Page 21 of 34 FirstFirst ... 11161718192021222324252631 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 420 of 675
  1. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #401  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church. We were taught not to worry about the literal words in Scripture, that we could rely upon the Church to make it all clear to us. Of course, we had to ignore the fact that the interpretation was somewhat self-serving. There are only a small number of churches that teach that the individual is her own authority and may interpret for herself.
    This is true of the greater majority of the catholic church, in my experience as well. However, the reverse is the case in the Protestant denominations. And with all due respect to them, the greater majority of those in Southern/Midwestern Protestant churches receive the message that the bible is the absolute word of god. The televangelist is an accurately iconic representation of the way the bible is portrayed.

    That said, the Scriptures are such a fundamental part of Western culture that they cannot be ignored. For better or worse, sharing them binds us together. Sort of like Mother Goose, The Brothers Grimm, Dickens, and Disney.
    While I agree to the spirit of your statement, most bible-belters wouldn't, as shown in multiple posts on this thread and others.

    Disney no later than 1965 maybe.
  2. #402  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    T.......While I agree to the spirit of your statement, most bible-belters wouldn't, as shown in multiple posts on this thread and others.........
    (See my amended post.)

    While there are many who will disagree with me, your hero/icon, Thomas Jefferson would. That is not bad company.
  3. #403  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    ......The televangelist is an accurately iconic representation of the way the bible is portrayed.........
    I agree but have you noticed that each of them puts his own unique spin on "God's Word."
  4. #404  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    .........
    Disney no later than 1965 maybe.
    Maybe, maybe not. What do you suppose the ratio is of those fathers who model themselves after Abraham is to those dads who identify with Nemo's dad in Disney's Finding Nemo? Even in the bible belt.

    I admit it. My heroes were the Lone Ranger, Hop-along Cassidy (portrayed by William Boyd), Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, and Charles Starrett (as the Durango Kid). The only biblical hero with whom I identified was David; he stood up to the bully, made music, wrote poetry, and loved Johnathon. Is that the lesson I was supposed to take from the Book of David?

    If the televangelists are entitled to their spin, I can have mine. Indeed, it is in the nature of good stories that they encourage our elaboration.
    Last edited by whmurray; 05/10/2007 at 10:55 AM.
  5. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #405  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    I agree but have you noticed that each of them puts his own unique spin on "God's Word."
    Their spin primarily addresses the meaning and intent of what they still refer to as the absolute word of god ... Which is quite sadly humorous when you consider it.
  6. #406  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Their spin primarily addresses the meaning and intent of what they still refer to as the absolute word of god ... Which is quite sadly humorous when you consider it.
    I would think that if the "salvation" of the human race was going to turn on it, a generous deity could arrange to express herself unambiguously. One's "salvation" would not turn on which channel one tuned into.
    Last edited by whmurray; 05/10/2007 at 03:32 PM.
  7. #407  
    ^Agree completely.

    It is curious that more believers do not have this more rational POV.
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  8. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #408  
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo View Post
    ^Agree completely.

    It is curious that more believers do not have this more rational POV.
    You just answered your own curiosity.
  9. #409  
    Just attempting to be polite.
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  10. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #410  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    I would think that if the "salvation" of the human race was going to turn on it, a generous deity could arrange to express herself unambiguously. One's "salvation" would not turn on which channel one tuned into.
    "Onward Christian Soldiers . . ."
  11. #411  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    I would think that if the "salvation" of the human race was going to turn on it, a generous deity could arrange to express herself unambiguously. One's "salvation" would not turn on which channel one tuned into.
    Indeed. Wonderfully, one need not tune in to be in tune.

    Reading is fundamental.
  12. #412  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    In fairness, not all those, not even most, who consider themselves to be "of Faith" and who believe in God pretend that Scripture can be taken literally,...
    Well that is not entirely correct, particularly outside America in countries where the Catholic Church is still very dominant.

    That is one reason why Sunday morning is spent listening to those with license to interpret for others.
    This is a point of contention. Why is there someone given exclusive license (and by whom?) to proclaim the meaning of the Bible? I was taught the holly spirit provided men with understanding of god.

    I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church. We were taught not to worry about the literal words in Scripture, that we could rely upon the Church to make it all clear to us.
    So was I in Spain, at the time, a bastion of the Roman Catholic Church. Basic dogma was infallibility of the "word of god"; the Bible was never to be questioned or doubted in anyway.

    That said, the Scriptures are such a fundamental part of Western culture that they cannot be ignored.
    Agreed.

    We are a story telling species. It is our stories that define us and distinguish us from others. It is with our stories that we identify ourselves and our place in the universe. It is with our stories that we teach, not to say, acculturate and discipline, our children.
    Usually stories are priced more for the message than the words.

    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    And with all due respect to them, the greater majority of those in Southern/Midwestern Protestant churches receive the message that the bible is the absolute word of god. The televangelist is an accurately iconic representation of the way the bible is portrayed.
    Seems accurate from my cursory observation of these relegious cults.

    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    If the televangelists are entitled to their spin, I can have mine. Indeed, it is in the nature of good stories that they encourage our elaboration.
    Eventhough I agree with your statement, it seems to be at odds with the positions of organized religion regarding Biblical interpretation.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  13. #413  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Indeed. Wonderfully, one need not tune in to be in tune.

    Reading is fundamental.
    Agreed. However, apparently reading does not resolve the ambiguity. Hundreds of sects, reading the same text, coming to different conclusions, even killing each other over the differences, each confident that they are doing "God's will."

    Do not get me wrong. I believe that people kill each other over economics, not religion (and not language). However, religious identification, not to say, hatred, is so powerful that it is easily exploited by demagogues. Even if people are fighting over economics, they think they are fighting over interpretation of scripture. What is worse is that even after the economic inequities are resolved, the sectarian animosity persists, in many cases for hundreds of years. It pollutes public discourse and conflict resolution.

    As I watched TV this morning I heard a report about a man of the cloth suggesting that a presidentiial candidate will be "taken out" because of his religion. Perhaps he only meant that he will be taken out of the race but, perhaps, the ambiguity was intentional. Perhaps some zealot will interpret it as "God's will."

    [Another report said that twenty-five percent of the electorate declare that they will vote based upon religion. Yet another says that a presidential candidate faces excommunication from his church because he declares that the state should not be involved in a woman's decision as to whether or not to bear a child.]

    Oh for a less sectarian public square. Oh for a more generous deity.
    Last edited by whmurray; 05/21/2007 at 02:03 PM.
  14. #414  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Indeed. Wonderfully, one need not tune in to be in tune.

    Reading is fundamental.
    I am all for those who are "in tune" with evidence, whether with scripture or otherwise. (Of course, I do not limit my reading to that canon of stories selected for me by authority, religious or otherwise.) What I fear is when those who think that they have found "The Truth" begin to proselytize, organize, and politicize.

    I do not have a problem with people who believe in God. My problem is with organized religion. I fear all attempts by "True Believers" to use the coercive power of the state to impose their beliefs on others. Unfortunately, it seems to be in the nature of "true belief" to encourage just such behavior in its adherents.

    Be afraid. Be very afraid.
  15. Dim-Ize's Avatar
    Posts
    242 Posts
    Global Posts
    710 Global Posts
    #415  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    How is this taken out of context, and how can both quotes from the Bible be literally true?

    Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

    John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
    I will post one final time to this thread. If anyone reading this thread truly has the heart (or sincerely wants to study the Bible) I will offer the following comments for their consideration:

    There are extant over 5000 complete and fragmented copies of the Greek New Testament. In addition to those, there are translations into old and new Syriac, old and new Latin, Coptic (Egyptian), Armenian, Gothic, Ethiopic, and Georgian (Russian). Yet these all read virtually the same except for minor variations that one would expect being copied and recopied throughout centuries. If you trace the family tree of these texts, they converge on the first century. There is no evidence of Christianity existing before the first century. In addition, many historical documents have been found alluding to Christian writings (e.g. the Muratorian fragment). Someone who agrues that point simply is not knowledgeable on the history of the text. I recommend Neil Lightfoot's "How We Got the Bible" if you are sincere. No documents have been scrutinized and criticized more by textual scholars than those that make up The Bible. Many of those Greek manuscripts can be read on the internet or in museums. For example, I am attaching one that is a fragment of Revelation showing the mark of the beast to be 616 instead of 666. O.K. so there is a mistake somewhere, but that doesn't change the fact that a beast is spoken of and does exist. If several people witnessed an accident or crime, they would not give the exact same testimony, and one may even contradict the other on a few minor points, but one can still gather the fact that an accident or crime did occur and piece together enought to know the essential truth.

    Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

    John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

    Here is a chronological set of events:

    Jesus recieved the vinegar (after He cried My God why have you forsaken Me? Meaning, Why am I still on the cross? He took the vinegar, a painkiller, because He is now going to die.)
    After drinking the vinegar, He cried with a loud voice (i.e. It is finished!).
    After crying, "It is finished" with a loud voice, He then said, "Father into Thy hands I commend My spirit." After saying that, He then bowed His head and the spirit left His body.
    Last edited by Dim-Ize; 12/07/2008 at 08:11 PM.
  16. #416  
    ...but that doesn't change the fact that a beast is spoken of and does exist.
    Not sure how you arrive at the definitive conclusion that the beast does exist? How many people experienced and wrote about the revelations? I thought it was one guy, wasn't it (John)? So what other witnesses can corroborate the fact that there is a beast?

    BTW - I've actually been to Patmos and in the cave where John saw the revelations. Look like a cave to me with a crack in the ceiling.
  17. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #417  
    Quote Originally Posted by Dim-Ize View Post
    Here is a chronological set of events: ...
    Am I the only one who finds this hysterically funny?
  18. #418  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Am I the only one who finds this hysterically funny?
    I only wish it were funny. Be afraid of "true believers." Be very afraid.
  19. #419  
    Quote Originally Posted by Dim-Ize View Post
    For example, I am attaching one that is a fragment of Revelation showing the mark of the beast to be 616 instead of 666. O.K. so there is a mistake somewhere...
    Good to hear that you admit there are mistakes in the Bible and that it therefore cannot be literally true.
    ...but that doesn't change the fact that a beast is spoken of and does exist.
    Just because a book mentions a beast doesn't prove it exists. I have read "The Lord of the Rings" in different languages (German and English) and found the books to be highly consistent, and largely free of contradictions (much more so than the bible), but that doesn't lead me to believe creatures like Balrogs exist or existed.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20. #420  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    [Another report said that twenty-five percent of the electorate declare that they will vote based upon religion. Yet another says that a presidential candidate faces excommunication from his church because he declares that the state should not be involved in a woman's decision as to whether or not to bear a child.]
    I read a survey where as a whole, the group that "America" trusted the least was...atheists. Beyond terrorists, beyond Muslims, the atheists where the group that were garnered the least trust, they were the group that the most people answered "I would be most upset if my son/daughter married a...", etc.

    It was quite astounding!


    Here is the link link

    Chris

Posting Permissions