BBO Discussion Forums: BBF religious matrix - BBO Discussion Forums

Trinidad, on 2013-January-15, 02:36, said:

And I was so sure that I convinced Mike from the advantages of being a theist instead of atheist....... Did you really need to destroy my illusions?

But I really agree with the rest of your posting, there had been a lot of valuable input and food to thought.

Trinidad, on 2013-January-15, 02:36, said:

Yes, but 32's postings have become creepy and sinister.

Vampyr, on 2013-January-15, 05:35, said:

So what? Do you read all the postings on BBF?

They may be creepy, sinister or whatever, but if I don't read them they don't affect me. I'd rather spend my time reading yours or Fluffy's or Codo's or Justin's or ... well you get the point.

Rik

Trinidad, on 2013-January-15, 06:04, said:

Yes, but I think that people who are following this thread will tend to read every post; even if 32 is set to ignore, he is quoted by various other posters. So I don't think it is unreasonable for a person to object to posts they find offensive or which creep them out.

For sure, I have learned a few things here.

Personally I would not call 32519's posts creepy, sinister, or aggressive. He is preaching and proselytizing, which is entirely normal for people of his like. At no time did I feel threatened or even insulted by his posts. Sure, they sound pretty weird to me, and probably sound downright insane to many of the posters here. But probably no more so than some of our posts (mikeh in particular) would sound on a forum full of worshippers.

billw55, on 2013-January-15, 07:25, said:

I hadn't realized that my posts, in which I refer to objectively verifiable historical facts about religion and make it clear (so I thought) that my opinions were evidence based and hence subject to ongoing re-examination were in the same category as 32's. Oh well. I don't know whether this post was a shot at me or a shot at the mentality of worshippers (or both).

As it happens, I agree that, with one or two notable exceptions, there have been some useful posts on both sides. Since I have already done a lot of reading on the issues canvassed here, I didn't see anything that I hadn't already seen, but I was impressed, nonetheless, by the clarity and courtesy with which many posters expressed themselves.

As for 32, I agree that I don't see him as sinister or aggressive. I see him as deluded, which is his problem. As for preaching, well I did that too, I suppose, so I can hardly criticize him for expressing his views. So may be there is more similarity than I had thought

We have a massive irony (and tragedy) here. The world has much to thank the Jews for bringing to everyone else this incredible story: God’s ultimate purpose with creation; an invisible God becoming visible in you and me and everyone else.

The irony? After bringing us this incredible story, the Jews themselves have rejected the second half of the story (the New Testament).

The tragedy? Non-Jews have to a large extent gone and corrupted the second half of the story to fit in with what they want their followers to believe. Why? Personally I believe it has to do with power, greed, money, control of the masses, etc; fallen man unable to make it or find recognition in open society has gone and created titles, positions, roles, et el, in religious organisations in pursuit of the recognition he was unable to gain for himself. To do so that which the Jews originally wrote is misrepresented. And it won’t be fixed by the religious organisations either because they have the most to lose.

Here is a typical example of what you will NEVER HEAR in these organisations:
It has to do with the tithe, the 10% placed in the coffers. That is all Old Testament. Jesus himself effectively did away with the tithe in Matthew 17:24-27. Go and read it if you are so inclined. Paul himself took pride in the fact that he was never a burden to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 12:13). He never accepted any financial assistance from the Corinthians, instead supporting himself making tents. You can read the whole passage from verse 11. He did the same in Ephesus, supplying his own needs and those of his companions through hard work (Acts 20:33-35).

These religious organisations will instead twist circumstances to squeeze extra money out of you for their own purposes. A favourite scripture they quote is 2 Corinthians 9:6-15. But you must read that in context. Paul was busy making a monetary collection for the starving believers in Jerusalem which had suffered a famine. When he finally delivers the collection, Luke makes no mention of it in Acts 21 because of the hostility of the Jews against Paul. In Acts 24:17 Paul himself mentions the collection before Felix.

Start your own pursuit of the truth. I use something called PC Study Bible distributed by BibleSoft. It contains something called an Interlinear Bible, the original Greek with the English translation of the Greek directly above it. By double-clicking on the Greek word, a Greek-English lexicon opens up on the right. This gives you what the English should be. There are 4 lexicons for you to compare with each other.

One final word on the tragedy: I get much of my information from this website http://bible.cc/ . In the commentaries below the parallel translations, the commentators more often than not point out the inadequacies in their own translations. So if they know that the translation is inadequate, why not fix it? It just won’t happen.

You think I’m joking about institutionalised religion. As early as AD 95 in Revelation 18:4 Jesus was calling on his followers to “Come out of her my people.” You are encouraged to read the whole chapter.

Vampyr, on 2013-January-15, 07:18, said:

Yeah, is it really necessary to quote several paragraphs of his to give a one-line response? I'm looking at you, BunnyGo!

Fluffy, on 2013-January-15, 03:34, said:

Why do you say that? It is entirely possible to be sure and still have an open mind to learn something. The learning doesn't need to mean 'learning towards converting', does it? I think many here have learned something about how the other side thinks. They may still be 100% sure that that way of thinking is wrong, but the understanding will have improved.

Rik

mikeh, on 2013-January-15, 09:05, said:

Neither.

I only cited you specifically because you seem to be more or less leading the charge for the non-believers in this particular discussion. As for the worshippers, I didn't consider it a shot, rather an observation.

32519, on 2013-January-15, 09:27, said:

It may surprise you to learn that some people choose to pursue truth from sources other than the Bible.

32519, on 2013-January-15, 09:27, said:

Err no, not at all.

Most Jews as I understand it simply don't believe the New testament is much to do with the old testament.

Something that was written the best part of 4000 years later, and 100 or so years later than the events described in most cases, by the followers of the central character is just not viewed as a reliable historical record let alone anything with any divine significance. Sourcing your "truth" from there is like saying "wolves will dress up as your granny to attack you" by reference to a book of fairy tales to many jews.

mgoetze, on 2013-January-15, 12:43, said:

Very true...I do feel bad about that, I should probably learn to start <snip>ing.

on a related note, anyone read this piece of garbage?

http://www.nationalr...k-dennis-prager

dustinst22, on 2013-January-15, 16:15, said:

I have now!

Dunno that I actually disagree all that much.

Theism certainty has a better story when it comes to the afterlife and consoling people through death. Of course, that is just what it is, a story. Far less realistic then making plans to spend your lottery winnings when buying your ticket(and less intelligent).

But it is a better story, as stories go.

dwar0123, on 2013-January-15, 16:49, said:

Guess I disagree. I find through personal experience that atheists are more genuine, and thus more consoling with situations like this. The last thing I'd want to hear as a parent if my child suffered such a horrible tragedy is someone telling me they are in a better place now.

dustinst22, on 2013-January-15, 17:06, said:

I am not sure you are really disagreeing, you find atheist more genuine and thus more consoling in such situations, fair enough. If you bought into the theist fairy tale, I am sure you would find theist's genuine and their story consoling as well.

If you treat both points of view equally, I still have to say the theist story is better, as we both reject it, it is not at all consoling. This is a result of your rejection of their core point of view, not as a result of theist's being bad at consoling people, many happen to be very good at it.

Cyberyeti, on 2013-January-15, 13:22, said:

I confess that I know very little about the practice of Judaism. Those friends of mine who are jewish are non-religious, or if they are religious, are very private about it. Is it common to the religious jew to think of the Old Testament as factual? As allegorical/metaphorical? Or as a mix, and does the mix vary from sect to sect?

IOW, are there jews who claim that the stories from 4000 years before the NT, and which stories are not now found in texts that physically date from that period, are more 'true' than the 'fairy tale' of the NT?

I am not arguing that those jews should pay more heed to the NT: I am arguing that it is inconsistent for modern jews to argue against the NT on the grounds that the NT was written 100+ years after the events in issue while arguing that the OT tales are true, when the documentary basis for the OT is of even more dubious provenance...not to mention that archeological findings strongly suggest that many of the tales are plain wrong....the peoples, cities, wars, leaders and events described as occurring cannot be reconciled with the remaining physical evidence.

Of course, if it boils down to 'faith' such appeals to fact and evidence become irrelevant: as these threads (and much psychological research) have shown, for many people, when faith conflicts with reality, reality loses.

mikeh, on 2013-January-15, 17:20, said:

An atheist Jewish professor once gave us his take on this...

It doesn't matter whether the stories are "true" in the sense that they actually happened. The Old Testament is about a people who believed that they were in the presence of the divine.

mikeh, on 2013-January-15, 17:20, said:

Jews do not argue against the New Testament on the grounds that it was written 100+ years after the events in issue - we just ignore the New Testament. From a Jewish point of view, the New Testament is a non-issue. It is not part of Judaism. We don't argue against it, anymore than we argue against the Koran or any other religion's sacred texts.

And the vast majority of Jews do not look at the Old Testament as a literal retelling of the history of mankind. There is a great deal of historical information in the Old Testament. It is a very interesting story. But was the universe created 5773 years ago? You will not find many Jews who read the Old Testament that literally.

[I asked Dave Treadwell about this once. He said he didn't remember the creation. Funny, I thought he was somehow involved in it.]

As I understand Judaism, much of the religious teachings through the ages are contained in the Talmud and other religious works. The Old Testament (the "Torah"), while the central piece of Judaism's sacred texts, is far from the entirety of the religion.

ArtK78, on 2013-January-15, 17:50, said:

That view of the NT was what I had assumed before I read Bunnygo's post. Thanks for clarifying.

As for the 'historical' information, it is that part of it (or at least much of it) that doesn't seem at all accurate.

For example, I understand that the OT teaches that the jewish people lived in Egypt for many years.

Yet there is literally (as I understand what I have read on the topic) no archeological evidence of this. There are many historical artefacts from the relevant period in Egyptian history, and no indication of the presence of a jewish population, enslaved or otherwise. I gather that analsyis of language demonstrates no intermingling of languages, such as invariably happens when two disparate groups live together.

In addition, as I mentioned earlier, the OT is replete with the names of Kings and tribes, including rivals or enemies of the jewish people, yet the historical and archeological record suggests that most, if not all, of those purportedly historical descriptions are untrue.

Its sort of like watching a Hollywood movie about the Wild West (say High Noon, or True Grit, or the The Good, the Bad and the Ugly) and accepting it as historical fact.