Religion Therapy

[My_Thoughts]

So if a secular source is quoted it is still suspect because the author is a Christian? That's a bit like saying that if someone believes what they experience they can't be trusted.

In a day of PC and ultra-sensitivity to other people groups, this seems like profiling to a extreme degree. I don't mind it. Information may be correct, but the reliability of its accuracy is only as good as its source.

I guess it's fair to question sources you deem unreliable. I just wonder if there is any news the messenger can deliver, that won't just be scrutinized but immediately rejected.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  The Jewish Talmud, the Christian Bible and the Islamic Koran all make extraordinary claims and provide no evidence. Religions throughout time have done this.  Odin sacrificed an eye for the knowledge of the runes (he learnt to read).  This can be proven as the Eddas say he had lost an eye,  though I am not sure if any Jews, Christians or Muslims would accept that as evidence.

[Oobly]

So many good and valid points made in these recent posts, and kudos for sharing your experiences. It's been a hard road for most of you.

I agree in the separation of church and state. A political party should not have influence in the governance of the church and vice versa. However I consider it irresponsible to completely abstain from voting for "religious" reasons. If you have no preference at all for either party and they're both just as "evil" in your opinion, then sure, abstain. But if one party is "less evil" in your eyes, abstaining will make it more likely for the "more evil" party to be voted in (since your vote would have opposed them). And if we "stop voting for evil politicians" then who is left to vote for?  That is almost a valid reason for abstention, but since one party will get in despite your abstention, don't you have to a duty to try to make it the one that has a better chance of making people's lives better?

About abortion, my view is shaped from science, ethics and philosophy, with a little personal experience thrown in. It should not even be a "religious" issue, IMO.

At conception, the cells of the embryo are not the same as that of the mother, they are genetically and chemically different. They constitute a separate living organism, with my definition of "living" derived from biological definitions (if something has metabolism and growth it fits well inside the defining boundaries). Admittedly, it's supported by the mother, with complete dependence on everything it needs. However, there are different levels of dependence at different stages, depending on it's needs and it's current capability. A newborn baby has the same dependence for food and caretaking as a fetus, the only aspect that it's no longer dependent on is breathing / oxygen.

Many people confuse the issue by asking "when does a fetus become a person"? That's impossible to answer, IMHO. Is it when the blood starts to flow? When there are detectable brainwave patterns? When the heart starts beating? Better safe than sorry, I say. If left without interference, a fertilised egg will first become a fetus and then a baby. The number of mothers who've aborted who regret the decision is high, and sometimes the emotional burden is immense. There are cases that deserve consideration, such as rape and very severe disabilities detected early, but those are edge case and should be considered on a case by case basis, by the parents, medical professionals and experienced counselors.

My sister fell pregnant at the age of 15. It really was not feasible to raise a child in our home at the time, life was rather... complicated. Our father died while she was pregnant. Abortion was never considered, however. When the baby was born he was put up for adoption. Sad story, but life continued and she moved on. Then in 2008 he made contact with our family after his wife persuaded him It's just amazing to see the man he has become. The world is most definitely a better place for having him in it and I doubt any person would in the long term feel differently about other "unwanted pregnancies".

Like I said, however, I think that's actually at least partly off-topic for the thread, since I don't consider it a "religious" issue as such.

@Waateva: Yes, Jesus came to fulfill the Law. Which He did by meeting all of the requirements and becoming the guilt sacrifice for all men. This frees us from the letter of the law, since by following the spirit of it, we are adhering to it more accurately than by doing the rituals / following it by the letter. Look at the passages where Jesus is accused of doing work on the Sabbath and breaking Laws of the Sabbath. In all cases He had not broken the actual letter of the law, but the interpretations of these laws over time led to such strict limitations that the spirit of it was lost. Something interesting to note in the summary of the Law given by Jesus is the requirement to also love oneself. Lots of people focus on the "loving your neighbour" part and neglect the "as yourself" and many of them even neglect the "Love God" part.

And how can you love someone you've never met or don't know much about? Many religions follow the route of trying to show such "love" through ritual and many works, discipline and sacrifice. But that's not the same as truly loving, which requires knowing the person you're supposed to love and letting your "acts of devotion" flow naturally from your love for them. So I don't consider most of the rituals and disciplines of many churches and religions to be all that valuable, except for the general self control and natural benefits of such acts, unless they match how you personally desire to show your love for Him.

And many people know that they should love God, so they try through these types of actions, without realising the emptiness of such gestures without actual love for God.

1 Corinthians 13:3 - "If I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it does me no good at all."

It's all about your personal interaction with the Creator. And he respects honesty over "works".

For many years I was angry with Him about my father's death, but I wouldn't admit it to myself because I'd been indoctrinated with thoughts like "who knows the thoughts of God", "His ways are not our ways", "He is perfect", "you don't question Him", etc. Eventually I'd had enough and verbally let Him have it, serious fury and tears, etc. I prefer not to think of what my neighbours must have thought. And that marked the start of a new, far more intimate and honest relationship with Him. I didn't realise how much that was holding me back and how much He prefers honesty to trying to do the right thing.

@neverused: I agree that it wasn't right to take pagan rituals and celebrations and "Christianise" them. That's what led to the weird mishmash of traditions we have at Christmas and Easter. It would be better if they were left separate and we could celebrate the birth, death and resurrection of Christ without all the leftover associated pagan traditions mixed in.

Freedom from rituals that are not benefiting you is fine and noble. It's better to be honest than to pour energy into "empty" works.

IMHO, Christianity is very much a personal thing. It's about you and God, not you and the church and your family and friends and the dog and God, although there are benefits to meeting with likeminded people who have the same worldview that comes from this personal relationship. It's like being in a group of people who have a common close friend, just that the friend happens to be the Creator, which changes the dynamics slightly.

[Oobly]

So if a secular source is quoted it is still suspect because the author is a Christian? That's a bit like saying that if someone believes what they experience they can't be trusted.

In a day of PC and ultra-sensitivity to other people groups, this seems like profiling to a extreme degree. I don't mind it. Information may be correct, but the reliability of its accuracy is only as good as its source.

I guess it's fair to question sources you deem unreliable. I just wonder if there is any news the messenger can deliver, that won't just be scrutinized but immediately rejected.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  The Jewish Talmud, the Christian Bible and the Islamic Koran all make extraordinary claims and provide no evidence. Religions throughout time have done this.  Odin sacrificed an eye for the knowledge of the runes (he learnt to read).  This can be proven as the Eddas say he had lost an eye,  though I am not sure if any Jews, Christians or Muslims would accept that as evidence.

I agree, but here's a little flaw for your Odin comparision. There is no corroboration for the historical existence of Odin and all writings that include him are in the style of poetic or prose Eddas, not in the style of sagas, their historical stories. There are also colossal differences between versions of the Eddas.

There is historical corroboration for the existence of Jesus and the writings detailing His life and ministry are in factual style, with Luke especially noting particular places, people, events and times.

[kurplop]

I have found the Jehovah's Witnesses to be devout followers of their faith. I have disagreements with some of their teachings, in fact their view on grace could be the reason why you felt the duty but not the joy and freedom common among many mainstream evangelicals.

I'm not sure that because something is practiced by pagans automatically makes it wrong. I'm sure they ate breakfast in the morning and got drowsy at bedtime also. I don't think it's the practice as much as the reasons for doing it and the over emphasis on it.

 Thanks for further sharing your experience. I wish you the best.

[fohat.digs]

Making judgements about groups of individuals or individuals in groups has its dangers as well.

I agree.

My point, directly and succinctly, is that anybody who voted for Bush Jr and his cronies has the blood of thousands of Iraqis on his hands and that was such a monumental crime against humanity that I cannot respect them until they take responsibility for that fact in some tangible way  - for example - never again voting for a warmonger, even if he does promise to lower their tax rate by a few percentage points.'
 

[fohat.digs]

And, lest my pacifist intentions be mis-read, let me say that ISIS is a very real threat to the stability of the world. They must be stopped, and there are no options to their extremism except military ones.

However, the first essential step towards peace (or at least detente) between the Islamic world and the West is the permanent withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Palestinian territories. As long as Israelis are occupying Palestinian land, even moderate Muslims cannot help but see us as duplicitous and disingenuous.

And therefore not trustworthy. The real solution, of course, is a valid world government, which the UN is not.

[Waateva]

Waateva,

I enjoyed your summary of your journey through and from faith. I've been to a few of those "speaking in tongues" meetings and I found them a bit unsettling too. I honestly don't know what to think of them. I also am concerned about the absolute statements made about things that may be a bit grayer than a quick glance may suggest. Your writing makes it apparent that you are very insightful. I'm curious about your age.

Something important to remember is that not all people have the depth that you seem to have both intellectually and in your awareness of things. Combined with that, you seem like a nice guy. I've had the privilege of being at a Church that is very close to an Evangelical Seminary and as a result we have several professors at my Church that help keep the standard of intellectual honesty high. Along with that, while we have our share of bad apples, overall I've been impressed with the integrity and love displayed by our members. I guess that's why I'm so interested in how other Christians behavior has affected your perspective.

I wouldn't be comfortable with the overt public praying and laying on of hands either. Not that I necessarily am against it but I'm more reserve and assume others wouldn't want the spectacle either. Also I've heard on good authority that you get good results by "going into a closet and praying in secret".

I would be dishonest if I said I'm not concerned that you left the faith but I do believe your honest contemplations will take you to the right place. Belief  is a funny thing. Do you believe because you want to or do you believe because you're convinced in the veracity of the claims first? Who knows?

I'm glad you enjoyed my rambling!  I somewhat recently turned 31 which isn't as bad as everyone made it sound like and is actually quite nice!  I don't have to worry about going out to the bar at night so that I can be hung over in the morning, but I guess you also have to actually grow up and pay your bills on time too so its a toss-up.

I'm happy to hear that you have a good community at your church, as I do believe that having good people around you is beneficial whether you're Christian or not.  You can also assume that there will be bad apples, as there are with any decently sized community, in any church you just need to be careful that they don't poison the well for the others.  Growing up I went to three different churches in two different areas of Michigan, and two out of the three had church splits.  I was not old enough to understand the reasoning for one of them but the last church that I attended has been hemorrhaging members over the last 15 years due to a combination of bad members, extreme beliefs, and what I consider bad teaching and leadership.  This isn't remotely unheard of in my area as you can't go a mile without running into a church or two, and a lot of these churches were setup due to splits with other churches in the area.

On the subject of church splits and unsavory leadership but not related to much else, I also have the "privilege" of having a somewhat niche specialty at my job.  I work at an accounting firm but I personally deal more with tax preparation, health insurance, and unofficial IT capacities but during tax season I am one of only two people in the office who deals with pastoral tax returns.  Pastors have some funky rules in regards to their compensation while also having the housing allowance, which I could certainly rant against for hours but won't for the sake of staying on topic, and therefore you need to know these rules before you can prepare one of their returns properly.  In the almost 5 years that I have been doing them, both myself and the other person (a devoted Christian) who prepares returns for clergy members have grown to almost have a disdain for ministers when it comes to taxes. 

You see, the housing allowance that they receive is an amount of their income that is designated at the beginning of the year to go towards housing which encompasses mortgage payments, property taxes, housing additions, cable TV and/or internet, cleaning supplies, windows, furniture, appliances, and even pools and their maintenance but the great part for them is that it is income tax free, and if you decide to file the nifty IRS form 4361 you receive that compensation self-employment tax free as well!  This basically results in anywhere from $10,000 to $45,000, the amounts my personal clients are paid but those amounts have no ceiling established by the IRS, being completely tax free to pay for pretty much anything besides vehicles and food and because of this, these clergy members try and wiggle any expenses that they can into the housing allowance.  I never thought I would see the day that pastors of prominent churches of hundreds and even thousands of members would try and slip their car payments or dinners at TGI Fridays under their housing allowance, but this happens with over 60-70% of my pastoral clients.  These are people who are teaching their members every Sunday to be honest, to be devout, to give your tithe as God instructed only to turn around and try to abuse a perk specific to their occupation to save a couple hundred bucks in tax on a yearly basis.  If this was something that happened once and then stopped I wouldn't care so much or be as salty about it, but seeing the same people come in year after year trying to get away with the same thing while claiming to be men of God I would be lying if I said this didn't lower my opinion of the clergy.

Now, to try and get back on topic, I can't say for sure that this information has had a negative impact on my views of the church as a whole, but seeing so much hypocrisy among the leaders of the churches in my area probably didn't help it at all.  I still have plenty of issues with the theological side side of Christianity that I don't feel like this information has swayed me definitively away from the church, even if I agree with some of the basic concepts that are present. 

I will try and respond to some of the other things in this thread at a later time but work has to be done at the moment!

[Parak]

I agree, but here's a little flaw for your Odin comparision. There is no corroboration for the historical existence of Odin and all writings that include him are in the style of poetic or prose Eddas, not in the style of sagas, their historical stories. There are also colossal differences between versions of the Eddas.

There is historical corroboration for the existence of Jesus and the writings detailing His life and ministry are in factual style, with Luke especially noting particular places, people, events and times.

Odin was perhaps not the most apt comparison in this particular case, but since we're on the trend of historical corroboration... There are plenty of other religions that have their founder prominent in their respective holy books, with at least some supporting secular evidence for their basic existence. I'm curious what your opinion is on them also performing miracles of various sort (which is generally not supported by secular sources), and whether you would draw any parallels to historical support for Jesus and his miracles in particular. So, here's a bit of a list:

Zoroaster (another interesting religion to add to Jainism and Sikhism that I mentioned earlier, but I digress)
Buddha
Muhammad
Joseph Smith

Of course, the million dollar question that this leads up to is being that claims of miracles and historical evidence are quite common in various religions, why would one of them be more or exclusively true?

[Oobly]

I agree, but here's a little flaw for your Odin comparision. There is no corroboration for the historical existence of Odin and all writings that include him are in the style of poetic or prose Eddas, not in the style of sagas, their historical stories. There are also colossal differences between versions of the Eddas.

There is historical corroboration for the existence of Jesus and the writings detailing His life and ministry are in factual style, with Luke especially noting particular places, people, events and times.

Odin was perhaps not the most apt comparison in this particular case, but since we're on the trend of historical corroboration... There are plenty of other religions that have their founder prominent in their respective holy books, with at least some supporting secular evidence for their basic existence. I'm curious what your opinion is on them also performing miracles of various sort (which is generally not supported by secular sources), and whether you would draw any parallels to historical support for Jesus and his miracles in particular. So, here's a bit of a list:

Zoroaster (another interesting religion to add to Jainism and Sikhism that I mentioned earlier, but I digress)
Buddha
Muhammad
Joseph Smith

Of course, the million dollar question that this leads up to is being that claims of miracles and historical evidence are quite common in various religions, why would one of them be more or exclusively true?

I am only making the claim that I believe the Christian expression of God and the way He works is accurate from my own personal testing of it's basic hypotheses and the positive results I experienced.

It remains a personal thing and is up to each individual to investigate, test and make their own decisions of what to believe or not. The "burden of proof" always lies with the individual. I can merely let you know some of the reasons I believe, I cannot"prove" to you something that you can only gain full "proof" of through your own personal experience.

[kurplop]

Making judgements about groups of individuals or individuals in groups has its dangers as well.

I agree.

My point, directly and succinctly, is that anybody who voted for Bush Jr and his cronies has the blood of thousands of Iraqis on his hands and that was such a monumental crime against humanity that I cannot respect them until they take responsibility for that fact in some tangible way  - for example - never again voting for a warmonger, even if he does promise to lower their tax rate by a few percentage points.'
 

I'm going to try to restrict my discussion to the thread topic when possible. However, I do think that it is important to not let your comments go without response. In the future, if we want to discuss politics, we should probably start a new thread.

Knowing now what we do, most people who supported going into Iraq, in hindsight would probably say that it was a mistake. I would number myself among them. I also voted for Bush so I guess that I'm one of the people (according to you) with the blood of tens of thousands on my hands.  I don't however feel a great sense of guilt about it. I do feel regret however. Nor do I think that our elected officials, left and right, should feel that burden. Although some evidence was presented to think that the threat was minimal, the overwhelming evidence indicated otherwise. Enough at least to convince an overwhelming percentage of Congress to support it. Acting on bad information is different than intentional hostility against the innocent.

I wasn't sure of what the exact definition is of a warmonger so I looked it up. Apparently, it's a political leader or activist who advocates aggression or warfare against another group. By that definition, any leader who encourages warfare is by definition a warmonger. Because I agree with you that it is in the best interests of all nations for Isis to be stopped,  just who would you allow me to vote for? Would you be allowed to vote for a leader that would take aggressive action but not me because I already voted for my warmonger?

I also find it telling how completely you've swallowed the leftist dogma by broad brushing anyone who votes for a conservative candidate as being someone doing so purely out of selfish self-interest. I mentioned earlier how we should be cautious about judging a persons motives. You must not agree. You may continue to do so but at your own peril. You're just sounding narrow-minded.

Real peace in the world begins by learning to get along with your neighbor, even if they don't agree with you.

[Oobly]

Regarding the whole science and faith theme:

The big issue, IMO, is that the commonly accepted ages and timescale for cosmological and geological events do not match a literal interpretation of the creation record in Genesis. This is a problem if you think the creation record should be interpreted that way, as it creates a clash between two very strong components of a Christian scientist's worldview.

Looking purely at the Genesis account in terms of clear translation and interpretations from the original Hebrew it seems to quite obviously indicate that the "days" used to separate and group the creation events are set as a lightness / darkness cyle. " And there was evening and there was morning, one day." or "the first day". Each period of creation has a statement like this at the end.

Looking purely at the cosmological evidence for the calculated age of the universe (calculated Hubble constant, stellar distances, the microwave background radiation, etc) it's pretty convincing that they've made some good estimates, or at least set the minimum age reasonably accurately. Then you also have radiometric dating and other geological methods of age estimation for the earth, which also seem reasonably reliable (although there are anomalies and some rather odd natural occurences that make them less reliable than the cosmological data).

They're both convincing and they're both claimed to be "the truth".

So what do you do?

What I did was to go back to the most important "evidences" for me, personally. For me, that's the unchangable internal base "truth" of the existence of the Creator and that the way to initiate contact with Him is through Christ. Since that is what happened to me and it's the most "real" event of my life. This is also the core message of the Bible, so those parts that explain these things that match my experience are solid, they're "true" for me. The rest of the Bible is supporting data that helps me understand more about God, can be encouraging, motivating, etc. Some parts are massively valuable as instruction on how to deal with specific situations, how to behave, etc. There's still a fair amount I don't fully understand, though.

In terms of the relative "ratings" of the commonly accepted scientific stance and the rest of the Bible, since my experience has shown the core theme and some further parts of the Bible to be true through experience, it has a good track record with me and it's natural to assume the truth of the rest of it. It doesn't change (will qualify this below). Theories in cosmology and other areas of science do. On the other hand, certain interpretations of the Bible do change when more evidence comes to light as it did after Galileo had his disputes with the church. By the way, he believed his theories to be entirely compatible with the Bible, it was just the currently held interpretation of the organised "church" that disagreed.

Then you have some very interesting verses like those found in Job (most likely the oldest written manuscript of the Bible from analysis of the language used), where God, speaking from the storm, says "Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?" (King James version). The names are translations from the originals of "chimah", the sign which appears in the heavens at the spring of the year, and "chesil", the sign which presents itself when the season is cold and severe. Early commentators talked about the seasons, etc, but they missed something of rather greater significance, since they didn't have the astronomic measurements of these particular clusters that we do now. The stars of the Pleiades are gravity bound to each other and moving as one, whereas "Orion's belt" is separating, the components (one is actually a multi-star) are moving in different directions.

The next verse says "Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?". They still haven't figured out the Mazzaroth reference, but Arcturus was properly identified before the time of the King James translation ("ayith" in the Hebrew). It's moving, really fast, and not in a common direction with other stars of the Milky Way (except those I will mention next). It's got a group of at least 52 other stars traveling with it (the Arcturus Stream), cutting perpendicularly across the disc of the Milky Way.

These discoveries of the natures of the clusters and stars have occured recently, with the discovery of the Arcturus Stream in 1971.

This also helps highlight a reason I prefer the King James translation over most "modern" translations. In most of the modern versions, the people preparing the texts have made "best guesses" in a lot of cases to the meaning of things they don't understand, whereas the older transcribers / translaters tended to be more literal and preserved the meaning of the original documents more accurately.

There are also many other verses that mention facts about the universe that have since been confirmed by modern science, but didn't match ancient science. Here is a small list of some of these that I am currently aware of:

Deep ocean springs: Job 38:16
Earth is "hung on nothing": Job 26:7
Undersea mountains / trenches: Jonah 2:5-6
Beginning of universe - big bang theory: Genesis 1:1
The water cycle: Job 36:27-28
Expansion of the universe (stretching / stretches / stretched / spread out the heavens): many places
Air has mass: Job 28:25

So in that sense it's quite reasonable to expect the Bible to stand and the various theories of "common" science to eventually conform to it.

Unless the current commonly accepted interpretation needs correction, as it was in the time of Galileo.

It's also important to note that that the Heliocentric model of the solar system can still fit with a Geocentric view of the universe. In fact, the position of Earth in the universe is currently (supposedly) unknowable, since we (again, supposedly) cannot perceive the actual edges of the universe. So we are at the center of the "observable universe", simply because we are the observers and can only perceive out to a certain radius. I say "supposedly" since this is dependent on the concept of "proper distance".

[Thimplum]

I just logged on for the first time in, I dunno, a year(?), and it looks like drama has stayed alive and well since I was last here.

[Waateva]

I just logged on for the first time in, I dunno, a year(?), and it looks like drama has stayed alive and well since I was last here.

I wouldn't really call it drama, I think the discussions in this thread have been very cordial and amicable for the most part.

[SpAmRaY]

I just logged on for the first time in, I dunno, a year(?), and it looks like drama has stayed alive and well since I was last here.

This is an actual discussion.

But sure there's still plenty of drama around in other threads.

[skycrimes]

I'm a pretty religious guy and I do what I can to coexist science into religion even though i'm not really big on science (in the sense that I don't read scientific journals and keep up with all the new things going on, I mean I always thought science class was cool and interesting but outside of school I have other interests). I respect what we can physically see and study and I think its a misstep for religion to try to ignore that.

I'm LDS so I've done the two years of preaching, but I mean I respect if you don't believe in god, believe my religion is weird, or do things that my religion would find "wrong". Some of my best friends do drugs regularly and used to make fun of my religion all the time as a kid (not maliciously). I do try to make it known that my choices aren't usually influenced by my religion but by my own personally beliefs. For example, those friends won't offer me drugs because my religion says its wrong but because they know that regardless of if I believed in God or not that I wouldn't do those things anyways (health reasons for one).

I think when believing in anything especially religion (since it isn't so easily provable) that you need to understand why and ask questions. Why do you find this or that immoral? Is it because the bible says so? or because the bible says so and you asked a lot of questions why and came to the conclusion on your own whether or not something is right or wrong.

While doing my 2 year church mission probably one of the most important things I learned was from an atheist who wasn't interested in what we had to say. I don't have much familiarity with atheists and for some reason I had this misplaced idea that if you are atheist why not just go commit all sorts of crimes and just live a life based on carnal instincts, because if there is no god (or moral punishment then why does anything you do matter?). So this guy I came across told me that in his view if there is nothing after this life then that means that this life is super important. So everything you do needs to be to the best of your ability. So the reason you don't commit crime for example is to avoid jail and thus avoiding wasting part of your one life away.

So in other words I've learned to just be nice to people and make the most of your time. Life is too short to be offended/offend.

[Waateva]

I agree, but here's a little flaw for your Odin comparision. There is no corroboration for the historical existence of Odin and all writings that include him are in the style of poetic or prose Eddas, not in the style of sagas, their historical stories. There are also colossal differences between versions of the Eddas.

There is historical corroboration for the existence of Jesus and the writings detailing His life and ministry are in factual style, with Luke especially noting particular places, people, events and times.

Odin was perhaps not the most apt comparison in this particular case, but since we're on the trend of historical corroboration... There are plenty of other religions that have their founder prominent in their respective holy books, with at least some supporting secular evidence for their basic existence. I'm curious what your opinion is on them also performing miracles of various sort (which is generally not supported by secular sources), and whether you would draw any parallels to historical support for Jesus and his miracles in particular. So, here's a bit of a list:

Zoroaster (another interesting religion to add to Jainism and Sikhism that I mentioned earlier, but I digress)
Buddha
Muhammad
Joseph Smith

Of course, the million dollar question that this leads up to is being that claims of miracles and historical evidence are quite common in various religions, why would one of them be more or exclusively true?

I am only making the claim that I believe the Christian expression of God and the way He works is accurate from my own personal testing of it's basic hypotheses and the positive results I experienced.

It remains a personal thing and is up to each individual to investigate, test and make their own decisions of what to believe or not. The "burden of proof" always lies with the individual. I can merely let you know some of the reasons I believe, I cannot"prove" to you something that you can only gain full "proof" of through your own personal experience.

Given this information, would you agree that your belief structure along with others is hugely influenced by your current location, upbringing, and birthplace?  I know that there are probably millions and millions of people from all different religions all over the world who have "proven" to themselves through various means that their particular religion or even their particular branch of religion is the correct one, which as you said is up to them for what they decide is correct in their own life.  Also, if this is true, would you entertain the thought that there could be a single common deity that encompasses the Abrahamic religions and that the differences between Catholics, Christians, Muslims, and Jews are small enough that they could enter one common afterlife?

Regarding the whole science and faith theme:

The big issue, IMO, is that the commonly accepted ages and timescale for cosmological and geological events do not match a literal interpretation of the creation record in Genesis. This is a problem if you think the creation record should be interpreted that way, as it creates a clash between two very strong components of a Christian scientist's worldview.

Looking purely at the Genesis account in terms of clear translation and interpretations from the original Hebrew it seems to quite obviously indicate that the "days" used to separate and group the creation events are set as a lightness / darkness cyle. " And there was evening and there was morning, one day." or "the first day". Each period of creation has a statement like this at the end.

Looking purely at the cosmological evidence for the calculated age of the universe (calculated Hubble constant, stellar distances, the microwave background radiation, etc) it's pretty convincing that they've made some good estimates, or at least set the minimum age reasonably accurately. Then you also have radiometric dating and other geological methods of age estimation for the earth, which also seem reasonably reliable (although there are anomalies and some rather odd natural occurences that make them less reliable than the cosmological data).

They're both convincing and they're both claimed to be "the truth".

So what do you do?

What I did was to go back to the most important "evidences" for me, personally. For me, that's the unchangable internal base "truth" of the existence of the Creator and that the way to initiate contact with Him is through Christ. Since that is what happened to me and it's the most "real" event of my life. This is also the core message of the Bible, so those parts that explain these things that match my experience are solid, they're "true" for me. The rest of the Bible is supporting data that helps me understand more about God, can be encouraging, motivating, etc. Some parts are massively valuable as instruction on how to deal with specific situations, how to behave, etc. There's still a fair amount I don't fully understand, though.

In terms of the relative "ratings" of the commonly accepted scientific stance and the rest of the Bible, since my experience has shown the core theme and some further parts of the Bible to be true through experience, it has a good track record with me and it's natural to assume the truth of the rest of it. It doesn't change (will qualify this below). Theories in cosmology and other areas of science do. On the other hand, certain interpretations of the Bible do change when more evidence comes to light as it did after Galileo had his disputes with the church. By the way, he believed his theories to be entirely compatible with the Bible, it was just the currently held interpretation of the organised "church" that disagreed.

Then you have some very interesting verses like those found in Job (most likely the oldest written manuscript of the Bible from analysis of the language used), where God, speaking from the storm, says "Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?" (King James version). The names are translations from the originals of "chimah", the sign which appears in the heavens at the spring of the year, and "chesil", the sign which presents itself when the season is cold and severe. Early commentators talked about the seasons, etc, but they missed something of rather greater significance, since they didn't have the astronomic measurements of these particular clusters that we do now. The stars of the Pleiades are gravity bound to each other and moving as one, whereas "Orion's belt" is separating, the components (one is actually a multi-star) are moving in different directions.

The next verse says "Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?". They still haven't figured out the Mazzaroth reference, but Arcturus was properly identified before the time of the King James translation ("ayith" in the Hebrew). It's moving, really fast, and not in a common direction with other stars of the Milky Way (except those I will mention next). It's got a group of at least 52 other stars traveling with it (the Arcturus Stream), cutting perpendicularly across the disc of the Milky Way.

These discoveries of the natures of the clusters and stars have occured recently, with the discovery of the Arcturus Stream in 1971.

This also helps highlight a reason I prefer the King James translation over most "modern" translations. In most of the modern versions, the people preparing the texts have made "best guesses" in a lot of cases to the meaning of things they don't understand, whereas the older transcribers / translaters tended to be more literal and preserved the meaning of the original documents more accurately.

There are also many other verses that mention facts about the universe that have since been confirmed by modern science, but didn't match ancient science. Here is a small list of some of these that I am currently aware of:

Deep ocean springs: Job 38:16
Earth is "hung on nothing": Job 26:7
Undersea mountains / trenches: Jonah 2:5-6
Beginning of universe - big bang theory: Genesis 1:1
The water cycle: Job 36:27-28
Expansion of the universe (stretching / stretches / stretched / spread out the heavens): many places
Air has mass: Job 28:25

So in that sense it's quite reasonable to expect the Bible to stand and the various theories of "common" science to eventually conform to it.

Unless the current commonly accepted interpretation needs correction, as it was in the time of Galileo.

It's also important to note that that the Heliocentric model of the solar system can still fit with a Geocentric view of the universe. In fact, the position of Earth in the universe is currently (supposedly) unknowable, since we (again, supposedly) cannot perceive the actual edges of the universe. So we are at the center of the "observable universe", simply because we are the observers and can only perceive out to a certain radius. I say "supposedly" since this is dependent on the concept of "proper distance".

The amount of people who believe in a literal interpretation of the bible seems to be increasing yearly, and this is part of the problem IMO.  I realize that the Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis are still in the minority, but even those who don't still seem to have issues with a billion year or older earth.  This represents problems when trying to tie science and faith together as science isn't really a system that works well with picking and choosing what parts of it you want to believe, even if the information coming in is constantly changing.

For yourself and many others, the bible not changing (beyond some interpretation) is a good thing, for myself and many others it is a bad thing.  I can certainly see the comfort in believing in something that doesn't change, but the truth of the matter is that we are constantly expanding our knowledge of the universe and it's workings and I believe that the approach taken by science of constant change is a more appropriate approach for this constant flow of information.  This contrasts with a system that is already set in stone, and therefore any new information that comes in needs to fit into the predetermined roles already laid out by the belief structure, with any new information shown in line with roles being lauded as proof and anything contrary as falsities. 

Using your examples of things later proven by science, so many of them seem to be things that are proven by science than back-checked to the bible.  For example:

1.  You mention Job 38:32 and the mention of "Arcturus and his sons" supposedly in reference to the Arcturus Stream which was discovered in 1971, when they could have just as easily been referring to the constellation Bootes which has been known since early antiquity and could've just been common knowledge from the time that Job was written. 
2.  For undersea mountains and trenches from Jonah 2:5-6, even disregarding that this is a from book about a man being swallowed whole by a fish or whale and surviving for three days and nights, there are really only two options for what is under the water right?  If could either be flat or cavernous, and if you have a 50/50 chance of getting the "answer" right I would hardly consider that as proof that the bible provided. 
3.  For Genesis 1:1 which states, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." and nothing more.  How can this be proof of any kind, unless you are taking the bible literally?  I mean, that could be certainly taken as the big-bang if you wanted, but it could be taken in about an hundred other ways as well. 
4.  We move onto Job 26:7 which states the earth "hangs on nothing," yet if we take a look at Psalm 104:5 apparently "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."  We know now that the earth, while not hanging on anything, certainly is within the gravity of the Sun and therefore not an actual free-floating planet like rogue planets.
5.  In Job 28:25, I feel like most people, ancient or not, would acknowledge that air has a certain weight to it, but I don't think that the bible is actually referring to mass.  My take on this verse is that its referring to the force behind the wind which everyone can feel and acknowledge, and this version seems to be what almost all versions besides the KJV refer to.
6.  For Job 36:27-28, I am going to have to agree with the bible here.  This information is accurate for the most part and ahead of its time.

So given the above 6 examples, 5 of them can be shoe-horned into what we have found through the scientific method and then applied to the bible.  This looks to me like a community trying to catch up to the scientific progress of the last couple hundred years while also maintaining that their holy book foretold these things.  It reminds me of watching those TV shows where they have psychics on and they kind of fish for information from the person they are speaking with, and they either expound on the information or correct it based on the responses of that person.

[kurplop]

I just logged on for the first time in, I dunno, a year(?), and it looks like drama has stayed alive and well since I was last here.

I wouldn't really call it drama, I think the discussions in this thread have been very cordial and amicable for the most part.

I agree. I'm enjoying our exchanges and continue being challenged by some good thoughts from different perspectives.

[Waateva]

While doing my 2 year church mission probably one of the most important things I learned was from an atheist who wasn't interested in what we had to say. I don't have much familiarity with atheists and for some reason I had this misplaced idea that if you are atheist why not just go commit all sorts of crimes and just live a life based on carnal instincts, because if there is no god (or moral punishment then why does anything you do matter?). So this guy I came across told me that in his view if there is nothing after this life then that means that this life is super important. So everything you do needs to be to the best of your ability. So the reason you don't commit crime for example is to avoid jail and thus avoiding wasting part of your one life away.

I like this quote from Penn Jillette in regards to morality without God:

"The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you."

[Thimplum]

I just logged on for the first time in, I dunno, a year(?), and it looks like drama has stayed alive and well since I was last here.

This is an actual discussion.

But sure there's still plenty of drama around in other threads.

Wow, whoops! I meant to post this in another thread.

[RELLIK]

Wait, whats a Religion again? 

[kurplop]

[quote author=Waateva link=topic=77257.msg1952685#msg1952685 date=1448923344

Given this information, would you agree that your belief structure along with others is hugely influenced by your current location, upbringing, and birthplace?  I know that there are probably millions and millions of people from all different religions all over the world who have "proven" to themselves through various means that their particular religion or even their particular branch of religion is the correct one, which as you said is up to them for what they decide is correct in their own life.  Also, if this is true, would you entertain the thought that there could be a single common deity that encompasses the Abrahamic religions and that the differences between Catholics, Christians, Muslims, and Jews are small enough that they could enter one common afterlife?
[/quote]

Very good question and one I've wondered about.  Jesus said that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and that no man can come to the Father but by Him. The question then becomes, can Jesus be the bridge between mankind and God if they don't follow the conventional Christian method of receiving forgiveness through Christ's sacrifice? I think there may be room for that.

When Jesus told the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, he said the tax collector was the one who left justified. What did he do? He said, God, have mercy on me, a sinner". I think the elements for getting right with God is contained in those words.  He acknowledged there is a God and he recognized his need for God's mercy because he didn't live up to God's standards. He may not have known that God is merciful. He may have had no assurance that he was forgiven. He couldn't have known that Jesus would pay the debt for his shortcomings. All he knew was that he was estranged from God and all he could do is humble himself before his creator.  Jesus said he was forgiven.

Can  people who haven't heard the Christian message be forgiven? I think it's very possible that God may have different routes for them. I think that it still involves the sacrifice that only God can supply but I do think there could be room for that. At the same time, Jesus also said, "Depart from Me, I never knew you" to many who thought that they were His followers but weren't.  The common thread running through true believers seems to be a humility that starts with an acknowledgement of His greatness and the believers complete need for His grace.

[Oobly]

While doing my 2 year church mission probably one of the most important things I learned was from an atheist who wasn't interested in what we had to say. I don't have much familiarity with atheists and for some reason I had this misplaced idea that if you are atheist why not just go commit all sorts of crimes and just live a life based on carnal instincts, because if there is no god (or moral punishment then why does anything you do matter?). So this guy I came across told me that in his view if there is nothing after this life then that means that this life is super important. So everything you do needs to be to the best of your ability. So the reason you don't commit crime for example is to avoid jail and thus avoiding wasting part of your one life away.

I like this quote from Penn Jillette in regards to morality without God:

"The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you."

All Penn is showing is they don't understand the argument. The point is not that as an atheist you don't have morality, rather that because you do, it points to the existence of some external source. The existence of morality does not fit in the scientific naturalist atheist worldview. There is no "natural law" that accounts for its existence.

Which brings me to another interesting point about "science". In the scientific naturalist view, science is only about the physical as per their own definition of "science". However, in the real world, that's just a subdivision of "science". There are the natural sciences, social sciences and formal sciences. All are equally "scientific" and equally valid under the principals of scientific method and reason, including testability. However, they include abstract concepts that only exist in the thought processes of man.

[Oobly]

...

Given this information, would you agree that your belief structure along with others is hugely influenced by your current location, upbringing, and birthplace?  I know that there are probably millions and millions of people from all different religions all over the world who have "proven" to themselves through various means that their particular religion or even their particular branch of religion is the correct one, which as you said is up to them for what they decide is correct in their own life.  Also, if this is true, would you entertain the thought that there could be a single common deity that encompasses the Abrahamic religions and that the differences between Catholics, Christians, Muslims, and Jews are small enough that they could enter one common afterlife?

Of course, a person's entire worldview is based primarily on their experience and partially on "common sense", or their chosen thought processes about the evidence they have gathered. It doesn't rule out the possibility of God making Himself known to individuals and revealing the way for them to open dialogue with Him, though. However, it's usually a person that brings this information to light, as I said before, God chooses to use us for His work.

I entertain the thought that there is a single Deity, certainly Christianity, Judaism and Catholicism are essentially the same religion, with either an incomplete view (Judaism) or a misfocused one (Catholicism) and there are undoubtedly "saved" people in each group (although Jews who are "saved" would recognise Jesus and the Messiah and are then essentially Christians). Islam is different, since it's based around the writings and acts of a further prophet (Mohammed) who lived around 600 years after Christ and who created a new religion placing himself as a focal point, above the status of Christ. Although it includes biblical books in it's "scripture", it attempts to supercede them with the works of a single man (the Qu'ran). There are many devout practitioners, and it's possible some have taken the right way in approaching God, but usually that will mean He reveals to them the fact of Jesus' deity and most would then call themselves Christians.

Regardless, everyone has their own path to follow, but if they want to enter the Kingdom of God, they need to come to Him "through Christ" (accepting God's path for reconciliation, not their own), they need to acknowledge their need of something more than their own ability and place themselves "on His mercy", recognising both their guilt and inability to remove it from themselves. It's not for us to decide if a person is "saved" or not, that's entirely up to God, and completely personal / individual, but there is only one "way".

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - John 14:6

Ultimately it's all about if you know and are known by God. Relationship.

While it's important for people to realise their need for "salvation", when people focus on Heaven and Hell as places of pleasure and torment respectively and the need to be "saved" from Hell into Heaven, their focus is shifted from the personal to the legal, from the spirit of the law to the letter, from the purposes of God in the personal sense, to the laws and actions in a practical, impersonal sense. It's also a rather selfish way of looking at things and gives an ulterior motive in wanting to be "saved", so instead of suffering you have pleasure, using fear of suffering as a persuasion to "turn". It shouldn't be about wanting to please ourselves as much as wanting to please God. After all, the reason we need His mercy is that we have displeased Him in the first place. The core message of scripture is this: He created us, loves us and made the ultimate sacrifice for us in order to be able to have a (healthy) relationship with us. The summary Jesus made of the "greatest commandment" is to "love God". In order to do this, we need to know God. God loves you already, has made a way for you to make contact with him and experience His love and mercy, then love Him back.

The reason I say it's a healthy relationship is that those who make contact through the process of "salvation" have both the desire to be in a relationship with Him and the right understanding of who He is, what He's done and where they each fit in the relationship.

....
Using your examples of things later proven by science, so many of them seem to be things that are proven by science than back-checked to the bible. 
...

The King James translation was completed in 1611 and states: "canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?". The "waywardness" of Arcturus was discovered in 1718 by Sir Edmond Halley. The "sons" were discovered in 1971. IMHO there is nothing wrong with going "back" to the Bible to see if new scientific discoveries have already been mentioned there. Is there any other way to check for "scientific accuracy" in the Bible? You need things that are clear and testable and I believe this matches the criteria well, along with the Pleiades and Orion references in the previous verse.

The Bible states that there was a beginning. That the universe had a start at some particular event. Before the proposal of the Big Bang, the common scientific belief was that the universe either had a uniform or cyclical history.

And you skipped the expansion of the universe. There are many verses that mention God "stretching out the heavens", here are a few:
Isaiah 42:5
Isaiah 44:24
Isaiah 45:12
Isaiah 48:13
Isaiah 51:13
Jeremiah 10:12
Jeremiah 51:15
Job 9:8
Psalms 104:2
Zechariah 12:1

[kurplop]

On the subject of church splits and unsavory leadership but not related to much else, I also have the "privilege" of having a somewhat niche specialty at my job.  I work at an accounting firm but I personally deal more with tax preparation, health insurance, and unofficial IT capacities but during tax season I am one of only two people in the office who deals with pastoral tax returns.  Pastors have some funky rules in regards to their compensation while also having the housing allowance, which I could certainly rant against for hours but won't for the sake of staying on topic, and therefore you need to know these rules before you can prepare one of their returns properly.  In the almost 5 years that I have been doing them, both myself and the other person (a devoted Christian) who prepares returns for clergy members have grown to almost have a disdain for ministers when it comes to taxes. 

You see, the housing allowance that they receive is an amount of their income that is designated at the beginning of the year to go towards housing which encompasses mortgage payments, property taxes, housing additions, cable TV and/or internet, cleaning supplies, windows, furniture, appliances, and even pools and their maintenance but the great part for them is that it is income tax free, and if you decide to file the nifty IRS form 4361 you receive that compensation self-employment tax free as well!  This basically results in anywhere from $10,000 to $45,000, the amounts my personal clients are paid but those amounts have no ceiling established by the IRS, being completely tax free to pay for pretty much anything besides vehicles and food and because of this, these clergy members try and wiggle any expenses that they can into the housing allowance.  I never thought I would see the day that pastors of prominent churches of hundreds and even thousands of members would try and slip their car payments or dinners at TGI Fridays under their housing allowance, but this happens with over 60-70% of my pastoral clients.  These are people who are teaching their members every Sunday to be honest, to be devout, to give your tithe as God instructed only to turn around and try to abuse a perk specific to their occupation to save a couple hundred bucks in tax on a yearly basis.  If this was something that happened once and then stopped I wouldn't care so much or be as salty about it, but seeing the same people come in year after year trying to get away with the same thing while claiming to be men of God I would be lying if I said this didn't lower my opinion of the clergy.

When the tax code gives preference to somebody for fitting into one of the numerous tax breaks available I can't blame them for taking advantage of them. The IRS has set itself up in an adversarial roles against the tax payer and there is a difference between tax avoidance and evasion. Therefore I see nothing legally wrong with trying to minimize your tax liability by inquiring whether certain deductions are allowed. I agree that some of these preferential deductions should be eliminated. We should take away corporate box seats at baseball stadiums and business deductions for recreational boats as well.The tax code is so excessively bloated that any page added to it should require the deletion of 20.

I assume however, that these people are asking you to slip in things that they know don't rightly belong there as deductions thereby breaking the law. If so, I'd be equally disgusted by that behavior although I wonder if I'm guilty of similar offenses that I sometimes justify in my business. I've been known to bend the rules and not always get a required building permit every time I should. For example, a customer needs a garbage disposer replaced. I can change one out for about $100 but if I get a permit I'd have to charge another $200 for the permit fees and extra time pulling the permit and waiting for the inspection. I justify that but it still makes me a code breaker.

How do you deal with people who ask you to violate your professional ethics and falsify their returns? If you refused to "play the game" would your employer get on you for not pleasing the client?

 

[Parak]

Of course, a person's entire worldview is based primarily on their experience and partially on "common sense", or their chosen thought processes about the evidence they have gathered. It doesn't rule out the possibility of God making Himself known to individuals and revealing the way for them to open dialogue with Him, though. However, it's usually a person that brings this information to light, as I said before, God chooses to use us for His work.

I entertain the thought that there is a single Deity, certainly Christianity, Judaism and Catholicism are essentially the same religion, with either an incomplete view (Judaism) or a misfocused one (Catholicism) and there are undoubtedly "saved" people in each group (although Jews who are "saved" would recognise Jesus and the Messiah and are then essentially Christians). Islam is different, since it's based around the writings and acts of a further prophet (Mohammed) who lived around 600 years after Christ and who created a new religion placing himself as a focal point, above the status of Christ. Although it includes biblical books in it's "scripture", it attempts to supercede them with the works of a single man (the Qu'ran). There are many devout practitioners, and it's possible some have taken the right way in approaching God, but usually that will mean He reveals to them the fact of Jesus' deity and most would then call themselves Christians.

Regardless, everyone has their own path to follow, but if they want to enter the Kingdom of God, they need to come to Him "through Christ" (accepting God's path for reconciliation, not their own), they need to acknowledge their need of something more than their own ability and place themselves "on His mercy", recognising both their guilt and inability to remove it from themselves. It's not for us to decide if a person is "saved" or not, that's entirely up to God, and completely personal / individual, but there is only one "way".

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - John 14:6

Ultimately it's all about if you know and are known by God. Relationship.

While it's important for people to realise their need for "salvation", when people focus on Heaven and Hell as places of pleasure and torment respectively and the need to be "saved" from Hell into Heaven, their focus is shifted from the personal to the legal, from the spirit of the law to the letter, from the purposes of God in the personal sense, to the laws and actions in a practical, impersonal sense. It's also a rather selfish way of looking at things and gives an ulterior motive in wanting to be "saved", so instead of suffering you have pleasure, using fear of suffering as a persuasion to "turn". It shouldn't be about wanting to please ourselves as much as wanting to please God. After all, the reason we need His mercy is that we have displeased Him in the first place. The core message of scripture is this: He created us, loves us and made the ultimate sacrifice for us in order to be able to have a (healthy) relationship with us. The summary Jesus made of the "greatest commandment" is to "love God". In order to do this, we need to know God. God loves you already, has made a way for you to make contact with him and experience His love and mercy, then love Him back.

The reason I say it's a healthy relationship is that those who make contact through the process of "salvation" have both the desire to be in a relationship with Him and the right understanding of who He is, what He's done and where they each fit in the relationship.

That is quite a roundabout way of saying what I see as 'my way or the highway', and anyone who believes differently will be going to hell unless they convert. Personally I find this abhorrent, but it's a common theme in other religions, designed to keep followers in line. So which version of Christianity do they need to convert to anyway? Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, LDS, Jehovah's, etc?

Do you ever question if perhaps your religion is the one that is incorrect, and you'll be going to hell/purgatory/etc since you haven't sought out the correct one? Given that such views are by necessity subjective at least partially based on personal experiences as you've mentioned several times, can objectivity actually even be found in this regard?

The King James translation was completed in 1611 and states: "canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?". The "waywardness" of Arcturus was discovered in 1718 by Sir Edmond Halley. The "sons" were discovered in 1971. IMHO there is nothing wrong with going "back" to the Bible to see if new scientific discoveries have already been mentioned there. Is there any other way to check for "scientific accuracy" in the Bible? You need things that are clear and testable and I believe this matches the criteria well, along with the Pleiades and Orion references in the previous verse.

The Bible states that there was a beginning. That the universe had a start at some particular event. Before the proposal of the Big Bang, the common scientific belief was that the universe either had a uniform or cyclical history.

And you skipped the expansion of the universe. There are many verses that mention God "stretching out the heavens", here are a few:
Isaiah 42:5
Isaiah 44:24
Isaiah 45:12
Isaiah 48:13
Isaiah 51:13
Jeremiah 10:12
Jeremiah 51:15
Job 9:8
Psalms 104:2
Zechariah 12:1

The problem here is that since everything must be interpreted, has been translated multiple times, and is scattered throughout the book, it's extremely easy to fit anything that might even remotely work for scientific discoveries and match it up with something a bronze age person could have thought up. Stretching out can easily be seen as an analogy to setting up a tent and stretching the cloth cover over it, which is a far more reasonable approach to what is written.

We don't have to go far to find issues with how the bible directly contradicts science - just take a look at the first few lines of Genesis. In those first few lines we find that:

1. Earth is created before light.
2. Light is created before any light producing sources.
3. Plants grow before light can drive their growth.
4. Sun is finally created, and the moon is created as a 'mini sun', even though it's a reflector. Oh, and all of the other stars too get made at this point.
5. 'Days'. Again, something that must be interpreted and reinterpreted time and time again to conform to the modern scientific view or be laughed at.

How does one skip all that and jump straight to concepts that are insignificant in the light of the bigger problems with the narration? Why must we contort our brains around interpreting this to somehow fit current understanding, yet other things like the Arcturus example should be taken literally as a perfect example of a scientific prediction? I'm not asking for much here, but why can't the bible as an infallible and inerrant word of God do better in this regard and have had plain language that obviously predates and predicts modern science in every possible way without the need for subjectivity and interpretation?

[baldgye]

I'm not asking for much here, but why can't the bible as an infallible and inerrant word of God do better in this regard and have had plain language that obviously predates and predicts modern science in every possible way without the need for subjectivity and interpretation?

Because it's all bollocks made up by mentals hundreds of years ago...

[fohat.digs]

Because it's all partially bollocks and partially murky history made up by uneducated and ignorant mentals and people with agendas hundreds thousands of years ago...

[baldgye]

The bible was put together what like 500ad or something? Making it less than two thousand years old, thus it can't be thousands of years old.

[romevi]

The bible was put together what like 500ad or something? Making it less than two thousand years old, thus it can't be thousands of years old.

The Bible as we know it was put together around that time (a little bit older, I think), but the texts inside are far older. Especially the OT, which are the Hebraic scriptures.

It's not like the Bible was written in one go. The texts inside were chosen and selected to constitute one book from various sources. Like getting a compilation of Grimm's tales or something together.

[baldgye]

Oh yeah I know it was stuff nicked from other places, but as a whole thing it's only like 1,500 years old. I'm sure the stuff that makes up the bible was influced by prior mental scribbles etc

[trenzafeeds]

I struggle a lot with religion, because as a radical socialist/communist there's really just no room for organized religion in my idea of a perfect world, but at the same time the highest philosophy I subscribe to is being able to accept all people and their beliefs/ideas. I am also able to recognize the positive things that religion has helped to create in the realistic world that we live in. Anyway, hearing others' stories really helps me be more accepting, so I look forward to hearing what others have to say.

[kurplop]

I struggle a lot with religion, because as a radical socialist/communist there's really just no room for organized religion in my idea of a perfect world, but at the same time the highest philosophy I subscribe to is being able to accept all people and their beliefs/ideas. I am also able to recognize the positive things that religion has helped to create in the realistic world that we live in. Anyway, hearing others' stories really helps me be more accepting, so I look forward to hearing what others have to say.

I applaud your desire to try to accept all people and I also hope in this forum to see honest dialog and debate to try to understand one another. 
 I wonder if it is really possible to accept all of their ideas?  Many people's ideas are in direct opposition to others, such as one person desiring to see worth and value in all people and another, like Josef Stalin for instance who was responsible for as many as 50 million deaths. How is it possible to accept every person's belief when so many opinions are polar opposites of others? I think that in in this world, the best we may aspire to, might be to try to understand other's perspective and give them the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.

[trenzafeeds]

like Josef Stalin for instance who was responsible for as many as 50 million deaths.

Is this some sort of weird backhanded comment on me being a communist?

[kurplop]

Not at all. I mentioned his name because he may have been the worst offender. I could also add Hitler, Mao, and others to the list.

Sorry if you took it that way.

[trenzafeeds]

Not at all. I mentioned his name because he may have been the worst offender. I could also add Hitler, Mao, and others to the list.

Sorry of you took it that way.

Yeah, it just seemed a little weird. I guess what I meant by accept, was more what you were saying about understanding. Really looking carefully at where they come from, and appreciating the fact that some peoples minds just think very differently, which could lead to them coming to a different conclusion from the same circumstances/evidence.

[Waateva]

Did some of the posts in here get deleted or rolled back when things were down?  I know for sure I had made a couple posts in here but they aren't in here anymore.

[Photekq]

radical socialist/communist

Christ. I thought you guys were extinct.

Out of curiosity what lead you to become a radical socialist/communist? Do you truly believe that it can ever become a reality?

[trenzafeeds]

Christ. I thought you guys were extinct.

Out of curiosity what lead you to become a radical socialist/communist? Do you truly believe that it can ever become a reality?

Well first off, I believe your political "ideals" should be the most ideal situation possible, that's why their called ideals, not actions  To me an ideal is different from a tangible goal.

And secondly, I do believe that socialism is possible, perhaps not communism (I am happy to explain the difference, it's not what you might think). There are actually very good examples of successful socialist communities throughout history, although they are usually rather small scale (because you need enough people who are interested to participate). Is it likely? maybe not, but I think socialism is certainly a possibility.

[demik]

In light of the SB shootings.

I'm so sick of this "I'm praying for you" crap. Your praying for me isn't doing a ****ing thing other than showing how thoughtful you are to the world.

[trenzafeeds]

In light of the SB shootings.

I'm so sick of this "I'm praying for you" crap. Your praying for me isn't doing a ****ing thing other than showing how thoughtful you are to the world.

PRAY FOR PARIS. I CHANGED MY FACEBOOK PICTURE DOES THAT MEAN I MADE A DIFFERENCE.

In all seriousness, I'm not a religious person, so I can't really speak on this, but I feel like if I was religious I would be a bit offended by people throwing around "praying" so much without it meaning anything.

[iamtootallforthis]

In light of the SB shootings.

I'm so sick of this "I'm praying for you" crap. Your praying for me isn't doing a ****ing thing other than showing how thoughtful you are to the world.

PRAY FOR PARIS. I CHANGED MY FACEBOOK PICTURE DOES THAT MEAN I MADE A DIFFERENCE.

In all seriousness, I'm not a religious person, so I can't really speak on this, but I feel like if I was religious I would be a bit offended by people throwing around "praying" so much without it meaning anything.

I find that when people pray or say they are praying for you, it really isn't to help put you at ease or help you but more for helping them put their mind at ease and relieve their conscience of any troubles.

[baldgye]

In light of the SB shootings.

I'm so sick of this "I'm praying for you" crap. Your praying for me isn't doing a ****ing thing other than showing how thoughtful you are to the world.

Don't worry, I'm sure God has a reason for wanting thousands of Americans killed by mentally unstable people who have ready and easy access to weapons. Praying is actually the best solution to the problem.

[demik]

In light of the SB shootings.

I'm so sick of this "I'm praying for you" crap. Your praying for me isn't doing a ****ing thing other than showing how thoughtful you are to the world.

Don't worry, I'm sure God has a reason for wanting thousands of Americans killed by mentally unstable people who have ready and easy access to weapons. Praying is actually the best solution to the problem.

or at least, it's the easiest. don't have to do much other than say you're doing it.

and this is california. "easy access" is hardly a thing.

[Photekq]

Well first off, I believe your political "ideals" should be the most ideal situation possible, that's why their called ideals, not actions  To me an ideal is different from a tangible goal.

Ah, so those are just your ideals. That's fair enough. My ideals are similarly extreme, but also probably close to the polar opposite of socialism/communism. I say close because I would really love it if the US and Europe would just focus on themselves and stop committing crimes under the guise of being the world police, which seems to be the only thing me and socialists can agree on.

I do, however, like to keep my head within the realms of possibility, so my political expectations and realistic ideals are pretty far from my actual ideals. However, I'm of the opinion that my political ideals would be stable if they ever became a reality (which they won't), and that if communism ever manifested again it certainly wouldn't be stable.

And secondly, I do believe that socialism is possible, perhaps not communism (I am happy to explain the difference, it's not what you might think). There are actually very good examples of successful socialist communities throughout history, although they are usually rather small scale (because you need enough people who are interested to participate). Is it likely? maybe not, but I think socialism is certainly a possibility.

Oh, I'd absolutely agree that socialism is possible. There are some countries that could probably be classified as socialist right now, at least to a fairly large degree - at the start of the socialist spectrum. I'm just not so sure the other end of the spectrum (or communism) could ever work.

Anyway, I was just curious about that. I won't get any more political in the religion thread. PM me if you want.

[kurplop]

I think someone should start a political therapy thread. I would, but I think it should be someone who is well informed and passionate about it.

[fohat.digs]

offended by people throwing around "praying" so much without it meaning anything.

Does anyone else get creeped out by the whole "praying / preying" kind of homonym thing?

[kurplop]

In all seriousness, I'm not a religious person, so I can't really speak on this, but I feel like if I was religious I would be a bit offended by people throwing around "praying" so much without it meaning anything.

I wouldn't say I'm offended but I agree that people like to throw that phrase around. On the other hand, if someone is sincerely taking the matter before God, shouldn't they be allowed to say so?

[kurplop]

offended by people throwing around "praying" so much without it meaning anything.

Does anyone else get creeped out by the whole "praying / preying" kind of homonym thing?

Yeah. I think you're on to something.

[baldgye]

In light of the SB shootings.

I'm so sick of this "I'm praying for you" crap. Your praying for me isn't doing a ****ing thing other than showing how thoughtful you are to the world.

Don't worry, I'm sure God has a reason for wanting thousands of Americans killed by mentally unstable people who have ready and easy access to weapons. Praying is actually the best solution to the problem.

or at least, it's the easiest. don't have to do much other than say you're doing it.

and this is california. "easy access" is hardly a thing.

It was a relative term.

[The feel is of the keys!]

To be honest I'm getting really sick of this Christmas hate ****. I'm not even christian but I celebrate the holiday because let's be honest. At this point it has little to do with Christ. Hell in Japan it has more to do with KFC than baby Jesus. This whole PC thing about having to say happy holidays or be sued is just ridiculous. I didn't look this year, but last year I recall Christmas trees were holiday trees at Target. I mean who cares it's just another day off from work (unless you work retail I guess) to be with your family, or playing fallout 4.