The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by enorbet Slavery is not only accepted but condoned and even delineates "proper treatment".

Slavery was not always slavery as modern society typically thinks of it. Often it was indenture, a better alternative to starvation or freezing in a tough world without A/C, toilet paper, or 7-11 & McDonalds less than 5 minutes' drive away - a choice.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs "X has not been disproven" is an interesting form of logical fallacy, similar to "begging the question." The observation that something has never been proven to be false does not make it true . . .

The point of making the statement is that people who try to disprove anything in the Bible have always failed, while others continue to discover more evidence supporting what it says.

Originally Posted by mrmazda Slavery was not always slavery as modern society typically thinks of it. Often it was indenture, a better alternative to starvation or freezing in a tough world without A/C, toilet paper, or 7-11 & McDonalds less than 5 minutes' drive away - a choice.

OT law distinguished two kinds of slave. Foreigners taken in war could be made slaves for life. Poor fellow countrymen who sold themselves into slavery merely served an indenture for seven years, after which they could go free. However if a slave had been given a wife by his owner, the wife stayed behind because she was the owner's property, as were the children born under his roof. If her husband was unwilling to leave them, he could agree to become a slave for life and had a hole punched through his ear to indicate his new status.

Slaves had to be treated decently. If a master seriously injured a slave, he had to give him his liberty in exchange.

Women slaves could be bought back by their families at any time as long as they remained virgins. If their master or his son took their virginity, they acquired legal rights as concubines; they could not be sold on, and their children were entitled to a small inheritance.

Originally Posted by mrmazda The point of making the statement is that people who try to disprove anything (emphasis mine) in the Bible have always failed, while others continue to discover more evidence supporting what it says.

In reverse order - Please do back up your unsubstantiated claim that anything thought to be untrue in the Christian Bible has subsequently been found to be real, and by whom.

There is no contest in many, many stories in that bible because there are so many contradictions in terms within the book itself! Those are absolutely impossible to be accurate and true. No amount of "hoop jumping" can make "1 + 1 = 5", other than blind refusal to examine and dissent. It's literally as simple as that. Just one of a multitude of examples can be found in Genesis. Did the Sun come first or Light? Did animals come first or humans? Don't even get me started on Daniel and Revelations. IT'S ALLEGORY and METAPHOR, written by men!

It is absolutely impossible for humans to prove God exists or does not exist BUT it is equally absolutely possible to examine and determine the accuracy of it's claims and tenets because the book actually exists in physical reality as does the Historical Record "in the rocks and in the Universe". It took 300 years for the Roman Catholic Church to apologize for being dead wrong in punishing and censuring Galileo. That's just one example of the stubborn commitment to specific interpretation of a totally NON-scientific book claiming to know Nature.

I have no problem with those who think God exists, but I have a HUGE problem imagining it may take 300 or maybe 1000 years before nobody still tries to claim "literal truth" or "divine revelation". The simple fact of the incredible diversity among hundreds of Christian sects can only be so by either divine revelation being impossible or divine revelation as abject failure in accomplishing anything remotely like a a definable result. It's like saying "1 + 1 = some numbers" as the basis for anything. It's meaningless, and worse, it has proven quite destructive all too often, and it is gearing up to do it again in 2022. For shame!

Originally Posted by oskar I'm just curious about the gross distribution of faith or non-faith on a forum like this.

Here are my two gods: https://i.imgur.com/geOxATQ.png https://i.imgur.com/t8BxuK2.png

To quote the character of Rhett Butler's words but apply them to slavery... "Frankly my dear I don't give a damn" how well slaves were treated regarding any manner of justification for the view of humans as property. That concept in itself degrades humankind and is an important basis for all manner of atrocity. That's like calling a home invasion thief a gentleman because he never killed or raped anyone during his robberies, even when the homeowners were present. He only tied the husband, wife and kids up loosely so they could get free after awhile. This is what Christians call morality? Again, for shame.

I have personally never expected nor required the Bible, nor any other religious book, to be "inspired" therefore "infallible." It is perfectly obvious to me that the origins, provenance, and substance of this compilation are very human. (And, political.) There is obvious myth/legend, allegory, and metaphor throughout. And, this does not bother met all, because it is precisely what I know to expect.

I am also aware of the process by which this "compilation" took place. I know that there were disagreements which led to the Catholic "Apocrypha," and even vehement discussions as to whether (for instance) the Book of Revelation should have been included at all. I also know of a great many books – "gospels" and otherwise – which did not make the cut. But, thanks to the Internet, they are still readily available. All of these things are well-documented: make of them what you will.

However, if you declare something like, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it," then I will not "sin against my brother." I do not agree with you but I will never call you to task. Your personal beliefs are an entirely personal matter which does not involve me, and which therefore must not involve me. We do not have to agree. I believe that if I try too hard to be "right," then I am in the wrong.

sundialsvcs I think your views are certainly affable and polite and they work... as long as beliefs are seen as mere opinion, we have a drink, clap each other on the back, shake hands and go home, lives unchanged. However as you often note there IS Politics and the bind between Atilla and the Witch Doctor is ancient and possibly everlasting... and dangerous as Hell.

In my view, Organized Religion, especially with aspirations in Politics, MUST be opposed for the good of us all. Nothing is quite as sanctimonious and dangerously oppressive as a man wielding a sword with God on his side, and a million cohorts. That is a battle in which I will never be a conscientious objector, for are we not actually our brother's keeper? It's IMHO the equivalent, though vastly more far reaching and catastrophic, of "Friends don't let friends drive drunk".

Originally Posted by enorbet This is what Christians call morality? Again, for shame.

Actually there's nothing shameful about people having the beliefs that were normal in their time. The greatest error of modern intellectual and political thought is the imposition on historical figures of 21st-century moral standards which simply would have made no sense to them.

The OT regulations on the proper treatment of slaves date from the Bronze Age and are far in advance of anything that existed anywhere else at that time. In fact they are morally superior to any Iron Age laws on the same subject, whether Greek or Roman.

@enorbet: While I entirely agree with you, I know that I cannot solve it.

Originally Posted by hazel Actually there's nothing shameful about people having the beliefs that were normal in their time. The greatest error of modern intellectual and political thought is the imposition on historical figures of 21st-century moral standards which simply would have made no sense to them. The OT regulations on the proper treatment of slaves date from the Bronze Age and are far in advance of anything that existed anywhere else at that time. In fact they are morally superior to any Iron Age laws on the same subject, whether Greek or Roman.

My apologies, hazel. I went emotionally overboard, pot calling kettle black in a way, since I have stated that same thing previously about judging past peoples by today's standards. I wrongly assumed some were defending slavery when it can be seen as "beneficent" or "for their own good" in today's terms.

Three biblical scriptures that have enormous impact on my own interpretation of the bible are Isaiah 29:13/Mathew 15:7-9 and Mark 3:29.

"Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as the people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men" Isaiah 29:13

"Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" Mathew 15:7-9

"But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." Mark 3:29

This is so important to me, because the first two passages above make a clear distinction between lip service and heart service.

The third passage is somewhat of an enigma: the infamous unforiveable sin, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit--but what exactly is it? I think it is "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men".

I will now apply these scriptures to some real life examples. Consider Siyyid ‘Alí-Muhammad, aka "The Bab". Was he a Christian? At first blush you might say no, he was a Muslim. However, he was a Muslim, who tried to reform Islam into a religion that respected women and practiced pacifism. IMHO, this man's heart was in the right place, serving infinite love, and not the doctrines of man. Thus he honoured Christ with heart service all the way to martyrdom, even if his lip service was to Allah. Thus, Siyyid ‘Alí-Muhammad is more Christian than the types of Christians today that cannot open their minds beyond the Bible.

When I was 12 I had the filthiest mouth of any 12-year-old boy in history--but when I was 13, I read Mark 3:29 and grew afraid that all my taking the Lord's name in vain might have already done me in, so I prayed for forgiveness everytime I said GD (and I hadn't discovered the Grateful Dead yet). By the time I was 14, my mouth was cleaner than any bar of soap could have ever made it!

But today, older, though probably not much wiser, when I wonder about blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, I cannot think of anything more blasphemous than imprisoning it into a book. All those ecumenical councils, such as the Council of Jamnia or the Council of Nicaea, seem to me like groups of men (I doubt there were any female voices that counted in these councils, but I'm not enough of a historian to find out), who decided for all, the canononical Bible--which works got to be included. I've heard many theologians and sunday school teachers alike say that God blessed those councils such that it is His Word in the book, and also blessed all the translators thereafter, such that it is still His Word in the translations, and that we should all just accept this on faith. Well, I'm not sure who said this first, perhaps John Wesley: "He died to take away your sins, not your mind."

All the horrors of the crusades, the inquisition, burning witches and so on -- would they have happened if these councils had left the canon open? Blind obedience to the doctrine of men, and wielding such doctrine for power amongst men--this blasphemes the Holy Spirit more than anything I can think of. What is it to become ordained? It seems to me it is to be trusted to not challenge the doctrine, but to merely push it, as is.

Heart service to Infinite Love does not need lip service to doctrine. Jesus would rather we love in nobody's name, than to blaspheme the spirit in his name. Thus it is clear: the devil is in the churches too. All their peity contests and trying to use the doctrine to degrade another--such as young women with child out of wedlock, the scarlet letter, etc. For all I know, it was the devil behind those councils--sure seems like it in the deeds done in the name of "doctrine".

Can anyone counter this charge against these ecumenical councils? Maybe their hearts were trying to serve Infinite Love when they created doctrine, but their minds were just too weak to see the consequences... But I'm not sure--I think it was just more power hungy greedy men doing the work of Satan, by trying to imprison God into a Bible. I don't think that's heresy. I think its truth. I'm not going to mention the names of users who have contributed to this thread who seem to want to follow biblical doctrine to the tee, as if the Bible is a mere rulebook with the ultimate word and authority on any issue. But this post is for them: beware of "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men". You may be risking eternal damnation, according to your own doctrine.

As for me: "I neither fear 'eternal damnation,' as the supposed consequence of some 'unforgivable sin.'" Nor do I cling to any "doctrine" that may have ever been postulated by any ancient "council."

"If it ever actually comes to that, then I will 'flip Him the bird' before jumping into the eternal fire." Because: "I have no use for such a God."

- - -

I recognize that certain ancient or not-so-ancient texts are "recognized (sic ...) as 'canonical,'" yet I have since then also read many others which were not. This has given me perhaps a better glimpse of the "church-equals-state politics" of those times.

(Some of this politics having actually been recited in the opening chapters of the "Book of Revelation.")

- - -

In short, I simply do not accept the supposed "authority" of any of these "councils." Neither do I cling to any sort of "Bible." I personally see it as nothing more and nothing less than a human compilation of various competing texts, more-or-less beginning with the Judaic compilation – perhaps as "a source of authority" – without adhering strictly to its sequence.

- - -

I say all of this without(!) intending any of it to be any sort of "confrontation" to your personal beliefs. Indeed, the day may one day come when I am the forgotten reason why the ducts within your celestial Mansion are delivering warm air. When the coal-vendor angel drops by to deposit his load into the chute, remember me ...

To emphasize: "We do not see eye to eye, but I do not confront you."

- - -

However, I would also observe that the idea of "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men" rather begs the question that there must "somewhere out there, exist" – presumably, the apostolic writer(?) – some "teacher" whose thoughts came from somewhere other than "men." It would certainly very-simplify things if God would simply "cut to the chase" and provide to all of us mortals His intended "correct authority." If He ever actually did so, then it would be trivial for all of mankind to promptly conform to His directive.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs As for me: ... I simply do not accept the supposed "authority" of any of these "councils." Neither do I cling to any sort of "Bible." I personally see it as nothing more and nothing less than a human compilation of various competing texts, more-or-less beginning with the Judaic compilation – perhaps as "a source of authority" – without adhering strictly to its sequence.

In general, I concur with most of your sentiments expressed in this thread. As for me, I appreciate internal coherence in belief systems. I like to point out the heart service distinction as a way to bring coherence to the obvious discord in literal interpretations of these "competing texts".

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs However, I would also observe that the idea of "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men" rather begs the question that there must "somewhere out there, exist" – presumably, the apostolic writer(?) – some "teacher" whose thoughts came from somewhere other than "men." It would certainly very-simplify things if God would simply "cut to the chase" and provide to all of us mortals His intended "correct authority." If He ever actually did so, then it would be trivial for all of mankind to promptly conform to His directive.

I interpret "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men" as Jesus doing what your just did: flipping the bird to doctrine--pretty much forbidding it. That's why God cannot "cut to the chase" by providing a "correct authority" -- that would be another doctrine and it would make life boring.
But I do think that Infinite Love makes itself known to men and women in an infinity of individual ways, and that people don't have to keep that to themselves--they just shouldn't make doctrines out of individual revelations. One person's path, when shared, may help another when needing to choose their own individual path.
I could never follow Jesus, because Jesus was not a follower. But often we agree, as if drawing similar conclusions, and I'm glad that his path was shared through the accounts we have, even if these accounts were distorted through years of translations.
I also agree with @enorbet;s statment:

Originally Posted by enorbet In my view, Organized Religion, especially with aspirations in Politics, MUST be opposed for the good of us all. Nothing is quite as sanctimonious and dangerously oppressive as a man wielding a sword with God on his side, and a million cohorts.

I totally concur that men (or women) wielding a swords with God on their side, is something to oppose, especially when it becomes political and state sponsored--I think you and enorbet agree on that, and so do I, but our agreement only goes so far. If the sword wielding people are rallying behind Christianity, then they are professing to believe in a pacifistic turn-the-cheek religion, so why are they carrying swords? Even without state sponsorship or political aspirations, I oppose such hypocricy in its purest form--internal incoherence so vile that many people reject religion altogether, incluing their potential relationships with Infinity, that could thrive in a doctrineless spirituality, leaving mere finite statistics to be their light in the dark--and that I find tragic. Spirituality without doctrine shouldn't even be called religion.

Of course, nuke wielding organized science with political aspirations should also be opposed for similar reasons.

Hmm...Where to start?

Originally Posted by slac-in-the-box I will now apply these scriptures to some real life examples. Consider Siyyid ‘Alí-Muhammad, aka "The Bab". Was he a Christian? At first blush you might say no, he was a Muslim. However, he was a Muslim, who tried to reform Islam into a religion that respected women and practiced pacifism. IMHO, this man's heart was in the right place, serving infinite love, and not the doctrines of man. Thus he honoured Christ with heart service all the way to martyrdom, even if his lip service was to Allah. Thus, Siyyid ‘Alí-Muhammad is more Christian than the types of Christians today that cannot open their minds beyond the Bible.

There are lots of people whose hearts are in the right place but haven't received proper religious instruction. I'm sure God allows for this when judging them. And there are also plenty who are theologically orthodox and morally perverse. We know that their judgement will be a harsh one.

The Bab sounds to me rather like Mohammed who likewise combined what he thought were the best bits of the two monotheistic religions he knew (Judaism and Christianity). But the fact that they were both decent men does not make either of their religions correct.

But today, older, though probably not much wiser, when I wonder about blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, I cannot think of anything more blasphemous than imprisoning it into a book.

I look at it differently. A book needs to be read and interpreted, and inevitably different people are going to interpret the same passages in different ways. Having a book as your ultimate authority is therefore a lot less restrictive than having a person, a pope or ayatollah, who can constantly say, "No, that's not what I meant. I meant this." Of course this means that you need to be on your guard when someone says, "The Bible says..." or "The Bible teaches..." when what he actually means is that he (it's always a he!) interprets a biblical passage in this way. And also in churches like the one Business Kid belongs to, there is a standard interpretation which everyone agrees to and which seems to the members indistinguishable from the text itself.

All those ecumenical councils, such as the Council of Jamnia or the Council of Nicaea, seem to me like groups of men... who decided for all, the canononical Bible--which works got to be included.

Decided in the sense that they put the final seal on the acceptance of those books. But the actual decision to accept them was not made by any council. Rather there was a slow sifting of the available texts by the Church as a whole over generations. Some books, like the four Gospels, were seen as canonical almost from the start. Others, like the Apocalypse, took much longer to be generally accepted. Some, like The Shepherd, were accepted early and then gradually found not to "work" as scripture. Many "gospels" were known from the start to be phony and were never accepted. The Church decided, not the councils.

All the horrors of the crusades, the inquisition, burning witches and so on -- would they have happened if these councils had left the canon open?

I'm sure they would! In fact the Catholic Church did effectively leave the canon open by allowing ecclesiastical traditions and papal proclamations to have the same force for them as scripture. Far from protecting their religion from corruption, this probably made it worse. I feel far safer just having the Bible and interpreting it for myself!