Antlerman Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 i must confess, i haven't been to church in a month or two. my opinions have changed a little. i do believe that there are different religions for the purpose of that thier are different opinions. who's to say which is the "truth." i guess where i have changed is that, although i strongly feel i am right, there are other people who feel the same about thier religion. and who am i to say that they are wrong and going to burn in hell for what they believe. the fact is, nobody knows who is right, because if they did, there would be one central religion in the world. When you talk about people feeling strongly their religion is the "right" one, I think this is an interesting thing to look at. I wonder if part of the problem in coming to recognize the validity is this inner sense to you that yours is right? You know, it is natural people should feel theirs is "right" because it is - for them. If it wasn't speaking to something in them, they wouldn't be accepting it. It seems "right" to them because it is. But the step of moving beyond our own perception of what is "right" to at least acknowledging other's beliefs hold that same meaning to them is the first step in finding an even greater "truth" in ourselves. You begin to see how equal all of us are, and how that truth is very fluid, and that is the "beginning of wisdom", IMHO. It gets rid of this false sense of arrogance, that you have "The Truth" for everyone! For me, it allows me to hold others in respect and esteem, rather than viewing them as "lost", when they have a different system for relating to the world through who they uniquely are. We each walk our own roads. For me, understanding the validity within open religious systems has allowed me to move beyond a raw atheistic dismissal of all beliefs in God, into seeing the marvel of the human heart through the power of imagination (more on that word later). I find a greater peace in my own heart and mind to see humanity as one, rather than camps of "right" and "wrong" thinking. Don't kid yourself, Atheists can be just as fundamentalist and dogmatic as Christians can be. To me its all about putting yourself in a position of learning, as opposed to putting up walls around a point of view. It should always at all times be open to reconsideration. To do less than that is to limit growth. More later... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 side note: not sure if it was fair of me to say true believer, i think it would be better put, a mature christian vs immature christian. You know...I really like you freeday. I just have a little thing to add here and don't take it as a personal attack. Just take it is a thought that maybe what I'm about to say could be true. I see an immature christian as one that takes the stories literally and sees the images that the mind creates as being what is spoken about. In other words, thinking that the symbols are the point. This is what a child does with Santa. They see Santa as the point of the story instead of the message that Santa represents. They have a framework that the story was told within and they stay there. A mature christian is one that moves beyond the theological framework of religion. They have moved beyond the boundries that was established by someone. Who was that someone? Why are the boundries they set to be considered the absolute truth? They then understand that it's the message, not the story, that is important. The story is only a symbol. i have seen this article before, my wife brought it home from the church once. we laughed about it. what a load of crap. let me be the first to clear the air, my wife doesn't work, she is a stay at home wife. we don't have kids either. but i do not expect anything from her, she normally cooks, but i help out around the household quite a bit, i do laundry, clean, dishes. i feel in a relationship you should do your best to help out the other, and it will come back to you. the more i do for her, the more she does for me. and this philosiphy has worked out great for both of us. You go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 If Marx was correct in his statement that "religion is opium for the people", then the Bible writers were drug dealers. And I heard some people argue that "manna" in the OT was a hallucinogenic mushroom. So maybe your image of God is based on drug induced revelations... "opiate" not "opium"...as in anything that dulls the senses. I'm sure you know that already anyway, but I couldn't just let you get away with it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Wow, that threw me for a loop. "Self actualization"? No, in my case, as in all humans, it comes from with ourselves. As in what I said above, "God" serves as an object to for people to tap into their own "spirit" within, and becomes them moving beyond their own strengths, that can be tied up in the natural or mundane day to day world, by transporting them to a different place within themselves and tapping into a side of their own humanity that offers a new sense of strength and center. Imagination allows the spirit to soar to places of freedom and possiblity. This is what I call spirituality. (Religion on the other hand squashes the spirit by stuffing into a little cardboard box). That said, there are many roads that lead to Chicago. Some take the road of Jesus, others Buddha, others Mohammad, others the arts, others philosophy. That sort of transcendent love I am talking about is something that is within every living human being, and does not typically come from "self actualization", but I suppose in a sense, it does become a part of that as we realize what we have in us. Jesus is can either be a tool for this exploration of your humanity, or your prison as you cower in fear trying to figure out "what he expects of us". The path of "God" is the exploration of yourself. i think our imagination could lead us astray, if you went hiking in the mountains, wouldn't you want a guide or a map to help you. this is what religion does. it helps guide you in your walk of spirituality. regardless what religion. there are hundreds of different religions, there is one for everyone out there. Antlerman, I think what you are saying is the same thing I gleaned from the NT teachings. Freeday, I think this was also in the teachings of the NT. It is not the belief in a person, but perhaps the teachings associated with that person. Therefore, it seems to me, that there is no need for 'blind faith' because the fact, or lack there of, in a person's actual existence is unimportant... the message, teachings, speak for themselves. Perhaps it doesn't matter HOW someone got to where they are, but WHERE they are is the important aspect. There are many people that seemed to find these insights once they left Chrisitianity. Some people may actually find them in Christianity. WHO they are is what counts. IMO, that is what is meant when it is said, 'we shall know them by their fruits'. Not their labels, but how they act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 "opiate" not "opium"...as in anything that dulls the senses. I'm sure you know that already anyway, but I couldn't just let you get away with it! Sorry, I wrote it in haste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 "opiate" not "opium"...as in anything that dulls the senses. I'm sure you know that already anyway, but I couldn't just let you get away with it! Sorry, I wrote it in haste. Oh dangit! I didn't mean to laugh at you for making a mistake. I thought you may have done it on purpose. I'm sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 i must confess, i haven't been to church in a month or two. my opinions have changed a little. i do believe that there are different religions for the purpose of that thier are different opinions. who's to say which is the "truth." i guess where i have changed is that, although i strongly feel i am right, there are other people who feel the same about thier religion. and who am i to say that they are wrong and going to burn in hell for what they believe. the fact is, nobody knows who is right, because if they did, there would be one central religion in the world. Hey Freeday ... You've pulled back the curtains, cleaned the windows till they're shiny and letting in the sun, opened the windows.... now the fresh breezes are wafting into your home... AHHHHH.... So..... how does all that fresh air and sunshine feel????? I'm happy for you, I really am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Oh dangit! I didn't mean to laugh at you for making a mistake. I thought you may have done it on purpose. I'm sorry. Heck, laugh at me as much as you want. I laugh at myself... at least I'm trying to... It was a pretty funny mistake after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeday Posted August 9, 2006 Author Share Posted August 9, 2006 i must confess, i haven't been to church in a month or two. my opinions have changed a little. i do believe that there are different religions for the purpose of that thier are different opinions. who's to say which is the "truth." i guess where i have changed is that, although i strongly feel i am right, there are other people who feel the same about thier religion. and who am i to say that they are wrong and going to burn in hell for what they believe. the fact is, nobody knows who is right, because if they did, there would be one central religion in the world. When you talk about people feeling strongly their religion is the "right" one, I think this is an interesting thing to look at. I wonder if part of the problem in coming to recognize the validity is this inner sense to you that yours is right? You know, it is natural people should feel theirs is "right" because it is - for them. If it wasn't speaking to something in them, they wouldn't be accepting it. It seems "right" to them because it is. But the step of moving beyond our own perception of what is "right" to at least acknowledging other's beliefs hold that same meaning to them is the first step in finding an even greater "truth" in ourselves. You begin to see how equal all of us are, and how that truth is very fluid, and that is the "beginning of wisdom", IMHO. It gets rid of this false sense of arrogance, that you have "The Truth" for everyone! For me, it allows me to hold others in respect and esteem, rather than viewing them as "lost", when they have a different system for relating to the world through who they uniquely are. We each walk our own roads. For me, understanding the validity within open religious systems has allowed me to move beyond a raw atheistic dismissal of all beliefs in God, into seeing the marvel of the human heart through the power of imagination (more on that word later). I find a greater peace in my own heart and mind to see humanity as one, rather than camps of "right" and "wrong" thinking. Don't kid yourself, Atheists can be just as fundamentalist and dogmatic as Christians can be. To me its all about putting yourself in a position of learning, as opposed to putting up walls around a point of view. It should always at all times be open to reconsideration. To do less than that is to limit growth. More later... this is a great point. you are right, in that a person who has no specific religion is not biased about another religion. so you can look at people more openly without condeming them from the start based on thier beliefs. well you just made me feel like a sack of shit. i just realized that i have been doing exactly what you have been talking about. like the guy omi that han is debating. i look at him as islamic and think what does he know. but in reading thier debate, he is a very knowledgable person. and probably a really nice guy. but upon learning his religion, i immediately had a stigmata about him. its almost like being a racist or a gayist (or however you would say it). you initially form your oppinion based on outside facts and then have to overcome it before you can become friends. funny story, at work my boss hired a gay guy. when i innitially heard this. i didn't want to work with a gay person. not that i hate gays, i just had a bad experience with one that i became friends with. since then, i would just prefer not to be around them. well, i dreaded him starting. then he started and i was kind of distant to him. well after him being there for 6 months now, me and him are great friends. he is one cool mofo. we go out every now and then. so in the end, shame on me for making that assumption and being predjudice towards him. this is something we all have to work on, regardless wether it is religous, racial, sexual, ethnic or economic differences. people often forget about the economic prejudices. i had a point i was going to make about the percieved truth, but i totally forgot it and went off on a tangent. but i think you did expose an even bigger problem with religions today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeday Posted August 9, 2006 Author Share Posted August 9, 2006 side note: not sure if it was fair of me to say true believer, i think it would be better put, a mature christian vs immature christian. You know...I really like you freeday. I just have a little thing to add here and don't take it as a personal attack. Just take it is a thought that maybe what I'm about to say could be true. I see an immature christian as one that takes the stories literally and sees the images that the mind creates as being what is spoken about. In other words, thinking that the symbols are the point. This is what a child does with Santa. They see Santa as the point of the story instead of the message that Santa represents. They have a framework that the story was told within and they stay there. A mature christian is one that moves beyond the theological framework of religion. They have moved beyond the boundries that was established by someone. Who was that someone? Why are the boundries they set to be considered the absolute truth? They then understand that it's the message, not the story, that is important. The story is only a symbol. i have seen this article before, my wife brought it home from the church once. we laughed about it. what a load of crap. let me be the first to clear the air, my wife doesn't work, she is a stay at home wife. we don't have kids either. but i do not expect anything from her, she normally cooks, but i help out around the household quite a bit, i do laundry, clean, dishes. i feel in a relationship you should do your best to help out the other, and it will come back to you. the more i do for her, the more she does for me. and this philosiphy has worked out great for both of us. You go! i can almost agree with you on this one, i think it is the message that is more important than the story. i will have to look this up, i don't know if i can break out of my litaralist shell just yet. i really like reading about the judges and great kings as if they were real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Perhaps it doesn't matter HOW someone got to where they are, but WHERE they are is the important aspect. There are many people that seemed to find these insights once they left Chrisitianity. Some people may actually find them in Christianity. WHO they are is what counts. IMO, that is what is meant when it is said, 'we shall know them by their fruits'. Not their labels, but how they act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Oh dangit! I didn't mean to laugh at you for making a mistake. I thought you may have done it on purpose. I'm sorry. Heck, laugh at me as much as you want. I laugh at myself... at least I'm trying to... It was a pretty funny mistake after all. Laugh at you! :ohmy: I'm totally amazed you keep all the different languages you know straight!!! Heck, I have problems with just english! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 i can almost agree with you on this one, i think it is the message that is more important than the story. i will have to look this up, i don't know if i can break out of my litaralist shell just yet. i really like reading about the judges and great kings as if they were real. Oh...they may have been real, but that isn't the important thing. Santa may not have been a good example for me to use. There may have been a boy at one time that cried wolf, but that isn't really the point. Maybe that was a better one to use. Sorry! It's like reading a book about King Arthur and the round table maybe. I don't know if he was real or not. He may have been based on a real king, but what came out of it was that he didn't see himself above anyone else, hence the round table. Did I explain that any better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Perhaps it doesn't matter HOW someone got to where they are, but WHERE they are is the important aspect. There are many people that seemed to find these insights once they left Chrisitianity. Some people may actually find them in Christianity. WHO they are is what counts. IMO, that is what is meant when it is said, 'we shall know them by their fruits'. Not their labels, but how they act. Thanks Antlerman! It has been one heck of an extension to my spiritual journey on this site, with especially a few deeply admired posters here. You, of course, being one of them. Although I've held onto what I still consider to be meaningful, you and even a couple others have kept the gift of reason a practical aspect of this journey. i can almost agree with you on this one, i think it is the message that is more important than the story. i will have to look this up, i don't know if i can break out of my litaralist shell just yet. i really like reading about the judges and great kings as if they were real. Oh...they may have been real, but that isn't the important thing. Santa may not have been a good example for me to use. NBBTB, just for the record, you do know that Santa Claus was a real person, right? I think he is from around the 3rd century, and his real name is St. Nicholas. The original story is a really endearing one. He was a wealthy guy that became a Christian monk, who gave away all his money to the needy. He would just drop it in their stockings, as they dried in front of the fireplace, as one example. There is a story, supposedly true, that he did this for a family that was going to have to give up his daughter into like a slavery for some outstanding debt. She avoided this outcome by his generosity. It seems that St. Nicholas did much of this anonimously, without expecting praise, and just to help save face of the person he gave assistance. Now... isn't that better than the guy who has elves and flies in a sled around the world in one night? It seems that part was the Kris Kringel mythology that was superimposed onto him later. We should have known, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 NBBTB, just for the record, you do know that Santa Claus was a real person, right? I think he is from around the 3rd century, and his real name is St. Nicholas. The original story is a really endearing one. He was a wealthy guy that became a Christian monk, who gave away all his money to the needy. He would just drop it in their stockings, as they dried in front of the fireplace, as one example. There is a story, supposedly true, that he did this for a family that was going to have to give up his daughter into like a slavery for some outstanding debt. She avoided this outcome by his generosity. It seems that St. Nicholas did much of this anonimously, without expecting praise, and just to help save face of the person he gave assistance. Now... isn't that better than the guy who has elves and flies in a sled around the world in one night? It seems that part was the Kris Kringel mythology that was superimposed onto him later. We should have known, right? HA! Cool! Thanks Amanda! I never knew that. And still, behind all this embelishment, the moral remains the same. freeday...that is what I was trying to say with the help of Amanda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taphophilia Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 I heard that St. Nick gave girls dowry money so they wouldn't have to be prostitutes. (Women didn't have a whole lot of employment options back then.) Freeday, Wow, It's like watching a flower bloom. It's nice to see a Christian who is honest (besides Open Minded). Taph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeday Posted August 10, 2006 Author Share Posted August 10, 2006 i can almost agree with you on this one, i think it is the message that is more important than the story. i will have to look this up, i don't know if i can break out of my litaralist shell just yet. i really like reading about the judges and great kings as if they were real. Oh...they may have been real, but that isn't the important thing. Santa may not have been a good example for me to use. There may have been a boy at one time that cried wolf, but that isn't really the point. Maybe that was a better one to use. Sorry! It's like reading a book about King Arthur and the round table maybe. I don't know if he was real or not. He may have been based on a real king, but what came out of it was that he didn't see himself above anyone else, hence the round table. Did I explain that any better? that explained it much better, this creates a problem though, when do you start creating your own religion when you start saying this is not real, but this is. i don't want to throw out it has to be all or nothing, but i am probably a 90% literal kind of guy. to be honnest, i really want to read the stories and believe with all my heart, but i guess that is why i have never really taken offense to the genocides that people commonly reffer too. its like i am in limbo on the subject. i don't feel like i need to know the real reason those people died. it is like it wouldn't matter one way or the other. could have been God's command, could have been people thought it was God's command and did it, or they could have done it and justified it by saying it was God's command. or it could have never happened. what i get from the whole thing, is don't piss off God. that is the moral of the story i get when reading it. and in my mind that makes sense. if there is a creator, you probably don't want to be on his bad side. this is just me just ranting. not sure if i am making any sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 that explained it much better, this creates a problem though, when do you start creating your own religion when you start saying this is not real, but this is. i don't want to throw out it has to be all or nothing, but i am probably a 90% literal kind of guy. to be honnest, i really want to read the stories and believe with all my heart, but i guess that is why i have never really taken offense to the genocides that people commonly reffer too. its like i am in limbo on the subject. i don't feel like i need to know the real reason those people died. it is like it wouldn't matter one way or the other. could have been God's command, could have been people thought it was God's command and did it, or they could have done it and justified it by saying it was God's command. or it could have never happened. what i get from the whole thing, is don't piss off God. that is the moral of the story i get when reading it. and in my mind that makes sense. if there is a creator, you probably don't want to be on his bad side. this is just me just ranting. not sure if i am making any sense Hey Brother Freeday You are asking very good questions to which you will be dealing with for some time to come. A simple way to put it is that you have to understand that the Bible is many things, not just a book of spiritual teachings. It is also a view of a people's telling of their own history through the eyes of those who lived in a different land and different time. OM has posted a wealth of valuable information in other threads about how modern scholarship understands the evolution of these stories. To start with you take it as stories; some may have some real historical events referenced, but are intertwined with all sorts of heroic tales etc. Once you strip out "divine providence" in the delivery of exact truths, the pieces of the puzzle begin to fit. As archeology uncovers a different history than the one spoken about in the Bible, you begin to see the humanness of the whole thing. This doesn't mean the Bible is worthless fiction at all! On the contrary, it becomes a fascinating and often times inspiring look at humanity and its view of itself, among many valuable lessons about ourselves. There's a book I wanted to get that explores research that the indicates through pottery art and other evidences how the ancient Hebrews were actually themselves Canaanites who were prolific story tellers, rather than having actually come out of Egypt and conquered the Canaanites (the whole genocide story). It makes sense to see a very human and natural evolution of peoples who creates their own history of "Biblical proportions"! This is not an unknown thing in the world! Here's one of the books I'm planning to order: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/068486913...TF8&s=books As the liberal churches like to put it, the Bible "contains the word of God", as opposed to "is the word of God". From my personal point of view I would agree with that first statement, but understanding "God" as a symbolic word of transcendent human ideals. With that understanding, all sacred texts "contain the word of God", or the language of the human spirit. But I come from a more humanist point of view for personal reasons. I do appreciate others who are able to embrace the mythology in a more functional way. Frankly I wish I could too sometimes. I miss the magic of Santa Clause! But I have other ways to tap into that experience that do not set up a conflict within myself, and consequently prevent me from obtaining anything more than the mundane and purely rational. I think humans need both. I think what you're asking is what is the "system" to be able to do this? This is where OM and other’s needs to jump in here. There was a thread elsewhere here where Taph (I think it was her, sorry if I'm remembering incorrectly), OM, and others were talking about being "Cherry Pickers", meaning they taking things from the Bible that contained meaning to them. My thoughts for you, even without a scholarly research into these things, what does your heart tell you? Pick and choose. I see all of these sorts of things as man finding meaning for himself in the Universe. So go for it. I have a feeling you're going to find a lot more growth in a "system" that has you at the helm with your own heart as "the truth", rather than someone else's idea of "what God expects". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 to be honnest, i really want to read the stories and believe with all my heart, but i guess that is why i have never really taken offense to the genocides that people commonly reffer too. its like i am in limbo on the subject. i don't feel like i need to know the real reason those people died. it is like it wouldn't matter one way or the other. could have been God's command, could have been people thought it was God's command and did it, or they could have done it and justified it by saying it was God's command. or it could have never happened. Hello Freeday... Well the WAY we read these stories does matter. It may not seem to matter, but it does. The WAY we read these stories impacts the WAY we treat ourselves and other people. The WAY we read these stories impacts the WAY we think about God. In another thread, when the discussion was about the attributes of God and someone mentioned God as being incomprehensible - Asimov said, "If it is incomprehensible then you can't say anything about it, even that it is a higher being, you're immediately applying an identity to it by even applying a word to it". I agree with that statement. I believe when human beings are thinking of God in the ultimate sense - the only valid thing that can be said is that God is incomprehensible. I believe that God exists - but it would be rather silly of me to believe I had any real way of fully comprehending God. And .... I don't think most Christians (whether conservative or liberal) would disagree with that statement. So...... at that point we must be honest with ourselves when we are reading sacred literature (in this case the Bible). We must be able to look at the attributes that people historically assign to God and realize that these are human perceptions of something that is beyond full comprehension. In the end Freeday ... we choose to see in God what we see. It is when we take our personal perceptions and treat them as hard, concrete reality that we run into trouble. Because then, we have permission to view other understandings of God as invalid. So... back to the way those stories are read... What do you choose to see in God the incomprehensible? Did all that violence happen because it was God's command? Did people think it was God's command and do it of their own volition? Or did they do it and justify it by saying it was God's command? Or did it even happen? Do you see what I'm saying - the way the story is read says different things about God (the incomprehensible). And it says different things about humanity. what i get from the whole thing, is don't piss off God. that is the moral of the story i get when reading it. and in my mind that makes sense. if there is a creator, you probably don't want to be on his bad side. What if you CAN'T "piss God off"? I'm being serious here. You are making an assumption that God is a being (much like you and I are). That God has an ego (much like you and I do). What if God transcends all that? What if God is the energy of Love, of Wisdom, within all and through all ... what if God has no ego at all? Then it wouldn't be possible to "piss God off". Freeday - you may want to take a look at something called anthropomorphism.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human characteristics and qualities to non-human beings, objects, natural, or supernatural phenomena. A form of personification (applying human or animal qualities to inanimate objects) Assigning human characteristics to God is very common - so common that most people really never think about the impact this has on their view of God - or on their view of other human beings. If we choose to believe that God can committ horrid acts of violence - then we have permission ourselves to act in horrible and violent ways. As I said earlier ... the way we choose to read the Bible does matter - because it impacts our thoughts and actions towards other people. It impacts our thoughts and actions towards creation, it impacts our understanding of God. And we do have a choice - just as we have a choice in the way we look at the world we live in - just as we have a choice in the way we choose to view other people. In the end - as individuals we have the responsibility to think about the WAY we view God, other people, other cultures, the world we live in, and creation itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taphophilia Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 Here are some good links on the Old Testament. Ugarit and the Bible An Anthropologist Looks at the Judeo-Christian Scriptures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Assigning human characteristics to God is very common - so common that most people really never think about the impact this has on their view of God - or on their view of other human beings. You know Freeday, if ever I was to follow the Christian philosophy, I would have OM be my guide. Listen to her. She has my highest respects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 To start with you take it as stories; some may have some real historical events referenced, but are intertwined with all sorts of heroic tales etc. Once you strip out "divine providence" in the delivery of exact truths, the pieces of the puzzle begin to fit. As archeology uncovers a different history than the one spoken about in the Bible, you begin to see the humanness of the whole thing. This doesn't mean the Bible is worthless fiction at all! On the contrary, it becomes a fascinating and often times inspiring look at humanity and its view of itself, among many valuable lessons about ourselves. Antlerman, I definitely agreet that the Bible is more than spiritual teachings, IMO, it is a valiant effort to be a history book, science book, philosophy book, etc. for those times. I recently learned that writing only came into existience about 3000 BC. It was called cunieform, and was invented by the Sumerians for inventory purposes initially. These OT stories/fables had to be handed down by word of mouth till at least writing became well known and used for such, so of course these stories had to be embellished to be remembered... and was probably an element to entertaining and valuable morals to be taught to the next generations. I think that if we look at it through the original manuscript the KJV was taken, understand they were not as articulate as we are today, we can understand there are morals to these stories! Yet, the OT is seen through the eyes of the Jews and told in a way in which they perceived God was only on their side. <What if God is the energy of Love, of Wisdom, within all and through all ... what if God has no ego at all? Then it wouldn't be possible to "piss God off".> --------------------------- <As I said earlier ... the way we choose to read the Bible does matter - because it impacts our thoughts and actions towards other people. It impacts our thoughts and actions towards creation, it impacts our understanding of God. And we do have a choice - just as we have a choice in the way we look at the world we live in - just as we have a choice in the way we choose to view other people. In the end - as individuals we have the responsibility to think about the WAY we view God, other people, other cultures, the world we live in, and creation itself. > Open Minded, I always like how you think and what you write. I also do think that these teachings are a history of efforts by mankind to define what is to be held sacred from within him/her self, and to embody that concept as a defining entity that is to be expressed out of each individual. This seems to me to be, collectively and individually, a spirit amongst people of what we call holy (much like a patriotic spirit). Having said that, I do think that behavior can happen that can cause this sense of what we have embodied as sacred, to cause anger. I think there can be natural reprecussions to any action against this concept we call sacred. We lie, no one will believe us. If we abuse a child, this spirit of what we have embodied as sacred will retailiate against that action. IMO, this is the always evolving and refining God nature, moving through us. Anger is not always bad, and we are asked to be slow to anger. IMO, the NT seems to emphasize that we follow this God nature, NOT out of fear, nor even out of obedience, but out of a DESIRE to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Assigning human characteristics to God is very common - so common that most people really never think about the impact this has on their view of God - or on their view of other human beings. You know Freeday, if ever I was to follow the Christian philosophy, I would have OM be my guide. Listen to her. She has my highest respects. Yes indeed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Wow..... (blushing) Antlerman, Amanda and NotBlinded - thank you all - really - ------ - And Amanda: I think there can be natural reprecussions to any action against this concept we call sacred. We lie, no one will believe us. If we abuse a child, this spirit of what we have embodied as sacred will retailiate against that action. IMO, this is the always evolving and refining God nature, moving through us. Anger is not always bad, and we are asked to be slow to anger. IMO, the NT seems to emphasize that we follow this God nature, NOT out of fear, nor even out of obedience, but out of a DESIRE to do so. I do agree with what you are saying.. If we honor love and compassion and wisdom and then we do something against that which we honor, there are repurcussions. I think there are even spiritual repurcussions if we don't honor these things. To me - love and compassion and wisdom are as much laws of the universe as are the law of gravity. So... there definitely are very natural consequences for going against the law of love or compassion or wisdom. And like you, I also believe anger is a part of it - and that it can be a productive part. I just don't think that some being is sitting on a throne in the far reaches of the universe getting angry because I do something to violate the law of love. If I do violence to the law of love - then I do violence to my own soul, my own spirit. I also do violence to creation and to other people. There doesn't need to be a supernatural being to "correct" me, or to "discipline" me. The correction and discipline comes in living itself - and either we choose to learn or we choose to ignore the natural laws that will enable us (as a human species) to survive the evolutionary battle. Our "salvation" as a species will depend as much on the laws of love and wisdom and compassion as it will depend on the laws of logic. God - IMO - is intimately connected with all of this, not a being so much as a universal, infinite intention of love, wisdom, compassion and logic working in and through all of creation. But ... I know you are already aware of this.... I've read many of your posts and I like the way you think as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Here are some good links on the Old Testament. Ugarit and the Bible An Anthropologist Looks at the Judeo-Christian Scriptures Thanks. I read them and there were some really cool stuff there. Finally I got an explanation to the difference of El (sing) and Elohim (plur). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts