Worldviews

[Arachnodisiac]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

I think the author is making a number of unsubstantiated assumptions...

Religion = Christian Fundamentalist = Conservative/Republican = Backward Reactionaries.

I think you have to consider the frame of reference, and the audience.

However, his observations though somewhat regional, are still interesting because we know that policy generated there certainly influences our culture and our economy.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by duffy4

And what does "let him die the death" mean Andy? You seem to think it means "he that curseth father or mother let him die or be killed"

Robin, I think I answered part of this in my post 1220

I reckon it means "if one curseth father or mother (and does not repent) let them die the death (that does not lead to eternal life in heaven)"

I take it then that this is a part that you don't take literally, but figuratively.

If you have been following my posts, my concern has been with those that take the bible literally, and if one takes one part literally, then one better, to be consistent, take all of it literally.

If one says that "but this part really means something else", then how can one justify taking any other part literally?

I have said many times, look at the allegory and the metamorphic teachings, and the inner Logos can be inspired in a spiritual way that is much stronger then anything a literal interpretation will give one. Why restrict that spiritual awakening? The spiritual truths have been part of humans much longer then anything that is written in the bible; the bible is just one reflection of those truths that have been known or felt for many 1000's of years before an ancient Jewish scribe started writing things down to make the Jewish tribes be the center of the universe.

By anthropomorphising their Yhweh as the supreme universal force, those scribes restricted that force to a human like quality. It starts right of in Genesis 1:27, and by setting that stage, the rest of the sagas get skewed.

The best way of understanding this is one looks at the Mystery Religions that were competitors in Rome to early Christianity, and see the similarities. Those were adapted from the worship in Persia of Mithras. Interestingly enough, Persia is also the origin of probably the first monotheist religion, Zoroastrianism, which the Mystery Religions borrowed heavily from, as did the Jews and early Christians. Zoroastrianism is still practiced by it's adherents, although, unlike most religions, one has to be born into it as they will not accept converts.

Does this sound familiar?

In Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda is the beginning and the end, the creator of everything that can and cannot be seen, the Eternal, the Pure and the only Truth.

Kind of sounds like elements of the bible, doesn't it. Only Zorasterianism is much older the the Jews of Abraham. The Jews of Babylon certainly would have been familiar with it, and it would have been an easy adaptation.

[avb3]

John Shelby Spong is a retired Bishop from the Episcopal denomination. His article, "Why We Must Reclaim The Bible From Fundamentalists" should be read by everyone, as he makes some interesting and pertinent points.

Two quotes from that article:

• There are some biblical facts that cannot and should not be ignored, if Christians really value truth. For example, the time separating when Moses lived (ca. 1250 BCE) from when the stories of Moses were written in the Bible (ca. 950 BCE) is about 300 years, representing 15 generations of oral transmission. Can anyone knowing this continue to be a literal believer? The gospels were written 40 -70 years after the crucifixion, which means that most of what we read about Jesus in the Bible was handed down orally for two to three generations before one word of it achieved written form. The gospels were also first written in Greek, a language which neither Jesus nor his disciples spoke or wrote! How can anyone claim "inerrancy" for such material?
  

• Christianity is, I believe, about expanded life, heightened consciousness and achieving a new humanity. It is not about closed minds, supernatural interventions, a fallen creation, guilt, original sin or divine rescue. I am tired of seeing the Bible being used, as it has been throughout history, to legitimize slavery and segregation, to subdue women, to punish homosexuals, to justify war and to oppose family planning and birth control. That is a travesty which must be challenged and changed.
  

BTW, he is not an atheist, but still a strong Christian. He just is not a literalist.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by avb3

John Shelby Spong is a retired Bishop from the Episcopal denomination. His article, "Why We Must Reclaim The Bible From Fundamentalists" should be read by everyone, as he makes some interesting and pertinent points.

Two quotes from that article:

• There are some biblical facts that cannot and should not be ignored, if Christians really value truth. For example, the time separating when Moses lived (ca. 1250 BCE) from when the stories of Moses were written in the Bible (ca. 950 BCE) is about 300 years, representing 15 generations of oral transmission. Can anyone knowing this continue to be a literal believer? The gospels were written 40 -70 years after the crucifixion, which means that most of what we read about Jesus in the Bible was handed down orally for two to three generations before one word of it achieved written form. The gospels were also first written in Greek, a language which neither Jesus nor his disciples spoke or wrote! How can anyone claim "inerrancy" for such material?
  

• Christianity is, I believe, about expanded life, heightened consciousness and achieving a new humanity. It is not about closed minds, supernatural interventions, a fallen creation, guilt, original sin or divine rescue. I am tired of seeing the Bible being used, as it has been throughout history, to legitimize slavery and segregation, to subdue women, to punish homosexuals, to justify war and to oppose family planning and birth control. That is a travesty which must be challenged and changed.
  

BTW, he is not an atheist, but still a strong Christian. He just is not a literalist.

I heard him speak once at Knox United in Calgary. I read quite a bit of his stuff years ago. Another fellow I like is Marcus Borg who wrote "Reading the Bible again for the first time' and 'Meeting Jesus again for the first time' I think he was an X Lutheran married to an Episcapal Priest. Both were like a breath of fresh air, but my interest in these guys got my fundamentalist relatives praying for me

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by Arachnodisiac

Believers won't want to read this thought-provoking op-ed on why science and the secular world must not tolerate religion, but why they must ultimately work together to eliminate it from any sphere of influence as it pertains to the secular world.

I found it stimulating and it certainly makes some good points. I think that most will see it as an assault on the freedom of religion, but in actuality, I think it makes the case for eliminating religion's influence, not eliminating religion itself.

Really heavy stuff, but I got the impression that eliminating religion itself was best. I may have to re read it?

But.....that is the way it has alway been. To be be in power politicaly one has to harness the religion of the land. Joseph sold into slavery in Egypt rose to power by hard work and ethical conduct but to get to the top he married the daughter of the High Priest.

What's more powerfull than a King? A king who is also a priest to the most high God. Melchizedek! Even Abram gave him a cut of the action. Religion and Politics have always been in bed together!

[avb3]

There has been a lot of back and forth of literalists, atheists, Christians, agnostics and those who have a non-aligned spiritual believe.

So, this question is primarily aimed at the literalists.

We all have heard the story of Geneisis 22, where God tells Abraham to take his son to the mountain top, kill him and give him as a burnt offering.

A great deal is made how faithful Abraham was by following God's orders.

So, who was Isaac suppose to pray to?

[ganderblaster]

Originally Posted by Arachnodisiac

You know how I know that atheism has a ways to go before being accepted in the mainstream?

I sometimes advise my children to hide their beliefs in school.
I don't imagine the average Christian family needs to take the same precautions.

Last I checked it is still better to be an atheist in a predominantly Christian country than a Christian in a country where atheism is the official "belief" but than again don't take my word for ask one of the Christians being tortured in China what they think. So ya atheism has a ways to go before it it is accepted in the mainstream in my mind.

[Arachnodisiac]

Originally Posted by ganderblaster

Last I checked it is still better to be an atheist in a predominantly Christian country than a Christian in a country where atheism is the official "belief" but than again don't take my word for ask one of the Christians being tortured in China what they think. So ya atheism has a ways to go before it it is accepted in the mainstream in my mind.

So you plan to actively discriminate against atheists because of the behaviour of one country which is known for oppressing anything deemed a threat to its rule?

[guywiththemule]

Originally Posted by avb3

There has been a lot of back and forth of literalists, atheists, Christians, agnostics and those who have a non-aligned spiritual believe.

So, this question is primarily aimed at the literalists.

We all have heard the story of Geneisis 22, where God tells Abraham to take his son to the mountain top, kill him and give him as a burnt offering.

A great deal is made how faithful Abraham was by following God's orders.

So, who was Isaac suppose to pray to?

Apparently, children like him were not part of the "kingdom of that god" at that time in history. Maybe there were some of Louis L`amour`s "lonesome gods" looking out for the children in that era ??

[ganderblaster]

Originally Posted by Arachnodisiac

So you plan to actively discriminate against atheists because of the behaviour of one country which is known for oppressing anything deemed a threat to its rule?

Has any communist country not had atheism as its official belief or code?

[Arachnodisiac]

Originally Posted by ganderblaster

Has any communist country not had atheism as its official belief or code?

State atheism isn't about being anti-religion – it's all about maintaining ultimate control. One of the many, many ways to do this is to strangle the power of any churches, primarily because organized religion has demonstrated over and over again that it is capable of exerting the same kind of control any crooked government wants to maintain.

If they could, I'm sure they would outlaw the most pleasurable sexual acts too, and anything else that circumvents absolutely government control and influence.

To equate communism with atheism is like equating Christianity with democracy. Neither hold any water.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by ganderblaster

Has any communist country not had atheism as its official belief or code?

you might have heard of cuba?

or maybe china?

[darius]

Originally Posted by Arachnodisiac

State atheism isn't about being anti-religion – it's all about maintaining ultimate control. One of the many, many ways to do this is to strangle the power of any churches, primarily because organized religion has demonstrated over and over again that it is capable of exerting the same kind of control any crooked government wants to maintain.

If they could, I'm sure they would outlaw the most pleasurable sexual acts too, and anything else that circumvents absolutely government control and influence.

To equate communism with atheism is like equating Christianity with democracy. Neither hold any water.

equating organized religion and crooked government is spot on

[ganderblaster]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

you might have heard of cuba?

or maybe china?

Last I checked it is a requirement for the Members of the Chinese Communist Party and Youth League to be Atheist.

Cuba was considered an Atheist State from 1959-1992.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by ganderblaster

Last I checked it is a requirement for the Members of the Chinese Communist Party and Youth League to be Atheist.

Cuba was considered an Atheist State from 1959-1992.

so 20 years ago it was officially athiest even though 85% of the people believe?

and china I don't know about or care, it's not just communist countries that are athiest sweden and northern slovakia are by inlarge athiest and are free countries, the church or churches don't have a stranglehold on democracy.

[gunmum]

Originally Posted by jryley

Also waiting for the circular bs bible quote response from the Bible humpers.

I find your comments to be very disrespectful. Everyone else has been able to handle their emotions, can you play like a big boy please? (same thing I ask my 3 year old)

[gunmum]

Originally Posted by jryley

We have still yet to see your reasoning as to why the newer belief - christianity - is even a shred more valid and true than anything the chinese beleived, the native americans/canadians, the mongols, mayans etc. Civilizations that are much much older than anything relating to christianity. Please do educate us without the use of circular deflective bible quotes. I could care less what peter or paul or tom or dick or hairy had to say through metophoric writings. Explain.

If you really care to know the answer (as you asked the question), this will give you an idea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHRP0I2SrVs

By the way, there are a lot of references that you can find answers to most questions here as well

[ganderblaster]

[QUOTE=Arachnodisiac;1345054]State atheism isn't about being anti-religion – it's all about maintaining ultimate control. One of the many, many ways to do this is to strangle the power of any churches, primarily because organized religion has demonstrated over and over again that it is capable of exerting the same kind of control any crooked government wants to maintain.

If they could, I'm sure they would outlaw the most pleasurable sexual acts too, and anything else that circumvents absolutely government control and influence.

To equate communism with atheism is like equating Christianity with democracy. Neither hold any water.[/QUOTE

So being the anti-religion isn't about being anti-religious?

[ganderblaster]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

so 20 years ago it was officially athiest even though 85% of the people believe?

and china I don't know about or care, it's not just communist countries that are athiest sweden and northern slovakia are by inlarge athiest and are free countries, the church or churches don't have a stranglehold on democracy.

Atheists believe. Are you saying 85% of the people are atheists?

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by ganderblaster

Atheists believe. Are you saying 85% of the people are atheists?

Cuba is home to a variety of syncretic religions of largely African cultural origin. According to a US State Department report,[1] some sources estimate that as much as 80 percent of the population consults with practitioners of religions with West African roots, such as Santeria or Yoruba.

Membership in Protestant churches is estimated to be 5 percent and includes Baptists, Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), and Lutherans. Other groups include the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Baha'is, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons).


Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

[ganderblaster]

(Atheism is the anti-religion) post1014

[ganderblaster]

Originally Posted by Arachnodisiac

I think you have to consider the frame of reference, and the audience.

However, his observations though somewhat regional, are still interesting because we know that policy generated there certainly influences our culture and our economy.

O the out of context trump card!

[ganderblaster]

Sorry I'm finding this irony rather humorous.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by ganderblaster

(Atheism is the anti-religion) post1014

picking and choosing again?

a·the·ism   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.



athiesm does not mean anti religion, never has and never will, as an athiest I am not anti religion, if god shows up tommorow and reveals himself to me I will believe, I think there isn't enough evidence to believe in a god.

[mrs]

why would you post this, even if it is relevant to the world, this site is for outdoor enthusiasts who would like to forget about the outside world and its strife. save this crap for facebook!

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by mrs

why would you post this, even if it is relevant to the world, this site is for outdoor enthusiasts who would like to forget about the outside world and its strife. save this crap for facebook!

you are obviously new around here, put your feet up and stay awhile.

[ganderblaster]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

all of these people arguing that athiesm is a religion are religious people trying to put the 2 in the same catagory, athiesm is not and has never been a religion, this circle can't be squared, we are not the same, we don't believe in similar things, you believe the world is less than 10000 years old, that there was a talking snake, noah's arc etc and I think that's rediculous and can be proven so, ATHEISM IS THE ANTI-RELIGION

Which is it?

[gunmum]

Originally Posted by avb3

We all have heard the story of Geneisis 22, where God tells Abraham to take his son to the mountain top, kill him and give him as a burnt offering.

A great deal is made how faithful Abraham was by following God's orders.

So, who was Isaac suppose to pray to?

Isaac was a child but still old enough to sense something amiss:

"Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, 'Father?'
'Yes, my son?' Abraham replied.
'The fire and wood are here,' Isaac said, 'but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?'
Abraham answered, 'God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.' And the two of them went on together." (22:6-9)

So, you can see from the text that Isaac didn`t know that he was supposed to be the sacrifice, but had he known, he would still pray to God. Abraham, being a Godly man, would have been able to show Isaac how awesome God is!

For more info on this subject:
http://www.jesuswalk.com/abraham/10_sacrifice.htm

By the way, are you aware that many of the passages in the OT are said to be foreshadowings of the NT and life/death/Resurrection of Christ??

``It is difficult to escape the conclusion that this story of Abraham is like an acted out prophecy of the unimaginable -- the Heavenly Father who offers his only Son, the Son whom he loves, on the cross, as a Lamb that only he can provide, to accomplish what only he can accomplish -- to take away the sin of the world.

Abraham's anguish and resolve help us to understand just a tiny bit our Heavenly Father's love for us and his determination to save us, whatever the cost.``

See the problem with finding any understanding on this stuff today is that society doesn`t accept the idea of being submissive. It`s thought of as being weak. And weak is bad.
`When we are weak, God is strong.`
How does this statement make you feel?

It`s human nature to want to do things `my way` and not want to take orders from anyone else.
God tested Abraham`s faith and his ability to be submissive to Him, but that rubs people the wrong way.
People use natural human reasoning and think `God`is just selfish and arrogant`and they oppose it before seeking to understand and thus experiencing how good He is!

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by ganderblaster

Which is it?

so now I am the expert on definitions and you are taking my word for everything?

the official definition of athiesm isn't what I wrote there, but then again im not the official spokesmen for athiesm, if you want to talk inconsistancies this thread can go on til the end of time with the bible.

[gunmum]

Originally Posted by mrs

why would you post this, even if it is relevant to the world, this site is for outdoor enthusiasts who would like to forget about the outside world and its strife. save this crap for facebook!

Welcome to AO!
You`ll fit in just fine here


BTW, incase you all missed it, this thread had originated in the Freemason Thread...