posted on May 21, 2001 01:20:44 PM newthe Bible isn't a comic book that you read for a punchline.
You say that but you also say this:
What we're left with is some minister in Pothole, Nebraska who goes into convulsions and claims his babble is direct from God, i.e., the Word Of God. Religion has been used to shackle men and women since time began.
What you aren't seeing is that neither the first or the second statement is true just because you've accepted it that way. The Bible is a comic book to many people in the exact same way Rev. Pothole's revelations are to other people.
With that tought in mind, perhpaps we might strive for greater tolerance to those that aren't hurting others.
posted on May 21, 2001 01:31:31 PM new
Helen, I am not attacking you. And I am not speaking to any particular belief. Both the Jewish and Christian philosophies say that God has placed Satan in charge of this world. If you can't see that, you need to do your homework. I am excepting the argument that bad must be good because God put it here. I am talking in strictly human terms. In a larger sense, one could argue that bad is part of a bigger plan which is itself all good. In that sense, a poke in the eye would be a good thing, though probably not a lesson we'd like to repeat.
The problem of Good and Evil is addressed in many places in the Bible. Pretending that it doesn't exist is silly. "Ignorance is bliss" is one very good interpretation of the Bible. Just not the one I prefer.
posted on May 21, 2001 01:43:41 PM newtwinsoft-I may have misuderstood yourpost or perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I do believe we each must ultimately decide for ourselves what is right or wrong. I do not believe I can make a blanket statement that one particular view is 100% right or 100% wrong.
I also strongly believe that I cannot force my views on someone, but I don't think anyone should force theirs on me either.
I also believe that in addition to our personal religious beliefs we do have a certain responsibility to social beliefs (which ironically may or may not be shaped by religious beliefs). We are guaranteed certain rights. Our rights stop when we began to infringe upon the guaranteed rights of someone else. Gets confusing sometimes, but it's the best we have right now. As I said in an earlier post, we will all eventually arrive at the "truth" once we die. Wonder what we will find when we get there???
posted on May 21, 2001 01:43:42 PM newDregen, I would hope it goes without saying that is my opinion (as in, just my opinion). My own religious beliefs are unorthodox, tending toward Tibetan Budhism. I believe this world is a bardo plane between death (which has already occurred) and Nirvana or whatever you call it. Suffice it to say, my own beliefs are pretty wacky. But I don't just "accept" them, I have come to my beliefs through personal experience. I don't grudge anyone their own religious ideas. Isn't that what I just said?
However, many deeds are done in the name of religion, based on a faulty understanding of the Bible. No, I don't believe that God speaks to a minister in Pothole, NE. The Bible is clear that we should not seek miracles, and that to do so is a sin. God speaking directly to an individual is a miracle.
Now, if a minister says to me, "God told me to go fishing this weekend," I say fine, no big deal. Why make an issue? I am not intolerant.
posted on May 21, 2001 01:53:26 PM newSulyn, you asked who decides what is right and wrong and I said "I do." I decide what is right and wrong for me as well as I can. That doesn't mean I ignore other people, or that I butt in when I shouldn't (not necessarily, anyway). I don't think we are that far apart in our ideas.
Polygamy is a natural state for some people, but I shy away from saying it is preordained, just as I don't say marriage or celibacy or any other state is "right." I believe that the Bible instructs us to keep one mate. Fornication is a sin. Whether that is "right" or "wrong" is for every person to decide.
posted on May 21, 2001 03:57:43 PM newThe Bible is clear that...
No offense, Twinsoft, but that's a load of crock. You are certainly entitled to your opinions and beliefs as much as anyone. But please keep in mind that your interpretation of the Bible is as much your opinion as anything else you may have to say.
The Bible contains many contradictory statements throughout, and much is subject to interpretation. Throw in bad and/or politically motivated translations over the years, and you can justify pretty much ANYTHING by claiming that it is "clearly stated" as such in the Bible.
Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions because the Bible is clear [to them, if not to anybody else] that good Christians "abstain from blood":
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
-- Acts 15:20
Mormons [Latter Day Saints] practice baptisms for the dead because the Bible is clear [to them if not to anybody else] that this is a requirement"
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?
-- 1 Corinthians 15:29
Orthodox Jews believe that it is against God's laws to have milk and meat on the same plate because the Bible is clear [to them, if not to anybody else] on the subject:
Thou shalt not seeth a kid in his mother's milk.
-- Exodus 23:19
Many Christian faiths believe that man is saved by grace alone, and not by good works, because the Bible is clear [to them, if not to anybody else] on the subject:
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ before the world began.
-- 2 Timothy 1:9
At the same time, other Christian faiths believe that good works are REQUIRED in order to be eligible for God's grace because it states so clearly [to them, if not to anybody else] in the Bible:
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
But wilt thou know, o vain man, that faith without works is dead?
-- James 2: 14,17,20
Homosexuality is a sin punishable by death, according to many Christian faiths, because this is what the Bible "clearly" [to them, if not to anybody else] states.
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death;"
-- Leviticus 20:13
Other Christian faiths, however, believe that the Bible clearly [to them, if not to anybody else] states that the most important commandment is loving one's neighbours, and that this supersedes that Old Testament commandment:
And the second is like, namely this, thou shalt love they neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
-- Mark 12: 31
Again, I respect your right to believe whatever you wish, and I'm not even saying that I disagree with your beliefs. But please don't try to "prove" that things are the way you say they are by saying that the Bible is "clear" on the subject. The Bible is very "clear" that polygamy was practiced and encouraged in the Old Testament, as I'm sure Mr. Green would be the first to point out. And the Bible is also "clear" on the need for continued revelation from God to prophets, as I'm sure the preacher from Pothole, NE, firmly believes as well.
Of course, some people also feel that the Bible "clearly" indicates that we were visited by Aliens in the past, but that's another topic entirely....
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on May 21, 2001 04:37:21 PM new
Thank you for your post Barry. It's a good thing for us to step back and look at things from different vantage points from time to time.
posted on May 21, 2001 04:49:23 PM new
Barry, I agree that taking isolated verses from the Bible can be very problematic. And those who try to read the Bible literally, without applying heart to it, will go astray. It does appear to contradict itself, but I'm certainly not in a position to say more than that. I don't take the Bible's teachings literally, but they are interesting for various reasons.
I do think the Bible is clear that miracles are no longer happening today. They may have occured in Jesus' day and before. The verses below show that (modern-day) miracles are from Satan, not God.
John 6:14
For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth.
John 19:20
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast
1 Chron. 16:12
Remember his marvellous works that he hath done, his wonders, and the judgments of his mouth
Psalms 88:10
Wilt thou shew wonders to the dead? shall the dead arise and praise thee?
Matthew 24:24
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect
Matthew 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect
John 4:48
Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe
2 Thess. 2:19
Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
This, in my opinion, is the definitive verse:
Matthew 12:39
But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
Likewise,
Matthew 16:4
A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed
*************************************
It seems to me that anyone witnessing a miracle today is in the grip of Satan. That is, that is how I would interpret the Bible verses.
Bible study is difficult, and I'm certainly not an expert, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss the entire book as meaningless and ambiguous.
posted on May 21, 2001 05:00:51 PM newBarry, regarding the last part of your post,
And the Bible is also "clear" on the need for continued revelation from God to prophets...
No, I would strongly disagree on that issue.
One of the principles of Christianity is that saving comes through faith, not "proof" (i.e., miracles). And I don't believe that the Bible teaches God is bringing revelations today (speaking in tongues).
posted on May 21, 2001 05:09:03 PM newtwinsoft: My intent was not to "dismiss the entire book as meaningless and ambiguous". My point was simply that -- for whatever reason -- it's possible to interpret the Bible pretty much any way you want.
You, for example, have presented a list of scriptures which you feel "prove" your opinion that "the Bible is clear that miracles are no longer happening today". Aside from the fact that you're using scriptures written 2000 years ago to prove what is or is not "happening today", I could come up with just as many scriptures [if not more] that "prove" that the Bible "clearly states" that prophets, revelations and miracles are all a necessary and integral part of the "true" church of Christ.
Am I saying I'm right about miracles and you're wrong? Nope. What I am saying is that what the Bible "clearly states" on the subject is open to fair intepretation, and how you choose to interpret it may be different from how others do so. Mormons believe in and seek after modern-day revelation and miracles. Pentacostals believe in and seek after the ongoing gift of tongues. Christian Scientists believe in and seek after faith healing. You, on the other hand [as well as many others, no doubt], believe that the age of miracles has passed. Are you right, or are they? I honestly don't know. But the one thing I do know for sure is that each religion firmly believes that it has the truth and that their beliefs are "clearly stated" in the Bible.
I'm a bit disturbed, BTW, at how in one sentence you can say "I agree that taking isolated verses from the Bible can be very problematic," and then go on to use a bunch of isolated verses from the Bible to "prove" your point....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on May 21, 2001 05:12:55 PM newNo, I would strongly disagree on that issue. One of the principles of Christianity is that saving comes through faith, not "proof" (i.e., miracles). And I don't believe that the Bible teaches God is bringing revelations today (speaking in tongues).
Your opinion is duly noted, and respected. Hopefully, you can respect that other people have different beliefs as to what the Bible teaches.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on May 21, 2001 05:17 PM ]
posted on May 21, 2001 05:23:13 PM new
Okay, that's a fair criticism. "Clear" is a bad word to use. Of course, those are my opinions, but I shouldn't need to preface every statement as such. "Clear to me" would have been more appropriate, but life is short, 'ya know?
I do enjoy a good discussion, and I'm glad it's not always necessary to go for the throat in order to exchange ideas.
Now I think I'll shut up because attacking religion tends to make people uneasy. No offense intended.
posted on May 21, 2001 05:30:21 PM newTwinsoft: That's certainly fair! There's nothing wrong with having opinions. It's only when people become convinced that their opinion MUST be true and that everyone else MUST be wrong that we start having Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition....
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on May 21, 2001 05:35:27 PM new
Well since we're on the subject of other people's opinions, no I can not respect them just because they're called a "religion."
Why is religion a subject that is taboo? If I had come in here and said "In my opinion, a woman's place is in the home, barefoot and pregnant," how much respect would I have received? Or if I had said, "Gays are perverts that should be locked up?" I can tell you, I would have had my head handed to me on a platter. Why is religion any different? Why is that if a person's religion tells them [whatever absurdity, you name it] then it's taboo and intolerant to disagree?
Throughout the course of history, religions (many, every religion?) have been used to oppress the masses. My family's religion teaches that a man should be put to death for picking up sticks on Saturday. I'm sorry, but NO WAY, JOSE!
You are painting me as intolerant just because I don't buy into every religious fallacy that anyone can invent. That is wrong.
posted on May 21, 2001 05:41:21 PM new
Actually, I was agreeing with your last post and commending you on NOT being intolerant like those who were behind the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Sorry that wasn't "clear"....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on May 21, 2001 06:32:54 PM new
The way people interpret the bible makes me realize that it is entirely reasonable statement based on the potential range of understanding for an iron manufacturer to tell people in the written instructions not to iron clothing while wearing it.
posted on May 21, 2001 07:27:17 PM new
There is a science fiction noval "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Heinlein that explores some alternatives to conventional marraige. I don't know if he thought them up or found the idea elsewhere. One interesting idea was a "Line" marraige where there were several people of each sex and all had to agree to admit a new member. Property and children were pretty much communal and as people died off new partners were recruited so there was a conservation of wealth and the group had the advantages of the young and old members both. To function well the people would have to be less selfish than most I have known. That is always the problem with any communal organization whether a food co-op or a nation. Some take advantage and some feel unrewarded.
posted on May 22, 2001 03:07:17 AM new
I don't understand why religion is so controversial.
Simply put: I believe in what I feel is right. You believe in what you feel is right. What's right for me might not be right for you, and vice versa. Why can't we accept that our opinions of what is "right" may be different, and just accept each other the way we are?
I guess my point is that each of us needs to interpret the Bible (or whatever we believe in) to the best of our own ability, and go from there.
Live and let live. People just have to do the best they can.
posted on May 22, 2001 07:46:43 AM new
No matter how well they are raised I don't see how polygamy can be healthy. My worries are with the children. What do you think a boys view on women when he sees Daddy with different women and then sees the vast majority with one? "I want to play ball with daddy." " I'm sorry honey daddy spending time with his other wife and children". The girls would probably grow up and end up the same fate as their mothers. Yeah, maybe some might be able to break away, go to college etc...but you know that these children were taught everyday and reminded that what Mommy and daddy is not wrong. Don't listen to anybody from the outside world, We are being persecuted for what we think is right. Basically its giving them no choice but to follow in the footsteps, its all they know. And how about the wives. Yeah they say well its another person to help with the chores, don't tell me that they don't have an ounce of jealousy from time to time.
posted on May 22, 2001 08:05:22 AM newcyanide: I'm not saying I disagree with you, but your arguments could be [and in fact have been] used against any type of family relationship that goes against what some people feel is "normal". Including, but not limited to, homosexual couples wanting to raise children and even interracial couples.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on May 22, 2001 08:21:39 AM new
Point well taken Barry. I didn't think about it that way, and your right. I'm not against homosexual couples being parents.
*sigh*
Homosexuality cannot be taught but polygamy can, esspecially since they say its on religious beliefs.
How can a man spend quality time with his family when he has so many?
cyanide3 on Ebay
[ edited by cyanide on May 22, 2001 08:28 AM ]
posted on May 22, 2001 10:46:10 AM newHow can a man spend quality time with his family when he has so many?
Good question. Next time I get the chance, I'll ask a friend of the family who has 17 children [all with one wife].
Heck, for that matter, my own brother has 6 kids [including a set of triplets], and for the life of me I can't understand how he keeps from slitting his wrists and doing pushups in a pool of mercury.
But I digress....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on May 22, 2001 10:46 AM ]
posted on May 22, 2001 11:10:27 AM new
I have 7 kids. I don't think parents need to be the only people giving attention, love and direction. Siblings are wonderful comfort and friendship and even guidance. Sure my husband and I spend time with our children collectively and one on one but we are not their only source. If they want to play baseball they go find each other...much more fun than the "old" people who can't run as fast so they tell me
If the older kids see the younger kids doing something they aren't supposed to do they tell them not to..I don't mean they have any part of discipline but a simple quit it works most often. They won't just have that love and friendship from their siblings for now but their whole lives.
I personally don't understand why anyone would want to live polygamy. I wouldn't. But I don't want to be a monk either. I just don't think the government should be the ones telling adults (emphesis on adults) what religion they can and can't practice.
Oddish~ The Odd One
