Religion: What it means to you

Minion,
You are totally wrong. Slavery was condoned throughout the Bible in all its forms, again the Bible was not against 'Slavery'. Of course, some slaves were treated with respect, others were not. Some were servents, others were not.

Quote:

Slavery is really a bad word to use as a translation. Bad translations are common, especially in the KJV and other really old bibles.

The root Latin word 'servus' along with Greek and Hebrew words are correctly translated not as 'servant' but as 'slave.' Later versions of the Bible often glossed this over.

How many times does the Bible have to be rewritten, and reinvented to fit with modern day views? More than 14,800 changes since the 'Sinai Bible'
So, what you are reading today, has been totally watered down and edited.

African slaves into the New World began shortly after Columbus’ famous “discovery” in 1492. In 1517 the Bishop of Las Casas, a high official in the Roman Catholic Church, encouraged immigration to the New World by permitting Spaniards to import twelve Negroes each.

Franklin, John H., From Slavery to Freedom - A History of Negro Americans, Vintage Books, 1969, page 49

Exodus 21:20-21 if the master beats a slave to death, the master shall be punished. If, however, the severely beaten slave lingers on for a day or two, the master is let off.

Slavery was legal in the United States for almost two hundred and fifty years.

Quote from Jefferson Davis, the first and only president of the Confederacy, "It (slavery) was established by decree of Almighty God and is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments from Genesis to Revelation."

Rowland, Dunbar; Jefferson Davis, vol. 1, page 286.

The Church, Central and South America, supported the enslavement of native inhabitants. Based on a 1493 papal Bull, Spanish jurist Encisco claimed in 1509, “The king has every right to send his men to the Indians to demand the territory from these idolaters because he had received it from the pope. If the Indians refuse, he may quite legally enslave them, just as Joshua enslaved the Canaanites.” As justification for this action, Leviticus 25:44-46 is cited. It reads: “Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor.”

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by larxene

I'm don't realy believe in God. There's no logical poof. Like Joesph said he found the plates location in a vision. But if you say the same story over and over people start to believe you. Also the fact there's a ton of different religions and beliefs doesn't change my mind the least.
But if you guys believe in something then you should stay with it.

the bible has been written by man by what they have experianced and the bible is also a historical record. Like the hystory books you read in class. Difference is if you minipulate the bible it is believed you are automatically sentenced to hell and the bible is written in the word of god (originaly anyway).In Many history books the events are sometimes miss juged and the worst they might get is sued if that. For instance many history books call those massacres to the native americans "wars" or "battles".Events in the bible, Most of it is symbolic, you must read between the lines. Jesus's whole story doesn't stand as logical proof? No offense just curious thats all.

FELIPE NO

We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I've done plenty of reseach about this and the slavery thats condoned in the Bible is just not the slavery you're thinking of. I don't have a concordance with me (I'm at work right now) so I can't look up the words, but I will when I get a chance.

Todays Bible hasn't been "watered down" or edited, in the sense that you are making it out to be. When the Bible is translated, it is translated using the oldest manscripts we have. Some of them date back no so long after the time of Christ. I don't know where people get this from. Of course there were a lot of mistakes in translation. The Bible was being used to control people for a long time. They couldn't even read it.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Minion

Quote:

We're just going to have to agree to disagree here.

I agree!!

Jam it back in, in the dark.

But seriously, though. Check your sources. I think you might have a tainted concept of what the Bible means by slavery. The Old Testament is even harder for us to figure out because the society and circumstances were so much different from ours. War to them was like taking out the garbage. It's something you just had to do. Nomadic people had to be brutal to survive, especialy if they were not the strongest people.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Sigh!! LOL Don't fall for the bias fundamentalist apologetic rhetoric. It is commonly accepted that slavery within the Bible was used to condone 'slavery' in all its forms throughout the history of Christianity. It is all very well saying 'But slavery was different then', when history has shown it wasn't. It wasn't until the 19th century that it was 'deemed evil' and again, by those fighting against the enforcement of immoral scripture. Secular morality today would never condone 'ownership' of another human being. Throughout the biblical era, right up to the 19th century, ownership, and the selling of slaves, was just as morally acceptable as buying a gorilla skin. (something else that is no longer acceptable) But, it was not just a problem with the 'Christian' teachings, most socieites have had slaves, it's in our nature to be lazy baskets I guess.. hehe

'If any one buy from the son or the slave of another man, without witnesses or a contract, silver or gold, a male or female slave, an ox or a sheep, an ass or anything, or if he take it in charge, he is considered a thief and shall be put to death.'

'If any one find runaway male or female slaves in the open country and bring them to their masters, the master of the slaves shall pay him two shekels of silver'

'If a State slave or the slave of a freed man marry the daughter of a free man, and children are born, the master of the slave shall have no right to enslave the children of the free.'
Hammurabi code 1780 B.C.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I am a dynamic figure, often seen scaling walls and crushing ice. I have been known to remodel train stations on my lunch breaks, making them more efficient in the area of heat retention. I translate ethnic slurs for Cuban refugees, I write award-winning operas, I manage time efficiently.

Occasionally, I tread water for three days in a row.

I woo women with my sensuous and godlike trombone playing, I can pilot bicycles up severe inclines with unflagging speed, and I cook Thirty-Minute Brownies in twenty minutes. I am an expert in stucco, a veteran in love, and an outlaw in Peru.

Using only a hoe and a large glass of water, I once single-handedly defended a small village in the Amazon Basin from a horde of ferocious army ants. I play bluegrass cello, I was scouted by the Mets, I am the subject of numerous documentaries. When I'm bored, I build large suspension bridges in my yard. I enjoy urban hang gliding. On Wednesdays, after school, I repair electrical appliances free of charge.

I am an abstract artist, a concrete analyst, and a ruthless bookie. Critics worldwide swoon over my original line or corduroy evening wear. I don't perspire. I am a private citizen, yet I receive fan mail. I have been caller number nine and have won weekend passes. Last summer I toured New Jersey with a traveling centrifugal-force demonstration. I bat 400.

My deft floral arrangements have earned me fame in international botany circles. Children trust me.

I can hurl tennis rackets at small moving objects with deadly accuracy. I once read Paradise Lost, Moby Dick, and David Copperfield in one day and still had time to refurbish an entire dining room that evening. I know the exact location of every food item in the supermarket. I have performed several covert operations with the CIA. I sleep once a week; when I do sleep, I sleep in a chair. While on vacation in Canada, I successfully negotiated with a group of terrorists who had seized a small bakery. The laws of physics do not apply to me.

I balance, I weave, I dodge, I frolic, and my bills are all paid. On weekends, to let off steam, I participate in full-contact origami. Years ago I discovered the meaning of life but forgot to write it down. I have made extraordinary four course meals using only a mould and a toaster oven.

I breed prizewinning clams. I have won bullfights in San Juan, cliff-diving competitions in Sri Lanka, and spelling bees at the Kremlin. I have played Hamlet, I have performed open-heart surgery, and I have spoken with Elvis.

But I still can't figure out why the FUCK we are having this discussion.

How ya doing, buddy?

geez, u seem to be selling ur self her eor something
or rather, boasting about all your skills
read the first page of the forum and u'll find out why we're are having this conversation here. if u dont get it, then moveout. go to another forum and sell yourself there
no need to take up all that space just to tell us u dont understand spiritual and religious affects people

How ya doing, buddy?

Well, to risk derailing the topic further down than the first page, I'm just going to answer the question with a little story:

I had a spiritual moment this morning that was rather trancendental. Through some knowledge of Buddism, Hebrew world-view at the time of Jesus, and the Christianity I was raised in, I made some massive connections.

OK, first, the Hebrew worldview: At the time of Jesus (and before) the view was that the World was God, as opposed to the more modern view (at least as I've been raised) of the World and God being two separate entities. Therefore the World is a holy thing. It is holy for two reasons: it IS God and it was created by God. If it's holy because God created it, then LIFE ITSELF is a holy thing, because it was created by God.

When I realized this, I realized that everything is holy. That's where the Buddism comes in, because if everything is holy, then everything is one. If everything is one, then polytheism is merely an expression of different aspects of God (which Christianity has to begin with, it just doesn't label it polytheism.) Therefore, any form of worship that does no harm to yourself or the world in general (you know, the holy things) is valid.

On that note, see that Wiccan and Native American belief systems are much closer to the original Christian worldview than the modern one. Now, I'm not going to claim that, by virtue of this, man is a god, simply that man, the life of man, and the living of that life are all holy things.

We are all parts of ourselves. Our death is part of ourselves, but to bring about death of yourself or another is to cause harm to the holy.



Am I crazy or does this actually make sense?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I'm an atheist who was agnostic but just decided that I don't believe in any higher power. Things just happened.

My dad was raised Catholic, went to Sunday school, though he seems to lean more towards an atheist belief. I do know that he doesn't hold religion in a very high regard. My mom, I think she was raised Christian or something, not a very far distinction in my opinion from Catholism. She disliked going to Sunday school and church. Her beliefs now are more of the Wiccan variety. She's definitely interested in witchcraft and spirituality, though doesn't practice it in any way. She doesn't have a high regard for religion either.

I guess you can say that I do take after my parents. I was Baptised as a baby, but that doesn't mean anything to me. I've been to church a couple of times, but didn't gain anything from it. I've seen religion more as a mind control, originally used to describe how the world works and now use more to show where your soul will go to.

I'm interested in the stories of various religion and their history, but they don't make me believe any different. I feel that it's more of a mind over matter. If you believe something will happen, then it can. I feel there are more to the human mind than we know and that is what causes the world to go round.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by wvlfpvp

When I realized this, I realized that everything is holy. That's where the Buddism comes in, because if everything is holy, then everything is one. If everything is one, then polytheism is merely an expression of different aspects of God (which Christianity has to begin with, it just doesn't label it polytheism.) Therefore, any form of worship that does no harm to yourself or the world in general (you know, the holy things) is valid.

No, polytheism is belief in multiple gods. What your talking about is called henotheism, which is what many people see Hinduism as. Your point is still valid, just a vocabulary correction.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by wvlfpvp

I had a spiritual moment this morning that was rather trancendental. Through some knowledge of Buddism, Hebrew world-view at the time of Jesus, and the Christianity I was raised in, I made some massive connections.

OK, first, the Hebrew worldview: At the time of Jesus (and before) the view was that the World was God, as opposed to the more modern view (at least as I've been raised) of the World and God being two separate entities. Therefore the World is a holy thing. It is holy for two reasons: it IS God and it was created by God. If it's holy because God created it, then LIFE ITSELF is a holy thing, because it was created by God.

Well, I for one think you are totally wrong about what you think the Hebrew conception of God was.
God has ALWAYS been maintained and believed as a non-worldly being. The world was not God, and has never been believed to be so... unless there is some mysterious unknown sect of Judaism back in that time that nobody ever talked about but everyone followed.
It was very clearly heresy for anyone at all to claim that anything physical were God. Why do you think Jesus got into so much trouble?

However, some of your other reasoning I call into question. If the world was God, how did God create God? Was the universe ever-exisiting?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I think I need to point out that there are people out there, guys with degrees on the topic and stuff, who are of the opinion that the hebrew god has all the trappings of a tribal earth god who walked among and fought for his people in a time before time etc and so forth. So saying that it was always heretical for people claim God was tied to anything physical is kind of dumb.

Also, why can't you let him enjoy his epiphany for awhile before you go stomping and shitting all over it with your own half-conceived abortions of an historical interpretation of religion.

Oh yeah, as for me I'm basically with wvlf. You know, once you appreciate the emptiness of everything, you're free to enjoy it all, leading down a path to universal harmony and love. <3
Seriously, everything is empty plus a temporally dependent universally perfect world, these two ideas have really improved my outlook. In that sense I guess I'm a devout believer in something, without actually practicing anything <.<;

There's nowhere I can't reach.

And guys with degrees in that sort of thing also say exactly the opposite of what you say.
The difference is that one (your guys with degrees) is built purely on speculations and extrapolations, whereas another (my guys with degrees) is built upon actual written records.
One is interpreting things in lieu of the 20th century mind, and the other is interpreting in the minds of the people at those times.

As for "stomping and shitting:" why must we wait until this "epiphany" sinks in before we argue against it. These sorts of considerations are pointless in a debate.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Fjordor

The difference is that one (your guys with degrees) is built purely on speculations and extrapolations, whereas another (my guys with degrees) is built upon actual written records.

I think a more accurate assumption would be: "The difference is that one (Avalokiteshvara's guys with degrees) outnumbers another (your guys with degrees) by a ratio of a bajillion to one."

See? We both said something without proving it. YAY!

Quote:

One is interpreting things in lieu of the 20th century mind, and the other is interpreting in the minds of the people at those times.

Yea, that's it. Because I'm sure you've read up on both sides of issue. You're not just taking the side of fundamental interpretors simply because it meshes with your own safe-haven assumptions more easily. You're taking their side because you've objectively studied the topic extensively from all available angles without letting your religous zeal get in the way. Right?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Megalith Beast

Before I was a Pagan, I believed that animals were of equal value to humans, and that they should never be purposely harmed (unless you intend to eat them), and should be respected. I believed that all creatures and the earth itself shared a spiritual energy. .

Ecclesiastes 3:18-21 pretty much says exactly what you believe in. In fact animals are meant to be respected according to the bible. Just wanted to point that out.

Anyway, my feelings on religion. I personally believe that religion in & of itself is really pointless. It's the reason wars are fought in the name of religion, it's the reason you have lukewarmers. Religon is nothing more than something you have to do, rather than something you do because you believe & get joy from doing. Religion just ends up becoming a list of Dogmas, i.e. the Pharisees, the Catholic Church (especially in the Middle Ages).
Note:John 8:44 is calling out this type of Dogma, not hatred toward Judeans.

My own personal belief is pretty much along the lines of Minion & Fjorder. I went to church, mostly small gatherings. First one was a tiny Church, then a extended trailer, then a farm house, then the current building my church now has. Now, I believe that a church is the people of a congregation, not the building itself. I believe that Jesus is the Messiah & God incarnate, in both the New & Old Testaments. I belive that the Bible was put here so we could see every facet of the human condition, & how God can help us through them.

Suffice to say, I'm more a Bible teaches us how to be good God revering people. It teaches us how to respect people, both Christian & others, & life in general. I don't believe in forcably pushing my beliefs on others. In fact the Bible is against it. It only allows us to tell people the good news when they ask, or when it comes up in a conversation. Never door to door pamphlets, & holier than though utterings. I believe, according to the Bible & my faith, that by living my life the best I can, acknowledging when I'm wrong & correcting it, & being a good representative is what my faith is all about.

I also believe The Holy Bible, is the infallible Word of God, when taken in context. Without which, it's just a jumble of contradictions.

Also, I really, really dislike most evangelists, especially the ones on TBN, & CBN. They are prey upon people, & make up their own theology.

Trivia for you! The Angel of The Lord (Word of the Lord in the Hebrew) in our current day Bibles, is basically Jesus, before he became a human & took a name. John 1:1 says this basically.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

I don't believe in forcably pushing my beliefs on others. In fact the Bible is against it. It only allows us to tell people the good news when they ask, or when it comes up in a conversation. Never door to door pamphlets, & holier than though utterings.

Honestly though, that's what people will claim no matter how you go about it. If anyone has paid attention to my religious arguments on these boards, you would notice that I never bring it up. I only reply to topics other people bring up. I have never forced my beliefs on anyone. Being blunt and honest is not the same thing as being forceful, but some people would have you believe otherwise.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Da Joker

I don't believe in forcably pushing my beliefs on others. In fact the Bible is against it. It only allows us to tell people the good news when they ask, or when it comes up in a conversation.

Here we go with the two-faced dogma of the Christian. "We don't force our beliefs on others." No, you don't tell people that they have to be Christian. You just tell them that if they're not Christian they go to hell and burn for eternity. That in itself is a subliminal forcing of unbelievers, because they're threatened with eternal damnation if they don't believe Christ is their personal savior.

Double Post:

Originally Posted by Da Joker

The Angel of The Lord (Word of the Lord in the Hebrew) in our current day Bibles, is basically Jesus, before he became a human & took a name. John 1:1 says this basically.

"Angel" does not translate to "word" in Hebrew. It translates to "ambassador, angel, king, messenger." Trying to give it a connection with John 1:1 is rediculous. If anything, John was speaking in a metaphysical sense, probably attributing all forms of language to God, the ability to speak, to be cognizant of ourself. Sticking it into a "prophecy of Jesus" context is poor interpretation.

FELIPE NO

Look, I could tell you that drinking a quart of whiskey everyday is going to kill you. That doesn't mean I'm forcing you not to do it. People have no problem doing whatever they want regardless of any real or implied consequences. If telling someone something was bad for them was enough to coerce them, we wouldn't have any cigarette companies anymore.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by FallDragon

Here we go with the two-faced dogma of the Christian. "We don't force our beliefs on others." No, you don't tell people that they have to be Christian. You just tell them that if they're not Christian they go to hell and burn for eternity. That in itself is a subliminal forcing of unbelievers, because they're threatened with eternal damnation if they don't believe Christ is their personal savior..

See, there you go lumping all of the people that claim to be Christian into one category. Not once have I seen, on this forums, where someone who holds Christian beliefs is blunt & say, "You're going to Hell if you don't repent!" That's like me saying all you secularists & pagans are against Christian beliefs, & you all want us jailed because our stuff doesn't agree with you. See, I can lump you togethor & judge you based on certain individuals too. We are never allowed to tell someone they are going to hell. In fact the most we can do, is warn them they are in danger. We can tell someone they are wrong, but we can't condemn them to hell, we aren't God.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

"Angel" does not translate to "word" in Hebrew. It translates to "ambassador, angel, king, messenger." Trying to give it a connection with John 1:1 is rediculous. If anything, John was speaking in a metaphysical sense, probably attributing all forms of language to God, the ability to speak, to be cognizant of ourself. Sticking it into a "prophecy of Jesus" context is poor interpretation.

You don't even seem to be a Christian, yet you have opinions on what John meant? That's kinda like a 2 year old saying 2/3xy=Z is blue. Malak is the root word. Those words you just typed are what malak is turned into. It is a root word, & you have to take context in order to understand what the word means. In the case of the phrase "The Angel of The Lord", it is talking about the messanger of God. And contrary to most "Angels are among us" believers, it was God himself that did all of the work in the OT. The NT gives the second witness. I could go on, but eh, it wouldn't get anywhere. Heck, ask a rabbi if you doubt what the Angel of The Lord means.


I totally understand where your coming from Minion. Perfect example in this post.

More Trivia! Archangel Michael is another name for Jesus/the Lord in the OT. Let the speculation commence!

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

More Trivia! Archangel Michael is another name for Jesus/the Lord in the OT. Let the speculation commence!

Whoa. Where do you get this from?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Having been raised Baptist and studying theology in a private school for my primary and secondary scholastic career, I was for a long time a believer. I sort of wish I could find it within myself to continue believing, but much thought has been given to the subject and I keep coming up with the same answers.

Religion itself doesn't mean much to me, as I don't need to be told that inflicting harm or causing pain/hardship/suffering in others is wrong. Any human being should be empathetic enough in their own right to realize this before they are even old enough to be legally considered adults.

However, I don't have a problem with people practicing their own form of religion, as long as it's not imposed on me. Which I think is the biggest issue I have with the JudeoChristian-Islamic horde.

I find these religions to be quite stifling, while offering little emotional security and the practitioners of the faith seem to lack the moral bearing which they uphold, which is another turn off. Maybe that's where I have the issue, it's not the religion or the mythos behind it that bothers me-- it's the believers, the followers.

Again, I don't want to bash anyone, if you have faith, good for you. Just keep your faith out of my tax-money, that's all I ask.

How ya doing, buddy?

Uh...who believes the Archangel Michael is another name for Jesus?

I mean, in my church we believe that Michael the Archangel is Adam, and that makes sense to me. It's more feasible given Revelation and the things in there.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Drex

Uh...who believes the Archangel Michael is another name for Jesus?

I mean, in my church we believe that Michael the Archangel is Adam, and that makes sense to me. It's more feasible given Revelation and the things in there.

Woah, where did you get THAT?
First, Da Joker:
Are you by chance Jehovah's Witnesses or something?
Michael is an angel, a creation of God.
Jesus is the son of God. As son of God, Jesus is also God. After all, bees beget bees, birds beget birds, humans beget humans, and thusly God begets God.
These are only illustrations to help us understand what exactly is going on. It in no way is meant to be an infallible example.
Jesus, however, is not a creation of God.
Why would a creation, Michael, be the ULTIMATE penance for our sins? He is just another creature, unblemished and blameless perhaps, but the sacrifice of Michael (if this were true) would not be sufficient to clear the whole of mankind's sins.

Going with what Drex said: If Michael is Adam, then what are we?

Duo: I am curious, what did you think that made you conclude that you could not continue believing? I am well aware that this might be a lengthy answer, but so long as bobo keeps paying the bills, we got time. ^_^

I was speaking idiomatically.

The fact that a loving God cannot be so cruel as to condemn someone to this kind of existence, then expect them to love him unconditionally. When, it is made very clear that his love is quite conditional. I found that my faith was fruitless and often left me at odds with otherwise decent people. My faith seemed to stifle personal growth, left no room for questioning, felt far too authoritarian, rather than an interpersonal relationship with the creator.

The bible likens God's love for us to that of a parent, it specifically uses the example Father. Yet, I know my own father would never send me to a place like hell, no matter what I had done. For being an omniscient, all-loving creature, God sure does have a lot of less-favorable human qualities. What I found veen more amusing is that God sets up a double-standard, that only he has the right to vengance, wrath, et cetera. How can he be as forgiving and omnibenevolent as he's made out to be when, quite clearly, he is not always loving-- hateful at times, in fact.

If you believe in the mythos of Lucifer and the fallen, this inherently makes Christianity a polytheistic religion. While, you may not worship him as a god, his acknowledgment as a higher being sort of redefines the dynamic.

It seemed far too childish, really. The motivation for believing was so that you didn't "suffer eternally"-- what kind of mindset is that creating, really? It's creating a mindset of irrational fear, paranoia. Which leads to an easily controllable populace.

I blame this aspect of Christianity for all the rampant homophobia, and general dislike of any sort of counter-culture.

Christianity needs to get laid, to paraphrase Bill Maher.

How ya doing, buddy?