Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I agree bama. I understand how Ghandi felt when he said " I like you're Christ but I dont like you're Christians, you're Christians are so different than you're Christ"
I dont think Ghandi was talking about true believers but many people profess belief without either accepting or fully understanding.
I'm a catholic to atheist. went to catholic school for 12 years.
i was never led to believe adam and eve were real people, in fact, i was specifically told the opposite. but that is a slippery slope...
"this is a parable" - "this part is real" - "this was just this crazy dream" etc, etc....
oh well thats good. i know i was gipped and would have been in the 'doubting' category until I got to college and found that there is reason and logic behind all the beliefs and traditions.
It's funny you mention that specific slippery slope because thats the main question I have been wondering about for quite a while, and plan to look into when I have the time. I know that since the Enlightenment some people have been using approaches incorporating the scientific method to explain how to interpret different parts, but I don't know much about it at the moment.
I know a guy named Edward Schillebeeckx wrote a comprehensive book on the subject, but its about a thousand pages of dry information. got to get around that.
"There is an ancient celtic axiom that says 'Good people drink good beer.' which is true, then as now. Just look around you in any public bar-room, and you will quickly see: Bad people drink bad beer. Think about it."
Post by wonderllama on Mar 11, 2009 20:33:53 GMT -5
I've always had real problems with the idea of "Gods' chosen people" or that you must resign your lofe to Jesus himself to win your eternal reward. I mean what about those people that were settling in the Americas around the time of Christ, or those in Asia or other places that due to the times and location of them being born would have no shot whatsoever at heaven. The fact that God would just categorically damn billions of human beings like that is pretty well disgusting.
To me the fact that most religions share the same basic moral system, and even share the same stories speaks to the existence of God. I believe that a loving God will provide a path to him for anyone who really seeks him (I think God is asexual, but feel weird calling God "it" and he/she is just a pain). God works through his creations to reveal himself to the people in a way that they can understand regardless of the time/place/culture they happen to belong to. The Bible and other ancient religious texts are quite vague and sometimes inaccurate, and part of that is due to the limited comprehension abilities of that time. But taking the messages from these texts and applying them to real world situations, one can work out in some aspects the will and nature of God (e.g. karma, loving one's neighbors, and doing good deeds).
I call myself a Christian because that is how I was raised, and I truely believe that Christ is a path to God. I know I don't know everything about God, and I know that my beliefs can and probably will change over the course of my life. I've really been meaning to reread the Bible and delve into the other major religious works, but the time and honestly the motivation have been lacking lately. But I do think my time away from the church as an institution has benefited me in that I can see the spiritual aspects of things from my own perspective rather than being taught this and that by a preacher with a set viewpoint that his is the only way. I can even say I've learned more about God after a night of munching on some fungus than a lot of Christians I know have in years of sitting in a pew on Sunday mornings.
I think religious institutions are great for giving a person a moral foundation in life, and for those who really need the guidance, structure, and support in their daily lives. Unfortunately it's all too often used as a method of controlling those with weaker minds. I'd like to think that there is a special place in hell for those that preach fear, intolerance, and hate in the name of God and use their power to control their sheep (Falwell, etc.)
Anyway, this is awesome that we've had 3+ pages of religious debate and we haven't had all the bullshit attacks that usually accompany this type of thread on most message boards. This is just another reason I love Bonnaroo. +K to all of ya when I can!
Also, I noticed a couple people were saying they were raised Catholic and became atheists which really doesn't surprise me because looking back after studying things at a higher level, the Church doesn't really seem to educate kids very well.
You'd think at some point in CCD classes they would tell you little tidbits such as not to interpret the Old Testament literally or as historically accurate.
"You mean Adam and Eve weren't really the first people?" No, sorry Johnny.
I'm a catholic to atheist. went to catholic school for 12 years.
i was never led to believe adam and eve were real people, in fact, i was specifically told the opposite. but that is a slippery slope...
"this is a parable" - "this part is real" - "this was just this crazy dream" etc, etc....
I believe the trend toward "not believing" has a lot to do with science. 2,000ish years ago when the Bible was being written (by white men)
What does that have anything to do with anything? Why draw in race in something that has nothing to do with it? This whole racism thing is getting to the point where white folk go so out of their way to be politically correct that we're beginning to lower ourselves (white peeps) and raise everyone else to the point where we almost want to be the minority. Weird. Can't we just start ignoring race and just live our lives. By striving too hard for equality, we're straining relations more. It'll be a lot better if we just put this issue behind us and just live (wo)man to (wo)man. But I digress and I don't want to turn this conversation into a whole other issue.
Anywho, Idioteque, regarding Pastafarianism, the Spaghetti Monster is real and quite dangerous. Don't bash it ;D
I do pose a question: at what point does one turn religious? Is it the simple belief in God? Or is it just a tad further where one believes in the teachings of his religion's Lord and tries to live a life in its favor? Or is it even one step further, where to be religious, one needs to follow the doctrines and scriptures of the appropriate religion? I ask this because I feel that by establishing a definition for religion, we'll be able to understand each other's points a bit better. Then again, maybe being religious is different for everyone. I am indeed curious...
Is any belief system then religion? Say I were to believe that Charles Manson actually is the son of God. Would that be religion? Where do we draw the line for what is religion and what is just silliness?
Absolute truth is indestructible. Being indestructible, it is eternal. Being eternal, it is self-existent. Being self-existent, it is infinite. Being infinite, it is vast and deep. Being vast and deep, it is transcendental and intelligent. It is because it is vast and deep that it contains all existence. It is because it is transcendental and intelligent that it embraces all existence. It is because it is infinite and eternal that it fulfills or perfects all existence. In vastness and depth it is like the Earth. In transcendental intelligence it is like Heaven. Infinite and eternal, it is the Infinite itself. Such being the nature of absolute truth, it manifests itself without being seen; it produces effects without motion; it accomplishes its ends without action.
7. Confucianism. Doctrine of the Mean 26
have you ever thought that you, God, and everything in the universe are really all just the same thing?
I believe the trend toward "not believing" has a lot to do with science. 2,000ish years ago when the Bible was being written (by white men)
What does that have anything to do with anything? Why draw in race in something that has nothing to do with it? This whole racism thing is getting to the point where white folk go so out of their way to be politically correct that we're beginning to lower ourselves (white peeps) and raise everyone else to the point where we almost want to be the minority. Weird. Can't we just start ignoring race and just live our lives. By striving too hard for equality, we're straining relations more. It'll be a lot better if we just put this issue behind us and just live (wo)man to (wo)man. But I digress and I don't want to turn this conversation into a whole other issue.
I can't believe I missed that. The bible wasn't written by "white men" it was written by middle easterners and jews - and probably greek and roman dudes too. And while we are on the subject, odds are, Jesus didn't have blond hair, blue eyes, and pale skin either...
I suppose it was transcribed by white men. And white men likely selected the books that are in the modern christian bible - but they didn't write them. but more to the point, how is the race of the author relevant to a religious text? unless you were implying that certain things were added or left out due to racial prejudice...
have you ever thought that you, God, and everything in the universe are really all just the same thing?
yes. that's the beauty of it.
we are all one, but we've corrupted this with nationalism, religion, politics, etc etc... imagine where we would be without these things. however, on the flipside - i guess we wouldnt be where we are today without them either...
Post by steveternal on Mar 12, 2009 8:28:25 GMT -5
I find it interesting that many, many of the questions and concerns about Christianity that we in the modern West have are really exclusive to Western Christianity. A lot of the issues I've seen raised in this thread, I'm happy to say, aren't applicable to Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
I'd also like to point something out by way of a quote (I forget the source): "Christianity would be great if it weren't for all these Christians." There's great truth to that, and it's something that we who practice the Faith should also remember: that we will always practice it poorly. Tell me I'm a poor Christian, and that I don't represent the Faith well, because that's all true. I'm only hurt when people infer that the Faith itself is as faulty as those who try to live it.
"I'm only hurt when people infer that the Faith itself is as faulty as those who try to live it." -Me too. I have been to bad churches with bad preachers too - but many have came and will come in his name and he does not know them!They pretend to speak for him.These fakes push people away from the true God - the God of LOVE.
Instead of dirt and poison, we have rather chosen to fill our hives with honey and wax; thus furnishing mankind with the two noblest of things, which are sweetness and light.
Instead of dirt and poison, we have rather chosen to fill our hives with honey and wax; thus furnishing mankind with the two noblest of things, which are sweetness and light.
Interesting you would mention Eastern Orthodox Steve. I spent all last night watching videos mostly explaining the three main branches of Christianity: Roman Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox... so the way I understand it is that the Eastern Orthodox believe that our understanding of god will always be very limited, they dont teach directly from the bible and their worship is focused on Rituals. These videos are imensly interesting to me. I've never seen theological questions answered this way. I posted the site in an earlier post back on page three i think, if anyone is interested in checking it out.
Post by steveternal on Mar 12, 2009 12:48:36 GMT -5
Hmmm... not sure I'd quite define it that way, but you're certainly on the right track. Yes, Orthodoxy differs from Catholicism in that we don't try to explain every theological detail-- we accept that something are beyond our grasp, or at least haven't been revealed to us. There's overall an emphasis on the "mystery" of the Faith. In fact several times at various points in our liturgies and other services we refer to God as ineffable, incomprehensible, etc. It's not that we downplay the Bible in any way-- the Gospels are central to our services and our teachings, as are other parts of Scripture. But we don't adhere to "Sola Scriptura", which of course came along (with Protestantism) way later than when the Church really began. We believe there have been and continue to be people blessed by God and enabled to explain both the Bible and other ideas. They are known as the Holy Fathers. Their writings are not held on the same plane as the Bible, but the Bible wouldn't be as full without those writings to accompany it. Focused on rituals... hmmm, perhaps what you're getting at is that the practice of the Faith is relatively well-defined. Our regular Sunday service is the Divine Liturgy, which was formed back in the 4th Century and is still done with very little change. It's nice to be able to go to any Orthodox church in the entire world and the same service is being performed. It enforces the idea that we are all sharing in this Faith. Anyway, it's a "high church" style of worship, for sure. Like Catholics, we also have Sacraments. The Faith, overall, is certainly more rigid than Protestantism. Don't know if any of that helps, but I'm glad you were intrigued by what you learned, spiral!
I suppose it was transcribed by white men. And white men likely selected the books that are in the modern christian bible - but they didn't write them. but more to the point, how is the race of the author relevant to a religious text? unless you were implying that certain things were added or left out due to racial prejudice...
Yes, this!! That is what I meant. I kind of summed it up, and it came out sounding incorrect. Sorry. I should have said white men selected books of the modern Bible. And yes, certainly things are added or left from Religious texts due to racial prejudice-check out what the Book of Mormon use to say. Crazy shit! It's all crazy shit.
2012 Wishlist: Radiohead Phish Daft Punk Ghostland Observatory Broken Social Scene Roger Waters Bell X1 Bonobo Chemical Brothers Fiona Apple Built to Spill Modest Mouse
Is any belief system then religion? Say I were to believe that Charles Manson actually is the son of God. Would that be religion? Where do we draw the line for what is religion and what is just silliness?
I don't know where you could draw the line. Think about it - in the early days, the Romans would have thought Christianity was completely silly. And now we think the idea of gods sitting on Mt. Olympus and throwing lighting bolts is silly.
Here are the first two definitions of religion from dictionary.com:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
So, yeah, believing Charles Manson is the son of God could be an actual religion.
Post by ronburgandy? on Mar 12, 2009 13:23:41 GMT -5
music is my religion..and its not fair that everyone gets off at the end of december for someone else's religion...but i have to take off 3 days in june to practice mine..
Post by steveternal on Mar 12, 2009 13:38:28 GMT -5
^^^lol.
YEMolly: I'm no Biblical scholar, but that's in no way true. While there's not specific date or event to point to for when the Bible was "selected" or finalized, The Bible that we have nowadays is the exact same as what was used as early at the 5th Century. That is, the Christian leaders who collectively shaped it were not white--did white even exist back then? They were Greek, Arab, Roman, north African and even Jewish, like Idioteque said. Sure, some later Protestant branches of Christianity took out a few minor books, now called the Apocrypha, but not even those who still include the Apocrypha (like the Orthodox) believe that to be a critical difference. The Bible is basically the same. It's also not quite accurate to say that it was translated by white men, because there have been countless translations over many centuries by lots of different types of people. No offense, but it seems like you're trying to read a socio-political agenda into this that isn't really there. I mean, I'm not even sure what you're trying to imply when you say "white men."
Post by mattlikesrock on Mar 12, 2009 16:28:20 GMT -5
^I thought that was well worded.
And just for clarity's sake, if there are racial prejudices in the Bible, and errors, could we discuss some of them? I may be opening the flood gates here, but if we come to something that needs to be addressed, wouldn't that be a good opportunity for believers to answer it or for non-believers to air their opinions/thoughts/concerns?
Post by steveternal on Mar 12, 2009 16:55:59 GMT -5
^^^I'm happy to help. Again I'm no Biblical scholar, but if I can maybe set right some misconceptions or clear up some confusions, I would love to help.
And just for clarity's sake, if there are racial prejudices in the Bible, and errors, could we discuss some of them? I may be opening the flood gates here, but if we come to something that needs to be addressed, wouldn't that be a good opportunity for believers to answer it or for non-believers to air their opinions/thoughts/concerns?
As far as I know there isn't really any direct racism in the traditional Christian Bible. You do have the various tribes and civilizations that opposed Israel in the Old Testament. But the opposition to them is more the fact that they aren't God's chosen people, worship false gods, etc rather than simply the color of their skin. There's parts of thet New Testament that aren't that friendly to Jews, but that stems more from their denial and crucifixtion of Christ and their religious practices. From what I understand the Book of Mormon isn't very friendly to black people, but I only really have a passing knowledge of their faith, and those ideas aren't really preached or accepted by most modern Mormons. Women and homosexuals do however get a pretty bad rap in the Bible.
As far as errors go, I suppose you could start with anything that is in conflict with accepted scientific facts such as the creation story, but I look at most of these as parables or religious allegory rather than factual events. If anyone else can bring some specifics, I'd be more than happy to discuss them.
Post by steveternal on Mar 12, 2009 21:42:46 GMT -5
Well of course the "Old Testament" dates back much earlier-- the Septuagint itself is at least from 100 B.C. And that is in essence the same as what Christians and Jews use today. As far as compiling the "New Testament" goes... by my understanding, it was around the time of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (early 4th Century), and Constantine I was a huge part of why it happened. But it wasn't ratified there or anything. Of course we do know that its oldest surviving manuscripts, like the Codex Sinaiticus, date back almost to that time. So it's fair to say that it's at least that old. And it's worth making clear that the age of the writings themselves--between about A.D. 50-150--is not disputed.
I wish I could say more about who put it together, or how, but I'm woefully ignorant in that field. I guess the real answer is that it happened over the hundreds of years since Christ's crucifixion, by many people of many times and places. I should like to learn more about it, though.
Oh, and I think the Council of Trent was when the Catholic Church made an official canon to accept the Bible they'd already been using. Maybe that's what you're remembering.
As far as errors go, I suppose you could start with anything that is in conflict with accepted scientific facts such as the creation story, but I look at most of these as parables or religious allegory rather than factual events. If anyone else can bring some specifics, I'd be more than happy to discuss them.
For example? Modern science says we came from somewhere, but we're just not sure where it exactly started. The Bible says we were created on purpose, by God.
YEMolly: I'm no Biblical scholar, but that's in no way true. While there's not specific date or event to point to for when the Bible was "selected" or finalized, The Bible that we have nowadays is the exact same as what was used as early at the 5th Century. That is, the Christian leaders who collectively shaped it were not white--did white even exist back then? They were Greek, Arab, Roman, north African and even Jewish, like Idioteque said. Sure, some later Protestant branches of Christianity took out a few minor books, now called the Apocrypha, but not even those who still include the Apocrypha (like the Orthodox) believe that to be a critical difference. The Bible is basically the same. It's also not quite accurate to say that it was translated by white men, because there have been countless translations over many centuries by lots of different types of people. No offense, but it seems like you're trying to read a socio-political agenda into this that isn't really there. I mean, I'm not even sure what you're trying to imply when you say "white men."
No, there is no was of knowing for sure when the Bible was "finalized," I agree, but I'm going to disagree with your statement that the same Bible used today is the same one from the 5th century . I know it's widely believed that Jewish rabbis and scholars, and then later early Christians determined the biblical canon, all of which came from the same general region. But it is also widely believed that the Protestant Church did not agree on which books should be contained in the Bible until as late as 1647 at the Assembly of Westminster. I don't claim to know when all this took place, and I don't think anyone should claim to "know." The Bible has gone through major changes over the centuries. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove this. The Scrolls, dating to about the first century C.E., demonstrate that there were several versions of scripture in distribution-- some that are claimed by scholars to be even more extensive, and of better quality, than those found in our modern Bibles. The only books of the bible which are accepted as divine by all Jews and all varieties of Christians are the first five books of the Old Testament: the Pentateuch, and I think that's a major issue. Means religions pick and choose what is important to them, which is why I don't trust any of them. But I specifically said "religious texts" in my lost post in relation to race, specifically mentioning the Book of Mormon. I wasn't suggesting the Bible put certain races in a negative light. I was just bringing up the point about exactly what kind of people put the books of the Bible together. And everyone is concentrating on the race factor, but I also mentioned sex (MEN) as well. That is VERY important...the fact that woman were not involved in picking the canon (for any religion) and not mentioned much at all in the Bible (or other popular religious texts). In that respect, I guess I am bringing up the "socio-political agenda" aspect b/c it is most certainly obvious. Woman are treated as property, called whores, sold,...basically treated like shit. Anyroo, may point in all of this from the get-go was that the Bible was written by people, every day common MAN. Nobody parted any seas or fed a village with one fish. Only man would think to entice people to believe and follow something by igniting fear in the souls and hearts of those who don't believe.
2012 Wishlist: Radiohead Phish Daft Punk Ghostland Observatory Broken Social Scene Roger Waters Bell X1 Bonobo Chemical Brothers Fiona Apple Built to Spill Modest Mouse
For example? Modern science says we came from somewhere, but we're just not sure where it exactly started. The Bible says we were created on purpose, by God.
Well, I'd argue that if we're not sure then why couldn't we be created by God on purpose? Science still can't rule that out, and I don't see how it really could barringf some major breakthough in quantum physics or something. By the same token, the only way I could really prove that God did create everything is to die, meet him and come back and tell you. It's something that's either taken as a matter of faith or it isn't.