human and animal hybrids

[StruckingFuggle]

Yeah, but "the gift" has strings attached, because not doing his will is apparently not really accepting the gift, or something, and he's going to know and not accept you for just paying lip service.

So I guess it's less of a rape at gunpoint and more of a Room 101 thing.

[Ruu]

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="462442"]Yeah, but "the gift" has strings attached, because not doing his will is apparently not really accepting the gift, or something, and he's going to know and not accept you for just paying lip service. thing.[/quote]


Actually, Strucking, there are no strings attached. You can accept the gift and not do His will. He wants you to do His will, but he decided not to put any conditions on being saved. His hope is that, after you're saved, you will do His will, and if you ask Him (and probably even if you don't) He'll try to guide you to follow His will. But he doesn't say "You can be saved only if you do this and this and this."

It really is free and unconditional.

[kaiju01]

[quote="Ruu";p="462441"]
It really is difficult for me to imagine someone who had truly accepted God worshipping other gods, since He really makes himself known to you.[/quote]

This is where people lose me in religious discussions...

Examples and explanations appreciated. Why Him over Kali?

[Nekra]

People lose me when they start quoting a book thats been rewritten several times, retranslated, rewritten, translated again, as fact. and the whole book was an interpretation of some stories that got told to the guy. Hmmm yeah thats a form of accurate evidence that cant be refuted in any way, shape or form.

[Fixer]

*comes back to see thread has transformed into religious discussion*

I cannot believe it is within the bounds of the human mind to be able to discern God's will. I also believe anyone who says they can interpret God's will into a law for human behavior is guilty of supreme arrogance. As this thread has become a discussion for attempting to discern, "What Would Jehovah Do?", I will depart with this one quote.

"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe that religious duties consist in loving mercy, doing justice, and trying to make your fellow creatures happy." - Thomas Paine

[Ruu]

To Fixer: Humans can't figure out God's will on their own, I agree with you. That's why He inspired many people to write down what he wanted them to and pass the history and law that he created down through the generations of the Israelites. He went to Abraham and said "Let me explain what happened at the beginning in a way you'd understand. Write it down." As for a law of human behavior, I'd recommend reading C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man". It gives an excellent argument for the fact that mankind has an innate moral compass that we all either abide by or try to circumvent.

To Nekra: Of course it's been translated a lot of times, and there are a lot of discrepancies between versions, but none of them are the kind that shake or change the theology. At the start of the early church, Paul and the other apostles went around starting churches and preaching the gospel. Many of the books of the new testament are letters that they wrote in response to questions the churches had for them. The four accounts of the gospel, as well as all these letters, were copied over and over again so that they could be sent to all the churches. As more churches grew, they needed more copies. Occasionally a scribe made a mistake while transcribing, and since that copy was used to make more copies, it generated more copies with the mistakes. There is an entire study devoted to cross referencing the ancient texts and figuring out which copies are most likely to contain the mistakes and determine which are accurate. In addition to this, various translations of the Bible have sprung up with emphasis on what the editor thought was important. Was it imporant to adhere to literal translation from Greek and Hebrew and produce it somewhat awkwardly in english? Or was it better to find the best possible corresponding meaning in english and make the meaning clearer to the reader of today? This is why there are so many variations of the Bible, in translating from the old languages, there are different ways to present the same message without changing the meaning. One quote in the Bible, in suggestion for conduct in church says "Greet one another with a holy kiss." Now, that was a cultural practice that wouldn't have quite the same meaning in America today. Given that, some versions of the Bible keep it as "A holy kiss." and at least one has changed it to "A hearty handshake.", since that is the closest cultural equivalent to what "A holy kiss." meant back in the time of the early church. So yes, Nekra, it has been rewritten many times, but great pains have been taken to keep the meaning unchanged.

To Kaiju01: Why God over Kali? Simply because there is historical evidence for the human invention of Hinduism. They keep creating new gods, even today. Kali is just one of thousands, and Hinduism is one of the most self-contradictory religions in the world. They have reengineered their beliefs over and over to fit the times, and their religion was initially created to keep the caste system in India stable. I recommend you study Hinduism and see if any of it reconciles with reason.

[kaiju01]

Ruu: Kali was a poor example. I kept picturing Harrison Ford on a rope bridge and laughing to myself... But I was thinking more generally and casually mentioned that name at the end. Sorry for that waste of time.

So let's address my real concern:

It really is difficult for me to imagine someone who had truly accepted God worshipping other gods, since He really makes himself known to you.

Where is He?

/continues hi-jack

[Nekra]

you wouldn't say moving a religious day 6 months was a major shake up?

And how do you know the original meaning hasn't been lost? Love thy neighbour could have been someones idea of everyone having a big gay orgy.

[Ruu]

To Kaiju01: For the good argument, though possibly not in its best form (Lewis himself said later he felt the argument wasn't as good as it could have been) I'd recommend reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. Here's a brief summary.

Lewis argues that we all have an innate sense of right and wrong and fairness, which he dubs the "Law of Human Nature." He gives several examples, and shows that when held to this law, a man will try to find some way around it rather than denying its existence. If a friend doesn't keep a promise to you, they will make an excuse for why he didn't, rather than claiming he doesn't understand the fundamental concept of promises.

He goes on to argue that this notion of right and wrong is universal among men. To quote a block from the book:

"I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decen behavior known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

"But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have neveramounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hundus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try timagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to -- whether it was only your own family, or your countrymen, or every one. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired."

Now, Lewis goes on to argue that this sort of morality could not have evolved on its own. If it were a natural law of behavior, then we would be naturally driven to act in "good" ways, like animals and their instincts. This Law of Human Nature is often conflicting with how we wish to act, and we find ourselves having to deal with it in one way or another. Animals don't have this problem. Imagine wolves having moral dillemmas over killing their prey. This morality is what separates us from animals. We did not invent it ourselves. If it had been up to us to come up with it, it would have never gotten off the ground. No one would have agreed to it.

So, where the hell did it come from?

Here's another block to chew on:

"I now want to consider what this tells us about the universe we live in. Ever since men were able to think they have been wondering what this universe really is and how it came to be there. And, very roughly, two views have been held. First there is what is called the materialist view. People who take that view think that matter and space just happent o exist, and always have existed, nobody knows why; and that the matter, behaving in certain fixed ways, has just happened, by a sort of fluke, to produce creatures like ourselves who are able to think. By once chance in a thousand something hit our sun and made it produce the planets; and by another thousandth chance the chemicals necessary for life, and the right temperature, occured on one of these planets, and so some of the matter on this earthe came alive; and then, by a very long series of chances, the living creatures developed into things like us. The other view is the religious view. According to it, what is behind the universe is more like a mind than it is like anything else we know. That is to say, it is conscious, and has purposes, and prefers one thing to another. And on this view it made the universe, partly for purposes we do not know, but partly, at any rate, in order to produce creatures like itself --- I mean, like itself to the extent of having minds. Please do not think that one of these views was held a long time ago and that the other has gradually taken its place. Wherever there have been thinking men both views turn up. And note this too. You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense. Science works in expierments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks,really means something like, 'I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2.20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so-and-so,' or, 'I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so.' Do no think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is. And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science -- and a very useful and necessary job it is too. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes -- something of a different kind -- this is not a scientific question. If there is 'Something Behind', then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can make. And real scientists do not usually make them. It is usually the journalists and popular novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of half-baked science from textbooks who go in for them. Supposing science ever bacame complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it no plain that the questions, 'Why is there a universe?' 'Why does it go on as it does?' 'Has it any meaning?' would remain just as they were?"

Lewis goes on to explore how we would find out about this mind or power behind the universe. "If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe -- no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves."

And that, Kaiju01, is really just the beginning of the argument. I suggest reading the book itself if you want more than the poor rendition that I can give, which was mostly composed of quotes anyway.

As for the "physical location" of God, I have my own theories on that based off the book "Flatland" by Edwin A. Abbot. It's a short book and a good read too, another I'd recommend.


To Nekra: I really wouldn't say that the particular date of celebrating a holiday has any significant impact on the religion. Can you give a good reason why it would?

And as for the original meaning question: We do have the texts in their original languages, it is just very hard to come by the "first editions" of the writings. The meaning of words in the original languages is very clear, and a mistake as serious as the one you came up with wouldn't have been made. If someone did come across a copy that made "Love thy neighbor" into something sexual, they'd instantly recognize it as a perversion of the original meaning, since by cross referencing with the rest of the Bible, that sort of sexual conduct is condemned.

[Nekra]

funny....i didn't think it was....i was under the impression the homophobia of the christian churches came alot later, probably around the time Jesus changed into a europeon blond

[Ruu]

Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

That's pretty darn clear to me, Nekra.

As for the misrepresentations of Jesus throughout the years, I heartily agree with you. It's ridiculous. Jesus would've been a dark skinned, black or brown haired man, and since he lived much of his life travelling, he would have been pretty dirty most of the time.

[Nekra]

He was black and Jewish, I wonder how your average KKK member would respond if you told them that.

[Mr.Shroom]

Yeah...Don't qoute Leviticus unless you know your history, kiddies. I'm surprised Nekra didn't jump on this one. That passage isn't as black and white as you claim it to be, MOSTLY due to the entire issue of translation.

Leviticus has been recently rewritten as ""Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin." Did you know that the word 'homosexuality' itself was a design of later English translations? Thats food for you New Living Bible folks.

But lets focus on Ruu's more apt translation, which is more akin to the original Hebrew text. In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee." (Though a friend of mine has bitched at this rather Brittish butchering of the Jewish language.)

"And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" is the first part, but what follows is a rather unique twist. "Toeyvah" refers not only to the phrase "abomination", but also to the paganistic temple prostitues of the Egyptian faiths as well as other paganistic religious sexual acts. IE representing the sexuality of a god/goddess and engaging in ritualized sex with the followers. This is also where the term Sodomites and the like later stem from.

So plenty of faiths are kvetching over wether this states that homosexuality (as we define it) is the same as the "enormous sin" or "detestable" act our ancestors were refering to; Or if our priests just wanted to desexualize God and break away from what they thought were blasphemous religous rituals, not same-sex acts period.

Theres plenty of online and textbook resources on this subject. I've got a few nice books for the would-be theologist. One should read up on them BEFORE simply quoting King James.

[Ruu]

Mr. Shroom: I think the fact that the verse specifies "with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" should dispell any confusion over whether or not a man having sex with another man was condemned. It was. If the word "Toeyvah" refers not only to "abomination" but also to other sexual acts that they were not supposed to do, I don't see that lessening the impact or diluting the meaning of the first part of the sentence. Is it not still saying that you should not sleep with men if you are a man?

On a side note, I'm impressed with your knowledge in this area.

[Deacon]

Shroom, remember "an outrage" from a long while back? Didn't you post in it?

First, start here. Then move down in the thread to here. Then here. And then just keep going.

If new and creative ways to twist the "subtleties" of words to make something plain mean something it doesn't gets you all giddy, then let's stick to the straight-foward on such topics. In the mean time, how the hell did a discussion on chimeras end up on poopsicles?