EADD Theology Megathread - Book II - Exodus

[Raasyvibe]

A fine example of how some right-wing Christians distort semantics in order to justify their political agendas through Biblical references.

In many ancient societies there was very little distinction between 'magic' and medicine, so it's pretty natural that the same word was applied to both indiscriminately. So if it follows that certain types of pharmakeia (i.e. psychedelic drugs) qualify as sorcery, then where does that leave other types of medicine?

You read some crackpot blogs, raas. :D

If you do a quick moogle (google) the greek word pharmakeia seems to have several varying definitions. The definition of "administered medicine", which we have later known as "pharmacy" in our language, does not seem fitting.


Another definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmakeia
"It also refers to the making of spell-giving potions, or alchemical potions (or elixirs) believed to have transforming powers, such as the power to extend life, boost energy, or enhance the mind."

It is almost certain that this definition is what the verse is referring too. It makes much more sense. Particularly if we look in context of the entire Bible - there are many verses where administering medicine in acceptable " “Let them take a cake of figs and apply it to the boil, that he may recover.”Isaiah 38:21

 

[Sammy G]

Every GP in the country is involved in prescribing medicines to 'extend life, boost energy or enhance the mind' though, aren't they?

Does it follow that all these activities fall under the same banner as 'sorcery'?

 

[Raasyvibe]

As said, the Greek word appears to encompass both legitimate vitamin making and magical sorcerous spells. There's a differentiation. looking at the entire bible in context, in these verses in revelations it appears to refer to "magic" and this should cover strong psychedelics. Bit of a shame, was secretly wanting to try a DMT blast.

Don't you worry Sammy, you're not a Christian, you can still have your ayahuasca trips




AT THE COST OF YOUR ETERNAL SOUL HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAA AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAH


OOOHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

raas I have a book you may be interested in. How I have acquired it I have no idea..It's called 'Drugs-and young people' by Grahame Knox printed in '89 It has his interpretation following each main Drug chapter with a 'Christian standpoint'.
Personally I have read it and find quite unnerving in it's indoctrination, simplistic comments by the author and his own (in my opinion) uneducated and ridiculous lyrical waxing often scattered with quotes from the bible, which I can't see have any correlation on his 'standpoint' including a brief couple of pages of his perceived christian view on psychedelics.

In fairness the Introduction does actually start with alcohol....I was brought up catholic, I went to a Convent school through the majority of my education, I respect others beliefs although I expect not to be judged in return for what I choose to put in my body and my own belief systems etc..I even have a friend who is a Deacon..which shows even the most stalwart agnostic such as myself can happily decide to differ on religion as it is only a part of someone's beliefs not the actual person..who I hasten to add they are pretty good fun to be around.

If you want this book..tell me where to send it...if you don't want to own it or give that kind of info....it's probably a few pence on Amazon marketplace..as I said my personal views on this book are that it is unhelpful scaremongering under the guise of Christianity and most worryingly in my own view of his pretty unhelpful comments for those that may have debilitating anxiety etc as it seems the author is against any kind of 'medications' and believes that anxiety can be cured by allowing Jesus Christ in to their life ONLY rather than prescribed medications!!

While I appreciate the offer, I gots loads of Christian books *cough.... the bible.... cough* that I should be reading but have neglected recently, so trying not to add to my book collection quite yet.

I agree with what you say though, beliefs are on the surface and wrong to judge a person on them. I've been a Christian, strong atheist, agnostic and then back to Christian again... So can't really judge someone for their beliefs without being a total hypocrite.

 

[Inflorescence]

Ahh I just mentioned as some way back up there in this thread..no energy to search..am I right in remembering you had queried christian view/standpoint on psychedelics ...sorry if I have got that wrong I really am a bag of deflated post overly stimulated bones and bits, and now a bit shaky too boot.
If you were genuinely interested on what old Grahame had to say on the 'christian standpoint in relation to psychedelic drugs' I could and would face and embrace my technophobia and fear of the scanner and send it here..because I am nice like that..or at least I pretend to be.

 

[NightsEpiphany]

http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=0JMJ2JNU

 

[rickolasnice]

http://documentaryheaven.com/a-history-of-god/

 

[Raasyvibe]

http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads...eese-Balls?p=12274912&viewfull=1#post12274912

This becomes vastly inaccurate. In fact, if you take the spiritualism ting seriously, a psychedelic could be the worst thing you ever do. The risks are tremendous.

As I said, there is more than one way to interpret the psychedelic experience. Not everybody interprets it as having paranormal or supernatural aspects. I know that is the popular image and many psychedelic users to subscribe to beliefs along those lines. Personally I'm somewhat open-minded. Perhaps more so than I used to be. My instinct say no to paranormal or supernatural involvement. My experiences make me quite understand why people do interpret it that way. I think I'll have to do a bit more practical research to come to any firm decisions

Well 2 years of discussion and I got an "open-minded" out of Shambles. *High fives Evey and Jess* We'll take his soul yet.

---

Rickolasnice's Jesus Fesus - My Belated critique

Sorry about this, I've been a lazy sod and have neglected this thread for places such as gibberings.


Link to the Jesus fesus - Rickolasnice's essay's on the existence of Jesus

From exchanging posts with you on this board and P&S, in regard to Christianity and religion as a whole, you never come across as open-minded. You have clear agendas of opposition towards religion and it shows very strongly from your selective readings, inaccurate perceptions and your inability to assimilate or see sense in any countering argument.

On the first page you evidence this opposing attitude - we're presented with a Daily Mail style, selective picture of the preist. This is a persuasive tactic often employed by right wing papers to demonise targeted individuals according to their agenda. This makes me think straight away that the site is just more biased and selective hate against religion. The current priest is actually a really good one, and has actually done and said a lot of good things. So straight away I look at the site and think it's gonna be a load of partial nonsense.

Front page pic:



Jesus Christ - The Fictional Character - The title alone, is nothing more than an unproven opinion and falsely stated like it is fact. Something like "Did Jesus really exist? We investigate." Would be more appropriate and have more credible connotations about the incentive of the site.

The actual content of your site -

part 1 Who wrote the Gospels



Who wrote the gospels? Why were they written? When were they written? Who came first?

- Like most of your arguements against christiannity, it is very conjectural and does not certify your claims. Undoubtedly mark's gospel was used as a composite material for the other authors. We also know that some of the modern day text has been altered through various translations... this doesn't necessitate that the original gospels were not written/told/passed on by the original authors and the experiences not real.

Part 2 Rewording of Jewish Scripture (The OT)



Actually read the bible? No it's not deja vu. You did read the same thing twice, three times, four? No you're not going crazy.. Jesus' life story was literally ripped straight from the Old Testament, jumbled around, (barely) repackaged and reprinted. Voila. The Son of God is born.

Jesus was predicted in the Old Testament. This is deliberate from God to make way and prepare people for his arrival (allow them to take him seriously). This is an intended prophecy.

Sure you can surmise that some guy ripped it off and made a pretend Jesus. There's a million other surmises you can come up with - but it's not at all conclusive, nothing that hasn't been heard before or shakes the credibility of the claimed prophecy.

Part 3 Fairytales for Adults



We believe that the door to enlightenment is always open and is rarely found behind the doors the doors to a church. Was Jesus the son of God? Was Jesus a real man? Or was Jesus a fictional character who gained so many followers thanks to a very cult like action from a man named Paul and some powerful figures within the Roman empire.

I'm not a scholar on the history of Sanhedrin tradtion, so obviously can't give you an expert answer to your claims. I am dubious though.

The Histories by Tacticus (109CE).. Mark develops characters and has a plot, with scenes, suspense, and a climax.. Historical facts don't work like that

This is nonsense. Non-fictional stories are allowed to have characters a plot, scenes, suspense and a climax also. The writers are recording the significant parts of Jesus's life and giving us an understanding of his ministry and how he represents God -this is why it reads as a plot.





So yeah - on the whole, can't be taken seriously as it doesn't read to be honest... It employs persuasive tactics which is not professional. Your arguments are not solid and easily rebuttled. Nothing to threaten the validity or credibility of Christianity as a religion. Nice effort though

 

[alasdairm]

as mr gandhi said, "i like your christ, i do not like your christians. your christians are so unlike your christ."

not always true, but so often true.

alasdair

 

[ColtDan]

Good quote that

 

[Vurtual]

Raas: Jesus was predicted in the Old Testament. This is deliberate from God to make way and prepare people for his arrival (allow them to take him seriously). This is an intended prophecy.

You were sounding quite rational until this bit Given all the actual textual evidence, jewish sects trying to restrospectively live up to prophecy for their own political ends (which we know happened eg in Qumran, or with any of the claimed messiahs) is so much more likely than your version when you use occam's razor on it. If you're going to believe things on faith, you should at least acknowledge how ridiculous it sounds to people without that faith when talking to them, rather than stating it as if it's objectively true because it's in the bible (if you believe that fine, but don't expect anyone who doesn't to follow your 'logic'). (all said in love of course )

Edit - just re-read my post and maybe it comes across as a bit nasty - it's not meant to be (i did put smileys - i'm not saying you're ridculous, but i suppose any faith is by definition a bit ridiculous (or else you wouldn't need the faith). and also if you want to take up the jesus/paedo issue...

 

[parttime crackhead]

Thoughts on this?

1500 Year Old Bible Claims Jesus Christ Was Not Crucified

Discovered and kept secret in the year 2000, the book contains the Gospel of Barnabas – a disciple of Christ – which shows that Jesus was not crucified, nor was he the son of God, but a Prophet. The book also calls Apostle Paul “The Impostor”. The book also claims that Jesus ascended to heaven alive, and that Judas Iscariot was crucified in his place.

According to reports, experts and religious authorities in Tehram insist that the book is original. The book itself is written with gold lettering, onto loosely-tied leather in Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ.
The text maintains a vision similar to Islam, contradicting the New Testament’s teachings of Christianity. Jesus also foresees the coming of the Prophet Muhammad, who would found Islam 700 years later.
It is believed that, during the Council of Nicea, the Catholic Church hand-picked the gospels that form the Bible as we know it today; omitting the Gospel of Barnabas (among many others) in favor of the four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Many biblical texts have begun to surface over time, including those of the Dead Sea and Gnostic Gospels; but this book especially, seems to worry the Vatican.

Edit - Actually, it appears to be complete bullshit. I should check sources before posting things.

 

[Raasyvibe]

^ Did you get that from ricko's site then?







joke!


I actually commend his effort, he's taken a very broad stance on critiquing Christianity. Excuse the fact I am in opposition to it all, I guess you expect nothing less from a Christian trying to evaluate it.

You were sounding quite rational until this bit Given all the actual textual evidence, jewish sects trying to restrospectively live up to prophecy for their own political ends (which we know happened eg in Qumran, or with any of the claimed messiahs) is so much more likely than your version when you use occam's razor on it. If you're going to believe things on faith, you should at least acknowledge how ridiculous it sounds to people without that faith when talking to them, rather than stating it as if it's objectively true because it's in the bible (if you believe that fine, but don't expect anyone who doesn't to follow your 'logic'). (all said in love of course )

True. I could have re-worded it as "According to Christian theology, which I subscribe too". But the point is there regardless, if Jesus is to have some credibility behind his claim that "he is the son of God", a history of prophesising texts is a necessity. Now, you may interpret this as the working of God... or some kind of political motive... depending on the bias of your faith... But to take the more cynical depiction, in no way negates the possibility of the former.

So, this, like most of Ricko's arguments, becomes nothing more than an alleged conspiracy theory and he should not be claiming Jesus to be fictional as if it was fact.

 

[Vurtual]

Thoughts on this?....Edit - Actually, it appears to be complete bullshit. I should check sources before posting things.

Yeah, the 'authorities in Terhan' and 'predicted the prohpet muhammad' sort of gave it away (did that prohecy fool you Raas? )

although it did ring a bell with the descriptions of 'The Liar' and 'The Wicked Priest' which were mentioned lots in the dead sea scrolls; some people think the Liar is a reference to paul (some also think the dead sea scrolls community was called Damascus, which would provide a plausible reason why Paul was 'going to damascus' when he worked for jerusalem authorities) - (this was remembered from a michael baigent book so would probably collapse under googling).


@Raas - no, a claim based on faith doesn't really fit in a rational or logic-based argument by definition, becasue faith isn't rational (the non-religious meaning of the word faith is different as it's usually more like a judgement call or probability based on past experience - not a blind leap like religion asks for (faith's more like hope in religion really)). I'm certainly not using irrational in the pejorative sense of being worthless, as i see plenty of value in irrational mindstates (including faith), but it's a category confusion in my view. You can certainly make a theological argument with faith in it (and this is the place to do it), but it won't make any headway when arguing against people who perfer logic to theologic. I'm not into much chritstain theology, but i was under the impression that awareness of these aspects of faith was pretty fundamental.

There's definitely mileage in the slippery epistemiology of logic and science being similar to theology/religion in it's nebulousness when you focus really (really) hard on it, but the big difference which makes science/logic more valid imv is falsifiability. If a religion can accept new discoveries (theological textual or otherwise) and adjust it's world view with the same willingness as science (which itself could be more willing), i'll give it's explanatory powers equal respect.

For this reason the religions or sects i like the best are usually 'mystical' ones which are more like practical/experimental religion, relying on direct communication with 'god'(s) rather than some dubious historical idiosyncracy (eg buddhists hindus sufis pagans gospel music-ists shamans ravers psychonauts etc)

Oh, and you can answer the 'would jesus turn away paedophiles' one any time

....

EDIT: i just reread my post and noticed i didn't really address the main bit of yours (instead went off one patronising you with definitions of faith and such (in the spirit of waffle rather than straw man)). Anyway:

...if Jesus is to have some credibility behind his claim that "he is the son of God", a history of prophesising texts is a necessity. Now, you may interpret this as the working of God... or some kind of political motive... depending on the bias of your faith... But to take the more cynical depiction, in no way negates the possibility of the former...

This seems to me like circular logic. That, added to the workings of occams razor, certainly gives a massive weight to the latter over the former explanation if using logic - and we must use logic if we're going to argue (faith tips the scale obviously, but only your scales).

Modern philosophy of science famously can never say never technically about anything, but in practice, some things are understood to be as good as certain, with just details to argue about (like the theory of evolution) - not saying there's that certainty in this instance (and this isn't really science), just saying that possibility doesn't tell you about probability.

and it's not cynical to want to be empirical about what you believe, or even just weigh the probabilities (i'm not a cynic, except we're it's earned (eg in politics)). ((sorry it's more waffle - don't answer and i'll shut up )

 

[rickolasnice]

For the religious folk..

What positive impact has having faith had on your lives? (Or negative)

and..

Has it caused you to take up an opinion that you didn't have before? (Sex before marriage is a fuck no, lil bit of gay bummery is a shit on my face NO, killing gods children while still in the womb is CHILD MURDER!!, etc).. or.. what are your views on the aforementioned regardless?

 

[pinkpapaver]

What do we reckon to poot old Job then? Shat upon from great height by his god time and time again.
Whats the name of that thing people have to put food on the table again?
Oh yes its a job. Suffering. Its gods will.
All there in plain sight nothing is hidden .

 

[rickolasnice]

Umm.. I.. errmm..

What are you talking about?

 

[parttime crackhead]

God was a bit of prick to Job. I think that's what she's on about.

 

[Raasyvibe]

No she was comparing the unfortunate life of "job", to the unfortunate life of us having to work in actual jobs.

Maybe you should join me in bible study, PP. Keep you away from the bags.

---

Ricko, whatcha think of the review then. You did ask me time and time again and I spent a fair time reading thru it. I assume you were taking the piss with that PM response.

Can I have something like "Yeah, I can see that it does sound a bit one-sided and maybe that isn't professional" or maybe, "I had to make it deliberately persuasive to exhibit my enthusiasm for the point I was making." some kind of thought on the matter would be nice.

---

For the religious folk..

What positive impact has having faith had on your lives? (Or negative)

Positive: Worry free existence. Everything happens for a reason, if evil/suffering occurs then it is for reasons of greater good... No fears of dying, or what happens when we die.

Negative: Puts me on a different plain than those who haven't had religious experiences. The people I currently associate with in work and social are not spiritually inclined and tend to think I'm a bit of a weirdo for my path through life (No girlfriends, no sex before marriage etc)

and..

Has it caused you to take up an opinion that you didn't have before? (Sex before marriage is a fuck no, lil bit of gay bummery is a shit on my face NO, killing gods children while still in the womb is CHILD MURDER!!, etc).. or.. what are your views on the aforementioned regardless?

No the "rules" are all very practical. There is method in why sexual relations are perverse and wrong and why homosexuality is wrong. The bible teaches of abstinence not just for the sake of it, but because it's genuinely wrong. The bible only purports the truth.

 

[Sammy G]

No the "rules" are all very practical. There is method in why sexual relations are perverse and wrong and why homosexuality is wrong. The bible teaches of abstinence not just for the sake of it, but because it's genuinely wrong. The bible only purports the truth.

Hang on. So you're saying you agree with the Bible's teachings against homosexuality and you think being gay is intrinsically, demonstrably 'wrong'? You don't strike me as the type.

Secondly, I can't recall a specific passage in the Bible that explains why homosexuality is wrong, certainly not on a 'very practical' level. Not wanting to 'waste' precious semen up a man's bottom is not 'practical', it's moral.

Were I a militant atheist, I'd go on to list some of the more bizarre 'rules' laid out in the Bible and ask you whether you agree that these are also 'very practical'. I'm not, however (thank, um, fuck), so I won't, but I'm interested to hear your take on the above.

 

[BecomingJulie]

What do we reckon to poot old Job then? Shat upon from great height by his god time and time again.

He wasn't much nicer to Adam and Eve, though, was he? That whole Garden of Eden business is a classic set-them-up-to-fail scenario. Adam and Eve are the original Patsys. Bear in mind that neither of them has tasted the forbidden fruit yet, so they don't know right from wrong. Therefore, when they get told both not to eat the fruit that will show them the difference and to eat the fruit, logic dictates they're going to wind up letting someone down.

Anyway, we only got the story up to the turning point, not the what-ifs. If Hissing Sid hadn't delivered the goods, God might well have come up with another more cunning plan to get his victims to take the bait.