NationStates Jolt Archive

Christianity - the only one true Faith

All other religions - fake, wrong, false (sorry but it's true)

Athiest - your also wrong

Only those who believe in YHWH, and the son Yahsha ha'Meshiyakh will be saved ("He that beliveth and is BAPTIZED shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" - Mark 16:16)

As a savage from "somewhere else entirely", I can only comment on what I get presented, and what I remember (though my foggy mind) of what I've learned from others. :)

Why would you have a letter for such an important concept as a sound, that doesn't have a sound associated with it..?
It does modify the sound. There is exactly one vowel between each pair of consonants, so a silent consonant is needed if you want a vowel at the beginning or end of a word, or of if you want two vowels in a row. (The letter He might also be used as a silent letter at the end of a word, though it normally sounds like a H).

Nonetheless, it does happen that there is a silent consonant (Aleph) followed immediately by a silent vowel (Shva), really making them seem rather pointless. Interestingly, the first word of the Hebrew bible is like this: spelled Bet-Reysh-Aleph-Shin-Yud-Tav, pronounced "bereshit", and commonly translated as the three words "in the beginning".

You you folks think I'M odd..!! :D
You are unique, just like everyone else. :D

Hebrew must be a very fluid language though, if the vowels don't really matter. Or are they just for various inflected meanings of the "root" consonant combinations..? They must be.... they can't possibly mean "nothing".
Vowels do matter, at least to the degree that if you use the wrong ones people probably won't understand what you're saying. There are also differences in meaning - the "pa`al" form means "he did", and the "pi`el" form means "he caused [another thing] to do". Usually, however, the correct form can be induced from context, making vowels superfluous. (Pe-`Ayin-Lamed is the verb meaning "to do" or "to work". It is the traditional example used in Hebrew texts for verb root/form explanations. Also, "po`el" is a noun meaning "verb".)

Christianity - the only one true Faith

All other religions - fake, wrong, false (sorry but it's true)

Athiest - your also wrong

Only those who believe in YHWH, and the son Yahsha ha'Meshiyakh will be saved ("He that beliveth and is BAPTIZED shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" - Mark 16:16)
Wow! I applaud your excellent preaching skills! I have decided to convert right now![/SARCASM]

Wow! I applaud your excellent preaching skills! I have decided to convert right now![/SARCASM]

First off, I never Preached.

Second, you don't convert, any true Christian does not convert, the Holy Spirit brings you unto the King Yahsha ha'Meshiyakh.

I beleive religion is just to fill in the gaps, and explain what science can not, but thats just me. 'm not calling anyone stuipid though...
I love this. :-) If I may, I would put it another way:

Religion gives us a gift, a mystery to live. We humans have a need to have something beyond what we can easily comprehend --perhaps because we alone of the animals *can* comprehend --or what can be explained to us by those more knowledgeable about "reality"; in other words, it affords us a place in something bigger than ourselves. There's nothing stupid about it.

Why is how our creation came about important?

Originally Posted by Milostein
The letter Aleph means "assertiveness" or "ego" (an ancient symbol for the letter is believed to have represented bull's horns).
The letter Mem means "water".
I'm not sure what the letter Nun means, but i've heard theories about it being a snake or a fish.

So, I guess that would make Amen a territorial aquatic snake. Which makes no sense.

*lol* I immediately recognize in the symbolism of M-N the Mother (Monster) Goddess, Babylonian Tiamat or Summerian Nammu. Adding "ego" to that, A-M-N, you get Marduk, slayer of Tiamat, the mythological equivalent of the Hebrew Yahweh. That's just the symbolism, though --don't know how it becomes a prayer.

So the AMN is called to slay the MN,.. the hero-guy is called to slay the sea-serpent..? (And the serpent is an ego-less hero guy..!?)

Sounds like "HELP,... kill this thing, PLEASE..!".... which sounds pretty "prayer-like" to me..! :)

So, as used at the end of some "meaningful story", it becomes "May our intent-full hero (us) triumph over the intent-less monster (chaos), and settle this story as true and fixed (dead), once and for all!"



The hero is merely the monster with an ego.... hmmmmmmmmmm....

Sounds like the story of "Iakei"...

Iakei behaved as a shark. He hunted like a shark. He swam like a shark.

One day some hunters in a canoe hooked him, just like a shark.

They dragged him a good long way before they saw that he wasn't actually a shark. They hauled him aboard and pleaded with him to forgive them for hurting him.

He flopped around for a while, like a shark, and seemed to die, like a shark would die in a boat. But he was not dead.

He thought to himself, "I must be dead,.. a shark can not live in a boat like this, so this must be death."

"If this is death," he thought, "then I now know what death is for a shark".

And with that he rose up like a man, and was a powerful man for the rest of his days.

Why is how our creation came about important?

It leads to other things to think about.

Is looking at the inside-coconut-shell of the sky important..?

The little children just find it pretty, with it's beautiful stars, and it's changing from lighter to darker and back again.

The navigators find it truly important.

So:
..the "A" means "outside" or "intent in the world",
..the "M" means "inside" or "intent contained in the self",
..and "N" means "exists" or "has an end an is not endless" or "intent transitioning into something else as opposed to the never-ending".

Oddly enough (or maybe not so odd) this is probably not too dissimilar from the original reasoning of sound-from-symbol or symbol-from-sound letters.

First off, I never Preached.

Second, you don't convert, any true Christian does not convert, the Holy Spirit brings you unto the King Yahsha ha'Meshiyakh.

While I don't agree with your statement that Christianity is the One True Faith, I do fully stand by your statement above. A good Christian shouldn't convert, except perhaps by leading by example. I also think it's kind of funny that the millions of Christian preachers and converters are the very reason there's so much hatred and disrespect for the faith.

Why is how our creation came about important?
I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of this question --why is it necessary to know where we come from? We are here, now --and "now" is the only reality. The past is gone, and the future hasn't happened yet. What we do now --who we are, in this moment in time --is what is important.

:)

So the AMN is called to slay the MN,.. the hero-guy is called to slay the sea-serpent..? (And the serpent is an ego-less hero guy..!?)

Sounds like "HELP,... kill this thing, PLEASE..!".... which sounds pretty "prayer-like" to me..! :)

So, as used at the end of some "meaningful story", it becomes "May our intent-full hero (us) triumph over the intent-less monster (chaos), and settle this story as true and fixed (dead), once and for all!"
That is exactly right. The Mother as Ocean, Serpent who Surrounds Ocean, or Serpent of the Garden of Life is chaos (represented in Uranus) --Nature. The Hero is He Who Brings Order to Chaos (Sun (ego), Mars (intent) and Saturn (structure)). Neither can exist without the other --chaos as nature, entirely ego-less, present in randomness and laws like entropy, and man as egotistical order, discipline, seeing and building structure all around him, knowing he knows better than nature, present in civil-ization.

I love your interpretation; you are wise --yes, it sounds like "please kill this thing." But the story is not dead --it persists, even today, in every moment of Creation.

It leads to other things to think about.

Is looking at the inside-coconut-shell of the sky important..?

The little children just find it pretty, with it's beautiful stars, and it's changing from lighter to darker and back again.

The navigators find it truly important.
So why do the children spend so much time debating the exact location of stars on the One True Star Chart?

EDIT: Also, sure it's important to the navigator where the stars are, but does he care how stars are formed from nebulae?

Unless someone has some evidence that a religion is true (besides holding up a book, ahem, Bible, that has no evidence backing up its stories) then it can be said that NO religion is true. Science should be the only true "religion" (its not actually a religion, however) and all monies from religions should go towards science finding out the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
It leads to other things to think about.

Is looking at the inside-coconut-shell of the sky important..?

The little children just find it pretty, with it's beautiful stars, and it's changing from lighter to darker and back again.

The navigators find it truly important.

So why do the children spend so much time debating the exact location of stars on the One True Star Chart?

EDIT: Also, sure it's important to the navigator where the stars are, but does he care how stars are formed from nebulae?

The children don't use the starchart. They just point at the stars and say "No, idiot,.. that one is brighter than THAT one..! Can't you SEE..!" :) You know kids,.. they love to argue! It's called play.

Eventually, perhaps, some navigator will find some magical-device that allows him see the stars in more detail, and he'll notice that there's this fuzziness around some of them...

First, he looks because they're pretty.

Then, he looks because they're useful.

Then he finds a magical-device that somebody else noticed could be made.

Then, he looks because they're prettier in a different way.

Then, perhaps, they're useful in some other way...

..and the cycle continues... :)

Unless someone has some evidence that a religion is true (besides holding up a book, ahem, Bible, that has no evidence backing up its stories) then it can be said that NO religion is true. Science should be the only true "religion" (its not actually a religion, however) and all monies from religions should go towards science finding out the truth.

Your burden of proof is unattainable in the realm of religion, which makes your speaking it as religious a statement as "In the beginning GOD sneezed and the universe was born of the goobers."

Therefore, by you using your religion, and everyone else using their religion, to "prove" their point, it is universal that religion is ALWAYS used in this realm of inquiry..

Therefore, if religion is ubiquitous, it MUST be "true" for all, which would make it "TRUE" in your eyes.

[[ Meanwhile, back at the "angels dancing on the pin" debate... ]]

Comments...? :D

Your burden of proof is unattainable in the realm of religion, which makes your speaking it as religious a statement as "In the beginning GOD sneezed and the universe was born of the goobers."

Therefore, by you using your religion, and everyone else using their religion, to "prove" their point, it is universal that religion is ALWAYS used in this realm of inquiry..

Therefore, if religion is ubiquitous, it MUST be "true" for all, which would make it "TRUE" in your eyes.

[[ Meanwhile, back at the "angels dancing on the pin" debate... ]]

Comments...? :D

That's the biggest problem though. How can anyone believe in something that can't back up its stories with evidence? Santa Claus is a story, no one believes in him (except children), yet there's at least SOME history behind it. Religions ask you to believe without producing a shred of evidence that their stories are true. How can anyone be so ignorant as to accept something verbatim without remaining skeptical? I can understand its hard to do so if you're taught from childhood to accept it and see all your peers and adults as accepting it but at some point in your life you should be at least CURIOUS to find out the history behind it (I was raised Lutheran and believed for about the first 22 years or so of my life until I finally woke up and decided to ask questions). If there's any truth to there being some sort of supreme being it's definitely not found in ANY religion that exists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
So the AMN is called to slay the MN,.. the hero-guy is called to slay the sea-serpent..? (And the serpent is an ego-less hero guy..!?)

Sounds like "HELP,... kill this thing, PLEASE..!".... which sounds pretty "prayer-like" to me..!

So, as used at the end of some "meaningful story", it becomes "May our intent-full hero (us) triumph over the intent-less monster (chaos), and settle this story as true and fixed (dead), once and for all!"

That is exactly right. The Mother as Ocean, Serpent who Surrounds Ocean, or Serpent of the Garden of Life is chaos (represented in Uranus) --Nature. The Hero is He Who Brings Order to Chaos (Sun (ego), Mars (intent) and Saturn (structure)). Neither can exist without the other --chaos as nature, entirely ego-less, present in randomness and laws like entropy, and man as egotistical order, discipline, seeing and building structure all around him, knowing he knows better than nature, present in civil-ization.

I love your interpretation; you are wise --yes, it sounds like "please kill this thing." But the story is not dead --it persists, even today, in every moment of Creation.

Yeah,... I didn't mean "dead" as in "deceased", I meant "fixed" as in something "firm". "Kill" as in "settle".

Metaphorically "stuck to the village tiki post for all to see" as it were. :D

Of course, all us individual AMN's gotta "kill" our own individual MN's, though,.. don't we..!?

To us island people, the ocean is a place that we have to live with very intimately. Our "monster" is always right next to us. Always in our thoughts and feelings.

What happens when you know, intimately, that you take sustenance and actually get pleasure (the beach, the surf, the sailing) from your "monster".

You learn to swim and breathe in it. You pay attenion of the next wave. You make canoes to "tame" it. You watch it's signs for "nasty weather". You damp your fears of it because you have no choice, because it doesn't help you to fear that which is SO much bigger than you, and doesn't kill you outright.

You get tired of being afraid. "Brave" is just tired of being afraid and not dead yet.

We have a saying, "A brave sailor is just a sailor that does what sailor's gotta do".

"Kill" as in "settle".

Metaphorically "stuck to the village tiki post for all to see" as it were. :D
Cool. I hadn't heard that one before.

EDIT: too much drinky-drinky and not enough thinky-thinky.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Your burden of proof is unattainable in the realm of religion, which makes your speaking it as religious a statement as "In the beginning GOD sneezed and the universe was born of the goobers."

Therefore, by you using your religion, and everyone else using their religion, to "prove" their point, it is universal that religion is ALWAYS used in this realm of inquiry..

Therefore, if religion is ubiquitous, it MUST be "true" for all, which would make it "TRUE" in your eyes.

[[ Meanwhile, back at the "angels dancing on the pin" debate... ]]

Comments...?


That's the biggest problem though. How can anyone believe in something that can't back up its stories with evidence? Santa Claus is a story, no one believes in him (except children), yet there's at least SOME history behind it. Religions ask you to believe without producing a shred of evidence that their stories are true. How can anyone be so ignorant as to accept something verbatim without remaining skeptical? I can understand its hard to do so if you're taught from childhood to accept it and see all your peers and adults as accepting it but at some point in your life you should be at least CURIOUS to find out the history behind it (I was raised Lutheran and believed for about the first 22 years or so of my life until I finally woke up and decided to ask questions). If there's any truth to there being some sort of supreme being it's definitely not found in ANY religion that exists.

Ask you' Auntie, when you think the old stories are sounding a little "hoaky", why she tells you these old stories.

If she smiles that warm smile of recognition, which you won't be able to miss, then she will tell you why she tells you such goofy stories.

If she looks at you like you just grew another head, then your Auntie never asked her Auntie why SHE was telling HER those old stories, and you NEED to find another Auntie to talk-talk with.

Why you say you don't believe in these "supreme-beings", then you want somebody to prove that one exists?

"I don't believe there's gonna be a tomorrow..!" he said to his Auntie.

"Oh,.. really..? Why... You don't want one..?" Auntie said.

"NO... I DO want one..!! I just keep waking up every morning and it's the same old thing,.. just right now,.. NOT tomorrow..!" he said.

"Well then.... I guess you ain't gonna get no tomorrow, then. But I got mine..!" Auntie said with a big smile.

"How you do that, Auntie..! Tell me..!?" he said, annoyed.

She smiled at him, swatted his butt out the doorway, and told him to go play on the beach with the other kids.

Please allow me to laugh. It took one search on Google and the first source refutes all your arguments. Even more suprising, a Christian website! Though we disagree on the supposed implications of #10, it seems respectable thiests exist! I must thank you, for now I have an interesting site to explore and consider.

Enjoy (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/bigbangrebuttal.html).

"refute" is usually used as a synonym for "disprove". None of the stuff you quoted proves or disproves anything, eg "..Static universe fits data better than expanding universe.." fits 'better'? by whose analysis? and anyway, who says other than some dude on the internet?

btw my own personal view - how come christians ask what made the big bang? and scientists ask what made god? you should all ask both those questions. furthermore, i'm an apathist, ie i don't care whether or not god exists. Either god exists and the universe is like it is, or god doesn't exist and the universe is like it is. In either case, the universe is like it is.

That's the biggest problem though. How can anyone believe in something that can't back up its stories with evidence? Santa Claus is a story, no one believes in him (except children), yet there's at least SOME history behind it. Religions ask you to believe without producing a shred of evidence that their stories are true. How can anyone be so ignorant as to accept something verbatim without remaining skeptical? I can understand its hard to do so if you're taught from childhood to accept it and see all your peers and adults as accepting it but at some point in your life you should be at least CURIOUS to find out the history behind it (I was raised Lutheran and believed for about the first 22 years or so of my life until I finally woke up and decided to ask questions). If there's any truth to there being some sort of supreme being it's definitely not found in ANY religion that exists.
The lack of evidence that the stories are "true" does not make the religion untrue. The stories are stories, like so: a man has a thought, it's a brilliant thought, a truthful thought --it could be a realization about the nature of the universe, a philosophical thought, or perhaps a theory of physics, or even a moral concept that will improve the life of those who abide by it. He has to tell the whole world about it, because it's a truthful thought, and everyone should know so that they can judge for themselves the value of the thought. The teaching method of his people is to create a story or stories to embrace the idea; this way, not only can the idea be demonstrated, but also feelings that surround the idea that will better allow the idea to stick in people's memories. Everyone loves a good story, and for a people who enjoy talking more than writing, it's an added bonus. Also, probable consequences of the idea can be demonstrated in this way.

"How can anyone be so ignorant as to accept something verbatim without remaining skeptical?"
Most of the stories of the Bible that purport strange and impossible things happening are myths, not intended to be read literally, but as stories that use metaphor to demonstrate ideas, feelings and intellectual and moral concepts. I believe that those who read the Bible literally are mistaken in doing so. If you look at the incredible elements of a story and take them as metaphor, a mechanism to transmit an idea of truth to the reader, then it is the meaning behind the story elements that is the truth that should then reflect on the veracity of the religion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The God King Eru-sama
Please allow me to laugh. It took one search on Google and the first source refutes all your arguments. Even more suprising, a Christian website! Though we disagree on the supposed implications of #10, it seems respectable thiests exist! I must thank you, for now I have an interesting site to explore and consider.

Enjoy (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/bigbangrebuttal.html).


"refute" is usually used as a synonym for "disprove". None of the stuff you quoted proves or disproves anything, eg "..Static universe fits data better than expanding universe.." fits 'better'? by whose analysis? and anyway, who says other than some dude on the internet?

btw my own personal view - how come christians ask what made the big bang? and scientists ask what made god? you should all ask both those questions. furthermore, i'm an apathist, ie i don't care whether or not god exists. Either god exists and the universe is like it is, or god doesn't exist and the universe is like it is. In either case, the universe is like it is.

Wow.. the "angels dancing on the pin" thing continues, I see..! :D

"Apathist"...? Cool name..!

What are we trying to "prove", again..?

(( I don't personally care either, as it's still "like it is" for me too, but I have a religious conviction that it's nice to find comfort for my various "existential anxieties" in my belief that the "big thing out there that has provided a place for me to live in and doesn't just kill me outright" can be appreciated without me being "stupid and sheeplike". ))

((( Notice: He used "it is"..!! The word spreads..! Even amongst the "Apathists"....!!!! :D )))

E Aloha kakou..! :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudding Pies
That's the biggest problem though. How can anyone believe in something that can't back up its stories with evidence? Santa Claus is a story, no one believes in him (except children), yet there's at least SOME history behind it. Religions ask you to believe without producing a shred of evidence that their stories are true. How can anyone be so ignorant as to accept something verbatim without remaining skeptical? I can understand its hard to do so if you're taught from childhood to accept it and see all your peers and adults as accepting it but at some point in your life you should be at least CURIOUS to find out the history behind it (I was raised Lutheran and believed for about the first 22 years or so of my life until I finally woke up and decided to ask questions). If there's any truth to there being some sort of supreme being it's definitely not found in ANY religion that exists.

The lack of evidence that the stories are "true" does not make the religion untrue. The stories are stories, like so: a man has a thought, it's a brilliant thought, a truthful thought --it could be a realization about the nature of the universe, a philosophical thought, or perhaps a theory of physics, or even a moral concept that will improve the life of those who abide by it. He has to tell the whole world about it, because it's a truthful thought, and everyone should know so that they can judge for themselves the value of the thought. The teaching method of his people is to create a story or stories to embrace the idea; this way, not only can the idea be demonstrated, but also feelings that surround the idea that will better allow the idea to stick in people's memories. Everyone loves a good story, and for a people who enjoy talking more than writing, it's an added bonus. Also, probable consequences of the idea can be demonstrated in this way.

"How can anyone be so ignorant as to accept something verbatim without remaining skeptical?"
Most of the stories of the Bible that purport strange and impossible things happening are myths, not intended to be read literally, but as stories that use metaphor to demonstrate ideas, feelings and intellectual and moral concepts. I believe that those who read the Bible literally are mistaken in doing so. If you look at the incredible elements of a story and take them as metaphor, a mechanism to transmit an idea of truth to the reader, then it is the meaning behind the story elements that is the truth that should then reflect on the veracity of the religion.

Yeah..! What Willamena said. Yeah..!

I just like stories. Story people and things make me feel "squoodgie". I like feeling "squoodgie". I know that if I whack my cousin, 'cause of what happened to Iakeolea in that story that made me feel squoodgie, I'll be a bad person and nobody will smile when they think of me in the time when the old-man's-body of my grandson is dead.

So, yeah... What Willamena said..! :D

Notice: He used "it is"..!! The word spreads..! Even amongst the "Apathists....!!!! :D
They're two rather common words in the English language, you know. It's sort of hard so avoid ever using them together.

They're two rather common words in the English language, you know. It's sort of hard so avoid ever using them together.
Ah, but he used them in that context. ;-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milostein
They're two rather common words in the English language, you know. It's sort of hard so avoid ever using them together.

Ah, but he used them in that context. ;-)

Heh he he he he..!

That's one of the really nice things about a religion that is based on the verb "to be"...!

You find it in SO many places..! :D

That's also why my people have a "thing" for sand, in case you hadn't noticed.

It, too, is everywhere... on my primitive little island.

The lack of evidence that the stories are "true" does not make the religion untrue.

True, but that basically makes most religions (there's about 3,000+ that are known) true.

Most of the stories of the Bible that purport strange and impossible things happening are myths, not intended to be read literally, but as stories that use metaphor to demonstrate ideas, feelings and intellectual and moral concepts. I believe that those who read the Bible literally are mistaken in doing so. If you look at the incredible elements of a story and take them as metaphor, a mechanism to transmit an idea of truth to the reader, then it is the meaning behind the story elements that is the truth that should then reflect on the veracity of the religion.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. (KJV, 2nd Timothy 3:16)

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (NAS, 2nd Peter 1:20-21)

Those are just two verses that say the book should be taken literally. If it's not then who decides which stories are true? Should someone believe that a man named Jesus lived and performed miracles or should they remain skeptical and think they're all just stories to better our lives? If it's the latter, that would rule out christianity as a legitimate religion. I'm also fairly certain that most religions weren't meant to be metaphors (like Joseph Smith receiving the book of Mormon on golden tablets).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
The lack of evidence that the stories are "true" does not make the religion untrue.


True, but that basically makes most religions (there's about 3,000+ that are known) true.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
Most of the stories of the Bible that purport strange and impossible things happening are myths, not intended to be read literally, but as stories that use metaphor to demonstrate ideas, feelings and intellectual and moral concepts. I believe that those who read the Bible literally are mistaken in doing so. If you look at the incredible elements of a story and take them as metaphor, a mechanism to transmit an idea of truth to the reader, then it is the meaning behind the story elements that is the truth that should then reflect on the veracity of the religion.


All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. (KJV, 2nd Timothy 3:16)

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (NAS, 2nd Peter 1:20-21)

Those are just two verses that say the book should be taken literally. If it's not then who decides which stories are true? Should someone believe that a man named Jesus lived and performed miracles or should they remain skeptical and think they're all just stories to better our lives? If it's the latter, that would rule out christianity as a legitimate religion. I'm also fairly certain that most religions weren't meant to be metaphors (like Joseph Smith receiving the book of Mormon on golden tablets).

I read the first quotation as:
Listen to works of inspiration, they can teach you things.

The second:
No human mind can be certain of the meaning of "prophesy" and "the word of god".

I don't see them as saying "take what we say as the literal truth" at all.

Your "quest" to rule out "un-true religions" as "illegitimate" is interesting.

Are you simply mimicking the "proselytizing sheep-herders" that you seem to despise, by using their own tricks to trick them..?

Is your culture so devoid of wisdom that "religion" is just a fencing match...?

If so, I'd suggest you find another culture to inhabit. :)

If we mix our natural instincts toward competition and our learned instincts toward empathy into everything we do, we'll be fine.

True, but that basically makes most religions (there's about 3,000+ that are known) true.
Right.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. (KJV, 2nd Timothy 3:16)

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (NAS, 2nd Peter 1:20-21)

Those are just two verses that say the book should be taken literally
I disagree. The first one says, "Every part of Scripture is God-breathed and useful one way or another--showing us truth, exposing our rebellion, correcting our mistakes, training us to live God's way." To me, the "truth" it shows is in the message, the Word of God.

The second one says, "Jesus resplendent with light from God the Father as the voice of Majestic Glory spoke: 'This is my Son, marked by my love, focus of all my delight.' We were there on the holy mountain with him. We heard the voice out of heaven with our very own ears. We couldn't be more sure of what we saw and heard--God's glory, God's voice. The prophetic Word was confirmed to us. You'll do well to keep focusing on it. It's the one light you have in a dark time as you wait for daybreak and the rising of the Morning Star in your hearts. The main thing to keep in mind here is that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of private opinion. And why? Because it's not something concocted in the human heart. Prophecy resulted when the Holy Spirit prompted men and women to speak God's Word."The prophecy mentioned here is the one that declared Jesus the Son of God, the Messiah. This passage doesn't say that the whole Bible should be taken literally. It says that the prophecies, which involve very specific tasks, signs and miracles for Jesus to fulfill (as other Christs had before him) should be exactly as written. Things like entering Jerusalem on the back of a donkey, going to the mountain near Gethsamane to have his last dinner with 12 disciples, and changing wine into water. How could you know if Jesus was the Messiah if he didn't follow the prophetic script precisely? The Jews were (and still are) sticklers for accuracy.

Those are just two verses that say the book should be taken literally. If it's not then who decides which stories are true? Should someone believe that a man named Jesus lived and performed miracles or should they remain skeptical and think they're all just stories to better our lives? If it's the latter, that would rule out christianity as a legitimate religion. I'm also fairly certain that most religions weren't meant to be metaphors (like Joseph Smith receiving the book of Mormon on golden tablets).
"Who decides which stories are true?" Oh, that's the easy part. Have you ever heard "the truth" spoken in the words of a story, and thought, "Ain't it the truth?" Have you ever heard "the truth" sung in the lyrics of a song? It connects with you, to a feeling or a set of memories, and it moves you inside. It can last for minutes, or just a few moments, or your whole life-time. It's called "spontaneous significance," and it's something you do. It is you who makes the connection, totally involunarily. You decide which stories are true.

"...think they're all just stories to better our lives ...that would rule out christianity as a legitimate religion." How so? Are you looking at the message of the story, or just at the plot?

If we mix our natural instincts toward competition and our learned instincts toward empathy into everything we do, we'll be fine.

Mmmmmmmmmmm... well put.

Now,... do I agree with that..!? :)

<thinking,.. thinking,.. thinking,.. thinking,.. thinking>

Uh......

<thinking,.. thinking,.. thinking,.. thinking,.. thinking>

Fight for the girl. Check.
Fight for the food. Check.
Fight for the hut. Check.

Empathize with the talking. Check.
Empathize (share) with the tools. Check.

Mmmm.. yeah,.. yeah, I like it..! :)

This debate could go on till the end of the human race.

I read the first quotation as:
Listen to works of inspiration, they can teach you things.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. (KJV, 2nd Timothy 3:16)

All scripture is inspired by God who is the original author and is to be used in religious doctrine in the face of criticism, for mistakes made by men (I think), and for instructions in how to serve the Lord and obey him.

The second:
No human mind can be certain of the meaning of "prophesy" and "the word of god".

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (NAS, 2nd Peter 1:20-21)

Scripture is not open to interpretation, no prophecy was ever made by man but was instead the Holy Spirit speaking through him.

Your "quest" to rule out "un-true religions" as "illegitimate" is interesting.

Are you simply mimicking the "proselytizing sheep-herders" that you seem to despise, by using their own tricks to trick them..?

Basically just trying to show how their own doctrine is fallible and contradictory which doesn't say much for their God. I grew up christian and now feel a lot of malcontent towards the religion as a whole.

"Who decides which stories are true?" Oh, that's the easy part. Have you ever heard "the truth" spoken in the words of a story, and thought, "Ain't it the truth?" Have you ever heard "the truth" sung in the lyrics of a song? It connects with you, to a feeling or a set of memories, and it moves you inside. It can last for minutes, or just a few moments, or your whole life-time. It's called "spontaneous significance," and it's something you do. It is you who makes the connection, totally involunarily. You decide which stories are true.

What the...? I think you totally misunderstood what I posted, or else I've misunderstood you. I'm not talking about how the Bible speaks to someone of faith, I'm talking about the stories themselves. Which ones are true. A religious doctrine can not be open to interpretation as everyone will come up with their own. If everyone interprets it differently than how can a religion even be formed? Picking and choosing which stories you want to believe as true can be considered heretical and be looked down upon by your peers.

"...think they're all just stories to better our lives ...that would rule out christianity as a legitimate religion." How so? Are you looking at the message of the story, or just at the plot?

There wouldn't be a difference between Jews and Christians if both groups felt the Bible was just stories. Jews don't believe the Messiah has come. Christians believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah. That is NOT open to interpretation as it is the basis of belief for both groups.

This debate could go on till the end of the human race.

Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... and your point would be..........?!

:)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I read the first quotation as:
Listen to works of inspiration, they can teach you things.


All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. (KJV, 2nd Timothy 3:16)

All scripture is inspired by God who is the original author and is to be used in religious doctrine in the face of criticism, for mistakes made by men (I think), and for instructions in how to serve the Lord and obey him.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The second:
No human mind can be certain of the meaning of "prophesy" and "the word of god".


But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (NAS, 2nd Peter 1:20-21)

Scripture is not open to interpretation, no prophecy was ever made by man but was instead the Holy Spirit speaking through him.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Your "quest" to rule out "un-true religions" as "illegitimate" is interesting.

Are you simply mimicking the "proselytizing sheep-herders" that you seem to despise, by using their own tricks to trick them..?


Basically just trying to show how their own doctrine is fallible and contradictory which doesn't say much for their God. I grew up christian and now feel a lot of malcontent towards the religion as a whole.

Heh he he he... :)

"You grew up a christian, and now feel malcontent"... well, you're certainly not content with it, and since you have no frame of reference BUT it (in the realm of religion) you simply use what you see as it's perverse tools against itself.

Your anger is evident, as is the disappointment and hurt that "it" inflicted on you for denying you what you KNOW you need as a person (in the realm of religion).

So now you attack it, and religion in general, with the tools of your old tormentor.

..when all you have to do is simply accept the parts that make sense to you and/or interpret away the parts that are nonsense.

You don't have to play by anyone's rules but your own,.. dude..!

Unless you like fencing, which is also a nifty passtime. :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
"Who decides which stories are true?" Oh, that's the easy part. Have you ever heard "the truth" spoken in the words of a story, and thought, "Ain't it the truth?" Have you ever heard "the truth" sung in the lyrics of a song? It connects with you, to a feeling or a set of memories, and it moves you inside. It can last for minutes, or just a few moments, or your whole life-time. It's called "spontaneous significance," and it's something you do. It is you who makes the connection, totally involunarily. You decide which stories are true.


What the...? I think you totally misunderstood what I posted, or else I've misunderstood you. I'm not talking about how the Bible speaks to someone of faith, I'm talking about the stories themselves. Which ones are true. A religious doctrine can not be open to interpretation as everyone will come up with their own. If everyone interprets it differently than how can a religion even be formed? Picking and choosing which stories you want to believe as true can be considered heretical and be looked down upon by your peers.


Quote:
"...think they're all just stories to better our lives ...that would rule out christianity as a legitimate religion." How so? Are you looking at the message of the story, or just at the plot?


There wouldn't be a difference between Jews and Christians if both groups felt the Bible was just stories. Jews don't believe the Messiah has come. Christians believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah. That is NOT open to interpretation as it is the basis of belief for both groups.

:)

The stories are the stories.

If you wish to think that "a religion can't be open to interpretation" then that describes your religion.

On the "difference between jews and christians". There are an infinite number of differences between jews and christians.

I submit that jews choose to be jews because they are "jewish", while christians choose to be christians because they are "christian-ish".

They both believe what they believe, for whatever reason. Whether each individual believes the absolute literal (rational,etc..) "truth" of their stories is not relevent to their faith in what they DO believe.

Your mold of "religion" is precisely what you buck up against, and yet you impose the same strictures on any interpretation of "religion".

Try this one,... has there ever been anyone who was both a christian AND a jew..?

Try this one,... has there ever been anyone who was both a christian AND a jew..?
No, or anyway, not at the same time. (Converts don't count, as they abandon their old religion to follow their new one.) Both have a holy text claiming the existence of a single supreme deity but disagree on the nature of this deity, hence, to believe in both would be an obvious contradiction. (Then again, obvious contradiction never stopped religious followers before...)

What the...? I think you totally misunderstood what I posted, or else I've misunderstood you. I'm not talking about how the Bible speaks to someone of faith, I'm talking about the stories themselves. Which ones are true. A religious doctrine can not be open to interpretation as everyone will come up with their own. If everyone interprets it differently than how can a religion even be formed? Picking and choosing which stories you want to believe as true can be considered heretical and be looked down upon by your peers.
Picking and choosing which stories to believe is not the same thing as I am talking about. The message is fixed and consistent, and intended for all, I think we agree on that; and all the messages are to be taken to get a whole picture. Interpretations are inevitable, we are only human (as many religious discussions show). The message in the stories is there for everyone; the same message for everyone; and that is what the religion is about.

What I tried to address was what about the stories was "true". (Hint: It's not the plot.) It's the part of the message that connects with you. But this connecting with the truth is something each individual does, not something that happens to them. Perhaps that's an idea for another discussion, though.

Take, for instance, the story of Noah's Ark. What is its message? Well, ask yourself, what did you learn from the story in the context of the religion? What did you feel about the story? (Hint: the message of the story is not 'How many animals can you fit into a boat?' nor 'How the man on the boat survived for 40 days and 40 nights without eating the guests.') The story is a story, just that (holds her hand up, flat, palm out); it can have lions, tigers, whales, serpents, apples, monsters, adventures, flying saucers --it doesn't matter, it's a story. The message is behind the story (holds the other hand up behind it, and spreads her fingers just a bit so you can see it). The message is what the story is really about.

I'm not trying to be patronizing, just demonstrative. ;-)

There wouldn't be a difference between Jews and Christians if both groups felt the Bible was just stories. Jews don't believe the Messiah has come. Christians believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah. That is NOT open to interpretation as it is the basis of belief for both groups.
Why would there not be a difference? Jews only use the Old Testament, don't they? and their Koran. Christians mainly use the New Testament.

There *is* little difference between Jews and Christians --except for the Christ thing. The Jews and Catholics recognize the same messages in the same stories --the Koran is full of them, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Try this one,... has there ever been anyone who was both a christian AND a jew..?

No, or anyway, not at the same time. (Converts don't count, as they abandon their old religion to follow their new one.) Both have a holy text claiming the existence of a single supreme deity but disagree on the nature of this deity, hence, to believe in both would be an obvious contradiction. (Then again, obvious contradiction never stopped religious followers before...)

Heh he he he he... contradiction is in the eye of.. whom,.. whom,... Beuller..!?

That guy named Jesus pops to mind as a christian jew.... :)

Take, for instance, the story of Noah's Ark. What is its message? Well, ask yourself, what did you learn from the story in the context of the religion? What did you feel about the story? (Hint: the message of the story is not 'How many animals can you fit into a boat?' nor 'How the man on the boat survived for 40 days and 40 nights without eating the guests.') The story is a story, just that (holds her hand up, flat, palm out); it can have lions, tigers, whales, serpents, apples, monsters, adventures, flying saucers --it doesn't matter, it's a story. The message is behind the story (holds the other hand up behind it, and spreads her fingers just a bit so you can see it). The message is what the story is really about.
So what is the message?

That if you anger God he's going to take out his frustration by drowning some animals and children?

That to be a righteous person, you should care only about yourself and not do anything to help people outside of your direct family?

Nope, I don't see it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
Take, for instance, the story of Noah's Ark. What is its message? Well, ask yourself, what did you learn from the story in the context of the religion? What did you feel about the story? (Hint: the message of the story is not 'How many animals can you fit into a boat?' nor 'How the man on the boat survived for 40 days and 40 nights without eating the guests.') The story is a story, just that (holds her hand up, flat, palm out); it can have lions, tigers, whales, serpents, apples, monsters, adventures, flying saucers --it doesn't matter, it's a story. The message is behind the story (holds the other hand up behind it, and spreads her fingers just a bit so you can see it). The message is what the story is really about.

So what is the message?

That if you anger God he's going to take out his frustration by drowning some animals and children?

That to be a righteous person, you should care only about yourself and not do anything to help people outside of your direct family?

Nope, I don't see it.

Yeah,.. well,.. those too.. though I wouldn't call those particularly GOOD messages... :)

Of course, if those are the only ones you see, then maybe we should make up our minds now as to the proclivities of YOUR point of view.

Are you perhaps being a bit un-generous to the intent of good Willamena..?

Instead of insulting my perceptiveness and generosity, could you maybe help and enlighten me as to one such good message that you claim can be read in this story?

And before someone starts about myths, I do understand symbols. However, I do expect the symbol to stand for something. For example, neither the word "chicken" nor the word "cockatrice" really "exist", however, the former is a symbol for something that exists, while the latter is not. If I say "Hey look, a chicken!" then I'm actually saying something. If I say "Hey look, a cockatrice!" then I'm not. Myths are the same thing, except that instead of a two-layer interpretation (words->literal meaning) there is a three-layer interpretation (words->literal meaning->figurative meaning). Since the literal meaning is now a sublayer rather than a final layer, it is now possible for the-meaning-of-"chickens" as well as the-meaning-of-"cockatrices" to be valid symbol in this layer. But still, either way, it is possible that the final layer, the "true meaning", is nonexistant or wrong, due to the symbol(s) in the previous layer(s) being badly chosen.

Oh well,... maybe you can compose a nifty story about this said Ph.D Astronaut at some point and post it.

It IS a nice seed for a story though, wouldn't you say..? :)

We have one, kinda similar, about a perpetually drunken solo-navigator that keeps going around and around the islands, telling all the canoe-people he meets that they're in the wrong places, because he can't remember which stars are where in the sky.

If "douchebag" means "funny guy that everybody laughs at", then our sloshed navigator is a douchebag too. :D

I was generally using douchebag for lack of any other term to mean.. well, a jerk, basically.

So what is the message?

That if you anger God he's going to take out his frustration by drowning some animals and children?
No, see.... that would be plot.

That to be a righteous person, you should care only about yourself and not do anything to help people outside of your direct family?
No, that would be applying interpretation, like these are (http://www.goodtimes2.com/noahs_ark.htm). ;-)

I'm no Biblical scholar, nor do I claim to be, and neither am I Christian, but I'll take a shot at this: the message, like the one about the child Christ and the snake, would necessarily be a shift of mind-set and/or spirit. Really, they all are --to move the religious consciousness of the reader along.

What happens in the story? The earth is cleansed of evil (rebooted, if you like), and mankind is allowed a second chance to start afresh in a world safe from harm. This is a variation of a creation myth. What is accomplished, in the context of the religion? The repeopling of the world with the faithful. God making a personal convenant with Man to preserve the new order and keep it from harm. How do you think it makes a faithful person feel when the dove finally returns with an olive branch in its beak? Safe, at last! Forever.
"For as long as Earth lasts,
planting and harvest, cold and heat,
Summer and winter, day and night
will never stop."

How God treats the unfaithful is not really relevant to the message in the context of the religion. I would say God does for those who are faithful, is the message of this story.

The lack of evidence that the stories are "true" does not make the religion untrue. The stories are stories, like so: a man has a thought, it's a brilliant thought, a truthful thought --it could be a realization about the nature of the universe, a philosophical thought, or perhaps a theory of physics, or even a moral concept that will improve the life of those who abide by it. He has to tell the whole world about it, because it's a truthful thought, and everyone should know so that they can judge for themselves the value of the thought. The teaching method of his people is to create a story or stories to embrace the idea; this way, not only can the idea be demonstrated, but also feelings that surround the idea that will better allow the idea to stick in people's memories. Everyone loves a good story, and for a people who enjoy talking more than writing, it's an added bonus. Also, probable consequences of the idea can be demonstrated in this way.

"How can anyone be so ignorant as to accept something verbatim without remaining skeptical?"
Most of the stories of the Bible that purport strange and impossible things happening are myths, not intended to be read literally, but as stories that use metaphor to demonstrate ideas, feelings and intellectual and moral concepts. I believe that those who read the Bible literally are mistaken in doing so. If you look at the incredible elements of a story and take them as metaphor, a mechanism to transmit an idea of truth to the reader, then it is the meaning behind the story elements that is the truth that should then reflect on the veracity of the religion.

I think it funny that people can understand that the Bible contains 'parables', yet cannot grasp the concept that the bible may BE 'parables'.

Look all it comes down to is everyone is different. We all ahve our own beliefs and that's ok, that's what makes us individuals. I have yet to decide whether or not I believe in GOD because that's jsut who I am. I need time to fine something that's right for me. And we all want to be accepted, despite what we may believe, therefore we must learn to accept everyone else, despite what they may believe. If someone believes in teh bible and you don't then so be it, just accept it and move on. They world is too big for everyone to agree and if we all did agree, wouldn't the world be kind of boring?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
The lack of evidence that the stories are "true" does not make the religion untrue. The stories are stories, like so: a man has a thought, it's a brilliant thought, a truthful thought --it could be a realization about the nature of the universe, a philosophical thought, or perhaps a theory of physics, or even a moral concept that will improve the life of those who abide by it. He has to tell the whole world about it, because it's a truthful thought, and everyone should know so that they can judge for themselves the value of the thought. The teaching method of his people is to create a story or stories to embrace the idea; this way, not only can the idea be demonstrated, but also feelings that surround the idea that will better allow the idea to stick in people's memories. Everyone loves a good story, and for a people who enjoy talking more than writing, it's an added bonus. Also, probable consequences of the idea can be demonstrated in this way.

"How can anyone be so ignorant as to accept something verbatim without remaining skeptical?"

Most of the stories of the Bible that purport strange and impossible things happening are myths, not intended to be read literally, but as stories that use metaphor to demonstrate ideas, feelings and intellectual and moral concepts. I believe that those who read the Bible literally are mistaken in doing so. If you look at the incredible elements of a story and take them as metaphor, a mechanism to transmit an idea of truth to the reader, then it is the meaning behind the story elements that is the truth that should then reflect on the veracity of the religion.



I think it funny that people can understand that the Bible contains 'parables', yet cannot grasp the concept that the bible may BE 'parables'.

I gotta agree entirely with Grave on this one..!

And, of course, parables don't make anything "wrong". :)

Look all it comes down to is everyone is different. We all ahve our own beliefs and that's ok, that's what makes us individuals. I have yet to decide whether or not I believe in GOD because that's jsut who I am. I need time to fine something that's right for me. And we all want to be accepted, despite what we may believe, therefore we must learn to accept everyone else, despite what they may believe. If someone believes in teh bible and you don't then so be it, just accept it and move on. They world is too big for everyone to agree and if we all did agree, wouldn't the world be kind of boring?

And nothing to talk about..! :D

Just take your time, and "do it right",.. no rush.

My own path was:
*) The night sky SURE is pretty..!
*) WOW,.. it get's prettier the closer I look..!
*) How come that guy is smiling so nice..!?
*) I wanna learn what that guy is talking about..!
*) Oh,.. I get it,.. it's a story..! And it makes me wanna be smarter about this stuff.
*) What other sets of stories are out there..!?
*) WOW,.. it get's prettier the closer I look..!
*) The night sky SURE is pretty..!

..repeat,.. endlessly.

You make me want to smile, Iakeokeo.

the thing is, if god exists, i cant imagine that he would send ANYONE to a fiery inferno like hell. he can't punish us for not believing in him if he hasnt given us enough proof of his existence.

:headbang: everyone is gonna argue about this forever, I personally dont believe in god, but It doesnt bother me if someone else wants to. I say let everyone else get on with it

You make me want to smile, Iakeokeo.

Well,... my wise Aunties would be very proud of me, then..!

The whole point of my "religion" is to get smiles. Looks like I got one..! :D

Cool..!

Surf's up..!

the thing is, if god exists, i cant imagine that he would send ANYONE to a fiery inferno like hell. he can't punish us for not believing in him if he hasnt given us enough proof of his existence.

Then, that's something to think about. :)

How could YOU justify that a god would allow such a thing?

How about if we do it to ourselves, cause we did bad things..?

Would a god actually NOT allow someone to take a punishment that they imposed on themselves..?

..and would a god "bend the rules" to allow them to get out of it, when they felt punished enough for being bad..?

And where is this punishment supposed to be "applied", anyway..?

Maybe it's just a story, like my Aunties tell, that is supposed to teach us something..?

What's it teach you..?

See,.. so many questions..! Stories are for making questions, and making thinking.

Maybe it's just a story, like my Aunties tell, that is supposed to teach us something..?

What's it teach you..?

See,.. so many questions..! Stories are for making questions, and making thinking.

I don't think it ever taught me anything. The way I see it, the only way to learn, is by yourself. Experience things firsthand and learn by your mistakes

The worst way to learn morality is through experience, because immoral behavior can be extremely pleasant.

The worst way to learn morality is through experience, because immoral behavior can be extremely pleasant.
...and unpleasant.

Yes. And the same is true for moral behavior.

Picking and choosing which stories to believe is not the same thing as I am talking about. The message is fixed and consistent, and intended for all, I think we agree on that; and all the messages are to be taken to get a whole picture. Interpretations are inevitable, we are only human (as many religious discussions show). The message in the stories is there for everyone; the same message for everyone; and that is what the religion is about.

I almost completely agree with you, up until your last statement that this is what the religion is about. Christianity is about accepting Jesus Christ as your savior and believing the stories told within the Bible are true. Yes, there is a message in most of them but they're also supposed to be taken as fact. This is basically what I have a problem with. If the religion was about the messages in the Bible and not about worshipping some being in the sky then I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's the belief in the stories that causes problems and what irritates me. It's unbelievable how many religious persons don't believe in evolution (which is a fact that's undebatable) and strike out against these issues. Just recently (in Kansas I believe) they tried to move Intelligent Design into the school curriculum to be taught alongside evolution! There's no way I would let a child of mine go to a school that teaches ID instead of something that's been accepted as scientific fact. Also, places like this (http://www.icr.org/) just screams idiocy.

Take, for instance, the story of Noah's Ark. What is its message? Well, ask yourself, what did you learn from the story in the context of the religion? What did you feel about the story? (Hint: the message of the story is not 'How many animals can you fit into a boat?' nor 'How the man on the boat survived for 40 days and 40 nights without eating the guests.') The story is a story, just that (holds her hand up, flat, palm out); it can have lions, tigers, whales, serpents, apples, monsters, adventures, flying saucers --it doesn't matter, it's a story. The message is behind the story (holds the other hand up behind it, and spreads her fingers just a bit so you can see it). The message is what the story is really about.

This story is used to prove the earth is only about 6000 years old. The Flood is used to show how sediments are lain about the earth and why the land masses are how they are today using some of the most retarded "scientific" explanations. It is taken as fact by far too many and it corrupts the minds of our youth by making them believe the same.

I'm not trying to be patronizing, just demonstrative. ;-)

I know, I just like to argue :D

I almost completely agree with you, up until your last statement that this is what the religion is about. Christianity is about accepting Jesus Christ as your savior and believing the stories told within the Bible are true.
Let me reword that, slightly. Christianity is about understanding that Jesus Christ is your saviour --when you do that, you have accepted him --and identifying with the truth of the messages in the stories told about him.

Yes, there is a message in most of them but they're also supposed to be taken as fact. This is basically what I have a problem with. If the religion was about the messages in the Bible and not about worshipping some being in the sky then I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's the belief in the stories that causes problems and what irritates me. It's unbelievable how many religious persons don't believe in evolution (which is a fact that's undebatable) and strike out against these issues. Just recently (in Kansas I believe) they tried to move Intelligent Design into the school curriculum to be taught alongside evolution! There's no way I would let a child of mine go to a school that teaches ID instead of something that's been accepted as scientific fact. Also, places like this (http://www.icr.org/) just screams idiocy.
I understand. A lot of the problem is that organized religion is made up people just like you said, who thought they were supposed to take the story literally, and so pass along that attitude, sometimes totally at the expense of the message (if Internet websites are any indication). And it has been escalating for thousands of years.

When people talk about "throwing the baby out with the bath" it is this very problem: that disbelief in the literal story leads people to discard the message of the story.

Macro evolution is a theory, open to being amended when sufficient evidence presents itself to warrant an amendment. The theory is based on facts, but it is not a fact itself. (Kind of the way people have God within them, but are not God themselves.)

This story is used to prove the earth is only about 6000 years old. The Flood is used to show how sediments are lain about the earth and why the land masses are how they are today using some of the most retarded "scientific" explanations. It is taken as fact by far too many and it corrupts the minds of our youth by making them believe the same.

I know, I just like to argue :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

Maybe it's just a story, like my Aunties tell, that is supposed to teach us something..?

What's it teach you..?

See,.. so many questions..! Stories are for making questions, and making thinking.


I don't think it ever taught me anything. The way I see it, the only way to learn, is by yourself. Experience things firsthand and learn by your mistakes

That's one way to do it..! :)

Do have fun with that "falling into the volcano" lesson..!

:D

The worst way to learn morality is through experience, because immoral behavior can be extremely pleasant.



:D

You' been talking to my Auntie Iako'a, haven't you bra'..!?

She gotta real good story 'bout that...!

I LOVE this Tehok guy/guyette....!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudding Pies
I almost completely agree with you, up until your last statement that this is what the religion is about. Christianity is about accepting Jesus Christ as your savior and believing the stories told within the Bible are true.

Let me reword that, slightly. Christianity is about understanding that Jesus Christ is your saviour --when you do that, you have accepted him --and identifying with the truth of the messages in the stories told about him.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudding Pies
Yes, there is a message in most of them but they're also supposed to be taken as fact. This is basically what I have a problem with. If the religion was about the messages in the Bible and not about worshipping some being in the sky then I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's the belief in the stories that causes problems and what irritates me. It's unbelievable how many religious persons don't believe in evolution (which is a fact that's undebatable) and strike out against these issues. Just recently (in Kansas I believe) they tried to move Intelligent Design into the school curriculum to be taught alongside evolution! There's no way I would let a child of mine go to a school that teaches ID instead of something that's been accepted as scientific fact. Also, places like this just screams idiocy.


I understand. A lot of the problem is that organized religion is made up people just like you who thought they were supposed to take the story literally, and so pass along that attitude, sometimes totally at the expense of the message (if Internet websites are any indication). And it has been escalating for thousands of years.

When people talk about "throwing the baby out with the bath" it is this very problem: that disbelief in the literal story leads people to discard the message of the story.

Macro evolution is a theory, open to being amended when sufficient evidence presents itself to warrant an amendment. The theory is based on facts, but it is not a fact itself. (Kind of the way people have God within them, but are not God themselves.)



.."A lot of the problem is that organized religion is made up people just like you (Pudding Pies) who thought they were supposed to take the story literally, and so pass along that attitude, sometimes totally at the expense of the message (if Internet websites are any indication)"..

Many times if you're used to using only one tool, you think that's the only tool to use at all.

The contortions that people will use to fit the world to their tool is the source of much humor.

I do wish people would see that other's see humor in it, and that it's not an insult to laugh at what one sees as humorous.

That would go a long way towards defusing a lot of "tension" with discussing religious matters.

IChristianity is about accepting Jesus Christ as your savior and believing the stories told within the Bible are true. Yes, there is a message in most of them but they're also supposed to be taken as fact. This is basically what I have a problem with.

The stories are true. Are they fact? I doubt it,but there is a huge difference between something containing a basic truth, and something having fact. Think of the reason for going into Iraq. Was their truth in the reasoning? Yes. Were the reasons fact? I doubt it. One must make a distinction.

.."A lot of the problem is that organized religion is made up people just like you (Pudding Pies) who thought they were supposed to take the story literally, and so pass along that attitude, sometimes totally at the expense of the message (if Internet websites are any indication)"..

I had amended the wording slightly, because I do believe Pudding Pies is only lacking in a definition of religion, which is man's relationship to the Godhood, not found the Church but in the heart.

Macro evolution is a theory, open to being amended when sufficient evidence presents itself to warrant an amendment. The theory is based on facts, but it is not a fact itself. (Kind of the way people have God within them, but are not God themselves.)

Heh, it IS a fact.

"Evolution is just a theory."

The error implicit in this argument is that it confuses the everyday definition of a term with the scientific one. In common parlance, theory often means "guess," "hunch," "hypothesis" or something similar. However, in scientific circles this is not the case. To scientists, a theory is an explanation of some feature of the natural world that:

Is supported by empirical evidence.
Is testable and falsifiable.
Can be used to make predictions.

Source: Ebon Musings (http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evotheory.html) (A great site on learning about evolution)

Heh, it IS a fact.

To scientists, a theory is an explanation of some feature of the natural world that:
1. Is supported by empirical evidence.
2. Is testable and falsifiable.
3. Can be used to make predictions
Egads. That's correct, and the defintion I meant. A theory is continually tested and, if it is ever made false by new informaiton, it is amended to fit the new facts. The theory is not a fact --it is a fact that there is a theory, but the theory itself is not a fact. Facts are the "empirical evidence" that support theories; facts are "true" or accepted as true, theories are falsifiable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
Macro evolution is a theory, open to being amended when sufficient evidence presents itself to warrant an amendment. The theory is based on facts, but it is not a fact itself. (Kind of the way people have God within them, but are not God themselves.)


Heh, it IS a fact.


Quote:
"Evolution is just a theory."


The error implicit in this argument is that it confuses the everyday definition of a term with the scientific one. In common parlance, theory often means "guess," "hunch," "hypothesis" or something similar. However, in scientific circles this is not the case. To scientists, a theory is an explanation of some feature of the natural world that:

Is supported by empirical evidence.
Is testable and falsifiable.
Can be used to make predictions.



Source: Ebon Musings (A great site on learning about evolution)

.."is falsifiable"..

Don't be so arrogant as to say "it's a fact always and true always as it stands" about evolution (or any scientifically arrived at body of knowledge), when the very definition you cite says differently.

Your statement that it is a "fact" (by which you seem to infer it's absolute certainty) is a religious statement, and not a scientific one.

I do believe in evolution, by the way, and the scientific method,.. but they each have their realms of "influence", and are not the "be all and end all" of human thought processes.

Science does not have that hubris.

I think it funny that people can understand that the Bible contains 'parables', yet cannot grasp the concept that the bible may BE 'parables'.
What is the point of a parable about a man telling parables?

What is the point of a parable about a man telling parables?

OY..!

<shaking my head violently at the above Koan>

Woof...!

Very good..! :D

<now laughing uproariously>

..ohhhh,.. wow....

<chortle,... sputter,.. guffaw>

<regaining composure>

What is the point of parentheses...?!

<back to laughing hilariously>...

:D

.."is falsifiable"..

Don't be so arrogant as to say "it's a fact always and true always as it stands" about evolution (or any scientifically arrived at body of knowledge), when the very definition you cite says differently.

Your statement that it is a "fact" (by which you seem to infer it's absolute certainty) is a religious statement, and not a scientific one.

I do believe in evolution, by the way, and the scientific method,.. but they each have their realms of "influence", and are not the "be all and end all" of human thought processes.

Science does not have that hubris.

Again, this is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word. Falsifiable in this context means that there has to be a means to prove the theory false. In other words, "What evidence would disprove the idea of evolution?". One answer is that if a fossil record consisting of hundreds of millions of years doesn't exist than evolution has not happened.

By contrast, creationism is NOT a theory as it doesn't fit the points needed to make it one (no evidence, can't be falsified, etc...). At the MOST it's a hypothesis.

I'll give you an example of all this: Gravity is a fact (Each object in the universe attracts each other's body). The THEORY of gravity describes how this is possible.

Does that make it a little more clearer? Everyone knows that gravity exists. Explaining the details and physics behind it is covered in the theory. In fact, evolution is one of the strongest facts based on the enormous amounts of data within the scientific community! One only needs to do some searching to find the truth.

What happens in the story? The earth is cleansed of evil (rebooted, if you like),
Sort of like getting rid of a few poisoned berries by burning down the whole granary, isn't it?

Besides, the bible is quite clear on the fact that evil persisted also after the flood. A lot.

and mankind is allowed a second chance to start afresh in a world safe from harm.
Who's fault is it that the first one wasn't?

This is a variation of a creation myth. What is accomplished, in the context of the religion? The repeopling of the world with the faithful. God making a personal convenant with Man to preserve the new order and keep it from harm.
So basically, God kills so many people, that anytime he decides to simply not kill someone, it's seen as a great act of mercy and justice? I might as well claim to be a saint because I abstained from murdering anyone today.

How do you think it makes a faithful person feel when the dove finally returns with an olive branch in its beak?
Oh, damn. The rest of the tree is still underwater.

Safe, at last!
Umm, safe from who? Exactly. God.

How God treats the unfaithful is not really relevant to the message in the context of the religion.
Not what the bible says.

I would say God does for those who are faithful, is the message of this story.
What he does... not kill them? See above.


As for your link...
No, that would be applying interpretation, like these are (http://www.goodtimes2.com/noahs_ark.htm). ;-)

Don't miss the boat.
Fortunately, there's a guy herding us in.

Don't forget that we're all in the same boat.
Including the ones that don't deserve it. Ermm, okay. Actually that message is true. But not in the context of a loving God. Anyway, moving along...

Plan ahead. It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark.
He only knew what to expect because God told him. Not much planning on Noah's part.

Stay fit. When you're 600 years old, someone might ask you to do something REALLY big.
I'll keep that in mind... Know of a vaccine that can prevent death for 500 years?

Don't listen to the critics, just get on with what has to be done.
I don't recall any critics in Noah's story. Am I forgetting something?

Build your future on high ground.
Because the ark landed on a mountain? I doubt Noah planned that. It's just that it's, well the first opportunity to present itself when the waters drain away.

For safety's sake, travel in pairs.
Wise words... but only in pairs. Don't ever travel in sevens (or fourteens according to some interpretations), because if you do then some of you will get eaten.

Two heads are better than one.
Except if one of the heads is omniscient. Well, knows everything except which actions he's going to regret doing in the future.

Speed isn't always an advantage. The snails were on board with the cheetahs.
Probably not in the same cage, though.

When you're stressed, float awhile.
And become even more stressed as seeing all your friends drown. And at being imprisoned in a (relatively) small ark for forty days.

Remember that the ark was built by amateurs; the Titanic was built by professionals.
Okay, I'll give you that one.

Remember that woodpeckers inside are a larger threat than the storm outside.
Maybe. I'd think that any animals important to the moral of the story would be specifically mentioned in it. Incidentally, the only animals I recall being explicitly mentioned are some random birds used to scan the area.

Never mind the storm. When you're one with God, there's a rainbow waiting.
For the purpose of avoiding something like the flood (even if I do get to be on the ark), I'd happily forfeit ever again seeing a rainbow.

Again, this is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word. Falsifiable in this context means that there has to be a means to prove the theory false. In other words, "What evidence would disprove the idea of evolution?". One answer is that if a fossil record consisting of hundreds of millions of years doesn't exist than evolution has not happened.

By contrast, creationism is NOT a theory as it doesn't fit the points needed to make it one (no evidence, can't be falsified, etc...). At the MOST it's a hypothesis.

I agree that so-called "creationism" is not science, uses a perverse version of the scientific method, and is generally silly and not overly interesting fiction. (Unless you really enjoy extremely tortured reasoning in action.)

I think we also agree that "evolution" is incomplete, as there are still some niggling questions that need to be answered.

..But there will ALWAYS be niggling questions that need to be answered, and there are ALWAYS little (and sometimes big) bits that MAY be falsified, as in "replaced by other sub theories" that affect the overall theory.

A theory is a theory, a collectively accepted opinion. A religious "statement" is a statement of opinion.

Evolution does not negate religion. Religion does not negate evolution.

And evolution is merely a subset of all knowledge (aka science).

What is the point of a parable about a man telling parables?
A story device?

Again, this is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word. Falsifiable in this context means that there has to be a means to prove the theory false. In other words, "What evidence would disprove the idea of evolution?". One answer is that if a fossil record consisting of hundreds of millions of years doesn't exist than evolution has not happened.
There can be no "doesn't exist". There can only be "we haven't found any yet". Of course, in this particular case we have found it, so it's moot point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
What happens in the story? The earth is cleansed of evil (rebooted, if you like),


Sort of like getting rid of a few poisoned berries by burning down the whole granary, isn't it?

Besides, the bible is quite clear on the fact that evil persisted also after the flood. A lot.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
and mankind is allowed a second chance to start afresh in a world safe from harm.


Who's fault is it that the first one wasn't?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
This is a variation of a creation myth. What is accomplished, in the context of the religion? The repeopling of the world with the faithful. God making a personal convenant with Man to preserve the new order and keep it from harm.


So basically, God kills so many people, that anytime he decides to simply not kill someone, it's seen as a great act of mercy and justice? I might as well claim to be a saint because I abstained from murdering anyone today.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
How do you think it makes a faithful person feel when the dove finally returns with an olive branch in its beak?


Oh, damn. The rest of the tree is still underwater.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
Safe, at last!


Umm, safe from who? Exactly. God.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
How God treats the unfaithful is not really relevant to the message in the context of the religion.


Not what the bible says.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
I would say God does for those who are faithful, is the message of this story.


What he does... not kill them? See above.


As for your link...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
No, that would be applying interpretation, like these are. ;-)




Quote:
Don't miss the boat.


Fortunately, there's a guy herding us in.


Quote:
Don't forget that we're all in the same boat.


Including the ones that don't deserve it. Ermm, okay. Actually that message is true. But not in the context of a loving God. Anyway, moving along...


Quote:
Plan ahead. It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark.


He only knew what to expect because God told him. Not much planning on Noah's part.


Quote:
Stay fit. When you're 600 years old, someone might ask you to do something REALLY big.


I'll keep that in mind... Know of a vaccine that can prevent death for 500 years?


Quote:
Don't listen to the critics, just get on with what has to be done.


I don't recall any critics in Noah's story. Am I forgetting something?


Quote:
Build your future on high ground.


Because the ark landed on a mountain? I doubt Noah planned that. It's just that it's, well the first opportunity to present itself when the waters drain away.


Quote:
For safety's sake, travel in pairs.


Wise words... but only in pairs. Don't ever travel in sevens (or fourteens according to some interpretations), because if you do then some of you will get eaten.


Quote:
Two heads are better than one.


Except if one of the heads is omniscient. Well, knows everything except which actions he's going to regret doing in the future.


Quote:
Speed isn't always an advantage. The snails were on board with the cheetahs.


Probably not in the same cage, though.


Quote:
When you're stressed, float awhile.


And become even more stressed as seeing all your friends drown. And at being imprisoned in a (relatively) small ark for forty days.


Quote:
Remember that the ark was built by amateurs; the Titanic was built by professionals.


Okay, I'll give you that one.


Quote:
Remember that woodpeckers inside are a larger threat than the storm outside.


Maybe. I'd think that any animals important to the moral of the story would be specifically mentioned in it. Incidentally, the only animals I recall being explicitly mentioned are some random birds used to scan the area.


Quote:
Never mind the storm. When you're one with God, there's a rainbow waiting.


For the purpose of avoiding something like the flood (even if I do get to be on the ark), I'd happily forfeit ever again seeing a rainbow.

Your extremely negative interpretations speak volumes about your mindset chief...

I'm glad I don't have to associate with you on a regular basis. Your negativity must surely be quite contagious. (You are rather amusing on a short-term basis though.)

Of course, you're probably just having us off, and being a petulent child in your "I know you are but what am I..!?" responses.

If so, you're doing a very very good job. :)

Perhaps you could use your nap now...?

Again, this is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word. Falsifiable in this context means that there has to be a means to prove the theory false. In other words, "What evidence would disprove the idea of evolution?". One answer is that if a fossil record consisting of hundreds of millions of years doesn't exist than evolution has not happened.

By contrast, creationism is NOT a theory as it doesn't fit the points needed to make it one (no evidence, can't be falsified, etc...). At the MOST it's a hypothesis.

I'll give you an example of all this: Gravity is a fact (Each object in the universe attracts each other's body). The THEORY of gravity describes how this is possible.

Does that make it a little more clearer? Everyone knows that gravity exists. Explaining the details and physics behind it is covered in the theory. In fact, evolution is one of the strongest facts based on the enormous amounts of data within the scientific community! One only needs to do some searching to find the truth.
The effects of the force called gravity are measurable. There is no theory involved in those measurments; they are quite factual. However, there is a theory that gravity is bent space. This is not a factual statement, but a theory.

Your extremely negative interpretations speak volumes about your mindset chief...

I'm glad I don't have to associate with you on a regular basis. Your negativity must surely be quite contagious. (You are rather amusing on a short-term basis though.)
If you try to sell me a house made of paper, I hope it wouldn't be too "negative" of me to challenge the sturdiness of the walls. Or would you expect me to be "positive" by pointing out that at least, if it does collapse then I'll probably survive?

The effects of the force called gravity are measurable. There is no theory involved in those measurments; they are quite factual. However, there is a theory that gravity is bent space. This is not a factual statement, but a theory.
Measurements have been done on the orbits of the planets around the sun, showing that they don't quite fit with the predictions made by Newtonian gravity equations, but do fit with General Relativity gravity equations. To within the accuracy of our measurement abilities, that is.

If you try to sell me a house made of paper, I hope it wouldn't be too "negative" of me to challenge the sturdiness of the walls. Or would you expect me to be "positive" by pointing out that at least, if it does collapse then I'll probably survive?
Trouble is, you're not testing the sturdiness of the walls --that would require understanding what a wall is. You're just barking at the walls.

Measurements have been done on the orbits of the planets around the sun, showing that they don't quite fit with the predictions made by Newtonian gravity equations, but do fit with General Relativity gravity equations. To within the accuracy of our measurement abilities, that is.
Right. When one takes a measurement, then a more refined measurement is one way that the whole theory can be shown false ("doesn't quite fit").

What is that discussion on gravity about? We are already 89 years past Einstein's theory of general relativity. Theory is a misleading word, anyways. You should be using model instead. A model can always be refined without necessarily contradicting the outset.

Right. When one takes a measurement, then a more refined measurement is one way that the whole theory can be shown false ("doesn't quite fit").
The theory isn't exactly false, more like lacking finesse. Newtonian physics and General Relativity physics correspond for small values. (This statement can be formalized mathematically.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Your extremely negative interpretations speak volumes about your mindset chief...

I'm glad I don't have to associate with you on a regular basis. Your negativity must surely be quite contagious. (You are rather amusing on a short-term basis though.)

If you try to sell me a house made of paper, I hope it wouldn't be too "negative" of me to challenge the sturdiness of the walls. Or would you expect me to be "positive" by pointing out that at least, if it does collapse then I'll probably survive?



I'm not selling you anything..!

Hey,... I got this cool paper house, which I don't live in, by the way, as a kit, from my very wise Aunties, to specifically experience the wonders of making a house out of paper...!

I personally think it's pretty, and I really like my alterations to the basic design.

From your attitude, you'd actually think I'd LIVE in this paper house..?

That's a good one..! :D

My paper house, built for my enjoyment and edification, is not a threat to you or your house.

That's just silly..! :)

Trouble is, you're not testing the sturdiness of the walls --that would require understanding what a wall is. You're just barking at the walls.
Care to elaborate exactly what counts as "testing" the wall and what counts as "barking" at the wall, in the case of metaphors?

Speaking of which, I wonder if you noticed that my story of the paper house was a metaphor itself. So stop saying that I don't understand them. It's just that I don't like those particular metaphors that are written in the bible, that's all.

From your attitude, you'd actually think I'd LIVE in this paper house..?

That's a good one..! :D
The obvious comparison to my metaphor is that you study myths and their morals, but don't actually live by these morals. Well, okay. But from your repeated attempts to justify them, I'd assume that you're saying that the paper house is worth living in.

I study the bible too sometimes. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to have this discussion. But if you try to suggest to me that the house is worth living in, I will feel the need to differ. (This is regardless of whether the paper is decorated with pictures of things that aren't really there. I don't mind that part. In fact, that's one of the best uses for paper.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
Trouble is, you're not testing the sturdiness of the walls --that would require understanding what a wall is. You're just barking at the walls.

Care to elaborate exactly what counts as "testing" the wall and what counts as "barking" at the wall, in the case of metaphors?

Speaking of which, I wonder if you noticed that my story of the paper house was a metaphor itself. So stop saying that I don't understand them. It's just that I don't like those particular metaphors that are written in the bible, that's all.

.."It's just that I don't like those particular metaphors that are written in the bible, that's all."..

Then do like I do,.. don't use them...!

Make up your own... Find some that better reflect you...

Why must you attack the metaphors of others, if they mean nothing to you..?

I never have been relgious in any way and doubt i ever will be, what i would liek to know though is why a lot (not all) christians class the bible as proof that god exists

Care to elaborate exactly what counts as "testing" the wall and what counts as "barking" at the wall, in the case of metaphors?

Speaking of which, I wonder if you noticed that my story of the paper house was a metaphor itself. So stop saying that I don't understand them. It's just that I don't like those particular metaphors that are written in the bible, that's all.
Yes, I had noticed the metaphor in the wall story. You do have a grasp of the use of metaphor. It is what is supporting the walls that eludes you. A metaphor is only as good as what it stands in place of. Your attempts to rip at the wallpaper look a bit foolish to someone who knows the thickness of those walls.

Your "testing" in the prior post amounts to throwing out negative interpretations of the story elements of Noah's Ark. But the story is not the message, so you are testing nothing.

Here I am, sitting in a cubicle. It's first-snow day. All I can think about is being out there this afternoon when the first flakes hit the ground, feeling the sub-zero wind on my cheek, and the fresh smell of snow. But instead I am stuck here in my cubicle having to pretend that financial forecasts are somehow important to me in any way, shape or form. The world has its priorities screwed up, and so do those who group themselves under the blanket of "religion." The story elements are not what's important. Did Noah's Ark really land on a mountain in Turkey? It doesn't matter, not in the least. Whether it did or didn't doesn't change the message one bit, it doesn't change the story.

What is that discussion on gravity about? We are already 89 years past Einstein's theory of general relativity. Theory is a misleading word, anyways. You should be using model instead. A model can always be refined without necessarily contradicting the outset.
Good idea. I'll adapt to use the word 'model' more often.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
From your attitude, you'd actually think I'd LIVE in this paper house..?

That's a good one..!


The obvious comparison to my metaphor is that you study myths and their morals, but don't actually live by these morals. Well, okay. But from your repeated attempts to justify them, I'd assume that you're saying that the paper house is worth living in.

I study the bible too sometimes. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to have this discussion. But if you try to suggest to me that the house is worth living in, I will feel the need to differ. (This is regardless of whether the paper is decorated with pictures of things that aren't really there. I don't mind that part. In fact, that's one of the best uses for paper.)

Second part first,.. I DON'T study the bible, and I can still talk about this stuff. That has nothing to do with this discussion, as we're talking about "religion", not specifically (one of the varieties of) christianity.

.."The obvious comparison to my metaphor is that you study myths and their morals, but don't actually live by these morals."..

I live "with" my paper house, not "in" it.

I live "in" the house that is suitable for "living in".

I live "with" my paper house as an exercise in the "construction of beauty".

Your use of "house" is obviously metaphorically different than mine. Which is fine, and just proves (OH NO!!) that metaphores and stories are at the mercy of the minds interpreting them.

By "house" you seem to mean "the mental construct that we build to 'live in' that affects how we deal with the world". (My interpretation, again.)

Using that definition, your "testing" of my house consists of the nonsensical chirpings of a squirrel hurled against the "stone" of my "walls".

:)

I never have been relgious in any way and doubt i ever will be, what i would liek to know though is why a lot (not all) christians class the bible as proof that god exists

.."why a lot (not all) christians class the bible as proof that god exists"..

Proof..!?

Why do Muslims, the Koran..?

Why do Iakeokeoians, the Ia'ia..?

Why did Einstein, science..?

:)

Make up your own... Find some that better reflect you...
Metaphor is only useful for explaining things to others. Myself, I already know how I see things, not as Words nor as Metaphors, but as pure Meanings. Unfortunately, these Meanings cannot be directly communicated, so they need to be symbolized, either as two-layer Words or as three-layer Metaphors (see an earlier post of mine that explained these layers). When I want to communicate a message that I believe can be explained better with three layers than two, then I will do so.

...

Here I am, sitting in a cubicle. It's first-snow day. All I can think about is being out there this afternoon when the first flakes hit the ground, feeling the sub-zero wind on my cheek, and the fresh smell of snow. But instead I am stuck here in my cubicle having to pretend that financial forecasts are somehow important to me in any way, shape or form. The world has its priorities screwed up, and so do those who group themselves under the blanket of "religion." The story elements are not what's important. Did Noah's Ark really land on a mountain in Turkey? It doesn't matter, not in the least. Whether it did or didn't doesn't change the message one bit, it doesn't change the story.

My butt itches from the hot sand, and my Auntie's gonna KILL me if I don't get my chores done, but the REALLY important thing is the wave break at Iau'u beach on the other side o' the island..!

..which I couldn't get to in time today anyway..!

Do you give a crap.....!? Heck no..!

Do you see that I'm being a lazy ass..!?

I think you do...

..and that's the lesson of this little parable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Make up your own... Find some that better reflect you...

Metaphor is only useful for explaining things to others. Myself, I already know how I see things, not as Words nor as Metaphors, but as pure Meanings. Unfortunately, these Meanings cannot be directly communicated, so they need to be symbolized, either as two-layer Words or as three-layer Meanings (see an earlier post of mine that explained these layers). When I want to communicate a message that I believe can be explained better with three layers than two, then I will do so.

(( Which post was it that explained your layers theory..? # please.. :) ))

To use a metaphor is to share a metaphor, agreed.

You seem to imply that I don't like it when you choose to use a 3-layer message instead of a 2-layer message.

Why would I care, again..? And how do I show that I care..?

Metaphor is only useful for explaining things to others.
Metaphor can be a tremendous tool for explaining things to yourself, too!! It helps you think-in-terms.

For instance, when I think in terms of an "inner self" of mine, this is a metaphor - the actual, factual really-real world describes it in terms of chemical bonding and electrical flashes across the brain, but people don't experience these things when viewed from the mind --so we make up the world of "inner self" to describe things that cannot otherwise be comprehended, what goes on in the mind/heart/soul.

So metaphor can be used for think-in-terms, but it can also be shared with others as thinkin'-terms.

(( Which post was it that explained your layers theory..? # please.. :) ))
This one. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6972925&postcount=795)

EDIT: Also, you might have had trouble understanding because I mistyped "metaphor" as "meaning" in one place. Now corrected.

You seem to imply that I don't like it when you choose to use a 3-layer message instead of a 2-layer message.
That was not my intention, sorry if I was unclear. What I was saying is that I will use a three-layer message if I feel it would help, but I don't always feel it would help.

And before someone starts about myths, I do understand symbols. However, I do expect the symbol to stand for something. For example, neither the word "chicken" nor the word "cockatrice" really "exist", however, the former is a symbol for something that exists, while the latter is not. If I say "Hey look, a chicken!" then I'm actually saying something. If I say "Hey look, a cockatrice!" then I'm not.

Myths are the same thing, except that instead of a two-layer interpretation (words->literal meaning) there is a three-layer interpretation (words->literal meaning->figurative meaning).

Since the literal meaning is now a sublayer rather than a final layer, it is now possible for the-meaning-of-"chickens" as well as the-meaning-of-"cockatrices" to be valid symbol in this layer. But still, either way, it is possible that the final layer, the "true meaning", is nonexistant or wrong, due to the symbol(s) in the previous layer(s) being badly chosen.

What is the distinction between "words" and "literal meaning".

Just a nitpicky point. Just curious.

To me "words" are "literal meaning" in so much as one understands the language.

The phrase "Look a cockatrice!" is (as a phrase) a call to look (verb) for a thing (noun).

If the hearer didn't know what a cockatrice was, the "oh that's a metaphor" trigger would not be pulled, and there WOULD BE NO METAPHOR.

If the hearer DID know what cockatrices were, but believed them to be "real", then the metaphor trigger would STILL not snap and THERE WOULD BE NO METAPHOR.

If the hearer knew that cockatrices were mythical, the metaphor trigger would snap and another "meaning" of the sentence would be sought.

So,.... I've forgotten what we were talking about, after all that,... as apparently the cockatrice around the corner is making noises to try to get my attention.

:)

What is the distinction between "words" and "literal meaning".
A "word" is a blot of ink on paper (or a blot of pixels on a computer screen, or a sound wave). A "literal meaning" is the concept that we associate with that blot of ink (or...). Not all blots of ink (etc.) have a "literal meaning", some have multiple, and some are associated with interpretations that are meaningless literally, but useful as a symbol for a metaphor.

Of course, because you're used to using words as symbols all your life, you translate them into meanings subconciously. The translation is still taking place, but you're so used to it that you hardly notice.

The phrase "Look a cockatrice!" is (as a phrase) a call to look (verb) for a thing (noun).

If the hearer didn't know what a cockatrice was, the "oh that's a metaphor" trigger would not be pulled, and there WOULD BE NO METAPHOR.

If the hearer DID know what cockatrices were, but believed them to be "real", then the metaphor trigger would STILL not snap and THERE WOULD BE NO METAPHOR.

If the hearer knew that cockatrices were mythical, the metaphor trigger would snap and another "meaning" of the sentence would be sought.
This particular sentence was not meant as an example of a metaphor. It was meant as an example of a sentence that is meaningless when taken literally (whether or not it has any meaning as a metaphor).

Also, in your last case, there is the possibility that instead of looking for a metaphor, the person would assume that I'm hallucinating or delusional.

The phrase "Look a cockatrice!" is (as a phrase) a call to look (verb) for a thing (noun).

If the hearer didn't know what a cockatrice was, the "oh that's a metaphor" trigger would not be pulled, and there WOULD BE NO METAPHOR.
Now if, on the other hand, they said, "Here comes a really big wave, Kahuna!..." ;-)

I've been reading a WHOLE bunch of really anti-relgious threads recently on the forum. I hear people talking about how stupid you are if you believe in a religion. The problem is that I can call those people stupid for not believeing in a religion for the same reasons. The simple fact is that there's about as much proof of the Big Bang as there is that God spoke and the universe came into existence. And what's to say that God didn't cause the big bang himself? What do you think?

Actually that's incorrect. The big bang theory was created as a result of lots of scientific research. The biblical genesis is supported only by the writings in the bible. As for whether the big bang was caused by God, I agree that is a possibility.

I've been reading a WHOLE bunch of really anti-relgious threads recently on the forum. I hear people talking about how stupid you are if you believe in a religion. The problem is that I can call those people stupid for not believeing in a religion for the same reasons. The simple fact is that there's about as much proof of the Big Bang as there is that God spoke and the universe came into existence. And what's to say that God didn't cause the big bang himself? What do you think?

There is one answer that seems to me to be fairly correct. A religion is very real to people believing in that certain religion and not real to people not believing in that or any other religion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The phrase "Look a cockatrice!" is (as a phrase) a call to look (verb) for a thing (noun).

If the hearer didn't know what a cockatrice was, the "oh that's a metaphor" trigger would not be pulled, and there WOULD BE NO METAPHOR.


Now if, on the other hand, they said, "Here comes a really big wave, Kahuna!..." ;-)

<Iakeokeo's head snaps beach-ward in anticipation>

"Ohhhhhhh,.. dude,... thanks for the chiropractic on my neck, but did you have to do it THAT way..!?" said Iakeokeo.

The ephemeral can only be taught through metaphor, and only learned on a person by person basis. How one person reacts to something static is not how all people may react because of variables such as culture, experience, geography and many others which influence our lives. Individuality is something which we all must embrace, and accept that there are ultimately no universal truths except that as a species, we are naive.

...and some are associated with interpretations that are meaningless literally, but useful as a symbol for a metaphor.

This particular sentence was not meant as an example of a metaphor. It was meant as an example of a sentence that is meaningless when taken literally (whether or not it has any meaning as a metaphor).
If a symbol has no meaning for the writer, then any meaning the reader draws from it is "meaningless" interpretation. If it has meaning for the writer, and the reader "gets" the meaning, then it is a successful metaphor.

It has meaning not just standing alone but in context, often many layers of context. There can be context in the text; context in the religous group that surrounds it, in the rites and rituals that prime a mind to recognize the metaphor; context in the religion of the individual (their relationship with the godhood). There can be cultural, societal and geographical context. If, after all this, the reader really doesn't "get" it then there is no use making any interpretation, because nothing has any "real" meaning for him. In any case, it is left to the reader to draw the meaning from the metaphor, and if the metaphor is done well, the reader will "get" it.

But still, either way, it is possible that the final layer, the "true meaning", is nonexistant or wrong, due to the symbol(s) in the previous layer(s) being badly chosen.
Unlikely, though. It is, however, likely that the symbols no longer have meaning for modern man, in which case the religion, too, that depends on it has lost its usefulness.

Also, in your last case, there is the possibility that instead of looking for a metaphor, the person would assume that I'm hallucinating or delusional.
Depends on your presentation, I would say. ;-)

Just thought I'd share this ...God is sitting in heaven when a scientist prays to Him.

"God, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing -- in other words, we can now do what You did in the beginning."

"Oh, is that so? Tell Me..." replies God.

"Well," says the scientist, "we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of You and breathe life into it, thus creating man."

"Well, that's very interesting...show Me."

So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil into the shape of a man.

"No, no, no..." interrupts God, "Get your own dirt.

Haha. Clever. Is this saying that we need a way to create dirt or what?

Hey! I figured out what the *bump* is.