The Faith & Religion mega Thread

FTR, You're strictly on your own with your Genesis interpretation, hazel. The effect of what you're saying is to put the Genesis account on the same level as Babylonian mythology, which I do not believe it to be. You can distinguish poetry in Genesis 2:23, as it's marked out as such. So is Exodus Chapter 15:1-20, for that matter, and many Psalms and other sections of Scripture.

I suspect that calling the creation account "a poem" is an excuse not to take it seriously. But if you miss taking Genesis 3:15 seriously, you've missed the message of the Bible.

So, business_kid, you think "he will crush your head" is the message of the Christian Bible? Wow!

Without meaning to attack sundialsvcs in any way, I thought I'd address this, as nobody else has.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs I will very candidly say that Revelations 14:10 is precisely why I chose to reject the entire book. The latter half reads as follows: Quote: They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of(!) the holy angels and of the Lamb. There is basically nothing about this entire chapter – and the several which immediately follow it – which is less than sadistic. Therefore, I reject them all, and wit them the entire book. There is absolutely nothing about "at most, seventy-odd years of screw-ups" which possibly deserves this. I refuse to ascribe this to a God who once said: "Thou Shalt Not Kill." These very-poisonous words are "not my 'canon.'"

Yes, there is a lake of fire & sulphur in Revelation, but No, it doesn't mean that anyone's going to be tortured eternally. Let me explain.

Fire in Scripture is a symbol of destruction, not torment. They already had a very good way of torturing folks - impalement. Unfaithful Israelites used to unlawfully practise child sacrifice in the valley of Hinnom (South of Jerusalem) until King Josiah burnt the bones of pagan priests on their altars 30-40 years before the place was destroyed in 607BCE.

In Jesus day, it was a rubbish dump, and they put sulphur on to keep the fires burning. When prophesying against the Pharisees, Jesus said

Originally Posted by Matthew 23:33 “Serpents, offspring of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of Ge·henʹna?

Gehenna meant the valley of Hinnom. The judgement was destruction. God does not torture people. I quoted Jeremiah 7:31 to show burning people wasn't God's idea (post 11581).

The lake of fire in Revelation is a symbol of destruction. Burning eternally = eternal destruction = no resurrection. You can see that it's a symbol by the things that are thrown into it. A lot of evil folks, sure. But also

Originally Posted by Revelation 20:14 And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire.

Other translations read "Death and Hades" or even "Death and hell."

Neither death nor hell/hades/the grave have literal bodies. But they are thrown into the lake of fire, or done away with. Death was never God's intention. Then, it will be done away with. Satan and his demons go in there too, but we expect destruction, not torture.

Lastly, let me mention

Originally Posted by 1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love has not come to know God, because God is love.

God has many fine qualities, but he IS love, because his love defines him.

Now imagine someone lives his life, dies, and he's a rotter and a fink. He is found guilty, and you're the judge. How long a sentence would you give him for his 70/80 years? Would you impose torture? To sentence him to 100 years of torture would be very severe. 1000? 10,000 years over his 70 years? What about God? If a trillion years wasn't enough for him, could he really be a God exemplified by Love? No, the loving to do would be to dispatch him quickly, which is meant by the lake of fire.

It was false religions got that going very early on. God had said "If you eat the fruit, you will die." Satan had said "You will not die." But die they did. So then came the next lie: "Oh, but they're not really dead..." and the false doctrine of an immortal soul was born. We have a saying among ourselves: "The truth stands alone, but a lie needs companions." You got a lot of lies coming with the immortal soul. They had that when the people were scattered over the earth taking their new languages and old false doctrines with them. The threat of Hell was and is a great money spinner for false religion.

I've probably gone on too much, but I was enjoying myself .

Actually I agree with you about immortal souls. That's a Platonic idea, not a biblical one. In Gen 2, God breathes life into Man and Man becomes a living soul. Becomes, not receives. So in biblical thought, the soul is the conscious self, the animated body. In the Old Testament, when a man is dead, he's dead and that's the end of it. Something survives; it was obvious that when someone died, something went out of him. But that something (it was called nephesh in Hebrew) was more like a ghost or an echo than a soul. It disappeared into a kind of underworld called sheol where there was no knowledge or consciousness.

That's why the New Testament offers resurrection, not immortality, as the reward for believing in Jesus. The pharisees believed in immortal souls, so Paul would have done so as a young man. But after he became a Christian, he looked forward to a very different future: not disembodiment followed by a purely spiritual life, but to have a new body put on over the old one (2 Cor 5 vv.1-4).

God's words concerning the tree of knowledge ("In the day you eat of it, you shall die") clearly refer to spiritual and not physical death, since Adam and Eve did not die physically immediately they ate the fruit. But they did immediately become alienated from God and aware of their own mortality.

The reason why I believe Genesis 1 is a poem is not because this gives me an intellectually respectable reason not to take it literally, but because it has the repetitive structure of a poem. Hebrew poetry had neither rhyme nor metre; it had structure and repetition. Gen 1 has both. It is not narrative as Gen 2 is because narrative is continuous, not repetitive and structured.

The structure of Gen 1 is a song with six verses, each followed by a refrain, and then a final aftersong. The structure of each verse is:
"And God said 'Let there be ...'. And there was ... And God made ... (with some following detail). And God saw ... that it was good." This is followed by the refrain, "And the evening and the morning were the nth day."

The aftersong goes "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished. And on the seventh day God ended his work that He had made and He rested on the seventh day from all His work."

Originally Posted by enorbet So, business_kid, you think "he will crush your head" is the message of the Christian Bible? Wow!

Ah, you looked it up. Genesis 3:15 outlines how the next period of time (about 6000 years) would work out. As you will notice from verse 14, God was speaking to the serpent, actually to the one posessing the serpent, Satan.

Several issues had been raised on earth and elsewhere, and God had chosen to allow time for these to be settled. These are mentioned in various parts of the Scriptures throughout the the Hebrew period. Because the Scriptures were to finish with the Apostle John, he was given a series of visions which take us through the millenium to the end of the 1000 years. So the crushing of Satan's head is the same fatal destruction as sundialsvcs mentioned in Rev 20:10

And the Devil who was misleading them was hurled into the lake of fire and sulfur, where both the wild beast and the false prophet already were; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

It's interesting to note in this context that human jailers were also called tormentors in Roman times. Jailers in Bible times imprisoned people, but could also be directed to apply some torture to get some information. So anything going into the lake of fire was confined in death/destruction eternally.

Of course I looked it up, business_kid, because I didn't remember it and this is supposed to be a conversation, right?.. not just spouting off sermons or soliloquy.

No, I believe that the auhor of the "Genesis poem" (a human being inspired by God) divided up the wonders of creation into sets corresponding to the days of the week.

Far more likely (IMHO) is that "the days of the week" were set by "the Genesis poem." Of course we will never know.

Unrelated: Numerology is actually one of the world's most interesting pursuits, since numbers are thought by many to be one of the world's very few "absolutes." I could right-now dumpster-dive into such exotica such as the (obviously mathematical) Hebrew "Kabbalah," but I won't do so at this time.

- - -

The effect of what you're saying is to put the Genesis account on the same level as Babylonian mythology, which I do not believe it to be.

The key words here are: "which I do not believe it to be." And no one here can dispute the validity of that position with regards to "I = yourself."

But, if someone else did not, for whatever reason, choose to share that "religious conviction," they might easily (and legitimately) equate the two as entirely-comparable pieces of national mythology. However, these two parallel viewpoints do not actually conflict. There is nothing to "defend" here, because they share no common ground other than "the superficial subject matter."

[The persons who say this] are not "challenging [your] beliefs," and I suggest that it is prudent to carefully consider the idea of using "[your] beliefs" to directly challenge [them]. [They] are on one "turf" and [you] are on another. The world of human discourse is filled with minefields. It is usually wise not to venture into any of them unnecessarily.

(P.S.: I have used [square-brackets] to clearly delineate the phrases which I expressly intend to be impersonal.)

- - -

In the Old Testament, when a man is dead, he's dead and that's the end of it. Something survives; it was obvious that when someone died, something went out of him. But that something (it was called nephesh in Hebrew) was more like a ghost or an echo than a soul. It disappeared into a kind of underworld called sheol where there was no knowledge or consciousness.

But wait ... we have "the witches of Endor." And yet, the conjured spirit of Samuel speaks. This is only one of several examples of cases where the barrier between life and death seemed more than a little permeable ...

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs But wait ... we have "the witches of Endor." And yet, the conjured spirit of Samuel speaks. This is only one of several examples of cases where the barrier between life and death seemed more than a little permeable ...

Yes, an interesting example. From memory, Luke 16 has another (Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus). But let's stick with the (one) witch, or spirit medium of Endor.

First let me mention Genesis 3:15, specifically this bit: "...I shall put emnity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed..." You would expect to see some of this struggle.

Context: Jehovah had cut Saul off and wouldn't answer him; Samuel likewise wouldn't answer him. He could go to the High Priest to get him to use the Urim & Thummin to discern Jehovah's will, but he kept getting no answer. Spirit mediums were forbidden under the Law and Saul had cleaned the land of them in previous years. Saul didn't fancy his chances in tomorrow's battle against the Philistines and desparately wanted an answer. So he consulted this medium in Endor (1 Samuel ch. 28). She brought up "Samuel."

The demons gave the medium a vision. It was 'an old man coming up, and he is clothed in a sleeveless coat,' and Saul jumped to the conclusion it was Samuel. There was no verification that the apparition the medium saw was in fact Samuel, nor could there be. There was no proof apart from her assertion she saw anything. Would Samuel speak to Saul while dead, when he wouldn't speak to him when alive? Would Jehovah inspire a prophecy to be transmitted through the medium, a mouthpiece of the demons? Would Samuel pass a message through a spirit medium? None of those are true. This is where the "emnity" in Genesis 3:15 helps us to see the real picture.

The medium went on to prophesy defeat for Saul and Israel, and death for Saul and his sons. But Saul's son Ishbosheth wasn't killed. Now Deuteronomy states:

Originally Posted by Deut 18:9-13 [9]When you are entered into the land that Jehovah your God is giving you, you must not learn to do according to the detestable things of those nations. [10] There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, anyone who employs divination, a practicer of magic or anyone who looks for omens or a sorcerer, [11] or one who binds others with a spell or anyone who consults a spirit medium or a professional foreteller of events or anyone who inquires of the dead. [12] For everybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah, and on account of these detestable things Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you. [13] You should prove yourself faultless with Jehovah your God.

The weight of evidence is against Jehovah or any immortal Samuel suddenly doing an about-face and answering Saul in that way, then giving him an inaccurate prophecy. That Israel was lined up for defeat was a no-brainer; even Saul could see that. It points much more to the demons supporting their lie that "he's not really dead..."

Originally Posted by Ambrose Bierce clairvoyant, n.: A person, commonly a woman, who has the power of seeing that which is invisible to her patron - namely, that he is a blockhead.

Since we know for a fact that many generations before microscopes people thought all manner of afflictions were caused by "demons" and "evil spirits" because they had no other way to imagine things that are otherwise invisible to the naked eye, doesn't it bother literal Believers that the Christian Bible, among other ancient scripture, never corrected this mistaken concept, but instead actually reinforced such mistakes... and to what advantage or benefit?, not to mention lending evidence that God could be and was deceptive when it suited for whatever reason.

...Or, do you folks who adamantly insist your interpretation is the literal Truth and all others false, simply ignore that any progress of any kind has occurred for over 2000 years?

I'm don't think the Bible did promote false beliefs. If you mention an instance, I can comment on it. OTOH, the Law given to the Israelites provided

• Rules about washing which aided hygene.
• Rules for burying human waste to remove a source of infection. The Egyptians, by comparison, used excrement in medical treatments!
• Rules for keeping those in an infectious or unclean state outside their encampments.
• Rules for clean & unclean animals. Pork, in particular was dangerous, I am told in terms of the common infections which could live in pork and damage us.
• Rules for the proper treatment of all blood.
• Rules for the proper treatment of dead bodies, etc.

These principles displayed an accurate knowledge of matters. Israelites who followed the Law on the average lived longer healthier lives than those who didn't, as the latter were decimated by various plagues that the Israelites avoided.

I personally feel it was a wise choice not to inform the Israelites that things like viruses & germs existed that were too small for them to see but capable of causing great damage. Once that concept had a solid basis, you can only imagine what fertile imaginations would do with it. You also have to remember there was an opposing force in action. The less ammunition you fed them, the better.

From my POV it is one thing to not reveal to children all of how the world really works but it's quite another to invent The Boogie Man of demons and evil spirits.

Originally Posted by enorbet From my POV it is one thing to not reveal to children all of how the world really works but it's quite another to invent The Boogie Man of demons and evil spirits.

Nonsense. The Boogie man doesn't talk, but

1. Job 1:6-2:6
2. Luke 4:1-11
3. Luke 22:31

A far more compelling candidate for boogie man/bad guy is the folks who teach that the soul is immortal "...he's not really dead..." So then they need somewhere to put the bad ones. They're taking money from people for Masses and other services to get something they haven't got (an immortal soul) out of a place that doesn't exist (A hell of torture).

Can you imagine the sleepless nights those lies have given people over the years?
Here's one from before the Reformation: There was no proper pay for priests in a poor parish, so they devised charges for funerals, confessions, Christenings and "Churchings." Because 'a woman was unclean after childbirth' she had to pay to be 'churched' again before she could attend Sunday Mass. But those who couldn't afford to be 'churched' couldn't go to Mass and were guilty of a 'mortal sin' meriting eternal damnation in hell. There's your boogie man.

I think you are avoiding the salient issue here, business_kid. Regardless of other offenses made by people, I'm talking about the problems and contradiction between insisting Christian scripture is literally "The Word of God", unadulterated by numerous languages and interpretations, that obviously is either simply mistaken or an outright lie that illness is caused by demons and evil spirits or that such entities even exist at all. The logical conclusion must be either God lied or scripture is not his/her/its literal word but simply the best guesses of ancient men.

That's not the salient issue at all.

I have been clearing up some sincere and specific doubts raised about God and Scripture. You are now making some nebulous and general attack against the whole of the Bible because you can't bear to see so many posts go by without airing your many opinions. You are welcome to your view.

If you want a project, I'll give you that, too. This is something to get your scientific teeth into. In 1923, when Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, the Science of Eugenics was as proved as any Scientific fact could be. Hitler incorportated the mainstream scientific view into his book. Governments around the world passed Laws (marriage bans, celibacy for immigrants, etc). Hitler's Germany even made the genocidal experiment of pruning the human family tree. Even Jehovah's Witnesses were set aside for extermination. But we fared better than most.

Eugenics was never refuted. To this day, nobody has a peer reviewed paper exposing the great men like Alexander Graham Bell as racist frauds, doing bogus research and scientific losers. 100 years after Mein Kampf, don't you owe it to the world to set the Scientific Record straight, even if it is 100 years late? And before you ask me to take science seriously, fix this!

@business_kid: In my version of 1 Samuel 28:15-19, "Samuel said to Saul." And I will simply leave it at that. I have zero interest in further debating this topic, nor in trying to "rationalize" what the passage says, how or why. But, after the medium first told Saul about an apparition which was coming towards her, it is apparent from the account – if the account is to be taken at face – that the two individuals then spoke. (Although what Samuel "spoke" is little more than a recitation that was not answered.)

I admit that the entire encounter sounds to me a wee bit contrived, but: "We will never know for sure."