book to be a product of their god, which was my point. Funny how many religions have holy books which they claim to be a product of their god. Are they all wrong and the Christian god is the only true god? If that is the case, then it looks like a few billion people have been practicing the wrong religion all this time, and all the people in the past (except Christians) practicing even older religions were doing the same. I guess my problem is that I don't see how the Christian god is any better than the other religions' god. Could it be that religion is just something that we made up to make us feel better about ourselves? After all, religion has been around for as long as history has been around to record it. Why should Christianity be the one religion that is any better than the other thousand religions out there?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Hiram Sedai: Why can't I stop responding? An emotional response to any book isn't proof enough for me. Just so you know, my hero was Thomas called Dydimus, or Thomas the Twin. He is one who showed a bit of courage in the New Testament. You have a personal connection with the text that you read. I respect that. I see something much different at the moment because of what is happening in my life. I won't delve into that here and now. So, you tell me it's all true because it feels right. I'm glad that it works for you. But I need more.

Well 'feels right' is an oversimplification, but if you must, it also feels right for a billion or so other humans. The fruit of something IS important. What good is a book from God if it does nothing?

Thomas is also my hero. He doubted. Jesus answered that doubt and offered him what he needed to believe. As a result, Thomas was the first Apostle to call Jesus God! Very cool. He needed more 'evidence' but once he got it, made the biggest pronouncement. Jesus chided the original doubt, but then praised Thomas' faith. It's wonderful.

He then went to India. The Nestorian community he founded there exist to this day. The Nestorians then went into China and established Christian communities in Southern China.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Darkman: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: And would you mind telling me which religions have a collection of works bound in one tome, written by humans over a couple of thousand years and inspired by God?

None?

I'm sure that since you said "All" religions do, you'll be able to tell me what the religions are called and what the 'inspired books' are right?

Uh... no. I concede that 'all' was the wrong word to use. How about 'many'? Will that work for you?

Oh, before you get started, just remember that unlike the Bible, the Qu'ran is a single book, believed by Muslims to have been written in heaven and transcribed - not inspirationally written - by Muhammad.

What's the difference? The point is the same. They believe their holy book to be a product of their god, which was my point. Funny how many religions have holy books which they claim to be a product of their god. Are they all wrong and the Christian god is the only true god? If that is the case, then it looks like a few billion people have been practicing the wrong religion all this time, and all the people in the past (except Christians) practicing even older religions were doing the same. I guess my problem is that I don't see how the Christian god is any better than the other religions' god. Could it be that religion is just something that we made up to make us feel better about ourselves? After all, religion has been around for as long as history has been around to record it. Why should Christianity be the one religion that is any better than the other thousand religions out there?[/QUOTE]There is a big difference between "inspired by God" and "written in heaven". One allows for the human creative element, the other doesn't.

You haven't named any books or religions yet.

Bear in mind only three major world religions believe in a God personality seperate from the creation. Of those three, two - Judaism and Christianity - share belief in the Torah as being inspired by God.

Regarding religion as being made up by humans:

1.Humans cannot create outside that which is experienced. Impossible. A God without a biggining or end - eternal - is a concept totally outside the human experience (as we have a beggining), and is so incomprehendible that humans could not have created it.

2.Religions seek to curb the destructive elements of human nature.

They emphasise decision over instinct. Long term awareness/choice over short term reaction. Who would design something totally against human nature? Jesus pronouncement of 'turn the other cheek" is so simple, yet so alien to every instict in our natural defenses - and yet so necessary to stopping the cycle of violence and creating peace.

Truly whoever invented these ideas is a wise person indeed.

[Darkman]

There is a big difference between "inspired by God" and "written in heaven". One allows for the human creative element, the other doesn't.

But both are fantasy.

You haven't named any books or religions yet.

There are no books that were inspired or written by god.

Regarding religion as being made up by humans: 1.Humans cannot create outside that which is experienced. Impossible. A God without a biggining or end - eternal - is a concept totally outside the human experience (as we have a beggining), and is so incomprehendible that humans could not have created it.

It's called imagination. I've never experienced a wizard in a pointy hat shooting fireballs out of his finger tips before, but I can easily imagine that scenario. We as humans who have a definate beginning and end (we all die right?), so why shouldn't we want to believe in eternal life? That would be great. That means we no longer are meaningless specs of life doomed to some day die. We can pretend that we live forever in heaven or nirvana or whatever makes us feel good about ourselves. Anyway, your argument makes no sense. Just because we can't comprehend the infinity of time does not automatically mean that there is a god figure. We can't see into the past nor the future, so why not make believe there is a god that has existed for all time? It doesn't take a god to make one up.

2.Religions seek to curb the destructive elements of human nature.

So they act like a set of morals? What's the point? You can be a moral person without practicing a religion.