What is the True Religion?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
421

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pegasus3 wrote:
Right so it was trap. An all powerful god would surely have known they would fail at the test. Why put the talking snake there? To really, really test them? This stuff cannot be believed.

A god that sets tests, knowing you will most likely fail, cannot be loving.

[/quote]
[/quote]

There you go sufiandy that’s the type of religious bigotry that you’re getting to be known for here at T Nation.

Way to have an open mind.

[/quote]

How does that picture imply intolerance to religion?[/quote]

Just substitute a random visual joke about African Americans and you’ll quickly how horribly intolerant that it is.

But that’s what you do. You hate religion don’t run from that premise, embrace it. You hate religion and every chance you get to mock or belittle it you do.

You’re a religious bigot.

[/quote]

It’s a belief not the color of skin you are born with, so there is a difference. Are you offended the same way by political cartoons?[/quote]

That means that you can be bigoted about a myriad of things as long as they are not genetic?

You sure you want to hold that position?

Because if you do I am about to turn your PC liberal world upside down.

Let me know.

[/quote]

Well if more people complain I can stop.
[/quote]

Two things:

  1. You made a claim that it was fine to be bigoted about things as long as they were about beliefs and not genetic. Are you now going to back that claim up or abandon it?

  2. You would only stop posting your religious bigotry if others complained? You wouldn’t stop knowing that it is just flat out offensive?

You remind me of a Southern white in the deep south in the 1950’s.

“i was jus funnin’ plain roun with that black fella…”

You’re a bigot plain and simple.

If you want to live your life that way that is certainly up to you. But know this, there is nothing cool about making fun of someone’s religious beliefs. I know idiots like Jon Stewart and other’s do it. But that doesn’t make it right.

Think about it.

[/quote]

It’s just hard to take you seriously when I posted a meme of jesus with a caption saying he came to earth because the first humans sinned and you’ve now twice compared it to racism.[/quote]

Don’t take me seriously, no problem. If you can’t see how that cartoon would offend someone of the Christian faith then you are further gone than you may think. I’m sure those who used to mock African Americans felt the same way. As my earlier example pointed out. You’re an insensitive knot head, I get it.

If you want to live your life as a religious bigot that’s your decision.

(At least you were smart enough to run from your original point of bigotry only being applicable if the subject is genetic. Unfortunately that’s where your intelligence ends.)

422

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Because it’s not my personal interpretation of the Bible?
[/quote]

I’m not sure what you mean by “personal interpretation of the bible.” That sounds like a pretty broad definition of eisegesis. In biblical studies, eisegesis refers to reading your own interests and presuppositions into the text rather than showing concern for the author’s interests and presuppositions. In other words, it is equating your perspective with the biblical author’s. By denying that its your personal interpretation, do you simply mean that someone handed it off to you? In that case, the fact that others believed something before you doesn’t necessarily make it any less of a “personal” (i.e., subjective) interpretation, especially since (as i’ve pointed out before) theologians in all denominations have often shown very little historical sensitivity in the handling of their sources. The text itself doesn’t say that “objectification” is the issue; that’s an anachronistic concept being applied to the biblical text. Shame, in the ancient Near Eastern context, wasn’t a “protective mechanism/response” (I think you called it something like that); in the ANE, shame is intimately related to guilt. From the ancient Israelite perspective, there IS something inherently sinful about being naked before God. The point in the story of Adam and Eve’s sin is that, through that sin, the kinds of cultic distinctions and prescriptions that we find in the Pentateuch come into play for the first time. If you remember, people (especially priests) were not supposed to let their nakedness be seen before God (Ex. 28:42-43). That’s the point - Adam and Eve becoming aware of their nakedness indicates the intrusion and sudden necessity of cultic service into the world. Human fellowship with God was broken, and now one could speak with God only by taking very special precautions, including hiding nakedness. God was gracious enough even then, at the very beginning, to give us clothing so that we COULD stand in his presence.

[quote]
Eve admits it that if they eat the fruit they will die. They ate the fruit. They died. How was Adam given life? That’s right, God breathed, which is the Holy Ghost, into his nostrils.[/quote]

Not precisely. This is the simplistic, ad hoc explanation for why they didn’t die physically at the exact moment when they sinned. Frankly, it’s very anachronistic - where is the “holy ghost” mentioned? In the ancient Near East and in the Hebrew Scriptures generally, human beings possess the animating “breath” of God. When that breath was gone, you died physically. It wasn’t something that could be withdrawn while the person was still alive. The times in the OT when the Holy Spirit would come upon people for ministry purposes is NOT the same thing as the animating breath. This notion of a “spiritual death” would NEVER have occurred to an ancient Near Easterner, Israelite or otherwise.

However, you don’t HAVE to take the statement, “on the day that you eat of it, you will surely die” as denoting that, in the moment of sin, their bodies would collapse. Rather, the word for “die” can also denote being “sentenced to death.” In other words, as soon as Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they were sentenced to death. See John Walton’s NIVAC Commentary on Genesis.

423

[quote]KingKai25wrote:

It wasn’t something that could be withdrawn while the person was still alive.
[/quote]

It was simply something that could not be sustained without an intimate personal relationship with God.

424

Oh god dammit, you miss a week and a year’s worth of posts pop up. W/e I’ll just jump in somewhere.

425

[quote]TigerTime wrote:Oh god dammit, you miss a week and a year’s worth of posts pop up. W/e I’ll just jump in somewhere.[/quote]Please do and the sooner the better. This place has been laboring under the terrible strangling curse of your absence for far too long already. I guess I can take this noose off now. Whew, Just in time buddy. =D [quote]pookie wrote:<<< Are you saying God cannot change his mind?[/quote]Despite some anthropopathic passages seeming to indicate the opposite? Yes I am. and I have no clue how that works. There see. I walked right into your trap. One other thing. It is folly to assume that everyone with the name of Jesus on their lips is a Christian. Especially today.

426

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
TigerTime wrote:Oh god dammit, you miss a week and a year’s worth of posts pop up. W/e I’ll just jump in somewhere.Please do and the sooner the better. This place has been laboring under the terrible strangling curse of your absence for far too long already. [/quote]

So true Trib what this thread calls out for is the wit and wisdom of yet another 18 year old.

427

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]KingKai25wrote:

It wasn’t something that could be withdrawn while the person was still alive.
[/quote]

It was simply something that could not be sustained without an intimate personal relationship with God.
[/quote]

That’s not how ancient Near Easterners conceived of the “life-breath.” It wasn’t something that you could remove and still have a living person; it is the animating “force” of the body, so to speak. Once it was gone, you were dead. It didn’t simply degrade because of an impaired relationship with God. For the ancients, it was something that God purposely withdrew at the time of a person’s death. The withdrawing of the life-breath was the cause of death. My point is that there is a difference between the Holy Spirit placed on people to empower them for ministry and the life-breath animating each and every person.

428

[quote]ZEB wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]TigerTime wrote:Oh god dammit, you miss a week and a year’s worth of posts pop up. W/e I’ll just jump in somewhere.[/quote]Please do and the sooner the better. This place has been laboring under the terrible strangling curse of your absence for far too long already.[/quote]So true Trib what this thread calls out for is the wit and wisdom of yet another 18 year old.[/quote]Well I wuz jist ribbin the lad. Kinda innocently tryin to get a rise out of him. Probably worked if I know him.

429

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]KingKai25wrote:

It wasn’t something that could be withdrawn while the person was still alive.
[/quote]

It was simply something that could not be sustained without an intimate personal relationship with God.
[/quote]

That’s not how ancient Near Easterners conceived of the “life-breath.” [/quote]

They also didn’t get the Holy Ghost. I don’t follow.

430

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]KingKai25wrote:

It wasn’t something that could be withdrawn while the person was still alive.
[/quote]

It was simply something that could not be sustained without an intimate personal relationship with God.
[/quote]

That’s not how ancient Near Easterners conceived of the “life-breath.” It wasn’t something that you could remove and still have a living person; it is the animating “force” of the body, so to speak. Once it was gone, you were dead. It didn’t simply degrade because of an impaired relationship with God. For the ancients, it was something that God purposely withdrew at the time of a person’s death. The withdrawing of the life-breath was the cause of death. My point is that there is a difference between the Holy Spirit placed on people to empower them for ministry and the life-breath animating each and every person. [/quote]

I never said the active force degraded. It would not explain children’s deaths nor any death unrelated to ageing for that matter.
I meant simply we cannot control the active force that would normally sustain life endlessly: neither the person perishing nor a doctor/healer or in the case of the children their parents.
That power to sustain life simply does not belong to us.

Additionally, to my understanding there is nothing in the scriptures that God actively withdraws life in the way I understood your further explanation above. But I could have misunderstood your point on the “withdrawing”.

431

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]KingKai25wrote:

It wasn’t something that could be withdrawn while the person was still alive.
[/quote]

It was simply something that could not be sustained without an intimate personal relationship with God.
[/quote]

That’s not how ancient Near Easterners conceived of the “life-breath.” It wasn’t something that you could remove and still have a living person; it is the animating “force” of the body, so to speak. Once it was gone, you were dead. It didn’t simply degrade because of an impaired relationship with God. For the ancients, it was something that God purposely withdrew at the time of a person’s death. The withdrawing of the life-breath was the cause of death. My point is that there is a difference between the Holy Spirit placed on people to empower them for ministry and the life-breath animating each and every person. [/quote]

I never said the active force degraded. It would not explain children’s deaths nor any death unrelated to ageing for that matter.
I meant simply we cannot control the active force that would normally sustain life endlessly: neither the person perishing nor a doctor/healer or in the case of the children their parents.
That power to sustain life simply does not belong to us.

Additionally, to my understanding there is nothing in the scriptures that God actively withdraws life in the way I understood your further explanation above. But I could have misunderstood your point on the “withdrawing”.
[/quote]

There are several verses actually that convey this idea of the life-breath and the fact that death is related to God’s removal of that life-breath. Psalm 104:25-29 (especially 29 - “when you (God) take away their (living beings) breath, they die”), Eccl. 12:7 (“and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the life breath returns to God who gave it”). My only point was that, in an ancient Near Eastern context (as indicated by other texts from the same general area and time period), death is a matter of divine intervention. The Holy Spirit, given for divine empowerment, is not the same thing as the animating breath. BC argued that it was; I’m pointing out that it isn’t, because the removal of the life-breath = physical death. The removal of the Holy Spirit does not.

432

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
TigerTime wrote:Oh god dammit, you miss a week and a year’s worth of posts pop up. W/e I’ll just jump in somewhere.Please do and the sooner the better. This place has been laboring under the terrible strangling curse of your absence for far too long already. [/quote]

So true Trib what this thread calls out for is the wit and wisdom of yet another 18 year old.[/quote]

Hey, one moment of honest introspection is worth more than even a decade of availability cascade.

433

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
TigerTime wrote:Oh god dammit, you miss a week and a year’s worth of posts pop up. W/e I’ll just jump in somewhere.Please do and the sooner the better. This place has been laboring under the terrible strangling curse of your absence for far too long already. [/quote]

So true Trib what this thread calls out for is the wit and wisdom of yet another 18 year old.[/quote]

Hey, one moment of honest introspection is worth more than even a decade of availability cascade. [/quote]

Wow…profound man…Really profound.

(See what I’m saying Trib?)

434

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
TigerTime wrote:Oh god dammit, you miss a week and a year’s worth of posts pop up. W/e I’ll just jump in somewhere.Please do and the sooner the better. This place has been laboring under the terrible strangling curse of your absence for far too long already. [/quote]

So true Trib what this thread calls out for is the wit and wisdom of yet another 18 year old.[/quote]

Hey, one moment of honest introspection is worth more than even a decade of availability cascade. [/quote]

Wow…profound man…Really profound.

(See what I’m saying Trib?)[/quote]

This coming from the idiot who complained about me being “anonymous”. If memory serves, you aren’t exactly an intellectual heavyweight, older than me or not.

435

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
TigerTime wrote:Oh god dammit, you miss a week and a year’s worth of posts pop up. W/e I’ll just jump in somewhere.Please do and the sooner the better. This place has been laboring under the terrible strangling curse of your absence for far too long already. [/quote]

So true Trib what this thread calls out for is the wit and wisdom of yet another 18 year old.[/quote]

Hey, one moment of honest introspection is worth more than even a decade of availability cascade. [/quote]

Wow…profound man…Really profound.

(See what I’m saying Trib?)[/quote]

This coming from the idiot who complained about me being “anonymous”. If memory serves, you aren’t exactly an intellectual heavyweight, older than me or not. [/quote]

I don’t know what you’re referring to junior. But as to your intellectual heavyweight comment, I don’t have to be it only takes common sense and a fly swatter to smack little turds like you on occasion.

Are you going to the prom this year?

Come on let’t talk about things you actually know something about.

436

[quote]pookie wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The real one is relative? That means you can justify anything.[/quote]

No, it means that morality is an evolving and changing social contract of what a great majority of people find acceptable for living together in society.

Just as slavery once was accepted, it’s not anymore; mixed race marriages where illegal, they aren’t anymore. Gay marriage is currently becoming accepted the world over, in 50 years, the bigots opposing it will be seen like slavers and racists are today.
[/quote]
Social acceptance has nothing, zero, to do with morality. Lot’s of horrible things were socially acceptable at one point, but they were never moral.

It’s just not how it works. If you are bound only to your senses for knowledge though you miss the bigger picture.
Morality is not tied into society, it’s tied to suffering by sentient beings.

I can’t believe how many people who have never read it, claims to know what it’s all about.

You believe this idiotic idea of moral relativism because you have this great fear that if it isn’t an ad hoc aberration of evolution, that might mean God exists. Which simply means that you neither know morality or God.
You can discuss morality independently of the existence of God.

Well apparently I know enough about it to know that moral relativism is and has been a dead idea for years. Even the most staunch somewhat educated atheist know this. You should have jumped in to the morality thread where your some other atheist friends lost this same argument as miserably as you are and will continue to lose this one.

That was fucking genius man! Wow! Well I thought I had an argument till you made fun of me. Now I just must be wrong…
Seriously man, I thought you graduated high school.

437

[quote]pookie wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Mmmhmmm, I am not talking about little bits and pieces. I am talking about the whole thing. And no you didn’t. Maybe you read the first 2 chapters of Genesis, but not the whole thing.[/quote]

I skipped that part where it’s only a ridiculously long list of names… the rest I read.

God holds zero meaning, but his followers have impact on my life, so that’s where the interest is.
[/quote]
That’s dumb, how? I for one don’t get involved in other peoples beliefs one way or the other outside this here forum.
Other than the occational visit from a JW, other peoples beliefs don’t impact me. So I am force to believe you are putting yourself in the way of others.

You can fuck off anytime you wish. I’ll try not to cry.

438

Quick question, in all seriousness, I am a Catholic btw. This has always run through my mind, but did Jesus ever joke around or anything like that? Loving this topic, also.

439

[quote]stefan128 wrote:
Quick question, in all seriousness, I am a Catholic btw. This has always run through my mind, but did Jesus ever joke around or anything like that? Loving this topic, also.[/quote]

Yes, see the Samaritan woman talking about eating scraps off her master’s table like a dog.

440

[quote]stefan128 wrote:
Quick question, in all seriousness, I am a Catholic btw. This has always run through my mind, but did Jesus ever joke around or anything like that? Loving this topic, also.[/quote]

I don’t know… But join us in Catholic Q & A if you want… Given God’s sense of humor, I’d reckon he could be pretty funny at times. He did after all turn water in to wine.