My beliefs

[Chewbacca]

Just comparing the previously posted accounts of the great flood, the amazing similarities and one big difference. The earlier account by the Sumerians involves a plurality of Gods, the later account known today in the bible has only one God. Furthermore, the earlier accounts of the flood left by the Akkadians and the Baylonians also involve a pantheon of Gods. So which is it? One God or many?

The later works conflict with the earlier and the further back in time one goes examining the civilizations the more similiar the accounts of the flood are. I fairly certain all the aforementioned flood stories are refering to the same flood, too many similiarities. The differences between the earlier and later is the key in my opinion. Logic serves that the earliest accounts will be the most accurate.

I use the flood story as one excellent example of how a tale told in today's bible is told differently from the Sumerian perspective. A full account of many of these similiaries and differences can be examined in the works of Biblical Archeologist Zecharia Sitchen, that I previously mentioned.

[Faceman]

[img]graemlins/uhoh2.gif[/img]
Cool off guys.
Ten days and about three pages ago I left the discussion, when I thought we'd finally come to an agreement. I haven't been visiting the Current Events ever since as I had some serious study-stress (This deprived me of an interesting gun control debate too , but I just had no time)
Now I come back and see that we're at discussing semantics again and frankly I think it is becoming repetitive.
I have yet to catch up completely but let me just answer a technical question first.

Originally posted by Stratos: One, or rather two, final question(s): The ISBN number on books the same worldwide, right? And if so, do translations have the same ISBN? This might help a bit if I'm gonna look for Swedish translations on some of the books.

AFAIK the ISBN number refers to an exact book, i.e. same editor, same print run, same language.
What I do know for sure is how to quote and find a book correctly. Although it is not as compact as the ISBN number it is exact if you know:
Name of Author, Title, Year of Publishing and optionally Place of Publishing and the publishing company.
The best way to find a book at first is to look it up in a library catalogue, just browsing the name of the author (that way you will also find translations with different titles).
Most maor libraries have an online catalogue, at least in Austria that is
If you want to check it for Sweden the url is http://www.kb.se/
The Library of Congress (world's largest collection of books) is at www.loc.gov
Hope you find what you look for Stratos.
P.S.: I'll also PM you this in case you've left the discussion.

[Stratos]

Nah, I'm still here...lurking.

Anyway thanks for the answer. I'll just search by the authors name.

[ 11-24-2003, 06:46 AM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

[Faceman]

I know this is anitpick from way back, but here goes:

Originally posted by sultan: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: A line of belief in the pantheist's realm is that the Infinite Universe Mind Force Awareness is all made of more or less the same stuff- Energy ('mental' energy to be exact). The realm of matter is not distinctly seperate from the rest of the Universal Mind Force Awareness, but is simply of that same energy, but vibrating at a certain level we percieve as physical or matter.

i dont mean to oversimplify or belittle, but it sounds something like that old philosophical chestnut that the universe is just a group hallucination. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
[/QB][/QUOTE]What you call a pihlosophical chestnut here is actually the sincere belief of a not so minor group of hinduistic believers and of most Jainas. They state that the world is just what you perceive it to be (i.e. an illusion) and that true deliverance is rising above that illusion and free yourself from this world by recognizing this.

[Faceman]

Okay,
I finally made it through the three pages and here goes:

1. Kudos to you Cerek for your answer to Maelakin's question [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]
You may not have given him the material answer he wanted, but you have given an answer in spirit, I (and I take the liberty to assume Maelakin too) have wanted to hear from a Christian for a long time: An Honest and Open, "This is my view of things and I hope it helps you understand." Again [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

2. I'm not very keen about believing in aliens, but I'm also a hopefully-soon-to-be historian and as such I cannot rule out anything that is based on solid sincere research. However, the key problem of history, which comes along with Socrates' "Scio Nescio" is that you cannot prove anything and that everything just stays a more or less probable theory. Yorick made a very good point here (in reply to Pikachu's post) with the "world is only 5 minutes old complete with implanted memories and such" analogy. While this seems ridicolous at first it holds the great truth that we cannot be sure about anything and that no matter how complete our research may seem it's all just arguments to present it as more likely than another theory.

3. So we have to ask ourselves why we are pondering about something we CANNOT know. Because we try to find an explanation that enables us to improve our lives (e.g. by more accurate astronomical knowledge old cultures could improve agriculture) and gives it some reason (which gives us motivation and greatly improves our lives)

4. While it may be entertaining to some agnostics and atheists I myself do not like these quotes from the Old Testament. The key passage of the gospels is that Jesus is giving us a New Testament* to replace he outdated society rules from before, that were true and valid in the ancient society but are now overruled (not invalidated) by more important commandments.

5. I think it was sultan who made an excellent point about the sentence "humans could not create a concept for something they dont understand"
creating a concept itself. This is part of the everlasting discussion between atheists and agnostics. Through negating god, Atheists acknowledge him as a concept, because you cannot negate something that does in no way exist (but this is semantics again ).
So let's embark on a short journey on how many agnostics look at the "human creation of god": At first men used gods to describe material phenomena they did not understand or were not able to explain (e.g. lightning). The more "scientific" answers for those phenomena arose, the more questions about abstract/spiritual things arose among the now more civilized people. WIth the civilization of mankind the evolution of gods being anthropomorphic at first continued. Gods were always subjectively inexplicable, so the more one could explain, the more objectively inexplicable god had to get. Finally the monotheistic god arose, which as omnipresent, infinite and unfathomable by definition defies human explanation. Of course these stages of godly evolution have existed side by side with the Judaeo-Christian god already conceived when other cultures (e.g. the Greeks) were still worshipping anthropomorphic gods. And due to its incredible impact this god spread instead of being just copied.
As such you can think about the idea of a monotheistic god as a device. When the English brought railroads to India the Indians did not develop another form of mass transit on their own but simply adapted to the railroad.
When the Christian God came to Rome people converted because it was by definition the strongest god (I KNOW I am simplifying), if Christianity had been put down back in the first century who is to say that in time Iuppiter Optimus Maximus wouldn't have become an omniscient being in the minds of the Romans and we would all be Iuppiterists now


* I sincerley don't know if that is the correct English translation. The German translation calls it "Der neue Bund" (= the new connection/binding/league/band/federation/...) which I find much more satisfying. The passage I'm referring to is Luk:22:19 IIRC.

[ 11-24-2003, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

[Faceman]

On a more technical note:
This thread is (slowly but anyway) nearing the critical 300posts mark. So maybe we should ponder about opening up a new one in time (we still got plenty ).

[Link]

I was wondering: what do you think about all the atheists in the world, Yorick? Are they infidels, or are they rather people who have chosen not to believe in God? IIRC, God gave mankind the option to choose for him, or not (with no consequences)

Just a short question, nothing more

[Maelakin]

I really need to stop taking weekends off from posting. Things really get out of hand quick!

Cerek,

Thanks for your response and for taking the time to consider your answer. I wasn’t looking for a concrete answer; I was looking for a personal perspective. Your post boils down to one thing, your faith and intuition. You presented your perspective and then stated you could not give a concrete answer. Commendable to say the least.

Yorick,

Sometimes, I don’t even know where to start with you. Every time you post all I see is an egotistical response from a fanatical person.

Back when I was 15 years old, I asked my priest a very simple question, “If God loves us all, and because Jesus made the sacrifice he did in order to save us all, why must I be required to attended church weekly in order to prove my love for him?”

This is a question I should have figured out for myself? By my reasoning and everything I found in the Bible, I didn’t even need to attend church period. I had decided at that time that my relationship with God would be a personal one, and I would be free to worship as I saw fit. After all, the best expression of love comes from the heart, not from repetition.

Does this sound like someone who had not been looking for his own answers? Can you give me one good reason why a church that told me I must attend could not answer this question when supplied with my feelings on the issue? Can you tell me why you were so quick to judge me before you even bothered to ask the background information? Or, did you just presume what I may have asked, and what my questions might have been? But that’s right, I’m a non-believer so it doesn’t matter, does it?

For all you say you believe in, I have seen nothing but a close-minded individual who expects everyone to come to the same conclusions as he. I don’t think you are a person strong in his faith, rather a person blinded by his faith.

You say you are challenging people…do you always challenge those who request information? I have nothing to prove; I am searching for an answer that transcends any particular religion. However, when you state to me you are on the one true path, you make a statement that must be proved. You present your own challenge, and frankly, I really don’t care about your faith. If you are going to present something as the logical conclusion and as a factual truth, you must provide FACT to support it.

I have said it before and I’ll say it again. I am positive you have a wealth of knowledge to be shared. However, until you realize that everyone is NOT trying to challenge you, and your path is NOT the predetermined result you believe it to be, your point of view is worthless.

[LordKathen]

Excellent post Maelakin.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Maelakin: Back when I was 15 years old, I asked my priest a very simple question, "If God loves us all, and because Jesus made the sacrifice he did in order to save us all, why must I be required to attended church weekly in order to prove my love for him?"

Maelakin,

Your question presupposes that one must go to church to prove one's love for God. I believe a deeper and truer question should have been:

"Why go to church?"

You knew in your heart that one doesn't need to go to church to prove love for God. Now, I'm well aware that Roman Catholicism teaches you must have mass each week to maintain salvation, but this is not biblical and is a belief rejected by the entire protestant movement of Christianity.

The answer you found in your heart co-aligns with mine and the majority of Christianity. Were I you, I would have started checking out other churches that didn't require attendence to prove ones love for God.

So, let's go back to the question "Why go to church?"

Church is of benefit to US. The bible uses the analogy of a stick in a fire that dies out if it is removed from the other blazing sticks.

The church is the collection of believers. A church meeting is a time where we can find strength, encouragement, fellowship, food, challenges, growth, healing and positive expression release. We can uplift each other, stretch each other, encourage each other and grow by being a part of a church community. Not simply sitting in a pew on a sunday, but interracting on a communal level with other christians from varying walks of life you'd otherwise never meet.

In my Manhattan church, I, a professional vocalist regularly interact with a high level tax consultant with Delloit, financial gurus from Morgan Stanley, venture capitalists, investment bankers, professional artists (one who was a recent finalist for the world trade centre memorial), professional actors, songwriters, designers, models, photographers, and lawyers, as well as police, medical professionals, dancers, filmakers, students, I.T. professionals and teachers. People from every race and from various professions, complete with divergent mindsets, customs, habits, communicating styles and hobbys.

As such we learn from each other. We encourage each other. I grow more than I would if I simply hung out with other musicians.

I can love God on my own. I went for a number of years without attending a church. I can prove my love for God within church or without. I choose to be committed to my church because of the give and take growth that occurs from me being a part of that community. I love those guys, and I receive love in return. My faith has grown, my love tank has filled. It's a beautiful thing.