Religion II

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Sure. "Create" the Christian story in 1st century Judea with the blasphemous idea that God became man to fellow observant Jews, while confident that Nero, Domitian, Trajan, et.al, will watch with amusement for the next 350 years until gaining "control".

I would argue that it took 400 years for the Christian story to gain critical mass and the political opportunity to go public, and thus the creating the supporting back story most likely does not reflect an accurate history. In other words, inventing a long dead messiah to support a growing movement rising from the ashes of the Roman Empire was written to meet the goals of the time.

History is written by the winners and their slant, and not for the truth.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Too bad all the days of your deliberate misrepresentation of the bible aren't also far behind you, as well.

To accuse someone of lying when expressing an honest opinion, is in your words, self-defeating.

Your opinion that others who interpret the Good Book in a fashion that differs from your literal method are intentionally misleading doesn't change the fact that there are multiple ways to interpret the Bible. Just like there are 7.4 billion realms of spiritual experience on the planet right now.

It's one of the aspects of organized religion that makes it chaotic, and why it's often a tool to manipulate the ignorant masses versus gaining any spiritual rewards. This doesn't mean religion is all bad of course, but it should put the focus on the motivation of the evangelists of any faith.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Hank

Mic drop.

The Lord works in mysterious ways...

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

It's not my opinion. You violated the Law of Contradiction; therefore, you lied.
When you repeatedly have told us that "Scripture proves nothing" in one breath, and then in the next exhale turn around and tell us that you have proved from that same scripture what a horrible monster God is and that the scriptures abound in contradictions, then you have contradicted yourself. Scripture proves nothing and it proves something. You have been talking out of both sides of your mouth all along.

The Law states: A thing cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same sense.

Or more specifically in your case: Scripture cannot prove anything and prove something at the same time and in the same sense.

Have a nice evening, sir.

Let me put it this way.

• You believe that there is a god.
• You believe that scripture is the word of that god.
• Scripture says that god is a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
• Therefore you believe that god is a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
• For you to believe otherwise violates the Law of Non-contradiction.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

No answer? To tell you the truth...I really wasn't expecting one. In "religious" circles...the answers tend to dry up when the questions get tougher.

boxcar is a follower of Sun Tsu. "Choose your battles!"

[hcap]

Box, although we can not know the divine or what you call God, and some of us prefer higher mind, by our ordinary mind,does not mean we cannot read and experience all sorts of "clues" left behind in great literature, poetry, art and music, and architecture. Scripture of all major religions are mostly distorted fragments alluding to living in a vaster more enlightened "territory. The map is not the territory metaphorically illustrates the differences between belief and reality. The phrase was coined by Alfred Korzybski. ... The strategy that normally gives most control over reality is one where the 'map' is aligned to match the 'territory' as closely as possible.

I said Zen favors "killing the Buddha" to move into the reality or new territory, the experiential ascending above ordinary mind. So not being able to grasp transcendent "god" is a limitation rooted in our normal state of intellect.

Eastern thought encourages mindfulness techniques to begin to prime the pump of higher intellect and other faculties. It has been my experience that glimpses of this new territory adds to a fuller understanding employing tintellect. Zen uses the "koan" to stymie the ordinary mind stimulating thed growth of new mind, or metanoia...Maurice Nicoll, contemporary of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky


http://www.gurdjieffwork.com/site/in...=102390&DL=243

— Maurice Nicoll —

Here lies one of the deepest ideas in the psychological teachings of the Gospels. A radical, permanent transformation is taught as being possible and 'metanoia' is the technical description of it. But a man cannot reach a permanent higher level of himself unless there is built up in him a connection of ideas that can gradually lift him beyond his present level. The idea of the self-evolution of man, the idea of metanoia or 'transformation of mind', and the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven are all connected and related ideas. Christ's teaching is about a possible individual evolution in a man. Everyone on this planet is capable of a certain inner growth and individual development, and this is his true significance and his deepest meaning, and begins with metanoia.

The Zen koan: The Sound of One Hand Clapping is given to the diciple in order to stimulate metanoia.

Zen is based on the teachings of the Tao Che Ching

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 42

The Tao begot one.
One begot two.
Two begot three.
And three begot the ten thousand things.

I suspect Bart Simpson is on the right track. One begot two.

YouTube (Short URL)

So forget getting mired down in the "map" of the bible.
Watch the Simpsons instead

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Box, although we can not know the divine or what you call God, and some of us prefer higher mind, by our ordinary mind,does not mean we cannot read and experience all sorts of "clues" left behind in great literature, poetry, art and music, and architecture. Scripture of all major religions are mostly distorted fragments alluding to living in a vaster more enlightened "territory. The map is not the territory metaphorically illustrates the differences between belief and reality. The phrase was coined by Alfred Korzybski. ... The strategy that normally gives most control over reality is one where the 'map' is aligned to match the 'territory' as closely as possible.

I said Zen favors "killing the Buddha" to move into the reality or new territory, the experiential ascending above ordinary mind. So not being able to grasp transcendent "god" is a limitation rooted in our normal state of intellect.

Eastern thought encourages mindfulness techniques to begin to prime the pump of higher intellect and other faculties. It has been my experience that glimpses of this new territory adds to a fuller understanding employing tintellect. Zen uses the "koan" to stymie the ordinary mind stimulating thed growth of new mind, or metanoia...Maurice Nicoll, contemporary of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky


http://www.gurdjieffwork.com/site/in...=102390&DL=243

— Maurice Nicoll —

The Zen koan: The Sound of One Hand Clapping is given to the diciple in order to stimulate metanoia.

Zen is based on the teachings of the Tao Che Ching

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 42

The Tao begot one.
One begot two.
Two begot three.
And three begot the ten thousand things.

I suspect Bart Simpson is on the right track. One begot two.

https://youtu.be/b6YSfEKMeC8

So forget getting mired down in the "map" of the bible.
Watch the Simpsons instead

And the people whose great literature you read, how did they know anything about the unknowable to be able write anything about it? Do people write anything about Xzghpoklm? Do you? If not, you may want to ponder why, if, of course, you can let go of your mentor BS for a few minutes.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Let me put it this way.

• You believe that there is a god.
• You believe that scripture is the word of that god.
• Scripture says that god is a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
• Therefore you believe that god is a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
• For you to believe otherwise violates the Law of Non-contradiction.

I don't agree with the third premise of your lame syllogism since scripture doesn't say that. Therefore, no contradiction on my part.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

To accuse someone of lying when expressing an honest opinion, is in your words, self-defeating.

Your opinion that others who interpret the Good Book in a fashion that differs from your literal method are intentionally misleading doesn't change the fact that there are multiple ways to interpret the Bible. Just like there are 7.4 billion realms of spiritual experience on the planet right now.

It's one of the aspects of organized religion that makes it chaotic, and why it's often a tool to manipulate the ignorant masses versus gaining any spiritual rewards. This doesn't mean religion is all bad of course, but it should put the focus on the motivation of the evangelists of any faith.

You need to pay attention. I didn't call Actor out on his opinion. I called him out on his lie due to his oft-repeated mindless mantra of: "Scripture proves nothing". Yet, he turns right around, writes numerous posts quoting lots of scripture and then glibly tells us that he has have proved something. So, which is it: Is scripture useful because it can prove something or worthless because it proves nothing.

If you can't see the contradiction in that, I can't help you. I can explain to you, but I can't make you understand it.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

When assembling the Bible in 400 AD, the authors and editors simply came up with a new twist of the "Christ savior requirement", to differentiate and deflect the obvious plagiarism going on - just watch the first 15 minutes of the movie "Zeitgeist" for details.

It's 99% old news.

Yeah...a "view" that is diametrically opposed to all worldly views of God. I wonder how all 40 writers of the bible pulled that off.

And all the writers of the bible were alive in 400 A.D., heh?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I don't agree with the third premise of your lame syllogism since scripture doesn't say that. Therefore, no contradiction on my part.

It does say that. Close to 100 times. A misinterpretation on your part.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You need to pay attention. I didn't call Actor out on his opinion. I called him out on his lie due to his oft-repeated mindless mantra of: "Scripture proves nothing". Yet, he turns right around, writes numerous posts quoting lots of scripture and then glibly tells us that he has have proved something. So, which is it: Is scripture useful because it can prove something or worthless because it proves nothing.

If you can't see the contradiction in that, I can't help you. I can explain to you, but I can't make you understand it.

There is no contradiction. I've explained it to you. I can't understand it for you.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

And the grieving parents are supposed to understand why the other parents around them are happily surrounded by their kids...while they prepare their own child for the cemetery...right?

Oh...so God is unfair because he's not an Equal Opportunity King? Would the grieving parents feel much better if God also took the other parents' kids from them? (Misery loves company, right?) But that could start an even bigger chain reaction since the grief of those parents would have to be mitigated by taking, yet, other kids from different parents, etc., etc., etc.

Here's the thing, Greyfox:

The bible has this pesky little passage in it, where it says that not even a hair falls from our heads without God wishing it so. This pretty much means that God allows for all the world's atrocities to occur...simply because he wishes it so. I don't see how the "religious" can get past that one...no matter how much they try to tip-toe around it.

I strongly suspect there are considerably more pesky little messages in the bible as far as your concerned. Here are a few more on this subject that will doubtlessly irritate you:

Job 14:1-6
1 "Man, who is born of woman,
Is short-lived and full of turmoil.
2 "Like a flower he comes forth and withers.
He also flees like a shadow and does not remain.
3 "Thou also dost open Thine eyes on him,
And bring him into judgment with Thyself.
4 "Who can make the clean out of the unclean?
No one!
5 "Since his days are determined,
The number of his months is with Thee,
And his limits Thou hast set so that he cannot pass.
6 "Turn Thy gaze from him that he may rest,
Until he fulfills his day like a hired man.
NASB

And,

Ps 139:16
16 Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Thy book they were all written,
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.
NASB

The above passages are teaching the doctrine of Predestination. God in eternity "past" has foreordained all the days of life for each one of us.

Now...how should man, who is made in God's image, respond to this great truth? What should the disposition of our hearts be? Scripture isn't silent on this either.

Ps 39:4-5
4 "Lord, make me to know my end,
And what is the extent of my days,
Let me know how transient I am.
5 "Behold, Thou hast made my days as handbreadths,
And my lifetime as nothing in Thy sight,
Surely every man at his best is a mere breath.
NASB

And,

Ps 90:12
12 So teach us to number our days,
That we may present to Thee a heart of wisdom.
NASB

The psalmist, in essence, is praying for humility because he knows that he is a finite being whose life is on loan to him from God, as Fox so aptly said. Believers know and understand that their life is not their own! If it weren't for God's gift of life to each of us, none of us would exist. None of us are here in this world due to an act of our own will. This truth should humble all of us but, alas, it has no effect on most of us.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

There is no contradiction. I've explained it to you. I can't understand it for you.

You explained nothing! You have repeatedly said (ad nausemm!!!) that "Scripture proves nothing" while also saying recent you have proved, by all the scriptures you have quoted, something. That, sir, is an outright contradiction. Nothing does not = Something! At least not in the real world.

And how is it that you can get to boldly claim that scripture proves nothing except when you say so! Such unfettered arrogance!

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You need to pay attention. I didn't call Actor out on his opinion. I called him out on his lie due to his oft-repeated mindless mantra of: "Scripture proves nothing". Yet, he turns right around, writes numerous posts quoting lots of scripture and then glibly tells us that he has have proved something. So, which is it: Is scripture useful because it can prove something or worthless because it proves nothing.

If you can't see the contradiction in that, I can't help you. I can explain to you, but I can't make you understand it.

Actually, my comment is about your response to Thask, indicating his bible-reading days were behind him.

As for Actor's comments on specific scripture, I'll agree that it's not useful to be critical of the Bible when discussing it with Believers who are already convinced it's the word of God. And yes, it's a contradiction to say the Bible proves nothing, but then tear it apart quote by quote.

Which is why I try not to do that. I simply leave it at I'm not of the opinion it's the word of God. It is a very interesting and complex book, and I think there is some accuracy to it in terms of historical events, and certainly there is much wisdom and guidance in it. But I am more skeptical of the content pertaining to the supernatural, and the application of the Bible to influence society has not always been a positive force (controlling the masses).