• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

History Of The Bible, Accuracy Etc.

Turbo Monk said:
quiet roar - you exercise faith every day of your life.

You get in the car and drive on faith. You don’t know if you’re going to make it to your destination alive or not, but you go.

You have faith that the food you buy that is grown or prepared by strangers is not harmful, so you eat it.

You have faith that the doctors you see are competent. So you put yourself in their hands.

If you did not have faith, if you did not trust others you wouldn’t be able to drive, eat, or get help in times of sickness. Your life would be very difficult.
Click to expand...

David made a great point.. there's a large difference between faith and trust. I'll even throw in estimations in there.

Some say you must have faith in a relationship. For instance " you have faith that your girl will not cheat on you". Not true. I trust she won't. She very well has the ability. Our relationship has had times where it was likely. But i trust she hasn't. I could be wrong.

When i get in the car, yes.. i immediately assume i will arrive on my destination. I trust that i will based on a history of my driving ability, the traffic conditions on my way to work. Yet i'm very aware there could be a drunk or drugged up driver on the road..maybe some kid playing around in a car.. who could smash into my ass.. killing me, fucking up my car, etc..

I hope the doctor's a see are competent. Frankly, you're lucky if i trust doctors. If i have something wrong with me, i research it first and foremost. There's legal systems in place if they violate a doctor/patient relationship in any way... through malpractice, being incompetent, or simply by releasing my medical information.

I personally, am very comfortable "not knowing" for certain every instance in my life and in the world. I'm very comfortable with the fact the world is a dangerous place and bad things happen.. to me and to others. I'm comfortable not knowing what happens when i die.

For something i cannot prove one way or another, I am very happy to not know in certainty, regardless of what it is.

But i guess now you're going to shoot back at me .. "prove your in love" or "prove you love someone". Which is a bullshit arguement. It is difficult, or near impossible, to prove something not tangible such as an emotion.

I look at the bigger picture though... could my emotions.. my perception of reality.. merely be an illusion of some kind? Philisophically speaking.. yeah it could. And again, i too am comfortable with that.

Lets move on to science. This is what pisses me off about most people. Alot of people treat science as if it were just another religion. They place faith in it. Science isn't there for blind faith. It's there to be questioned and challenged. Theories disprovened or improved.

Evolution for example. Can we prove it? No. Not entirely. Hence the name "evolutionary theory". There's lots and lots and lots of supporting evidence. Some aspects of the evolutionary theory might very well be wrong and disproven in time. Yet.. people act as if it's a replacement for creation. When all creation has.. is philosophical arguement, without supporting evidence. There's no room for faith in science. Though, you can make theories.. theories based on theories, theories based on scientific law. And even scientific law, has the ability to be disproven. It doesn't take faith.

For those who aren't comfortable with not knowing the future, not knowing what's going to happen.. and use faith to fill in these gaps to make up for their ignorance... (mind you.. an ignorance i share). well they're not ready to be released from the matrix quite yet. They like the dream world. They like being certain, whether they can prove it or not.

Why place faith in something you cannot prove? To me it sounds rather silly.
 
Last edited:
That's my point :)

Might i also mention... these "unprovables" actually intrigue me the most. And i have nothing against them. I personally, am willing to learn about them, but i'm not placing faith in them.

I love reading about religion quite a bit.. i'm not about to buy something though a man (or men) say just because they said it.
 
Yeah, I get what you mean. Unsure if I agree, but I understand where you're coming from.
 
Yes, I used to be a Christian (Technically, I still am. I've never done anything bad enough to actually get excommunicated.). I was baptized. I studied my bible, said my catechisms, went to mass, took communion, confessed my sins, felt guilty, the whole shebang. (Heh... I could be a Christian in good standing, with clean soul and ticket straight to heaven, again with a ten-minute visit to a confessional. Ain't xtianity grand?)

I'm sorry your calloused towards Christ. It sounds like you've been beaten up by the Catholic church.

One of the many unbiblical doctrines of the Catholics is their manner of confession. You don't have to go to a confessional to come clean.

The whole confession bit ignores the true sacrifice of Christ, instilling the false belief that absolution comes from confessing to a HUMAN BEING (grrrr) then saying a bunch of prayers as redemption for sins.
 
Why place faith in something you cannot prove? To me it sounds rather silly.

Your analytical personality makes it hard for you to think in terms of belief in the unknown, something you can't define, power you can't control, an equation with no QED, and a being you can't fit into a box, observe, document, or prove.

The proof starts with your first leaps of faith.

You hold the popular mentality of "show me, then I'll believe."

God works in the fashion of "believe, then you'll see."

To hold that Christ didn't walk this planet is one of the most dumbfounded notions in existence.

Since part of his teachings deal with a spiritual life beyond the grave, they ought merit attention.

At the moment of my death, his teachings will be proven one way or the other. If I'm wrong, then I won't see a heaven but I will have discovered the peace, joy, and FREEDOM that comes from applying his teachings into my life while here on Earth. If I'm right, then it's through the pearly gates into something I can't begin to comprehend. :)
 
Turbo Monk said:
Why place faith in something you cannot prove? To me it sounds rather silly.

Your analytical personality makes it hard for you to think in terms of belief in the unknown, something you can't define, power you can't control, an equation with no QED, and a being you can't fit into a box, observe, document, or prove.
Click to expand...


I'm perfectly fine with power i can't control. IF there is a god, i would be content. But i have no way of knowing that until my death. Frankly, i think it would be nice if there was something far greater than myself. Even if it took the presense of the Christian God (though.. i'd have some issues with him about various parts of the OT and NT)....

The proof starts with your first leaps of faith.
Click to expand...
That is a contradiction.

You hold the popular mentality of "show me, then I'll believe."
God works in the fashion of "believe, then you'll see."
To hold that Christ didn't walk this planet is one of the most dumbfounded notions in existence.
Click to expand...

It's not just the christian god. It's every god of every religion. And i do think Christ walked this planet. There's plenty of evidence that supports that outside of the Bible and dogmatic texts.

Since part of his teachings deal with a spiritual life beyond the grave, they ought merit attention.
Click to expand...

Oh and i fully agree. I don't think people should ever stop inquiring what Christianity is all about. or any other religion or theory about the "bigger" questions. I think it's healthy.. and the search for the unknown should always be explored.

At the moment of my death, his teachings will be proven one way or the other. If I'm wrong, then I won't see a heaven but I will have discovered the peace, joy, and FREEDOM that comes from applying his teachings into my life while here on Earth. If I'm right, then it's through the pearly gates into something I can't begin to comprehend. :)
Click to expand...

I think the majority of religious teachings are just fine. Majority, not all. The moral lessons in the Bible are great lessons.. they can also be validated by other logical means than "god said so"as well. There's some messages in various religions i do not and will not agree with. But whether its the teachings of Jesus or some other religon.. i don't have a problem with it as a whole. I don't agree with faith for myself.. .and i don't agree with certain parts of various religions. But overall.. religion is very healthy. As long as it's not being abused to manipulate people in society to kill, start wars, or to hate.. there must be something right. But Christianity is'nt the only religion that does this either.
 
That is a contradiction.

No it's not.

Perhaps I can better illustrate with an allegory from the movie Indian Jones Part III and the "leap of faith" where Indy stood at the edge of a cliff with a gap between him and the other side. At first, he was sketchy and hesistant to take that first step because he thought he would fall. Once he started walking, the road formed underneath of him and he made it to the other side.

After he made it across, it was proven that it could be done. That's what I meant with "The proof starts with your first leaps of faith"
 
Originally posted by SoHiAllTheTime
The only thing that changed in me was that i believed and had faith...


i understand. that statement also completely contradicts this:

Originally posted by SoHiAllTheTime
If you dont [believe] then no matter what is presented to you you will always find a reason to not believe it.


if this last statement were true, you would have found a reason to not believe.

alasdair
 
Originally posted by SoHiAllTheTime
alasdair, your example is way wrong......
So you are wrong again. Sorry.


i don't think this is a question of right and wrong. the fact is that history here shows that you just keep moving the rung a level higher until you create an ivory tower for yourself. that's what i mean by self-reinforcing.

as with anything, the bible is open to interpretation and, demonstrably, when you don't like what you're hearing, you attack the credentials of the poster rather than any argument on its merits.

alasdair
 
Originally posted by Turbo Monk
You get in the car and drive on faith. You don’t know if you’re going to make it to your destination alive or not, but you go.

You have faith that the food you buy that is grown or prepared by strangers is not harmful, so you eat it.

You have faith that the doctors you see are competent. So you put yourself in their hands.


what you describe as faith could just as easily be decribed as a reasonable assumption based on the available evidence.

alasdair
 
Originally posted by Turbo Monk
To hold that Christ didn't walk this planet is one of the most dumbfounded notions in existence.


i agree. but that's not what we're talking about is it?

alasdair
 
Originally posted by Turbo Monk
That is a contradiction.

No it's not.


actually it is. the definition of faith is belief in something for which there is no proof. if you omit the axis of time, the definition falls apart.

alasdair
 
lorenzosoil (if you're still around): for a good, comprehensive study of the extant historical records of the man, Jesus, and the way the gospel accounts of his life were likely transmitted, I highly recommend John Dominic Crossan's Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. Crossan is a materialist and a serious historian so his book has intellectual integrity, it isn't an attempt to convert people.

As for this thread ... yikes!
I'm not sure I want to get in the middle of this debate.

I suppose I have a different notion of faith than has been discussed, although I agree personally with what Turbo Monk says: '...when the sick and needy go to Jesus for help, they are healed.' I accept that I am an individual within a greater cosmos. And I am only so powerful, what happens to me is often out of my control and I cannot prepare for everything and I do suffer. What I hold on to is my faith that the good can still come to me and the faith that my sin (sin being all that which separates me from God, or the beauty of the creative cosmos, if you prefer) can be cleansed through faith. Faith is in life everlasting, which means the incorruptible hospitality of the cosmos, which means meaning: that every life is meaningful in God.

For me the miracle of the bread, the feeding of five thousand, is important. When Christ was with us, there was as much bread as we needed. We can rationalize this as some theologians do and say that people brought more bread. Or we can believe that it materialized from thin air. Either way it is a miracle to me and a metaphor of life-ever lasting.

Simone Weil says faith can come from unbelief. Although Christ is for me the bringer of the eternal harvest I wouldn't go out of my way to convert anyone so long as they have faith in living. As they believe every life is worth saving and people can be redeemed from and through suffering and all people are valid and have essential worth (also known as 'the soul,' I guess) which exists, as we all exist, within one cosmos.
 
Last edited:
nicnicnic said:

I suppose I have a different notion of faith than has been discussed, although I agree personally with what Turbo Monk says: '...when the sick and needy go to Jesus for help, they are healed.'
Click to expand...

But many practitioners of Buddhism and Hinduism.. through meditation.. hell even Christians practicing Yoga.. have found healing properties and therepuetic properties attributed to that. The faith or belief people place in Reiki does quite the same.

Human psychology.. especially when speaking of miraculous healing, is quite powerful, and not fully understood. Stress levels in a human being have alot to do with recovery and a person's well being. For instance.. a cancer patient goes to a doctor.. and the doctor says .. "You better give up fighting this disease, you only have 1 month left, enjoy it while you can" This creates a very realistic, but pessimistic attitude. This lays a gigantic weight on an already gigantic problerm. Through prayer, meditation, faith in alternative healings.. people have been told this and come through and lived another 5-10 years of a healthy to semi-healthy life.

I have always held the thought that diseased peoples need to be continually given the facts of the situation, but done so in the most optimistic way. They need mentally to focus on fighting it.. or being well. I don't think you can attribute a singluar religion to this, like i mentioned to Turbo Monk a while ago. The power is within yourself, regardless of the form in which you project that.

Do i think people should stop focusing on prayer.. meditation or any of those things? No, not in the least. Like i said, it has amazing positive effects for the sick (and healthy). But it's the way in which we look at it that i think should be changed.

Religion shouldn't be a dick measuring contest about who's god is better. Or what version of religious text is more "holy". Religion shouldn't be used to justify violence. Religion shouldn't be used to discriminate against differently minded sects of society.

I guess the best way to put it...

"There is but one God (force, etc..), & therefore one religion. There is no exclusive salvation for the Jew, Christian, the Muslim, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Rasta, or the Baha'i, or for the people of any of the great religions of the world. God is not in competition w/ Himself/Herself. His religion is one. He is the Father of all, & we are all children of this one human family. That He, (God), should compete for the souls of His children on separate corners of great city streets is a man-made invention." --William Sears
 
what you describe as faith could just as easily be decribed as a reasonable assumption based on the available evidence.

There is no available evidence that you are going to arrive at a destination safely, until you do (then it's proven and becomes fact).

There is no available evidence that you won't get sick from eating at a restaurant, until after you eat the food (then it's proven and becomes fact).

There is no available evidence that going to your doctor will make you better, until you go and get treated (then it's proven and becomes fact).

actually it is. the definition of faith is belief in something for which there is no proof. if you omit the axis of time, the definition falls apart.

Over time, the results of steps of faith can be proven. The period of time is irrelevant, 1000 years or 1000 seconds, once a result is formed, there is your proof. I'm surprised you aren't grasping this very simple concept.

I'll give you an example of what 'the proof starts with your first leaps of faith' looks like in everyday life: last year I decided to change careers, taking a 180 degree turn from what I studied in college. It was scary venturing into the unknown, having no formal education or training in my new field. I knew what I wanted to do (end result, destination), but I had no idea how I was going to get there since it required a tremendous time, energy, and monetary commitment.

At the beginning of my journey, I could not foresee the exact path on how I would get to my destination. I was working 3 jobs, money was tight; I didn't have enough to cover living expenses and the cost of study materials and various fees required to get into my new field. On paper, what I was setting out to do was impossible. However, once I started studying, taking tests, then passing the tests, I made progress. The money situation was tight but somehow I always had enough. The proverbial road was forming underneath my feet. During this time, it was being proven to me that I could do it, because I was doing it.
 
^
But...lets say.. freak economic accident for the country, did you "know" that wasn't going to happen? that you wouldn't secure a job? No you didn't.

You believed. And belief (or hopeful educated optimism as a nice replacement) can be a very powerful motivator.

Faith cannot be proven. As quiet roar said above. The minute you have evidence, it is no longer faith, but knowledge based in fact. Once faith is disproven...same thing.

People eat in restaurants and go to doctor's because they TRUST everything will be ok. But go up and ask the average person... "does this food have the potential to make you sick.. could something go wrong in the kitchen that you are unaware of"... and most people's attitude is "yes.. that is possible. It happens all the time. But chances of the times it does happen is so low compared to the number of times it doesn't happen, i trust i will eat this food without a negative outcome". Same thing with doctor's and malpractice.

You are still confusing faith and trust. For instance. A girl has never shown the "warning signs" of infidelity. Nor does the girl have a history of being a cheater. The love between her and a man is pretty deep. The man trusts, based off prior factual information, that she will not cheat, but realizes the potential.. and possibility is there.

The very aspect of faith.. is belief without question. Once you begin challenging it, it will go one of two ways. People will not be satisfied with unknown reality and quit challenging it, or people will continue to challenge it/ or just flat out give it up due to factual evidence that many things aren't quite adding up.
 
Originally posted by Turbo Monk
Over time, the results of steps of faith can be proven. The period of time is irrelevant, 1000 years or 1000 seconds, once a result is formed, there is your proof.


the reasonable assumptions i discussed would be based on the fact that, over time (the period of time is irrelevant), millions of similar journeys have taken place with a small incidence of fatality. as such, one reasonable assumption is that i'll get to my destination in one piece. perhaps another name for it is that rarest of commodities - simple common sense.

[added later] i'm very much just echoing what DD is saying about trust.

Originally posted by Turbo Monk
I'm surprised you aren't grasping this very simple concept.


if you have to dress up your insults, what does that say?

Originally posted by Turbo Monk
I'll give you an example of what 'the proof starts with your first leaps of faith' looks like in everyday life: last year I decided to change careers, taking a 180 degree turn from what I studied in college. It was scary venturing into the unknown, having no formal education or training in my new field. I knew what I wanted to do (end result, destination), but I had no idea how I was going to get there since it required a tremendous time, energy, and monetary commitment.

At the beginning of my journey, I could not foresee the exact path on how I would get to my destination. I was working 3 jobs, money was tight; I didn't have enough to cover living expenses and the cost of study materials and various fees required to get into my new field. On paper, what I was setting out to do was impossible. However, once I started studying, taking tests, then passing the tests, I made progress. The money situation was tight but somehow I always had enough. The proverbial road was forming underneath my feet. During this time, it was being proven to me that I could do it, because I was doing it.


good for you. but, again, you can only use this as a relevant anecdote now because now have the benefit of hindsight.

if the decision you took to change careers ended badly - you were out of work for 3 years and ended up giving hand-jobs for crack in a back alley (for example), you would not have used that as an example.

it's selective reasoning. it's akin to the comment DD made about people crediting god with their success but thinking it unreasonabe to blame the same god for their failures.

alasdair
 
if you have to dress up your insults, what does that say?

I'm not dressing up anything and I'm not insulting you. I honestly do not understand why you can't grasp that faith is belief in the unknown, that when proven true or untrue, becomes fact. The UNKNOWN is what is proven true or untrue.

DD, I agree with you that people go to restaurants, doctors, etc because they trust everything will be ok. However, the result of that action is unknown until it actually happens! Therefore, people do place confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing (Websters def. #1 of faith)

You are still confusing faith and trust.

Websters def. of faith #1: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Websters def. of trustworthy: Warranting trust; reliable

By definition, faith and trust go hand in hand!

Faith cannot be proven. As quiet roar said above. The minute you have evidence, it is no longer faith, but knowledge based in fact. Once faith is disproven...same thing.

DOH! Faith, belief in the unknown, when proven, becomes fact. Columbus didn't set out to sail in "trust" that the world was round. He acted on faith according to Websters def. of faith #1 & #2: 1.) confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. He believed confidently in his idea that the world was round. 2.) belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. There was no logical proof or material evidence in his time that the world was indeed round.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top